1) Modern Science and Astronomy tells us:
- We are traveling some 24,000 miles around at the Equator each day in a 24 hour period. This means we are spinning at 1,000 mph every moment of every day at the beltline of Planet Earth. (24,000 mi/24 hrs = 1,000 mph)
- We are some 93 million miles from the Sun and additionally traveling some 583 million miles around the Sun in 365 days, or a return to ones birthday. This equates to some 68,000 mph or 1,000 miles per second (190,000,000/365/60/60)
- We are additionally told that our solar system travels around our entire Milky Way Galaxy over a 25,940 year time period, or also know as Plato’s Great Year. This means our entire solar system, led by the Sun is also moving at over 500,000 mph.
- We are also told that our galaxy rotates around four other neighboring galaxies.
Wow, that’s a lot of motion and spin going on.
Yet we never, ever feel any motion.
Scientific explanation; that the mass of the Earth is too big to feel any of this motion.
2) When we travel in an airplane we can go East to West or North to South or West to East or South to North and except for jet streams, weather and trade winds, we arrive at our destinations at relatively the same time.
- The distance from San Francisco to Hawaii (East to West) is nearly equidistant as the air miles and time traveling from San Francisco to New York (West to East). The travel times by airplane are within one-half hour of each other.
How is this possible on an Earth that is rotating from the West to the East at 1,000 mph?
If I am traveling from SFO to Hawaii on a commercial jet traveling at 500 mph, I should travel the 3,000 miles to Hawaii in just 1 1/2 hours instead of the 5 1/4 hours it takes since the Earth is spinning towards the plane some 1,000 miles every hour.
If I am traveling West to East from SFO to NYC, in the direction the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph, and my plane is only traveling at only 500 mph, I should never be able to make it to NYC. Instead it takes a little over 5 hours, same as SFO to Hawaii.
If I am traveling from Buenos Aries, Argentina along nearly the same longitudinal plane as NYC, from South to North, and the flight takes 8 hours, the plane would have to aim towards Near Asia to meet the Earth spinning West to East at 1,000 mph. But it doesn’t.
When Felix Baumgartner made history in 2012 and jumped from 24 miles up reaching speeds of over 800 mph and free fell for over 4 minutes.
Yet he never had to adjust for an Earth that would of moved some 66.66 miles from where he actually landed while in free fall.
Scientific explanation: We are all inside a atmospheric “cocoon” , held in by Newton’s Laws of Gravity and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, much like people inside a plane all travel at the same speed, even though outside the plane is moving at 500 mph.
So this would mean that at some point in our atmosphere we are in a bubble, or embryo where all those inside the “bubbble” move at the same speed whether it be a plane, person or planet.
Yet when dropping a kite rises in wind. A feather floats gently to the ground. A book falls with force generated and brick falls faster than all.
And there is no place science describes where this Earth bubble ends in our atmosphere and the 1,000 mph per minute plus 1,000 miles per second plus 500,000 mph are ever felt.
Hmmm.
***
Now note how the same altitude there are two completely different Earth horizons, taken from the exact same location and distance and time.
One curved, provided by the Smithstonian Institute
One Flat ……taken by same camera with no Photoshopping???
Science likely explanation. Different camera lenses used.
FLAT Earth! Taken from International Space Station.
Thought for the Month:
Aplanetruth.info 
Ok so there is overwhelming evidence against earth spinning.
And I am suspending my unbelief because I
Have always wanted to know the truth about
about everything ( just wired that way)
So please explain:
What about earthquake waves and the
Time it takes to be received by seismic stations
And the shadow zone?
If I throw a ball upwards, wouldn’t it just have
the same angular momentum as the surface of the earth
as it “spins” and therefore be carried along
Forwards and show no perceptible retardation?
LikeLike
If you toss a ball up and the Earth is spinning, how does it come back to you, no matter how high you throw it (no wind). how does a plane go East @ 500 mph, with the spin @ 1,000 mph and ever get to its destination?
