Flat Earth

Here are two definitions, I used it with the understanding of the second. Arithmetic is just one of the methods of calculation included in mathematics.
The permanent redefinition and confusion of terms is a tool of thought control and manipulation, see George Orwell's NewSpeak.
It is obviously a tool for forum trolls as well.
The older you get, the more selective you will become in choosing which topic you dedicate your time to.
 
The permanent redefinition and confusion of terms is a tool of thought control and manipulation, see George Orwell's NewSpeak.

Yes. But what does it have to do with anything I said?

It is obviously a tool for forum trolls as well.

Obviously it is one tool. But again what does that have to do with this thread and especially my comment?

The older you get, the more selective you will become in choosing which topic you dedicate your time to.

So you decided to make a comment without saying anything pertinent and now you're attributing it to your age?

If you're gonna make a post and especially a critical one, you should first analyze your intent.

Ask yourself:

Is my comment going to add something constructive to the subject?
Will it clarify something to me or to others?
Will it inspire new thought?

And in your case, you may wanna ask yourself: Am I old enough? :cool:

I don't think you need to be very old to be polite, constructive and intelligent.

I don't mind elaborating or clarifying to kd-755 because his posts are usually well thought out and show considerably research. I like many of his posts as a result.

You on the other hand, are wasting both our time with comments like this not to mention valuable thread space. Its a distraction from the topic.

By all means state your point or critique, but do it at least respectfully and with the proper intent, and do it clearly, not as an insinuation.

Given this criteria, lets see what you come up with.
 
Frankly, I don't know where @sandokhan stands. on a globe or a flat nonrotating plane. Looks to me like he plays both ends against the middle.
I am a flatearther.

The Coriolis effect, really? Measuring movement of a ball that is assumed to rotate 1000 mph and orbit 66,600 mph while following a burning ball of fire-nuclear fusion .5 million mph.
Wow, that a ring laser device takes all that into account as it shoots light beams into infinity, with no beam spread.

......... someone pointed this out to me. from glp.

******* GOVERNMENT FLAT EARTH DOCUMENTS ******* Question: Why do "globers" look up when they are trying to prove what they are standing on is a globe? Shouldn't we be looking out over the horizon or even down at the very thing we stand on???? And this is biblical.

Here are some of the govt. (CIA, NASA, Military, University) documents used in Pastor Dean's message “Government Documents Admit Flat Earth:” [link to youtu.be (secure)]

Russia 1948 Shape of the earth unknown.. [link to www.cia.gov (secure)] || Russian Light Study “Brightness of the firmament” [link to www.cia.gov (secure)] || Government Definition of Geoid [link to www.ngs.noaa.gov (secure)] || page 168: equations of flat-earth trigonometry. [link to www.irig106.org] || page 8: The Earth is flat and nonrotating. [link to www.navair.navy.mil]

General Equations of Motion for Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft Page 1: “...equations of motions must properly reflect the underlying physics.” page 2:
"In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed...” [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

Approximate Optimal Guidance for the Advanced Launch System On page one this document does mention a spherical rotating earth but then states that “...these schemes” (based on a spherical rotating earth) 1) “...are difficult to prove” and 2) “...not suggested to be used as a basis for an online real-time guidance law.” Page 32 goes on to say: "Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a flat Earth are presented." [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || SR-71 Page 8 “...nonrotating Earth...” [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || page 14: (2) A flat, nonrotating earth [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || page 8: the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating earth. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || page 108: aircraft flying over flat, nonrotating earth page:12 "aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over flat nonrotating earth" [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || NASA Technical Paper 2835 September 1988 Page 1 Summary: Flat nonrotating earth Last page 126: "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with a stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth" [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform NASA March 1972 page 2: "The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth" [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge NASA 1991 page 11: "The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth" [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields NASA 1973 page14 pdf or 6 on actual report: a) The earth is flat and non-rotating. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter NASA page 17: “The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth.” [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || Atmospheric Oscillations Georgia Tech April 1965 Prepared for NASA page 13: A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments NASA June 2002 page 18-19: “These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth.” [link to www.nasa.gov (secure)] || Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft NASA 1988 page 9 pdf or 4-5 on actual doc: “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth...” [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] || Time to Climb page2: “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat earth. [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

page 9: “...input to a flat earth” [link to www.arl.army.mil] (original found here) [link to www.researchgate.net (secure)]

. . . .

