Flat Earth

[Collapseinrealtime]

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.

This is not a proof that can be verified by anyone without this device. Merely showing photographs for this device and linking a harvard paper does not prove anything. If you have any issue with any one of the 200 proofs, by all means, present your issue.

 

[sandokhan]

It was verified, without "this device", back in 1925 by Michelson and Gale.

Right now, you think you have those 200 proofs and that they will be sufficient to convince anyone, including mainstream scientists, that the Earth is not rotating.

But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.

Dubay's book does not address this issue.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

It was verified, without "this device", back in 1925 by Michelson and Gale.

Right now, you think you have those 200 proofs and that they will be sufficient to convince anyone, including mainstream scientists, that the Earth is not rotating.

But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.

Dubay's book does not address this issue.

You still have not demonstrated how this device proves a spinning earth. Merely stating that it has been proven is not proof in itself. And neither you nor I can prove or disprove it without having access to one of these devices to demonstrate it for ourselves. This is where the great divide has grown. The experts assume we will trust them because they are experts. This site was founded because it has been demonstrated time and again that the experts can and do mislead. Does this device actually prove the earth is spinning? Not to me from what you have presented. And you still have yet to poke issue with any of the proofs presented in Dubay's video. Perhaps when you can present a comprehensive video demonstrating how this device proves the earth spins, other than linking us to a paper that posits formulas and presents these formulas as proof, then you might have an argument worth investigating. Until then, some verifiable proof will be needed to convince me we exist in a vacuum in space, spinning 1,000mph while we experience a reality that doesn't even come close to that kind of experience. I don't trust mainstream science, especially when they present ideas as facts that cannot be verified by repeatable experiment. Get your laser device and then we can see if it has the ability to detect a spinning earth, or show me a video of this device in action. Do you also believe that voting cannot be rigged, even though they use electronic machines to do the counting? Sorry, just can't buy into what you have presented.

 

[Jd755]

The earth is not flat. Flat earth, the term, is indeed used today as an opposition to the ball earth term. It is hard to imagine two more polar opposites than a round line forming a sphere in vision but ball in reality and a flat line so they are ideal candidates to hide the probable reality that this earth is a undulating container of some description. Nowhere is it flat as in no deviation in elevation from a level. It undulates under and above the contained liquid water level.

We call sea level, level because that is exactly what it is, level. We can see this with our own eyes no matter how small or how large the container is and it is always like this. Our eyes are built to recognise level amongst the patterns it is also built to recognise that is why we instantly see a picture hung on a wall that is only a tiny bit off of level. That is why we cannot see the shape of anything correctly as it is in reality. We always seek the level and base everything else off of it.
Altitude and depth are taken of sea level. They are also taken off any standing body of contained water level. The level surface can be at different altitudes in relation to sea level and this to me is where this place is in the grand scheme of things.

It is akin to a rock pool at high tide. The only time it experiences a deluge is when the tide is high. For the rest of the time it is a body of contained water with all life occurring at the boundary of liquid and vapour. Where this rock pool actually sits within the 'wider world' is something worth discovering, to me. It could be well above 'high tide' or it might be at 'high tide' level or equally it could be on a slight rise which contains a boundless ocean just a mile or much less below it for example. This would account for a deluge of water, mud, sand, silt, life, detritus etc which is likely unrecognisable to us sat in the pool, which occurs when 'the tide comes in' or gets high enough to flow in over the rim of the container.

Or we could simply be sat in a back water pool sitting at the exact same level as the ocean but connected to the ocean by a narrow passage that fills in and then breaks on a regular or irregular basis which would again create the deluge as the water vapour is able to cross the liquid water barrier with ease so there is the possibility that the level in the back water pool when blocked falls below the ocean and when the barrier is breached the levels equate again.

Of course either scenario would only work if the sky above was of such a vast scale as to be incomprehensible to us and for me it seems that is the case. Contained water being level at its surface is the reality at any altitude on the level plane we call the known world. Clouds, fogs and mists all manifest and disappear from water level up to a certain height then go no higher so it seems probable the water vapour container is much much bigger than the liquid water container, aka rock pool we sit in.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

The earth is not flat. Flat earth, the term, is indeed used today as an opposition to the ball earth term. It is hard to imagine two more polar opposites than a round line forming a sphere in vision but ball in reality and a flat line so they are ideal candidates to hide the probable reality that this earth is a undulating container of some description. Nowhere is it flat as in no deviation in elevation from a level. It undulates under and above the contained liquid water level.

We call sea level, level because that is exactly what it is, level. We can see this with our own eyes no matter how small or how large the container is and it is always like this. Our eyes are built to recognise level amongst the patterns it is also built to recognise that is why we instantly see a picture hung on a wall that is only a tiny bit off of level. That is why we cannot see the shape of anything correctly as it is in reality. We always seek the level and base everything else off of it.
Altitude and depth are taken of sea level. They are also taken off any standing body of contained water level. The level surface can be at different altitudes in relation to sea level and this to me is where this place is in the grand scheme of things.

It is akin to a rock pool at high tide. The only time it experiences a deluge is when the tide is high. For the rest of the time it is a body of contained water with all life occurring at the boundary of liquid and vapour. Where this rock pool actually sits within the 'wider world' is something worth discovering, to me. It could be well above 'high tide' or it might be at 'high tide' level or equally it could be on a slight rise which contains a boundless ocean just a mile or much less below it for example. This would account for a deluge of water, mud, sand, silt, life, detritus etc which is likely unrecognisable to us sat in the pool, which occurs when 'the tide comes in' or gets high enough to flow in over the rim of the container.

Or we could simply be sat in a back water pool sitting at the exact same level as the ocean but connected to the ocean by a narrow passage that fills in and then breaks on a regular or irregular basis which would again create the deluge as the water vapour is able to cross the liquid water barrier with ease so there is the possibility that the level in the back water pool when blocked falls below the ocean and when the barrier is breached the levels equate again.

Of course either scenario would only work if the sky above was of such a vast scale as to be incomprehensible to us and for me it seems that is the case. Contained water being level at its surface is the reality at any altitude on the level plane we call the known world. Clouds, fogs and mists all manifest and disappear from water level up to a certain height then go no higher so it seems probable the water vapour container is much much bigger than the liquid water container, aka rock pool we sit in.

