Flat Earth

[codis]

Do you think i can get there by meditating???

I'm afraid no.
You need to sell your soul, and apply for a position at a troll farm.

 

[6079SmithW]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident

Could it be it relies on internal inertial navigation because

There are no satellites in space and the drone is too far away from land based GPS towers

 

[Jd755]

In this reality there is only a pushing force.
Pressure applied by something to something else creates motion.
Pull is simply a way of describing a direction of motion

Try this at home, in a cafe, at work or wherever you are.
Push a cup away from you on a table.
Pull it back.

It's impossible because no matter what method you contrive you have to push it towards you just as you push it away from you.

I fell for the iron core ball theory and the invisible undetectable pulling force theory until in fairly recent times I began scouring the physical practical reality for examples of a pulling force. There isn't one.

I'll say it again not to be boring just stating the only other obvious fact there is about this place.
Contained water always presents a level surface.

Push no pull.
Contained water is always level.

I get the impression the people who built the infrastructure we see ligging about knew this and perhaps more importantly knew how to use these facts in accomplishing their work.

 

[veeall]

Inertia is why i cannot believe earths rotation, i mean, differences between rotational velocities of Oslo and Berlin is 180km per hour, however, there are no problems for planes to make the landing in Berlin coming from Oslo. Imagine trying to jump onto a platform moving with the speed of 180km/h. But in this world of absurd, no affects.

 

[grav]

yeah, the problem with this thread is that its focus is 666^2. Haha a joke. Freemason falsities squared.
In a nutshell, TMI.
First, the Scots and their counterclockwise wisdom is paralleled with the Muslim pilgrims (men only, right?) circumnavigating the holy Cube from space.
I reckon it's a man thing. Circles and balls, no pun intended. Football, soccer, basketball, tennis, etc.
What I mean is ..... the tendency of some people to think in terms of the solar system, with satellite entities orbiting a central core, often but not always a sphere.
The Atom is a fractal of this notion, with electrons orbiting a nucleus, which can be split to create a humongous bomb. because e=mc^2

I never ever never accepted this thing. Which is why in college I abandoned a major in science and ended up in the sanity of the humanities.
When @sandokhan cites more and more theories, the rest of us grimace at the shameless audacity of modern science. Tesla must roll over in his grave like a whirling dervish. And the angel Einstein gets a new pair of wings whenever a new fugaboo theory is perpetrated on us.

And we know why the "peers" of pseudoscience academia do this -- to hide the plain truth that earth does not move.
1000 mph rotation
66,600 mph orbit
around a sun traveling .5 million mph

To hide the simple truth, that earth is motionless, the freemason elites hire willing quislings to teach lie after lie. The Big Bang Theory tv show is a fictional representation of real academicians, the foolish boys who think they can prove a lie by faking math.
They may be smart, even geniuses. They think they are great thinkers, but they are really brainwashed believers of Authority.
Why? My guess is that humans are dna hard-wired to obey.
Stay home, social distance, wear masks.
And the sheeple herds say, OK, boss. moo

 

[codis]

Which is why in college I abandoned a major in science...

So you missed Newton's second law ?

 

[grav]

Which is why in college I abandoned a major in science...

So you missed Newton's second law ?

I missed the class which proved that outer space is a real thing.
Earth's atmosphere, or so I was taught, is gaseous. Which it is.
The atmosphere stays put, despite being hurled through space vacuum at 1000 mph thisaway and 66,700 mph thataway.
Did Newton factor that "fact" into his math?

 

[sandokhan]

It is very easy to disprove Newton's concept of gravity. In fact, it couldn't be simpler.

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox was discovered in the 70s, but the equations were not provided at that time.

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

The equations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

This example may help visualize the double force issue.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y ) freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart.
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion.
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.


Huygens dismissed the attraction concept:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."


"If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other."

I. Newton

Even here there will be two forces acting on each end of the rope.

X end of the rope: horse is pulling with force -A, force A reacting on the horse, the stone is exerting through the rope a force B on the horse.

Forces acting on the rope at the X end: -A and -B (reaction forces)

Y end of the rope: -B, while the horse is pulling with force -A

Forces acting on the rope at the Y end: A and B


Double the forces needed in the Newtonian description of mechanics.