If you believe in the Globe model you BETTER NOT CLICK THE FIRST LINK.... I'm warning you!!!!! DON"T DO IT.... No... STOP!!!!! You will be forever lost as a Flat Earther!!!!!! [link to youtu.be (secure)] ||
[link to www.youtube.com (secure)] || [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] || And if you bring up Erostothenes then how do you like them apples???? LOL [link to www.youtube.com (secure)]
 
Frankly, I don't know where @sandokhan stands. on a globe or a flat nonrotating plane. Looks to me like he plays both ends against the middle.
I am a flatearther.

I am trying to prepare you for real time debates with mainstream physicists. Anything you thought you might present which would make a positive impression, will be dismissed in less than 30 seconds. They will immediately make use of the ring laser gyroscope interferometer, and claim that the Earth is actually rotating around its own axis. Your previous message is eloquent, but will not count for much, once they introduce the ring laser gyroscope into the debate.
 
Frankly, I don't know where @sandokhan stands. on a globe or a flat nonrotating plane. Looks to me like he plays both ends against the middle.
I am a flatearther.

I am trying to prepare you for real time debates with mainstream physicists. Anything you thought you might present which would make a positive impression, will be dismissed in less than 30 seconds. They will immediately make use of the ring laser gyroscope interferometer, and claim that the Earth is actually rotating around its own axis. Your previous message is eloquent, but will not count for much, once they introduce the ring laser gyroscope into the debate.
excellent response.
But I already am ready!
to match points with any professional defender of the faith.
The ring laser will itself be on trial. If it detects motion, it must prove how it determines its frame of reference.

Let a physicist also prove earth's movements as it spins, spirals, and chases its sun. It is the heliocentists who cannot support their model with empirical evidence, laws of physics, or optical proofs.

Their reliance on theories and constants (such as gravity, the speed of light) discredits the very basis of the scientific method.

No ipse diixit astrophysicist in his right mind would debate a serious flatearther now.
We've done our due dilignce, got our ducks in a row.
They know it too.
Such a debate will never happen.
 
The ring laser will itself be on trial. If it detects motion, it must prove how it determines its frame of reference.

No.

If it detects motion, it is you who has to provide an explanation. The frame of reference is already taken care of since they claim that the RLG measures the SAGNAC EFFECT. You can mention the frame of reference only when you are able to prove that what the RLG is detecting is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

But I already am ready!

I believe you.
 
#1. Please prove the existence of the Coriolis effect.

#2. "I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
And this is the reason Einstein was thrust onto the flat world's stage.
To hypnotize the taxpayers into believing in a fantasy called relativity. It sounds food in paper, has many practical applications, but is in this case is a knowing lie.

And now we have a space-time continuum and Big Bang and more theories than you can shake a stick at. Ah, but the theories come from Authority. Peer reviewed power brokers in charge of universities and texrbooks.

This shameful modern subterfufe is analgous to judges who refuse to look at evidence, such as that of voting fraud.

@sandokhan, you will readily admit that FET will never get a fair hearing.
I also expect to get no (0) argument from you when I say that
Everything Big Brother Teaches Is a Lie.

p.s., I really really dislike the image embedding system here. Sometimes it works. Usually, it sucks.

 

Attachments

  • OIP-6.jpeg
    OIP-6.jpeg
    29 KB · Views: 182
  • OIP-6.jpeg
    OIP-6.jpeg
    29 KB · Views: 162
"I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."

That is from 1922.

And Michelson set out to prove him wrong, which he did in 1925 (MGX).

Please prove the existence of the Coriolis effect.

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/vorticity.pdf
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Mathematical Physics/Download/6212
http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

The hook of that sentence is "claim".

You are now in front of a very large audience, defending FET. Right next to you, the best, the most proeminent of the heliocentrists. Right at the start of the debate, one of these distinguished professors, will show a ring laser gyroscope (the audience will view it on a large screen), briefly explain how it functions, and remind everyone to check back on it in one hour. After one hour of hard debating, the ring laser gyroscope will show a 15 degree rotation (everyone will see it on the screen). You will then say, "well, you are just claiming that the Earth is rotating, the formula you are using can't represent the Sagnac effect". They will look at each other, smile, and respond "show us your formula". Since you do not have a formula, everyone in the audience will start to believe that the Earth is really rotating around its own axis.
 