I don't think any "flat earther" will disagree with you on the idea of an actual flat earth or one with hills, peaks, valleys, and underground depth. We are aware of the idea of underground bunkers like Denver airport, the possibilities of where we live are endless. What is at issue is does the earth spin and are we living on something spherical rather than living IN a sphere of sorts. We may not be able to exactly label what it is that we actually live in/on, but I can conclude with certainty that we are not living ON a spinning ball, launching through a vacuum universe where "gravity" and "atmosphere" become the buzz words to explain away all anomalies related to making the heliocentric model "work".

 

[Jd755]

You should check back through my scribblings as I know there is nothing spinning, my bodily senses know when the body they are part of is in motion and have no difficulty in communicating this fact to me. The only difficulty I had was my senses were ignored in favour of 'education' from a young age.
There is no ball but neither is the thing we walk on flat.
Contained water being level at its surface no matter what size the container is proof nothing is spinning and proof it is not a ball.
A sphere is a mathematical object nothing more.
There is no vacuum. There is no space. There is no such thing as gravity just as there is no pulling force in this reality.
What there is is push.

What I want to figure out given the limitations of actual feet on the ground travel and the fact I live on an island, as we all do in reality, is stop arguing (EDIT) stay away from the argument of bashing the ball earth theory using the flat earth theory and instead focus on what is there in practical reality that can point me in the right direction.
Our predecessors on this plane knew the things we are having trouble remembering, that much I am sure of, though I cannot for the life of me say why.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

You should check back through my scribblings as I know there is nothing spinning, my bodily senses know when the body they are part of is in motion and have no difficulty in communicating this fact to me. The only difficulty I had was my senses were ignored in favour of 'education' from a young age.
There is no ball but neither is the thing we walk on flat.
Contained water being level at its surface no matter what size the container is proof nothing is spinning and proof it is not a ball.
A sphere is a mathematical object nothing more.
There is no vacuum. There is no space. There is no such thing as gravity just as there is no pulling force in this reality.
What there is is push.

What I want to figure out given the limitations of actual feet on the ground travel and the fact I live on an island, as we all do in reality, is stop arguing against the ball earth theory using the flat earth theory and instead focus on what is there in practical reality that can point me in the right direction.
Our predecessors on this plane knew the things we are having trouble remembering, that much I am sure of, though I cannot for the life of me say why.

Totally agreed. The psyop of flat earth has been quite effective at subverting the overall "truth" movement. What the controllers have done is to create the ultimate rabbit hole. By presenting that rabbit hole as the dwelling place of idiots, "flat earthers", the controllers can now lump all controversial ideas revealing their shell game as conspiracy nuts who believe the earth is flat. I personally don't fear labels, but I also don't necessarily embrace them either. Which is why the controllers have such a hard time with people like us, because they can't pigeonhole us into a particular category so that they can employ new methods of control over us. Where we can be different is to find ways to move forward, even though we don't agree about everything, especially the helio vs geo. This subject is so hot right now, it can jeopardize an entire movement. Like it or not, sh.net is a movement. It is a conscious push towards a more honest approach in research and in the sharing of information. It represents next level communication between like minded folks. It doesn't stop at the realization that we've been deceived. It doesn't stop at replacing the lie with the truth. It grows into what we are all heading for, if not in this life, definitely the next: collective consciousness. We have been practicing collective consciousness with the illusion of separateness these several hundred years. Now that we have become aware of the illusion of separateness, we can finally let go of our egos and start to learn reality creation as a being of consciousness. We're ready for the next level. This is why understanding where we are becomes important. It is just one more proof of the lies we have now discarded.

 

[Citezenship]

For me it is simple, maybe that is because i am simple, i can demonstrate centrifugal force to myself with a weight attached to a piece of string by spinning it, this is repeatable over and over again, i can take a tennis ball and soak it in water and spin it, the water will come away from the ball, always, no exceptions to this rule, therefore it matters not what theory can be theorised because that is not how the physical laws that govern my reality work, my conclusion is we are stationary.

 

[Safranek]

My thoughts regarding the little interchange between Sandokhan and Collapseinrealtime;

IMHO both of you are sincere in your effort to put forth the best info you can to help us all in coming to the right conclusions regarding our realm.

Sandokhan:

You are an analytic type, able to process a lot of info and you seem to have a better understanding of complex math than most of us here. (Where is Miles Mathis when you need him?) JOKE This makes you a valuable resource to this forum. You've covered a lot of ground, uncovered a lot and probably have much left to disclose.

But...

you must take into consideration that many of us here do not have that level of math to understand the formulas as you've posted them because to do that we'd have to study math for a 'bit' and only then would we be able to give an opinion. Right now we either believe you or not.

Aether is the medium through which ether propagates.

Ether = transverse subquark waves through which longitudinal boson strings flow

Quarks consist of three subquarks, mesons have six subquarks, baryons have nine subquarks.

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.

A single subquark has some 14 billion bosons and antibosons.

Electricity = flow of bosons through subquark waves

Time is a torsion potential or a scalar wave.

Time is the dextrorotatory scalar wave (subquark string), or terrestrial gravity.

Anti-time is the laevorotatory scalar wave, or antigravity.

Space-time fabric is the aether (the medium) through which scalar waves propagate (ether), these scalar waves are called time and anti-time (terrestrial gravity and antigravity).

The flow of time and anti-time can cause matter to either increase or decrease in weight.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.


A magnet has two streams of particles which flow N - S but also S - N.

For instance, this post of yours has no references. It would certainly help us if we could confirm this or not. This is essential to form even a semi-educated opinion.

Solution:

Try and bring us up to speed (not by teaching us the necessary math) but instead by emphasizing the key elements of all that math you posted regarding the Sagnac Effect and the Coriolis Effect.

I agree with your point that no matter what proof we can provide in reality with REAL physics, it certainly WILL be shot down with the RLG argument. There are many of us who think that Bob was guided all along to drop the bomb on everyone with this RLG experiment purposely staged to have the effect it had from the beginning.

If many of us have enough of an understanding regarding this RLG scam, we would be in better position to further this info to the rest of the seekers questioning the mainstream and looking for answers.