 

[Jd755]

X end of the rope: horse is pulling with force -A, force A reacting on the horse, the stone is exerting through the rope a force B on the horse.

The horse is pushing on the inside of loop of the rope it is attached to.
It is also pushing on the inside off the loop at the end of the rope attached to the stone.

There is no such thing as a pulling force.
Pull simply describes describes a direction off motion.

 

[sandokhan]

This is from the pages of the Principia.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

Newton's Philosophy of Nature

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


We are told that the Calculus was copied from Indian sources (Kerala), as were the principles of the three laws of newtonian motion, spacetime, relativity. It doesn't take long to find out that these facts are true:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605
Who gave mathematical analysis to the Hindu?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2229802#msg2229802

 

[Silent Bob]

In this reality there is only a pushing force.
Pressure applied by something to something else creates motion.
Pull is simply a way of describing a direction of motion

Try this at home, in a cafe, at work or wherever you are.
Push a cup away from you on a table.
Pull it back.

It's impossible because no matter what method you contrive you have to push it towards you just as you push it away from you.

I fell for the iron core ball theory and the invisible undetectable pulling force theory until in fairly recent times I began scouring the physical practical reality for examples of a pulling force. There isn't one.

I'll say it again not to be boring just stating the only other obvious fact there is about this place.
Contained water always presents a level surface.

Push no pull.
Contained water is always level.

I get the impression the people who built the infrastructure we see ligging about knew this and perhaps more importantly knew how to use these facts in accomplishing their work.

You're definately onto something here, I never thought about it this way before but it seems obvious once pointed out. I have always believed in two forces, attraction and repulsion which would be like pulling and pushing. Now you have me thinking about it I can't think of an example of pulling that isn't just a some contrived way of pushing. This feels like a bit of an 'aha' moment for me, I'm looking at things differently already. I suspect we are taught to think in terms of pulling and pushing on purpose to cloud the issue. Now we can look at a little clearer at those things we call forces.

Lets take the obvious example which at first glance appears to be a pulling force, magnetism. We've all held two magnets and felt one magnet 'pulling' at the other or 'pushing' if one magnet is reversed. From this example its understandable how we have come to think in terms of push/pull. So if we instead look at this purely in terms of pushing what is actually going on here? When the magnetic fields repel each other, this is a simple push - so far so good. So what is happening when one magnetic field is reversed and they appear to pull towards each other? We need to think what could be pushing both magnets towards each other. How can we think of that same force which push's them apart then pushing them together? I can only imagine this pushing force changing position and direction, from between the magnets to behind the magnets.

Diagrams will help us here I think. The one below make me think of a flow of something. Imagine it was water flowing through these objects as if they were pipes, the unmagnitised one would not have a force in any one direction, but the magnetised one would create a force pushing to the right. If we took another pipe with water flowing in the opposite direction the two pipes would 'push' or repel each other due to the water pressure flowing. If both pipes are reversed then the water flow would pushthe pipes together as they would both be pushing outwards with no force between them. My analogy breaks down here as this would be equivalent of N vs N pushing apart and S vs S pushing together when they should have the same effect, but hey ho its best I can do for now!

Now when both pipes have flow in same direction this would strengthen the force in that single direction, I can't think of the equivalent for the magnets here. Could they be attracted due to flow being in the same direction, they join together into one larger flow?

As for what is actually flowing through magnets, we're probably all thinking the same at this point - the ether! We're told that it is the flow of electrons, or charge, that creates electromagnetic fields. But what is an electron? Really, it just a theoretical particle which you can't see anymore than you can see a photon of light. So could movement of electrons in fact be the flow of ether?

Ok, here goes! So if we are surrounded by a sea of ether, flowing in all directions with no net effect generally. Certain materials are structured in such a way that they ether flows through them in one direction only, and we call these magnets. When you magnetise another item, like a nail, you temporarily alter the structure of the nail so that the ether flow only in 1 direction. This change could be induced by the strong flow of ether in this one direction caused by the permament magnet held close by.