You are now in front of a very large audience, defending FET. Right next to you, the best, the most proemiment of the heliocentrists. Right at the start of the debate, one of these distinguished professors, will show a ring laser gyroscope (the audience will view on a large screen), briefly explain how it functions, and remind everyone to check on it in one hour. After one hour of hard debating, the ring laser gyroscope will show a 15 degree rotation (everyone will see it on the screen). You will then say, "well, you are just claiming that the Earth is rotating, the formula you are using can't represent the Sagnac effect". They will look at each other, smile, and respond "show us your formula". Since you do not have a formula, everyone in the audience will start to believe that the Earth is really rotating around its own axis.
You are now using hypothetical situations to defend the "claim".
 
No, it happened for real, some one and half years ago (february 2019). Bob Knodel obtained a $20,000 ring laser gyroscope, and it registered a 15 degree rotation, after one hour.
 
I think a lot of modern maths and science has deliberately been developed to confuse and cloud our reality, such as relativity, black holes, dark matter etc.... Many experiments are so complex and are affected by so many variables that it is hard to get meaningful results. Things were much simpler in the past, experiments could usually be seen and understood by most observers and the maths was usually straight forward (at least compared to todays maths which is responsible for big bang and black holes).

The whole thing with the Sagnac effect is that the interpretation of these experiments relies on certain assumptions you have made. No matter how well you argue against this result showing rotation, it will fall on deaf ears as your argument does not start with the same assumptions as they have. Ultimately you are wasting your time thinking that any main stream physicist would debate you on this topic - in their reality the FE is impossible, ridiculous and a waste of their time thinking about it. You can't debate someone with that mind set as they aren't listening to you and their response will demonstrate this. No argument can be effective if it isn't listened to. It would be a lot like this guy experiences, no matter what he says they just respond with a typical put down and go back to talking about burgers :) Ultimately you could take a typical main stream physicst up in a space ship, high enough to see a vast plain stretching our in every direction, you could fly over the ice wall and he still wouldn't beiliev you - would probably accuse you of drugging him and after the journey he would convince himself that it didn't really happen.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKS0DEytHw


For me this thread is more about us exchanging thoughts and ideas with those who are already interested in the topic, rather than trying to come up with arguments to convert RE believers. The only time someone changes their mind is when they take the time to look into it for themselves, very rarely because someone beat them in a debate. Think about how many still believe 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, mad cows disease, swine flu, bird flu, zika virus, all vaccines good, all medicine good, goverment is good and caring, terrorists everywhere, Russian agents everywhere, etc, etc, etc. Reasoned debate and evidence never converts there beilievers, as Morpheus said - 'no one can be shown the matrix, they have to see it for themselves'

Going back to push forces, and using 'traditional' science, here is a book that I've just put a bid on - 'The Book of Science' 1835. Hopefully some interesting stuff will still exist within these pages, before modern distortion of science took fully hold. It is designed, and dumbed down, for children as stated by this sub title:

'A FAMILIAR INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY ADAPTED TO THE COMPREHENSION OF YOUNG PEOPLE.'

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/254806722807?autorefresh=true
A quick look at the contents will show you how much we have been dumbed down, imagine trying to teach all of this in schools today. What caught my attention was on one the last pages shown in the item description, which talks about hydrostatics. There is an image of someone holding a very long, thin tube with a funnel at the top, pouring water in to create pressure on something. Hopefully no one else will bid for this book and I'll be able to read more about it from the perspecive of push forces. From the image it looks as though the push force created by the water lifts up the person doing the pouring, which is very counterintuitive to me! Could this have been a method to lift heavy objects/bricks etc in the past?
 
Wowsers indeed.

This thread covers so much ground that we never finish one line of thought.

Now, this future debate with a physicist ......sounds wonderful.
in my wildest dream.
First, I would stipulate that each debater be connected to a lie detector device. or take a truth serum. It's my dream, so it can and will happen.