But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.

Then obviously we need a separate thread for this and the RLG as one is being used to demonstrate the other.

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.

Ok. Agreed. Now it would be nice if you also provide the solution if you have it.

You already mentioned in a previous post (if I remember correctly);

- the difference between the Sagnac Effect (SE) and the Coriolis Effect (CE).
- the fact that the RLG uses the CE instead of the SE while mainstream science is pushing it as RLG = SE
- your correction of the math for the proper formula for the RLG with SE

So, what would make this more understandable would be if you could put it into point form with a simplified (but complete) explanation of what is actually taking place or how the RLG is NOT actually measuring the earth's rotation but possible the movement of the ether. Of course, for this we need to try and locate some proof from past or present. There are a lot of great minds out there and we're used to scavenging for info, but for this we need guidance.

So my proposition:

Start new thread / Break down the issue into key points / Elaborate those points

Hopefully this will lead to intelligent questions instead of criticism with the result benefiting us all.

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

Aside from all that, what do you think about this?


View: https://youtu.be/s2PNDGfQrYs?t=825


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

Collapseinrealtime:

I sympathize with you on your statements regarding the manner of Sandokhan's posts as I felt similarly frustrated by seeing that something is there but without the 'manual' really nothing was there. Although my gut feeling told me something is there.

Sandokhan's reply didn't help alleviate the frustration much as he stuck to his conclusion only by stating the fact that all arguments against the globe will be shot down by the RLG experiment. Even though he is right on this point as I alluded to it above, he missed the gist of your post, which was to clarify in layman's terms and make his info useful to all (or at least most).

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

Like it or not, sh.net is a movement. It is a conscious push towards a more honest approach in research and in the sharing of information. It represents next level communication between like minded folks. It doesn't stop at the realization that we've been deceived. It doesn't stop at replacing the lie with the truth. It grows into what we are all heading for, if not in this life, definitely the next: collective consciousness. We have been practicing collective consciousness with the illusion of separateness these several hundred years. Now that we have become aware of the illusion of separateness, we can finally let go of our egos and start to learn reality creation as a being of consciousness. We're ready for the next level. This is why understanding where we are becomes important. It is just one more proof of the lies we have now discarded.

I hope we all agree with this and is the reason why we are all here. We DO NOT want to allow anything/anyone to jeopardize this 'movement' as for most of us its the best we've come across and is the reason why we put our time in here. This is how REAL science should be done to begin with, no egos, biased agendas, just a determined and intelligent quest for one thing only, and that is TRUTH.

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.

Let this statement apply to ALL 'arguments' on the blog.

When one wins a debate, he managed to pass on his better researched logic to another thereby benefiting many others, as the one to whom the info was passed will continue to pass it on.

When one loses a debate, he managed to accept a better researched logic replacing an inferior one thereby benefiting many others as he will also continue to pass that info on.

So when we debate issues with no ego or bias AND patiently help others to assimilate our well-founded ideas or whether we let go of an idea when its shown to us to be partially or wholly erroneous, we actually go on to benefit many.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

My thoughts regarding the little interchange between Sandokhan and Collapseinrealtime;

IMHO both of you are sincere in your effort to put forth the best info you can to help us all in coming to the right conclusions regarding our realm.

Sandokhan:

You are an analytic type, able to process a lot of info and you seem to have a better understanding of complex math than most of us here. (Where is Miles Mathis when you need him?) JOKE This makes you a valuable resource to this forum. You've covered a lot of ground, uncovered a lot and probably have much left to disclose.

But...

you must take into consideration that many of us here do not have that level of math to understand the formulas as you've posted them because to do that we'd have to study math for a 'bit' and only then would we be able to give an opinion. Right now we either believe you or not.

Aether is the medium through which ether propagates.

Ether = transverse subquark waves through which longitudinal boson strings flow

Quarks consist of three subquarks, mesons have six subquarks, baryons have nine subquarks.

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.

A single subquark has some 14 billion bosons and antibosons.

Electricity = flow of bosons through subquark waves

Time is a torsion potential or a scalar wave.

Time is the dextrorotatory scalar wave (subquark string), or terrestrial gravity.

Anti-time is the laevorotatory scalar wave, or antigravity.

Space-time fabric is the aether (the medium) through which scalar waves propagate (ether), these scalar waves are called time and anti-time (terrestrial gravity and antigravity).

The flow of time and anti-time can cause matter to either increase or decrease in weight.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.


A magnet has two streams of particles which flow N - S but also S - N.

For instance, this post of yours has no references. It would certainly help us if we could confirm this or not. This is essential to form even a semi-educated opinion.

Solution:

Try and bring us up to speed (not by teaching us the necessary math) but instead by emphasizing the key elements of all that math you posted regarding the Sagnac Effect and the Coriolis Effect.

I agree with your point that no matter what proof we can provide in reality with REAL physics, it certainly WILL be shot down with the RLG argument. There are many of us who think that Bob was guided all along to drop the bomb on everyone with this RLG experiment purposely staged to have the effect it had from the beginning.

If many of us have enough of an understanding regarding this RLG scam, we would be in better position to further this info to the rest of the seekers questioning the mainstream and looking for answers.

But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.

Then obviously we need a separate thread for this and the RLG as one is being used to demonstrate the other.

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.

Ok. Agreed. Now it would be nice if you also provide the solution if you have it.

You already mentioned in a previous post (if I remember correctly);

- the difference between the Sagnac Effect (SE) and the Coriolis Effect (CE).
- the fact that the RLG uses the CE instead of the SE while mainstream science is pushing it as RLG = SE
- your correction of the math for the proper formula for the RLG with SE

So, what would make this more understandable would be if you could put it into point form with a simplified (but complete) explanation of what is actually taking place or how the RLG is NOT actually measuring the earth's rotation but possible the movement of the ether. Of course, for this we need to try and locate some proof from past or present. There are a lot of great minds out there and we're used to scavenging for info, but for this we need guidance.

So my proposition:

Start new thread / Break down the issue into key points / Elaborate those points

Hopefully this will lead to intelligent questions instead of criticism with the result benefiting us all.

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

Aside from all that, what do you think about this?


