Flat Earth
- Thread starter grav
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2020
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 510
It seems like before the year 1600 a lot of world maps included that land at the north Pole.
I have heard Santos Bonacci claim that the north Pole is actually a tropical area. Can anyone provide reference material for this claim?
The middle circle ("equator"), what does this represent on a flat earth model?
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
The sun circles the flat earth between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
The equator? besides being the warmest latitude is ? a useful demarcation for navigation.
When I was a child, explorers traveled on dog sleds over snow-covered land to reach the North Pole. No land now. The Arctic Ocean has taken over that region on modern maps.
- - - - -
The equator? besides being the warmest latitude is ? a useful demarcation for navigation.
When I was a child, explorers traveled on dog sleds over snow-covered land to reach the North Pole. No land now. The Arctic Ocean has taken over that region on modern maps.
- - - - -
| What the heck is a Hyperborea? www.hyperborea.org/whatisit.html Hyperborea does have its origins in Greek myth, as a land much like that which appears in the Sinbad film. Untouched by the long northern winter, the land was a virtual paradise, and was said to be the winter home of Apollo. Hyperborea: Mythical Land That Fascinated Writers of the ... www.ancient-origins.net/.../hyperborea-0013923 Jul 01, 2020 · Hyperborea is a location in Greek mythology. The inhabitants of this mythical land are known as Hyperboreans, whom the ancient Greeks believed enjoyed extremely long lives. Hyperborea is mentioned by a number of Greek and Roman writers, including Herodotus, Pliny the Elder, and Pindar. Author: Dhwty HYPERBOREA - Fabulous Northern Land of Greek Legend www.theoi.com/Phylos/Hyperborea.html PARENTS Human tribe descended from GAIA (Hesiod Catalogues Frag 40A) See full list on theoi.com Hyperborean | Definition of Hyperborean by Merriam-Webster www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperborean Hyperborean definition is - a member of a people held by the ancient Greeks to live beyond the north wind in a region of perpetual sunshine. hyperborean Has Roots in Greek Mythology |
The capricorn circle (over flat earth) has a wider diameter right? If yes, is the speed of sun higher when its circling over the capricorn and vice versa?
By the way. The measured angle speed of movement of the sun over you during the day is constant. How is that achieved for every person on flat earth?
(The height of the sun makes no difference since the same angle speed from horizon to horizon still must be achieved.)
And why is the visible diameter of the sun the same when its far away and when it is in zenith?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
Ah, so. Bittybit has many questions. So do I.
Like these - -
a. Speed. The sun travels around half a million mph. The globe swirls around it at 66,600 mph, in addition to its rotation at 1000 mph. And we feel nothing, because of the space-time continuum relativity factor where energy is the speed of light squared.
So, Bittybit and physicists, how can I verify these speeds using the Scientific Method at home?
b. Seasons. Here in the USA, we enjoy warm summer temperatures when the sun is 3 million miles FURTHER away (aphelion) than in the winter (perihelion). The axial tilt (66°) of an 8,000-mile wide planet appears to be the reason for the seasons, not the much yuuger 3,000,000 mile distance.
c. Midnight Sun. This image,
https://stolenhistory.net/attachmen...d]=3724&hash=f98815865a33273eb3b1d9ee9d73d6dd(which this device does not want to embed) shows the sun staying above the horizon over 24 hours near the Arctic. The only videos which purport that the midnight sun also appears in the Antarctic are, well . . . faulty (Photoshopped).
By the way, the sun's size does change during the day. Most of the effect occurs because of atmospheric refraction. But that only works with a close sun, not a behemoth that traverses the universe 93 million miles away.
Ill say it again. Astrophysicists know their model stinks to high heaven. But their paychecks, pensions, and prestige are more important to them than the Truth.
Like these - -
a. Speed. The sun travels around half a million mph. The globe swirls around it at 66,600 mph, in addition to its rotation at 1000 mph. And we feel nothing, because of the space-time continuum relativity factor where energy is the speed of light squared.
So, Bittybit and physicists, how can I verify these speeds using the Scientific Method at home?
b. Seasons. Here in the USA, we enjoy warm summer temperatures when the sun is 3 million miles FURTHER away (aphelion) than in the winter (perihelion). The axial tilt (66°) of an 8,000-mile wide planet appears to be the reason for the seasons, not the much yuuger 3,000,000 mile distance.
c. Midnight Sun. This image,
https://stolenhistory.net/attachmen...d]=3724&hash=f98815865a33273eb3b1d9ee9d73d6dd(which this device does not want to embed) shows the sun staying above the horizon over 24 hours near the Arctic. The only videos which purport that the midnight sun also appears in the Antarctic are, well . . . faulty (Photoshopped).