Each time an honest but deluded heliocentrist physicist would trot out the magic gyroscope, I would ask him to explain how it makes water seek its own level in oceans. How Chicago is clearly visible from 50 miles across a lake.
How air exists on earth with a complete vacuum 62 miles up.

Because a device says that light in the aether travels at the same speed as the stars.

If the globe could be proven, physicists would be all over the internet with unimpeachable data. They aren't. They known that they are being paid to disseminate a pack of lies. The 3 P's rule them. Their paycheck, prestige, pension. So they take the payola and keep their true cosmology on the down-low.
 
No, it happened for real, some one and half years ago (february 2019). Bob Knodel obtained a $20,000 ring laser gyroscope, and it registered a 15 degree rotation, after one hour.
Haha if that your go to reference then you are in real trouble, may as well bring in mark sealant and his boy freind patricia the steer!
 
Could the pressure be from vortices?
Say a very wide one driven by the rotating sky with many smaller ones within it?
Debating with anyone with a fixed idea of their reality is a waste of time and effort as;

You cannot teach a pig to sing.
It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
 
The greatest mathematician of the 19th century, G.F.B. Riemann, also solved the mystery of terrestrial gravitation (1853).

B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension".

Downward motion provided by the shower of cosmic subquarks:

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

I. Newton


https://cds.cern.ch/record/223258/files/9202054.pdf

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.

Anti-graviton = laevorotatory subquark = positron

Graviton = dextrorotatory subquark = electron

Exactly the subquark model derived earlier:

In this ultimate state of physical matter two types of units, or Anu, have been observed; they are alike in everything save the direction of their whorls and of the force which pours through them. In the one case force pours in from the "outside," from fourth-dimensional space, the Astral plane, and passing through the Anu, pours into the physical world. In the second, it pours in from the physical world, and out through the Anu into the "outside" again, i.e., vanishes from the physical world. The one is like a spring, from which water bubbles out; the other is like a hole, into which water disappears.

Ether vortex model, published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics.

Dr. Ellis' groundbreaking paper takes GTR from a singularity to a drainhole aether model, the paper was published in the JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS.

Now, the mathematical theory for the absorption/emission of aether through a Planck length level particle.

http://euclid.colorado.edu/~ellis/RelativityPapers/EtFlThDrPaMoGeRe.pdf

Ether flow through a drainhole: a particle model in general relativity

Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1973



Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."

The absorption of aether causes the density of aether to decrease (between two objects, as an example), the pressure of the ether waves will cause these objects to move toward each other.


Tides and Radio Waves

Walter gives credit for the initial impetus to investigate the PUSH GRAVITY concept to his son TOM. Tom was only 6 years old when he told his father that he did not believe that the Moon created the tides. When Walter asked him why, Tom launched into his idea of a pushing force which created pressure waves to move the water.

How Dr. T. Henry Moray, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, discovered these telluric currents:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.


Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:

Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.


In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.
 
Why are we devolving into gravity theories again?
This relates to flat earth, how?
Other than a ploy to rationalize an alleged force to counter the real effects of centrifugal force.

I do not disagree with wave motion of the aether.
Does it flow inside matter? Is aether flow in ocean a separate movement from the great waves of water, like the Gulf Stream?

In my experience, and from experiments in high school physics, wave patterns stop or reflect off a hard surface. Aether flows in a rock?

Gravity, let us be very clear on this issue, is a property of matter.
All those high-falutin' theories with imaginative constants do is clutter up the clean slate of logic.

Now, why does dielectricity sometimes bond to form matter, while other times it sloshes around as radiation or plasma or packets of intelligence?

A computer program could do it.
Outside the motherboard of that program may be another reality.
Or maybe an aether that is pure energy, which imagines that it can be a real boy.

I guess @sandokhan will require a formula.
r = m +c^2 [l-3.1416] x Y.

I do not apologize for my silly soiree of speculation. Theoreticians do it all the time with no empirical date or solid math.

The true math is this: 8xdxd.

The globe curves 8 inches times miles squared.
 
Very interesting stuff here, and thanks for everyone for their input. It’s sent me off rifling through my Antarctica notes to find the quote by Capt. Robert Falcon Scott on the clarity of of the atmosphere on the ice shelf. Words to the effect of “An exceptionally clear day today, Mount ??? (Must find source note) clearly visible to all at a distance of 112 miles.”
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top