View: https://youtu.be/s2PNDGfQrYs?t=825


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

Collapseinrealtime:

I sympathize with you on your statements regarding the manner of Sandokhan's posts as I felt similarly frustrated by seeing that something is there but without the 'manual' really nothing was there. Although my gut feeling told me something is there.

Sandokhan's reply didn't help alleviate the frustration much as he stuck to his conclusion only by stating the fact that all arguments against the globe will be shot down by the RLG experiment. Even though he is right on this point as I alluded to it above, he missed the gist of your post, which was to clarify in layman's terms and make his info useful to all (or at least most).

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

Like it or not, sh.net is a movement. It is a conscious push towards a more honest approach in research and in the sharing of information. It represents next level communication between like minded folks. It doesn't stop at the realization that we've been deceived. It doesn't stop at replacing the lie with the truth. It grows into what we are all heading for, if not in this life, definitely the next: collective consciousness. We have been practicing collective consciousness with the illusion of separateness these several hundred years. Now that we have become aware of the illusion of separateness, we can finally let go of our egos and start to learn reality creation as a being of consciousness. We're ready for the next level. This is why understanding where we are becomes important. It is just one more proof of the lies we have now discarded.

I hope we all agree with this and is the reason why we are all here. We DO NOT want to allow anything/anyone to jeopardize this 'movement' as for most of us its the best we've come across and is the reason why we put our time in here. This is how REAL science should be done to begin with, no egos, biased agendas, just a determined and intelligent quest for one thing only, and that is TRUTH.

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.

Let this statement apply to ALL 'arguments' on the blog.

When one wins a debate, he managed to pass on his better researched logic to another thereby benefiting many others, as the one to whom the info was passed will continue to pass it on.

When one loses a debate, he managed to accept a better researched logic replacing an inferior one thereby benefiting many others as he will also continue to pass that info on.

So when we debate issues with no ego or bias AND patiently help others to assimilate our well-founded ideas or whether we let go of an idea when its shown to us to be partially or wholly erroneous, we actually go on to benefit many.

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your analytical approach. To me, the universe is a very simple place. For instance, if I wanted to test the movement of something, I can easily place something stationary next to it. The stationary object rests while the moving object changes its location in distance to the stationary object. An easy test for seeing if the earth moves is to levitate above the ground in a hovering helicopter that remains stationary. Does the earth move at 1,000 mph while the helicopter stands still? I admit, that would definitely cut down on travel time if that were true. But no, it doesn't. But then the explanation comes in that everything within the atmosphere is somehow magically locking all objects within it in a kind of suspended animation, so that even though the helicopter isn't touching the ground or moving, it is still spinning with everything else. Interesting idea, but one that does not match anyone's physical reality. This so called test to measure the spin of the earth--how can you measure spin if you are also attached to the object supposedly spinning? With a laser? Pointing at what? It would have to be pointing at a stationary object not in any way connected to the earth, and thus the comparison of something moving or spinning vs the object not moving. All measurements require this comparison. Point A to point B. It's the same reason why the curvature argument doesn't work, or the coriolis effect, which a sniper never takes into account when hitting his target. This experiment that he keeps referring to cannot be demonstrated. It needs theoretical math to even be explained, versus the above simple experiment which I have presented. The great thing about so called flat earth cosmology, is it puts science back into astronomy. All proofs can be easily repeated. That is why they are proofs and not theories.

 

[Safranek]

My thoughts regarding the little interchange between Sandokhan and Collapseinrealtime;

IMHO both of you are sincere in your effort to put forth the best info you can to help us all in coming to the right conclusions regarding our realm.

Sandokhan:

You are an analytic type, able to process a lot of info and you seem to have a better understanding of complex math than most of us here. (Where is Miles Mathis when you need him?) JOKE This makes you a valuable resource to this forum. You've covered a lot of ground, uncovered a lot and probably have much left to disclose.

But...

you must take into consideration that many of us here do not have that level of math to understand the formulas as you've posted them because to do that we'd have to study math for a 'bit' and only then would we be able to give an opinion. Right now we either believe you or not.

Aether is the medium through which ether propagates.

Ether = transverse subquark waves through which longitudinal boson strings flow

Quarks consist of three subquarks, mesons have six subquarks, baryons have nine subquarks.

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.

A single subquark has some 14 billion bosons and antibosons.

Electricity = flow of bosons through subquark waves

Time is a torsion potential or a scalar wave.

Time is the dextrorotatory scalar wave (subquark string), or terrestrial gravity.

Anti-time is the laevorotatory scalar wave, or antigravity.

Space-time fabric is the aether (the medium) through which scalar waves propagate (ether), these scalar waves are called time and anti-time (terrestrial gravity and antigravity).

The flow of time and anti-time can cause matter to either increase or decrease in weight.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.


A magnet has two streams of particles which flow N - S but also S - N.

For instance, this post of yours has no references. It would certainly help us if we could confirm this or not. This is essential to form even a semi-educated opinion.

Solution:

Try and bring us up to speed (not by teaching us the necessary math) but instead by emphasizing the key elements of all that math you posted regarding the Sagnac Effect and the Coriolis Effect.

I agree with your point that no matter what proof we can provide in reality with REAL physics, it certainly WILL be shot down with the RLG argument. There are many of us who think that Bob was guided all along to drop the bomb on everyone with this RLG experiment purposely staged to have the effect it had from the beginning.

If many of us have enough of an understanding regarding this RLG scam, we would be in better position to further this info to the rest of the seekers questioning the mainstream and looking for answers.

But they will laugh in your face, and demand that you explain the Michelson-Gale experiment.

Then obviously we need a separate thread for this and the RLG as one is being used to demonstrate the other.

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.

Ok. Agreed. Now it would be nice if you also provide the solution if you have it.

You already mentioned in a previous post (if I remember correctly);

- the difference between the Sagnac Effect (SE) and the Coriolis Effect (CE).
- the fact that the RLG uses the CE instead of the SE while mainstream science is pushing it as RLG = SE
- your correction of the math for the proper formula for the RLG with SE

So, what would make this more understandable would be if you could put it into point form with a simplified (but complete) explanation of what is actually taking place or how the RLG is NOT actually measuring the earth's rotation but possible the movement of the ether. Of course, for this we need to try and locate some proof from past or present. There are a lot of great minds out there and we're used to scavenging for info, but for this we need guidance.