Angular Momentum is said to cause our Earth to spin without resitance over millions of years without any change. ever. WTF?
LikeLike
Its called frames of reference. i learned in grade school science that if you throw a ball into the air, to you it looks like its simply moving up and down, because both object (you and the ball) are being flung through space at the exact same speed, so it looks to you as if there is no change. buddy, i have unequivocal proof that this is true. next time ur in a train or car, throw something up in the air. does it fling back at you at 60 mph like you say is should? no. it simply falls back into your hands. basic science.
LikeLike
It comes back to you because 1. the atmosphere spins with the Earth 2. because nothing causes the ball to stop moving. If you are in a car and you toss a ball up, why doesn’t it fall backwards?
And no the rate of spinning has in fact slowed down.
LikeLike
Actually Earth rotate .25 degree per hour according to science. But they failed to mention the coriolis effect on a bullet which contradict the velcro atmosphere theory of the curvature. Bad science and we’ll never get to the truth.
LikeLike
So, um… the two photos you show from space at the end of your article, the ones you say show a flat horizon…. they’re curved. You can see the curve right there in the photos.
Furthermore, the first Red Bull photo showing the exaggerated curve on the horizon also shows that straight boom as being curved as well… indicating that a fish-eye lense was used… Are you suggesting that NASA photoshoppers are so poor at their jobs that they can’t fake a curved horizon without also accidentally making other straight things curved as well?
Also, you’re using a straw man argument when saying the scientific explanation for our (obvious) motion relative to the earth is a bubble. No-one who understands high-school level science would make that claim. But you claim they do, and then easily defeat the argument…. that on one is making.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Skye: It’s not about NASA photoshoppers not doing it right, it is about the fact that the “CURVED” earth photo is the only one on display in the Smithsonian. Now, if they did display them side by side, what do you think people would think? Ahhhh, that they photoshopped the earth to be curved when indeed it was not.
LikeLike
‘in the train the ball falls in your hand because it is thrown only at a short distance upward. It has some inertia. Try throwing the ball very high on a topless train and it will lose inertia proportionally to the distance and fall behind and not in the same place from where you threw it. Commonsense ! The earth does not spin.
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff. But, you are looking at things wrong.
Try throwing and catching a ball while travelling on a train. To you, travelling on the train, it goes normally up and down. It does not suddenly shoot to the end of the train – because you are throwing it relative to you. The same applies from the earth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
see above response. Before calling someone “wrong” please examine your own biased premises.
Earth is not on a train. there are not tracks. there is no steam engine. you just cannot introduce things that are not complimentary to the test subject just do to familiarity. Keep searching for truth and one helpful hint, you need not destroy fE theory. Just debase and debunk heliocentrism.
Bonus: Why do we call it a sunrise and sunset to this day?
We see the Moon move in the sky, we see the Sun move in the sky, yet “science” tells us one is true the other is a lie! Get It?
Check out why the Moon in the shadows is warmer than in direct light as an experiment using a simple laser thermometer you can purchase for $18.
30/33 Why is Moonlight Hotter in the Shade?
https://aplanetruth.info/2016/01/26/3033-why-is-moonlight-hotter-in-the-shade/
LikeLike
But you can still tell you are on a train and that the train is moving.
LikeLike
Ok now imagine throwing the same ball on an open train with no roof or sides, where does the ball go?
LikeLike
earth is not a train
earth is not an elevator
earth is not a bucket at the end of a rope and swung around to prove gravity
Your premise is flawed from inception
LikeLike
Sorry for my english if i type something wrong in advance (is not my language), what i want to say is that you got it all wrong, you are saying if you throw a ball up IN a train but the correct is ON the train we are not living IN the earth but ON the earth, try to be ON a train and throw a ball up and see where it will ends.
LikeLike
Iam italian and english is not my first language (duh), but you forget that we live ON the Earth, but IN the atmosphere. The train ex. can be explained like this: We live IN the atmosphere, let’s compare it to a train. If you throw a ball IN a train it will land on your hand: same thing with the atmosphere.