The next quesion is what is pushing us down towards the ground? Could this also be some kind of ether flow, exerting pressure over all matter as it flows downwards? Would that work if our realm was an accretion disk in the centre of a torus of ether flowing?

 

[6079SmithW]

In this reality there is only a pushing force.
Pressure applied by something to something else creates motion.
Pull is simply a way of describing a direction of motion

Try this at home, in a cafe, at work or wherever you are.
Push a cup away from you on a table.
Pull it back.

It's impossible because no matter what method you contrive you have to push it towards you just as you push it away from you.

I fell for the iron core ball theory and the invisible undetectable pulling force theory until in fairly recent times I began scouring the physical practical reality for examples of a pulling force. There isn't one.

I'll say it again not to be boring just stating the only other obvious fact there is about this place.
Contained water always presents a level surface.

Push no pull.
Contained water is always level.

I get the impression the people who built the infrastructure we see ligging about knew this and perhaps more importantly knew how to use these facts in accomplishing their work.

You're definately onto something here, I never thought about it this way before but it seems obvious once pointed out. I have always believed in two forces, attraction and repulsion which would be like pulling and pushing. Now you have me thinking about it I can't think of an example of pulling that isn't just a some contrived way of pushing. This feels like a bit of an 'aha' moment for me, I'm looking at things differently already. I suspect we are taught to think in terms of pulling and pushing on purpose to cloud the issue. Now we can look at a little clearer at those things we call forces.

Lets take the obvious example which at first glance appears to be a pulling force, magnetism. We've all held two magnets and felt one magnet 'pulling' at the other or 'pushing' if one magnet is reversed. From this example its understandable how we have come to think in terms of push/pull. So if we instead look at this purely in terms of pushing what is actually going on here? When the magnetic fields repel each other, this is a simple push - so far so good. So what is happening when one magnetic field is reversed and they appear to pull towards each other? We need to think what could be pushing both magnets towards each other. How can we think of that same force which push's them apart then pushing them together? I can only imagine this pushing force changing position and direction, from between the magnets to behind the magnets.

Diagrams will help us here I think. The one below make me think of a flow of something. Imagine it was water flowing through these objects as if they were pipes, the unmagnitised one would not have a force in any one direction, but the magnetised one would create a force pushing to the right. If we took another pipe with water flowing in the opposite direction the two pipes would 'push' or repel each other due to the water pressure flowing. If both pipes are reversed then the water flow would pushthe pipes together as they would both be pushing outwards with no force between them. My analogy breaks down here as this would be equivalent of N vs N pushing apart and S vs S pushing together when they should have the same effect, but hey ho its best I can do for now!

View attachment 3774

Now when both pipes have flow in same direction this would strengthen the force in that single direction, I can't think of the equivalent for the magnets here. Could they be attracted due to flow being in the same direction, they join together into one larger flow?
View attachment 3775
As for what is actually flowing through magnets, we're probably all thinking the same at this point - the ether! We're told that it is the flow of electrons, or charge, that creates electromagnetic fields. But what is an electron? Really, it just a theoretical particle which you can't see anymore than you can see a photon of light. So could movement of electrons in fact be the flow of ether?

Ok, here goes! So if we are surrounded by a sea of ether, flowing in all directions with no net effect generally. Certain materials are structured in such a way that they ether flows through them in one direction only, and we call these magnets. When you magnetise another item, like a nail, you temporarily alter the structure of the nail so that the ether flow only in 1 direction. This change could be induced by the strong flow of ether in this one direction caused by the permament magnet held close by.

The next quesion is what is pushing us down towards the ground? Could this also be some kind of ether flow, exerting pressure over all matter as it flows downwards? Would that work if our realm was an accretion disk in the centre of a torus of ether flowing?

View attachment 3776​

Omg
Nailed it.

I've always thought this electron / atom business was rather contrived. Ether flow makes much more sense.

 

[Safranek]

In this reality there is only a pushing force.
Pressure applied by something to something else creates motion.
Pull is simply a way of describing a direction of motion

Try this at home, in a cafe, at work or wherever you are.
Push a cup away from you on a table.
Pull it back.

It's impossible because no matter what method you contrive you have to push it towards you just as you push it away from you.