So my proposition:

Start new thread / Break down the issue into key points / Elaborate those points

Hopefully this will lead to intelligent questions instead of criticism with the result benefiting us all.

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

Aside from all that, what do you think about this?


View: https://youtu.be/s2PNDGfQrYs?t=825


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

Collapseinrealtime:

I sympathize with you on your statements regarding the manner of Sandokhan's posts as I felt similarly frustrated by seeing that something is there but without the 'manual' really nothing was there. Although my gut feeling told me something is there.

Sandokhan's reply didn't help alleviate the frustration much as he stuck to his conclusion only by stating the fact that all arguments against the globe will be shot down by the RLG experiment. Even though he is right on this point as I alluded to it above, he missed the gist of your post, which was to clarify in layman's terms and make his info useful to all (or at least most).

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

Like it or not, sh.net is a movement. It is a conscious push towards a more honest approach in research and in the sharing of information. It represents next level communication between like minded folks. It doesn't stop at the realization that we've been deceived. It doesn't stop at replacing the lie with the truth. It grows into what we are all heading for, if not in this life, definitely the next: collective consciousness. We have been practicing collective consciousness with the illusion of separateness these several hundred years. Now that we have become aware of the illusion of separateness, we can finally let go of our egos and start to learn reality creation as a being of consciousness. We're ready for the next level. This is why understanding where we are becomes important. It is just one more proof of the lies we have now discarded.

I hope we all agree with this and is the reason why we are all here. We DO NOT want to allow anything/anyone to jeopardize this 'movement' as for most of us its the best we've come across and is the reason why we put our time in here. This is how REAL science should be done to begin with, no egos, biased agendas, just a determined and intelligent quest for one thing only, and that is TRUTH.

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.

Let this statement apply to ALL 'arguments' on the blog.

When one wins a debate, he managed to pass on his better researched logic to another thereby benefiting many others, as the one to whom the info was passed will continue to pass it on.

When one loses a debate, he managed to accept a better researched logic replacing an inferior one thereby benefiting many others as he will also continue to pass that info on.

So when we debate issues with no ego or bias AND patiently help others to assimilate our well-founded ideas or whether we let go of an idea when its shown to us to be partially or wholly erroneous, we actually go on to benefit many.

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your analytical approach. To me, the universe is a very simple place. For instance, if I wanted to test the movement of something, I can easily place something stationary next to it. The stationary object rests while the moving object changes its location in distance to the stationary object. An easy test for seeing if the earth moves is to levitate above the ground in a hovering helicopter that remains stationary. Does the earth move at 1,000 mph while the helicopter stands still? I admit, that would definitely cut down on travel time if that were true. But no, it doesn't. But then the explanation comes in that everything within the atmosphere is somehow magically locking all objects within it in a kind of suspended animation, so that even though the helicopter isn't touching the ground or moving, it is still spinning with everything else. Interesting idea, but one that does not match anyone's physical reality. This so called test to measure the spin of the earth--how can you measure spin if you are also attached to the object supposedly spinning? With a laser? Pointing at what? It would have to be pointing at a stationary object not in any way connected to the earth, and thus the comparison of something moving or spinning vs the object not moving. All measurements require this comparison. Point A to point B. It's the same reason why the curvature argument does work, or the coriolis effect, which a sniper never takes into account when hitting his target. This experiment that he keeps referring to cannot be demonstrated. It needs theoretical math to even be explained, versus the above simple experiment which I have presented. The great thing about so called flat earth cosmology, is it puts science back into astronomy. All proofs can be easily repeated. That is why they are proofs and not theories.

I agree with you totally one this and this works when we are on the ground, testing something else on the ground. In the case of the helicopter, we are testing something that's 'close' to the ground - meaning in the accessible part of our realm.

In the case of the motion of astronomical objects in relation to us, we have things moving beyond the accessible part of our realm (at least as far as we know). Thus its easier to play the game; we're moving, and they're also moving - or we're standing still and only they are moving. This is why our task is not so simple. How to measure something that is beyond our measuring stick.

Actually, the helicopter issue is one thing that made me wonder this;

How come our physicists don't have a scale for gravity/distance. We have a scale for pressure/distance, temperature/distance. We have it going down and up. But NOT for gravity. As 'science' says that the atmosphere moves with the earth they should have come up with a scale by now with all that space travel.

What I mean is at what distances upwards does the effect of 'gravity' begin to diminish and by how much. At what total distance for instance would the helicopter start to lose the 'gravity' effect and be able to land in a different place?

As NASA claims to have gone to space (vacuum) they should already have this scale if any real scientists worked there and if the earth was indeed spinning, but they don't.

Another issue I have is with the Chinese. They just went to the moon and the land of gadgets forgot to leave at least a cheap GoPro MoonCam up there. What prestige it would have been to be the first nation to have a MoonCam available live on the web. I guess they never thought about it. They just make the stuff. If ham radio operators are bouncing signals via the moon, a MoonCam should've been a cinch.

 

[Citezenship]

Another issue I have is with the Chinese. They just went to the moon and the land of gadgets forgot to leave at least a cheap GoPro MoonCam up there. What prestige it would have been to be the first nation to have a MoonCam available live on the web. I guess they never thought about it. They just make the stuff. If ham radio operators are bouncing signals via the moon, a MoonCam should've been a cinch.

You would think there would be a million cameras on that thing, or at least a couple of angles, or remote cam to look at earth from moon whilst landing, or even a small probe with cam to film the landing but alas no!

 

[cnut]

The footage I have watched of China, India, and Israel reaching the moon in the
last few years is laughable at best. Certainly, we cant consider that real.
To me, it seems like they aren't even trying anymore. Are we really supposed
to believe there is a tesla car in space. We see the rockets splash down in the ocean.
We see a rocket land on a moving platform like a video game, in reverse.
I am really surprised to see someone from the flat earth society{ a known disinformation
sight} posting here. Usually we get trolls, ad homs, sock accusations.
They cant dazzle you with brilliance, so they baffle you with bullshi*.
Good luck.

peace,
cnut

 

[grav]

So much good info above. My 2 cents.