By the way, the sun's size does change during the day. Most of the effect occurs because of atmospheric refraction. But that only works with a close sun, not a behemoth that traverses the universe 93 million miles away.
Ill say it again. Astrophysicists know their model stinks to high heaven. But their paychecks, pensions, and prestige are more important to them than the Truth.
Attachments
Last edited:
You can add and substract similar speeds when you are sitting in an airplane, and as long as you arent measuring the ground, you are not really "feeling" any difference between the different speed.
"yuuger" = about 3% closer, adding theoretical 7% more effect.
The difference of axialt tilt (23°) with longer days and higher sun has a much bigger impact. You should easily disapprove this effect by experiment with the mainstram solar system and measure the absorbed energy.
However note though, Australia is closest to the sun during their summer. (->they have a problem with skin cancer)
Seems it is relatively easy to access, why havent anyone proven the antarctica midnight sun doesnt exist?
https://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/antarctica_travel_home.phphttps://explore.quarkexpeditions.com/blog/can-i-travel-to-antarcticaRegarding the argument of that image, the size of the sun can be measured with a telescope.
You can easily do this any day, all year around.
https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/telescope_projection_m.jpg
Using a camera image to measure the size of a light source, is exactly that kind of technical stupidity i was talking about previously.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
gee, we've only had this conversation like 666 times.
"sitting in an airplane" is the same as standing on the ground. really?
If you had said "sitting ON top of an airplane" I might have taken you seriously.
But INside an enclosed cabin with windows and walls and an air handling system, well, that sounds like a terrarium.
sheesh
tsk
Wait. What?
Why hasn't someone proven it doesn't exist?
Doesn't the claimant of a thing have to provide burden of proof ?
Research stations in Antarctica in winter are not an easy gig to get.
And there are dozens of them. With big funding. to protect the penguins and keep explorers from littering the ice.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
That was a George Carlin skit. Don't watch him while drinking OJ!
Get on the plane. Get on the plane." I... - George Carlin Quotes | Facebook
m.facebook.com › posts
George Carlin Quotes · May 13, 2014 ·. "Get on the plane. Get on the plane." I say, ***k you, I'm getting IN the plane! IN the plane! Let Evil Knievel get ON the plane! I'll be in here with you folks in uniform!
George Carlin: The term Jumbo Shrimp has always amazed me. What is a Jumbo Shrimp? I mean, it's like Military Intelligence- the words don't go together, man.<br>
www.quotes.net › show-quote
The effect of gravity is the same on top of the airplane, except the air is obviously blowing in your face.
So you mean if the earth ball is rotating, the atmosphere should blow in your face just like when the airplane is moving thru the air?
Should that apply to air moisture in the sky as well, how about small drops of water, how about the oceans?
Huh? I just linked several sites that offers trips for anyone to antarctica. Since FE have big conferences with people travel from all around the world, and some flat earthers even build rockets to shoot themselves into space, organizing just one trip to antarctica seems like a pretty easy thing to do.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
ok, your use of the "effect of gravity" is acceptable. Specific gravity is a property of matter, also called particle density. You were careful to avoid equating gravity with a force of nature.
But you ignore another so-called force, that of centrifugal force, which throws objects off a rotating surface. Rim velocity can not be denied, as anyone at a carnival experiences. Example: sit on the edge of a carousel and see what happens when it speeds up to a whopping 5 or so mph.
A major gapjng hole in the spinning ball fake science. It props up this fairy tale of oceans of air and water which adhere to a sphere that rotates, revolves, and races in space vacuum. And clouds also manage to rotate 1000 mph, revolve 66,600 moh, and race .5 million mph as if Superglued in place to the globe.
I think the airplane analogy needs to be retired from debate. Carnival rides are much more applicable.
It is a tough job, defending the heliocentric system. But it is just not accomplishable. After a while, your arguments get just plain silly, or else you introduce more non sequiturs than you can shake a stick at.