LikeLike
With your planes, before taking off they are travelling 1000 mph along = east to west already.
After takeoff – one accelerates to 1500mph east, but the ground is travelling 1000mph, so speed over ground is 500mph east.
the one going west starts at 1000mph, and ‘slows down’ to 500mph – allowing the ground (at 1000mph) to travel under it slower. speed between the ground and airplane – 500mph.
Think of when you look out a train window and see the train next to you pulling away. It’s difficult to tell whether you are moving or they are moving until you see the station (a third frame of reference).
LikeLiked by 1 person
think of the Earth as not spinning and it all makes perfect sense we are not moving and that is why a plane can go in any direction, clouds can go in any direction, smoke can go in any direction and WE NEVER FEEL A THING. We are NOT in a car, we are NOT in an elevator, we are not on a plane. These are all misleading theories that make no sense because Earth is NOT encased by metal shielding! think!
This is the same inane argument used on gravity that all science parrots…the bucket of water with string attached and then spin around…and viola…you show gravity. Their is no metal water bucket on EArth, and water should be on the OUTSIDE of the water bucket…and is gravity the ‘string”? supposedly? Yet, everyone parrots the exact same nonsense, that even under the most basic of analysis fails completely.
http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/swinging-pail-water-head/
Is Sir Isaac Newton’s “Law of Gravity” Just One Great Big 500 Yr. Old Lie?
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/02/25-is-sir-isaac-newtons-law-of-gravity-just-one-great-big-lie/
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/02/25-is-sir-isaac-newtons-law-of-gravity-just-one-great-big-lie/
LikeLike
With regards to a plane accelerating to 1500 mph to ovecome the earths spin, would mean that it would have to go supersonic. The only commercial airplane I know of was the Concorde which is no longer in service?..
LikeLiked by 1 person
The plane only goes at 500 mph relative to the atmosphere, so it’s not moving at supersonic speeds through the atmosphere, only through space, which doesn’t care if you’re supersonic or not.
LikeLike
some questions concerning gravity
1)A bowling ball and feather fall at the same speed in a vacuum (Proven and demonstrated could also be a Sherman Tank and a piece of fluff )so one would logically have to deduce that the attraction of so called gravity is equally applied to any object regardless of size, shape, material , consistency or mass, and equal to the product of their masses. Newton’s law of universal gravitation states hat “any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”.If Newton’s third law stating that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, is correct, every time an object is dropped for example on Earth does this mean the Earth would be drawn up an equal amount by the gravitational pull of the object (Equal to the product of their mass attracting each other) and collide half way?.
2)The weak force of gravity cannot hold the universe together but can, in a black hole pull galaxies into it. Surely also as for every action there is supposed to be an equal but opposite reaction (Newton)those same galaxies should collectively be pulling the black hole apart.
3)Gravitational force is supposed to be the attraction between bodies of mass, the greater the mass the greater the attraction. To the best of my knowledge air and the gasses making up our atmosphere are of minimal mass or they would crush us, yet they are able to overcome the absolute vacuum of space which should have sucked them away eons ago. So saying, hypothetically and stupidly, according to this theory, one would not be able to create a vacuum in a vessel on Earth unless the air was sucked from the bottom thus being assisted and not resisted by gravity. Gravity is strong enough to keep these low mass gasses on Earth yet water vapour, many times the mass of air molucles, in the form of clouds is able to easily resist this gravity and drift unhindered around our skies for thousands of miles and any direction. This coincidentally is the only vehicle that delivers life giving fresh water to the worlds land masses, without which nothing animal or vegetable, besides salt water creatures could live
LikeLike
you’ve drunk too much koolaid. gravity does not exists, gravis simply means weight. Black holes created to sell heliocentric theory, vacuum in space is another “story of fiction” created to sell heliocentrism. please search this website before posting comments that have been answered in depth already, thanx.