1. The gyroscope device shows movement -- of what in relation to what? If it is synced to earth's alleged rotation and orbit around the sun, then how do those trajectories not influence its measurements? It detects the turning of the dome, or the stars rotating in unison.

2. the definition of flat. A flat tire is not always perfectly smooth.
Pancakes are flat, and sidewalks. We major in the minors when we quibble with precise distinctions. Grand mountains and deep gorges fade to nothing when we take a long view of the motionless plane.
I am a flatearther, not a planearther.

​

 

[sandokhan]

Sagnac effect definition:

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel (in terms of any inertial coordinate system, such as that in which the center is at rest) the same distance at the same speed, so they arrive at the end point simultaneously. If the loop itself is rotating during this procedure, the counter-rotating pulse will arrive at the "end" point slightly earlier than the co-rotating pulse.





Quantitatively, if we let ω denote the angular speed of the loop, then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = ωR, and the sum of the speeds of the pulses and the receiver at the "end" point is c–v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-rotating direction. Both pulses begin with an initial separation of 2πR from the end point, so the difference between the travel times is




History of the Sagnac effect:

https://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

Coriolis effect definition:

An effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the Coriolis force ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern.


The Coriolis effect is a mechanical effect, proportional to thea area and angular velocity of the interferometer.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, proportional to the velocities of the light beams; it does not feature an area, or the angular velocity.


Derivation of the Coriolis effect formula for light interferometers:

http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071


Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, a physicist on the same level with Einstein and Michelson, partially inspired and supported the Michelson-Gale experiment.

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.


"Sagnac effect is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path. The time delay Δt appears when a test equipment is rotated with an angular velocity Ώ. Sagnac effect is frequently used in rate gyros in navigational systems. Fiber optics is used with light-speed c inside the fiber in a circular light path. The difference in propagation time Δt for two opposite directions of light is described as

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

Where A is enclosed area. Δt is derived based on an integration of Ω over A.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c^2

producing the same value as the earlier expression. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c^2

is the correct interpretation."

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."


So far, so good: for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, the SAGNAC EFFECT formula coincides with the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, the distinction is made in terms of Stokes' theorem: the Sagnac effect features a velocity of the light beams, the Coriolis effect is related to the area and the angular velocity.


Sagnac had no knowledge of these intricacies (as did no one else at that time, 1913), and delivered the formula which features an area in his paper.


Now, we move that interferometer on the surface of the Earth: its center of rotation will no longer be identical to its geometrical center, that is, the interferometer is stationary upon the surface, and we try to detect rotation.

So, Michelson and Gale built a huge interferometer in Clearing, Illinois, in 1925, here is the derivation of their formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700

What Michelson did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the light beams: it can detect either the rotation of the Earth or the rotation of the ether drift above the surface. It is a slight lateral deflection of the light beams, not related to their velocities.

Michelson then claimed that this is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for his interferometer, the same formula used today for ring laser gyroscopes (which are much smaller Michelson-Gale interferometers actually). Since Sagnac detects rotation, he then claimed that it is the Earth which is rotating.

No other physicist said anything, no one tried to detect this error, for the past 100 years.


That is why modern physicists are having a field day with geocentrists, when the latter try to prove that the Earth is stationary (even using those 200 proofs).

They will immediately point in the direction of the MGX, or even produce a small ring laser gyroscope, which, under the eyes of the geocentrist, will indeed record rotation.

In a court of law, the geocentrists will present the 200 proofs in front of the judge and of the jury. The mainstream physicists will sit quietly without any objections. Then, they will show a ring laser gyroscope to the judge and to the jury: rotation has been detected. Then, the jury will rule against the geocentrists.

So, what the geocentrists need is a SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX.

 

[Jd755]

@silentbob
For toroids to be the answer to me the toroid has to be contained by a container shaped to create the pattern we are shown and can identify for ourselves. This doesn't have to be a tangible physical container but it has to be present as there is only push so without a container then the push would be in whatever direction the initiator of the push was pushing. It would only stop when the push or momentum given to the object being pushed stopped.
It would not change direction unless it came up against another object that didn't move (or the a push coming from another direction) and like water it found another way to go assuming the pressure of the push was sufficient to allow it to overcome the 'back pressure' or 'push back' caused by pushing onto the immovable object.
The pressure of the pushing force must also be of sufficient strength to get above the level plane, assuming the level plane is where the pressure for push is brought to bear and follows the direction of the curving surface to enable it to come back down onto the level plane in the centre thus provide the pressure to hold whatever is at the level plane in place whilst passing through it to carry on on its way round and round the toroid.

The toroid is in reality two cones or funnels which create contra flowing vortices as they pass across the level plane. The vortex above the plane is centripetal which condenses the push force to its centre and the vortex below the plane (above and below coming from our perspective of standing on the level plane) spins centrifugally which takes the push away from the centre.
This is the exact same thing that is easily noticeable in trees and indeed all plants. Water flows both ways up and down a tree from soil (liquid water) to sky (water vapour) and rain (liquid water) to soil (water vapour) . It goes up and down the inside of the roots and up and down the outside of the trunk. It changes over at the germination point which is the toroidal level plane.

All life is the level plane in the epicentre of the toroid. The act of living is the source of the push force. Life as we know it can only exist within a limited distance above and below the level plane. All known life lives within these very real boundaries which suggests that whatever is beyond them in relation to the level plane boundary does not have the right combination of liquid and vapour water to allow life to occur and thrive.

I get the feeling every life is a toroid created by the water changing its states of being. This changing may be the source of the push power that is used by all life forms in the act of living. I also feel it is the source of thoughts, again though why I feel this to be the case I don't know and it would not surprise me to find out that it is the source of all life.
Certainly the numbers 369 feature prominently and to me its this.
The 9 is all that is.
The 6 is the reflection of all that is.
The 3 is the point of perception which knows the difference.

Life is the 3.
The level plane is the 3.