I fell for the iron core ball theory and the invisible undetectable pulling force theory until in fairly recent times I began scouring the physical practical reality for examples of a pulling force. There isn't one.

I'll say it again not to be boring just stating the only other obvious fact there is about this place.
Contained water always presents a level surface.

Push no pull.
Contained water is always level.

I get the impression the people who built the infrastructure we see ligging about knew this and perhaps more importantly knew how to use these facts in accomplishing their work.

You're definately onto something here, I never thought about it this way before but it seems obvious once pointed out. I have always believed in two forces, attraction and repulsion which would be like pulling and pushing. Now you have me thinking about it I can't think of an example of pulling that isn't just a some contrived way of pushing. This feels like a bit of an 'aha' moment for me, I'm looking at things differently already. I suspect we are taught to think in terms of pulling and pushing on purpose to cloud the issue. Now we can look at a little clearer at those things we call forces.

Lets take the obvious example which at first glance appears to be a pulling force, magnetism. We've all held two magnets and felt one magnet 'pulling' at the other or 'pushing' if one magnet is reversed. From this example its understandable how we have come to think in terms of push/pull. So if we instead look at this purely in terms of pushing what is actually going on here? When the magnetic fields repel each other, this is a simple push - so far so good. So what is happening when one magnetic field is reversed and they appear to pull towards each other? We need to think what could be pushing both magnets towards each other. How can we think of that same force which push's them apart then pushing them together? I can only imagine this pushing force changing position and direction, from between the magnets to behind the magnets.

Diagrams will help us here I think. The one below make me think of a flow of something. Imagine it was water flowing through these objects as if they were pipes, the unmagnitised one would not have a force in any one direction, but the magnetised one would create a force pushing to the right. If we took another pipe with water flowing in the opposite direction the two pipes would 'push' or repel each other due to the water pressure flowing. If both pipes are reversed then the water flow would pushthe pipes together as they would both be pushing outwards with no force between them. My analogy breaks down here as this would be equivalent of N vs N pushing apart and S vs S pushing together when they should have the same effect, but hey ho its best I can do for now!

View attachment 3774

Now when both pipes have flow in same direction this would strengthen the force in that single direction, I can't think of the equivalent for the magnets here. Could they be attracted due to flow being in the same direction, they join together into one larger flow?
View attachment 3775
As for what is actually flowing through magnets, we're probably all thinking the same at this point - the ether! We're told that it is the flow of electrons, or charge, that creates electromagnetic fields. But what is an electron? Really, it just a theoretical particle which you can't see anymore than you can see a photon of light. So could movement of electrons in fact be the flow of ether?

Ok, here goes! So if we are surrounded by a sea of ether, flowing in all directions with no net effect generally. Certain materials are structured in such a way that they ether flows through them in one direction only, and we call these magnets. When you magnetise another item, like a nail, you temporarily alter the structure of the nail so that the ether flow only in 1 direction. This change could be induced by the strong flow of ether in this one direction caused by the permament magnet held close by.

The next quesion is what is pushing us down towards the ground? Could this also be some kind of ether flow, exerting pressure over all matter as it flows downwards? Would that work if our realm was an accretion disk in the centre of a torus of ether flowing?

View attachment 3776​

I've been trying to avoid this thread but here I am.

Why have I been trying to avoid it? Because in answer to the question (title of another thread)

"Is FE a psyop?" must be YES.

Why do I think that to be a fact?

Because when we look at the recent history of FE revival we can clearly see that there is a hidden hand (no pun intended) hiding and guiding. My curiosity was also inspired by Eric Dubay's 200 proof initially. That led me down the path of the popular FE channels' research (Matt Boylan, Rob Sargent, Jeranism, Globebusters, Lord Steven Christ, etc.). A lot of info but I was not entirely convinced, at the time I thought LSC had the best theory of them (concave earth) but he was also the biggest idiot of them all.

Not liking to be fooled, I bounced back and forth between them and Soundly, Reds Rhetoric, Wolfie, SciMan Dan, etc., running in circles and frustrated, and finally abandoning all research into the subject, after all, Mud Flood came to the rescue. Then the same thing happened there, it seemed the hidden hand was actively guiding the situation as they seem to have an endless supply of content creators who are ready to jump into any given subject and quickly become experts at it.