Antarctica, now now. You know very well that excursions below 60°S are either forbidden or restricted to tourist traps. Not unlike sneaking into Area 51 or the inner sanctum of the Bilderbergers.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2020
- Messages
- 211
- Reaction score
- 643
There is a problem with this argument. In your example, 5mph would feel really fast and you'd be thrown off of course. However, a small roundabout spinning at 5mph would have a fast rate of rotation, maybe once a second? Now imagine the same roundabout spinning at the rate of one revolution per day, i.e. it takes 24 hours to rotate once. Imagine sitting for 24 hours watching this roundabout turn once, you would really struggle to see any movement unless you filmed and time lapsed it. Now imagine a microscopic lifeform living on the roundabout, would it feel this motion? The problem here comes from treating linear and rotational motion as if they are the same, if our roundabout was 'earth size' and still turned once a day then its linear speed would look much higher, but the rotational speed remains the same, i.e. i rev per day. So if we were spinning once a day I honestly don't think we could feel it.
This doesn't prove anything either way of course, just because it's theoretically possible for the earth to be moving without us feeling it doesn't mean that it is. I think Airy's failure, the experiment with the telescope and water, proves that the earth is stationary in a much clearer way
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bynntFteCFs
I remember learning about this experiment back when I studied physics. The lecturer was the head of dept, a great guy and an extremely intelligent professor. He explained what happened and how we couldn't really explain it, and then just shrugged his shoulders with a mischevious grin and moved on lol. I think because we all accepted back then that the earth moved and never questioned it, we all just thought that these was one of those funny experiments that gave unexpected results and couldn't be explained. The same professor also taught us about the Michelson Morely experiment, which he treated in a similar way. He gave me the distinct impression that he thought the ether exisited, although I had no idea what the ether was back then - had never heard of it until being taught about that experiment! We had a great physics department back then, apart from that prof we had a senior lecturer who disagreed with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and wasn't afraid to voice this, and another who supports the electric universe and has appeared on a thunderbolts podcast! They're all retired now, they don't make them like that anymore.....
Edit - One of them hasn't quite retired yet, they just wish he had - here is his most recent paper attacking the 2nd Law (dum dum daaaa!)
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-18137-6_7
'In this paper I trace the origins of the concept of entropy laid down by Clausius in the middle of the nineteenth century. I will show how Clausius failed to link the mathematical structure he was developing to physical processes and consider the implications for our understanding of the Second Law. Finally, I address the question: if the theory of thermodynamics is as flawed as I believe it is, what should we be teaching our students? How can we encourage students to examine critically the connection between maths and physics and at the same time teach a theory in which this connection appears to be missing?'
I emphasised the part about Clausius in the middle of the nineteenth century - there's that time period again! How much fake science was put in place during this time I wonder...
Last edited:
yes, If you make a carnival ride along the equator with the same curvature as esrth going in the opposite direction as esrth rotation, i think your weight would increase by about 0,34% due to nullifying the normal centrifugal force.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
RPMs and revolutions per day may be useful for some applications, but not for centrifugal force. Speed is speed is speed.
One rpd, so? The ground spinning at 1000 mph would chunk off an elephant or a bulldizer in a nanosecond. Mountains would crumble, oceans would turn into tsunamis, the whole ball of dirt and rock would disintegrate instantly.
Rim velocity is what matters. 1000 miles per hour. Golly gee, that would blow the doors off the Batmobile.
Nothing could withstand flying off at a tangent from a giant ball spinning at mach 1.5. So this rpd business is a useless comparison.
And Bob's professor who shrugged off experiments which failed to show earrh's movement. Well there you go! same ol' same 'ol false authorities.
That's what they do, these experts who make up fairy tales and call them theories.
They torture logic with false constants (like the speed of light) and when you catch them with their britches down, they shrug and grin and drop their microphones and say "my bad" and collect their paychecks for their peer-reviewed hogwash.
Frater Lapis
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2020
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12
View: https://youtu.be/DMKcO-T5Y4o
centrifugal force works on the above scale just like when i spin a bucket with water in it attached to a piece of string, try it out see if you get a differing result.
No matter the size of the object the rules are the same.
T^hat one is only doing 60mph!
Not really directly FE related but this guy is worth 10 mins as he very eloquently destroys the scien-trific dogma and it's ever evolving narrative.
View: https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
- Messages
- 509
- Reaction score
- 1,209
We do?
No evidence, no proof, ignores speed.
It also ignores air synching with 1000 mph spin, 66,600 mph orbit, .5 million mph solar system speed.