When the 3 moves towards or gets mesmerised by the reflection 6 the all that is the 9 diminishes.
When the 3 moves or gets mesmerised by the all that is 9 the reflection diminishes.
The 3 is the boundary in which two worlds meet.
All life lives at this boundary.
We live at this boundary. We live smack bang in the middle of it.
We along with every other living thing are the 3.
We seem to be unique amongst the life as we are the only life form that gets mesmerised by the reflection and over correct by getting mesmerised by the all that is 9. Everything else pays both equal heed, as far as I can tell.

The only fly in this line of thinking is the bloody stars.
That they revolve around the pole star is so obvious it is laughable to realise that the mathematicians have been blinding people for centuries using the language of numbers that have no bearing at all on the physical world we all live in.
So the sky whatever it is moves around an axis (cue the axle thread Where did the axle come from?) Something is pushing this sky around as it is clearly in motion and all there is is a push force then something is pushing the sky and its axis round. Granted there could be an actual axle above the sky invisible to us powered by dragons and fairies which would make the sky a wheel and we are looking at its underside.

Stars form circles around the pole star on time lapse footage. All footage I might add which was not taken at the point directly under the pole star the so termed 'north pole'. No-one has ever been to the place on the plane to turn a camera through 90 degrees and point it directly at the non moving star for some reason or other.
This circle is suggestive of a disc in motion around an axis so could this rotation pushed as it is by something be the thing that creates the push force we live in in that it somehow creates a force that pushes down from sky to earth and keeps everything in its place, keeps life at the vapour liquid boundary.

Putting a disc or wheel in an electric drill and holding it above the liquid water does indeed push the water vapour down onto the liquid and create a disturbance, in the same way as helicopters do I know but the helicopter was in for repair when this thought first arrived so one does what one can.
But were that the case with the sky it would mean that the water vapour goes all the way up to the disc and beyond or above it ergo the sky disc must be turning within water vapour if it were to replicate the effect the drill or helicopter does.

Rambling a bit I know but there's not much I can do about it. I'm not sure of anything bar the push force and level surface of contained water. It's not a theory so don't get the impression I think I've solved something I'm just a weirdo chucking things out as the come to mind. Thankfully this is a haven for weirdo's!

 

[cnut]

Hello,
I was wondering if anyone watched the latest Spacex unmanned flight test explosion.
If you notice when the rocket lands/explodes, there is distinctly 2 different rockets
and launch pads. Why is the fakery so obvious? Elon did say it looks fake, that's how you know
its real. Absurd.
SpaceX Starship’s Unmanned Flight Test Ends in Fireball - YouTube

thanks,
cnut

 

[Silent Bob]

@silentbob
For toroids to be the answer to me the toroid has to be contained by a container shaped to create the pattern we are shown and can identify for ourselves. This doesn't have to be a tangible physical container but it has to be present as there is only push so without a container then the push would be in whatever direction the initiator of the push was pushing. It would only stop when the push or momentum given to the object being pushed stopped.
It would not change direction unless it came up against another object that didn't move (or the a push coming from another direction) and like water it found another way to go assuming the pressure of the push was sufficient to allow it to overcome the 'back pressure' or 'push back' caused by pushing onto the immovable object.
The pressure of the pushing force must also be of sufficient strength to get above the level plane, assuming the level plane is where the pressure for push is brought to bear and follows the direction of the curving surface to enable it to come back down onto the level plane in the centre thus provide the pressure to hold whatever is at the level plane in place whilst passing through it to carry on on its way round and round the toroid.

The toroid is in reality two cones or funnels which create contra flowing vortices as they pass across the level plane. The vortex above the plane is centripetal which condenses the push force to its centre and the vortex below the plane (above and below coming from our perspective of standing on the level plane) spins centrifugally which takes the push away from the centre.
This is the exact same thing that is easily noticeable in trees and indeed all plants. Water flows both ways up and down a tree from soil (liquid water) to sky (water vapour) and rain (liquid water) to soil (water vapour) . It goes up and down the inside of the roots and up and down the outside of the trunk. It changes over at the germination point which is the toroidal level plane.

All life is the level plane in the epicentre of the toroid. The act of living is the source of the push force. Life as we know it can only exist within a limited distance above and below the level plane. All known life lives within these very real boundaries which suggests that whatever is beyond them in relation to the level plane boundary does not have the right combination of liquid and vapour water to allow life to occur and thrive.

I get the feeling every life is a toroid created by the water changing its states of being. This changing may be the source of the push power that is used by all life forms in the act of living. I also feel it is the source of thoughts, again though why I feel this to be the case I don't know and it would not surprise me to find out that it is the source of all life.
Certainly the numbers 369 feature prominently and to me its this.
The 9 is all that is.
The 6 is the reflection of all that is.
The 3 is the point of perception which knows the difference.

Life is the 3.
The level plane is the 3.

When the 3 moves towards or gets mesmerised by the reflection 6 the all that is the 9 diminishes.
When the 3 moves or gets mesmerised by the all that is 9 the reflection diminishes.
The 3 is the boundary in which two worlds meet.
All life lives at this boundary.
We live at this boundary. We live smack bang in the middle of it.
We along with every other living thing are the 3.
We seem to be unique amongst the life as we are the only life form that gets mesmerised by the reflection and over correct by getting mesmerised by the all that is 9. Everything else pays both equal heed, as far as I can tell.

The only fly in this line of thinking is the bloody stars.
That they revolve around the pole star is so obvious it is laughable to realise that the mathematicians have been blinding people for centuries using the language of numbers that have no bearing at all on the physical world we all live in.
So the sky whatever it is moves around an axis (cue the axle thread Where did the axle come from?) Something is pushing this sky around as it is clearly in motion and all there is is a push force then something is pushing the sky and its axis round. Granted there could be an actual axle above the sky invisible to us powered by dragons and fairies which would make the sky a wheel and we are looking at its underside.

Stars form circles around the pole star on time lapse footage. All footage I might add which was not taken at the point directly under the pole star the so termed 'north pole'. No-one has ever been to the place on the plane to turn a camera through 90 degrees and point it directly at the non moving star for some reason or other.
This circle is suggestive of a disc in motion around an axis so could this rotation pushed as it is by something be the thing that creates the push force we live in in that it somehow creates a force that pushes down from sky to earth and keeps everything in its place, keeps life at the vapour liquid boundary.