So, its a highly effective psyop to confuse most and waste their time going in circles.

---------------------------------------

Now I would like to address this pushing force issue.

We have David LaPoint's Primer Fields:

http://www.rexresearch.com/lapoint/lapoint.htm
So who do we have introduce this theory to the FE crowd?

Brian Lambert you know the egomaniac 33 guy (PPPlllllaaaaasssssma). Once again, the most obnoxious and egotistical person you could possibly have to tolerate to try and get the least bit of information. Immediately Lord Steven Christ and his concave earth came to mind.

So what does this tell me?

Well, removing their characters from the equation, the two most plausible models I considered (given that I suppose the earth IS flat) happen to be the Primer Fields theory with a flat plane in the middle with upturned edges - as mentioned by PIcard, the first cosmonaut - (to hold in the waters below).

So I asked myself, why did the two seemingly most plausible models get introduced by the two most overbearing individuals. Well, if I believed in conspiracy theories (which I don't 'cause I know they are a fact), I would venture to say that the hidden hand planned, intended it this way.

IF we consider a flat earth model then a bowl would certainly make sense, after all, that's where we put our soup in this reality and our realm is mostly water.

Taking this further,

IF we have such an environment, something must keep order within the realm, and the realm having an electro-magnetic nature, we should search for a model that would fit this presumption and best explain it's phenomena. So far the Primer Fields of David LaPoint is the closest I've come to as a possibility for further exploration. (Of course, removing both LSC and BAL33 from the picture).

The sun, moon, and stars must also function electromagnetically, and if we can weed through all the BS in physics, geography, etc. we can get closer to deciphering what so many of us are searching for, to answer the important questions, who we are, why we are, where we are and who created us? (I hope not to see the name Darwin in any replies.)

So instead of allowing the PTB to classify those who search for the true shape of their realm (which is most likely flat) as flat earthers, we should always clarify that we are instead just seekers of the true nature of our realm, thereby escaping the psyop aspect of the stigma attached.

 

[grav]

There is only one real force of nature. Electromagnetism.
The push-pull force being discussed is that of density of matter. Gravity means weight.
Ether flow may be one way to visualize how particles of water either fall as rain or float as clouds, depending on their relatuve densities.

The silly grwvity equations put forth by various societies and universities all ignore another so-called force. If earth actually rotated 1000 mph, nothing could withstand the massive centrifugal force.

​

 

[Jd755]

I too wonder what not only keeps me standing upright on earth but also upright in water. This body seems to have some mechanism or sense that can discern upright as in perpendicular to a level, possibly the eyes with their level awareness or the ears which we frankly know next to nothing about or some combination or unknown sense because people who are blind seem to have little trouble in knowing which way their body is oriented to the level plane. The body needs to know where it is in relation to itself and its surroundings,

I remembered we are apparently mostly water. Water has a range of densities. It can shift effortlessly from one of three known states to another changing its density each time. It is fundamentally lazy, it cannot support its own weight, it will fill a container to overflowing and will always display a level surface when contained no matter what shape the container is.
When flowing it seeks the path of least resistance and should an obstacle block its path it will build up behind the obstacle, forming its level surface and wait until there is sufficient volume to go around over or under the obstacle.

All land, liquid water and frozen water is covered over by water vapour which seems to have been misnamed air by god know who for unknown reasons. If the clouds when viewed from above are any guide this water vapour is always in motion just like liquid and frozen water so pressure is being applied by one object to another somehow.
Once it is accepted that there is only push then something is pushing the water in all its forms.

Our bodies and indeed all life at the vapour liquid boundary contain two forms of water, liquid and vapour. We do not contain the third form of water,ice or if we do then it's a fair bet we are dead.
These water holding bodies exist within a water environment at the vapour liquid boundary yet they drown if they take in liquid water to the parts that require water vapour to be present and drowning is fatal. In respect of holding vapour and liquid within our bodies we are the same as the earth itself, save for it being able to accommodate ice in the mix.
Water flows through the body during life. The fusion of water laden sperm and water laden egg takes place in a liquid water environment. We need a constant flow of liquid water and water vapour through these bodies or else we die and then they degrade alarmingly quickly as the liquid water leaves at the earliest opportunity.