Putting a disc or wheel in an electric drill and holding it above the liquid water does indeed push the water vapour down onto the liquid and create a disturbance, in the same way as helicopters do I know but the helicopter was in for repair when this thought first arrived so one does what one can.
But were that the case with the sky it would mean that the water vapour goes all the way up to the disc and beyond or above it ergo the sky disc must be turning within water vapour if it were to replicate the effect the drill or helicopter does.

Rambling a bit I know but there's not much I can do about it. I'm not sure of anything bar the push force and level surface of contained water. It's not a theory so don't get the impression I think I've solved something I'm just a weirdo chucking things out as the come to mind. Thankfully this is a haven for weirdo's!

I'm pretty tired just now, so not sure I've fully followed everything you've said here yet - I'll have another read tomorrow, hopefully I'll be able to concentrate better! I think rambling is the way forward to an extent, it's hard sometimes to put your thoughts into words so sometimes it's good just to throw it all out there and then try and make sense of it

One thing that did come to mind reading your post was Pressional motion, and how the rotating sky could create a downward push that we call gravity. Then I remembered Eric Laithwaite and his spinning fly wheel, which I saw a couple of years ago. This is really interesting if you've never seen it, back when we did proper science.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPC7a_AcQo


This is the only video of his I have seen but I just noticed he also made one about a 'magnetic river' - too much of a coincidence to ignore, I'm going to watch this tomorrow!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU


I have a feeling that we have most of the jigsaw pieces between us, we just need to figure out how they all fit together.

Just before I go, here's a quick simple summary of how you could visualise what the Sagnac effect is without any pesky mathematical equations

Imagine a round wheel set into the ground, you can walk around it clockwise or anti clockwise to get to the other side. If the wheel is stationary then the distance would be the same either way and the time to walk it would be the same. However, if the wheel was turning slowly clockwise then the clockwise walk would be shorter and quicker than the anti clockwise route. If you couldn't tell if the wheel was turning you could get 2 identical twins to set off at the same time and see if they arrive together (stationary) or clockwise twin first (clockwise motion) or anti clockwise twin first (anti clockwise motion). The Michelson Morely experiment is basically this with photons of light instead of twins and the Sagnac effect is the difference in path length/travel time due to rotational movement.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

Sagnac effect definition:

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R, they will travel (in terms of any inertial coordinate system, such as that in which the center is at rest) the same distance at the same speed, so they arrive at the end point simultaneously. If the loop itself is rotating during this procedure, the counter-rotating pulse will arrive at the "end" point slightly earlier than the co-rotating pulse.





Quantitatively, if we let ω denote the angular speed of the loop, then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = ωR, and the sum of the speeds of the pulses and the receiver at the "end" point is c–v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-rotating direction. Both pulses begin with an initial separation of 2πR from the end point, so the difference between the travel times is




History of the Sagnac effect:

https://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

Coriolis effect definition:

An effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the Coriolis force ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern.


The Coriolis effect is a mechanical effect, proportional to thea area and angular velocity of the interferometer.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, proportional to the velocities of the light beams; it does not feature an area, or the angular velocity.


Derivation of the Coriolis effect formula for light interferometers:

http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071


Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, a physicist on the same level with Einstein and Michelson, partially inspired and supported the Michelson-Gale experiment.

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.


"Sagnac effect is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path. The time delay Δt appears when a test equipment is rotated with an angular velocity Ώ. Sagnac effect is frequently used in rate gyros in navigational systems. Fiber optics is used with light-speed c inside the fiber in a circular light path. The difference in propagation time Δt for two opposite directions of light is described as

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

Where A is enclosed area. Δt is derived based on an integration of Ω over A.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c^2

producing the same value as the earlier expression. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c^2

is the correct interpretation."

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."


So far, so good: for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, the SAGNAC EFFECT formula coincides with the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, the distinction is made in terms of Stokes' theorem: the Sagnac effect features a velocity of the light beams, the Coriolis effect is related to the area and the angular velocity.


Sagnac had no knowledge of these intricacies (as did no one else at that time, 1913), and delivered the formula which features an area in his paper.


Now, we move that interferometer on the surface of the Earth: its center of rotation will no longer be identical to its geometrical center, that is, the interferometer is stationary upon the surface, and we try to detect rotation.

So, Michelson and Gale built a huge interferometer in Clearing, Illinois, in 1925, here is the derivation of their formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700

What Michelson did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the light beams: it can detect either the rotation of the Earth or the rotation of the ether drift above the surface. It is a slight lateral deflection of the light beams, not related to their velocities.

Michelson then claimed that this is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for his interferometer, the same formula used today for ring laser gyroscopes (which are much smaller Michelson-Gale interferometers actually). Since Sagnac detects rotation, he then claimed that it is the Earth which is rotating.

No other physicist said anything, no one tried to detect this error, for the past 100 years.


That is why modern physicists are having a field day with geocentrists, when the latter try to prove that the Earth is stationary (even using those 200 proofs).

They will immediately point in the direction of the MGX, or even produce a small ring laser gyroscope, which, under the eyes of the geocentrist, will indeed record rotation.

In a court of law, the geocentrists will present the 200 proofs in front of the judge and of the jury. The mainstream physicists will sit quietly without any objections. Then, they will show a ring laser gyroscope to the judge and to the jury: rotation has been detected. Then, the jury will rule against the geocentrists.

So, what the geocentrists need is a SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX.

How will the mainstream physicist demonstrate this theory to the judge and jury, using your above argument? Assuming a small ring laser gyroscope is produced, how is rotation detected? Can you break down exactly how this device is used? How does a math formula translate to an actual verifiable experiment? You say Sagnac detects rotation, but do not explain HOW that rotation is detected. Please clarify. Thanks

 

[Citezenship]

This is the only video of his I have seen but I just noticed he also made one about a 'magnetic river' - too much of a coincidence to ignore, I'm going to watch this tomorrow!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU

Thats a great video, Barry the assistant has an epic comb-over and iI should imagine a pack of hamlet cigars tucked in his blazer pocket, ah they don't make em like that any more!

Eric also so knows that you can't balance a pencil on it's point, unlike Elon Musk

I bet this magnetic river demonstration is somehow related to how our oceans produce waves.


View: https://youtu.be/X0SbVFxl64A