Is it possible that as we are incapable of survival out of water, so too speak, that the water flow going through us is the ether.
Ether being the name for the flow of water though all its states of being. As it constantly moves through the three known states of being then is it possible that it is this change of state that is providing the push motion running through this reality?

 

[sandokhan]

They don't care about the centrifugal force, which can be easily explained.

They will present this in front of you:



One of the more jaw-dropping segments of the documentary comes when Bob Knodel, one of the hosts on a popular Flat Earth YouTube channel, walks viewers through an experiment involving a laser gyroscope. As the Earth rotates, the gyroscope appears to lean off-axis, staying in its original position as the Earth's curvature changes in relation. "What we found is, is when we turned on that gyroscope we found that we were picking up a drift. A 15 degree per hour drift," Knodel says, acknowledging that the gyroscope's behavior confirmed to exactly what you'd expect from a gyroscope on a rotating globe.

https://ozzyman.com/flat-earther-spent-20k-and-accidentally-proves-the-earth-is-round/
What are you going to do then?


The existence of ether must be proven.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

"200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball"

Yes.

All mainstream science has to do is to bring forth a single ring laser gyroscope, and it's all over for those 200 proofs. Right under the eyes of the geocentrists, the RLG will record rotation (according to the formula published by A. Michelson in 1925).

This, notwithstanding that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac effect. If the orbital Sagnac would be recorded by satellites, the error on the ground would amount to hundreds of meters. To escape this very precise fact (see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna) relativists are now embracing the modified Lorentz ether theory (local-ether theory).

You say that "all mainstream science has to do is bring forth a single ring laser gyroscope, and it's all over for those 200 proofs". Have you even gone through each and every one of those proofs yourself? Has this ring laser gyroscope experiment even been conducted? Do you have a ring laser gyroscope? If yes, will YOU conduct the experiment for us, demonstrating what you are claiming, that is, a repeatable experiment that brings verifiable results consistently and then film it for us? What is this formula by Michelson you are referring to? Is it a formula on paper that cannot be demonstrated by an actual experiment, or is it something any one of us can conduct without needing a million dollar budget to produce a "special" camera or other magical device that only NASA possesses? You refer to the orbital Sagnac effect, labeling it as "precise", yet you provide no examples that could demonstrate such precision. You tell us to "see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna" without any sort of qualification or guidance as to what that even is, where to find a link to this info, or even how to interpret such data if we were to find it somewhere on the web. Outside of that, you are not even addressing the proofs presented in the video I posted above, which gives empirical demonstrations of real physics that can be conducted by anyone. Instead, you sweepingly dismiss the entire presentation without a shred of real evidence or even a thread of an argument debunking even one single proof. I have seen this typical approach to argument, or lack thereof, countless times, especially regarding the subject matter of the shape and physics of where we live, that is, lots of sweeping statements without any empirical data to back those statements up with.

I'll just ask simply and respectfully, please demonstrate your claims with verifiable, empirical data, not something that only works on paper that cannot be demonstrated in reality by any lay person interested in understanding the nature of where we live. Also, if you believe that the 200 proofs presented in the above video are fraudulent and erroneous, that is, if you have even bothered to go through that list of proofs, please demonstrate your evidences to the contrary as well. If you do not think it is worth your time, then perhaps you should reserve your judgement for a time when you do think it is worth your time.

This is the place where mature researchers, both self-made and academically trained, respectfully discuss opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects where the aim is always to get to the truth in all things. This cannot be achieved with dismissive, vague arguments and ad hominem attacks that undermine real research.

 

[sandokhan]

Also, if you believe that the 200 proofs presented in the above video are fraudulent and erroneous, that is, if you have even bothered to go through that list of proofs, please demonstrate your evidences to the contrary as well.

The 200 proofs are no match for a single ring laser gyroscope.

That gyroscope will show rotation.

What are you going to do then?

Has this ring laser gyroscope experiment even been conducted?

What is this? The first proof of rotation was experimentally published in 1925 (MGX); the RLG uses the same formula and principles.

What is this formula by Michelson you are referring to?

I already posted the original 1925 paper by Michelson which includes this formula.

You refer to the orbital Sagnac effect, labeling it as "precise", yet you provide no examples that could demonstrate such precision. You tell us to "see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna" without any sort of qualification or guidance as to what that even is, where to find a link to this info, or even how to interpret such data if we were to find it somewhere on the web.

The calculations carried by the team from ESA/JPS on the LISA space antenna, involving the orbital Sagnac effect, are well known.


The spherical Earth believer will not bother with the 200 proofs (legit as they are). They will show you a single ring laser gyroscope which does record rotation, as evidenced by the claims made by Michelson in 1925 (he said his formula represents the SAGNAC EFFECT).

So, what are you going to do then? If you cannot debunk the ring laser gyroscope experiments, you lose.
[automerge]1607535804[/automerge]
LISA space antenna orbital Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230
Michelson's original paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf



Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment

Latitude: 42.4166°

λ(He:Ne) = 632 nm

L = 3.6 m

https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf
GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES


See also the links I posted earlier:

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/flat-earth.3724/post-35634

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

Also, if you believe that the 200 proofs presented in the above video are fraudulent and erroneous, that is, if you have even bothered to go through that list of proofs, please demonstrate your evidences to the contrary as well.

The 200 proofs are no match for a single ring laser gyroscope.

That gyroscope will show rotation.

What you going to do then?

Has this ring laser gyroscope experiment even been conducted?

What is this? The first proof of rotation was experimentally published in 1925 (MGX); the RLG uses the same formula and principles.

What is this formula by Michelson you are referring to?

I already posted the original 1925 paper by Michelson which includes this formula.

You refer to the orbital Sagnac effect, labeling it as "precise", yet you provide no examples that could demonstrate such precision. You tell us to "see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna" without any sort of qualification or guidance as to what that even is, where to find a link to this info, or even how to interpret such data if we were to find it somewhere on the web.

The calculations carried by the team from ESA/JPS on the LISA space antenna, involving the orbital Sagnac effect, are well known.


The spherical Earth believer will not bother with the 200 proofs (legit as they are). They will show you a single ring laser gyroscope which does record rotation, as evidenced by the claims made by Michelson in 1925 (he said his formula represents the SAGNAC EFFECT).

So, what are you going to do then? If you cannot debunk the ring laser gyroscope experiments, you lose.
[automerge]1607535804[/automerge]
LISA space antenna orbital Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230
Michelson's original paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf



Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment

Latitude: 42.4166°

λ(He:Ne) = 632 nm

L = 3.6 m

https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf
GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES


See also the links I posted earlier:

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/flat-earth.3724/post-35634

So then I guess that answers the question. You have no intention of demonstrating any proofs, nor have you analyzed any of the proofs presented in the 200 proofs video. Since you have no intention of having a serious discussion, I do not see any need in addressing you further on this. Your links prove nothing verifiable. It's not a question of win or lose. We both lose in this case, since nothing new has taken place here. I will have to agree to disagree with your approach to discussion, since I have no intention in gaining or losing an argument, merely to have meaningful discussion and a way to verify and clarify ideas exchanged and presented. I do not sense such an intention from you. I agree with the moderators that this thread has not demonstrated the best in us as researchers. There is more unknown than known, but from the empirical evidence presented in the video, I can conclude that we do not live on a spinning ball. If you choose to disagree, we'll have to leave ot at that.

 

[sandokhan]

You have no intention of demonstrating any proofs, nor have you analyzed any of the proofs presented in the 200 proofs video.

I have analyzed those proofs long before you ever did.

The author of those proofs, E. Dubay, copied some of the most difficult flat earth subjects (solar eclipse, as an example) from my messages.

I agree that those proofs are legitimate.

However, I am trying to tell you that mainstream science will invoke immediately the ring laser gyroscope as a proof of the rotation of the Earth.


https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf

GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES


My question to you: what are you going to do then? You might protest and declare that the formula used for RLGs is not the Sagnac effect formula. Then, you will be required to provide such a formula. You have none. So, no matter how many hundreds of proofs you might have, they will be ignored as soon as a simple RLG showcases rotation.