LikeLike
jwlpeace,
I’ve looked at 4 links above, and wasn’t able to find a definition of weight. Am I missing something?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, simple question: Where are the proofs of the consiparcy?
LikeLike
What I was trying to say is that the concept of gravity and absolute space vacuum are hogwash and fully agree with your posts on them and most of the other subjects you present!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
This is so fucking funny. If any of you want me to disprove all of this bs, please comment. I wouldnt bother otherwise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
you can start with the words, “Conservation of Axial Movement
“, or “Libation” if you desire.
LikeLike
Ok, just saw the reply now. Let’s do this:
1)Imagine you are sitting in a windowless car driving on a highway at, let’s say, a constant 100 mph. Would you be able to find out whether you are moving or stationary without seeing the outside world? No, because your reference frame, the car, seemingly isn’t moving at all. An observer would be able to tell whether or not you are moving because you are moving through his reference frame. A different example is a train ride. You only have to balance yourself when the train is speeding up or slowing down. This is due to inertia, Newton’s 1st law of motion. It states that an object with or without a certain velocity will not change velocity unless a force is acted upon it. If you were to free-float in the train while it decelerated, you would, relative to the train, move forward and eventually smash through against the front. Because gravity (or call it weight or whatever the fuck you want) is keeping you on the ground, your feet stay at the same position while your body is still moving at the previous speed and, unless you balance yourself (meaning you act a force upon your body) you will fall over.
So, why would the movements of the earth rotating and moving through space affect you at all? Unless the earth’s rotation was slowing down (which it does, but not fast enough to feel it) quite rapidly you could never tell you and the earth were moving at all.
2)Now, if we apply the above concept it becomes clear why planes do not have shorter travel times when travelling east or west. Earth rotating at 1000 mph means that the atmosphere and everything touching it and the earth must also travel at that rotational speed. If the atmosphere didn’t rotate with the earth, there would be a constant global storm with wind speeds of 1000 mph. Airplanes are, by default, moving with the earth. When moving east or west, they change their motion relative to the earth and atmosphere. When moving clockwise with the earth’s rotation, they only speed up relative to that and add their speed to the earth’s. Meaning that an airplane moving at 100 mph clockwise has a speed of 100 mph relative to a stationary reference frame on earth and a speed of 100 mph + 1000 mph relative to an observer on a stationary reference frame not on earth, of course ignoring earth’s motion in it’s orbit around the sun.
When moving counter-clockwise the airplane still moves 100 mph relative to earth’s surface but to the outside observer it would move at 1000 mph – 100 mph.
This is a great short video explaining this question:
Please reply if you do not understand or have objections and I may delve deeper into the topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is so freaking funny. If any of you want me too disprove all of this bs with logic and science, please comment. I couldnt bother otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
go for it, please keep relevant, show evidence and be respectful or i will not post. this site is for investigation and inquiry, Father Time, if you want ridicule and scorn and to be deluded, see NASA. thanx
LikeLike
why do we have phases of moon if moon is emitting its own light
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has anybody done a study, measuring the force of earths gravity pulling on any of us individually..My mass compared to the mass of the earth is nothing. Should we even be able to move. I’m not a scientist, just asking.
LikeLike
Has anybody done a study on gravity of the earth vs the individual person. My mass compared to that of the earths is nothing. Should I even be able to move? I’m not a scientist, so what is the answer?
LikeLike
there is no such thing as gravity. Gravity means “weight” yet the word weight is not even used by Newton. Buoyancy, Density and WEight. Please educate yourself with links above.
LikeLike
*jwlpeace – you are an idiot. 185 pounds on the earth weighs 30.7 pounds on the Moon.
Weight is a measurement of the gravitational affect on any object.
The more massive the planet, the more a same object weights.
http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_gravity.phtml
LikeLiked by 2 people
21st Century technology proofs that the Earth rotates:
Earth’s rotation rate can be measured using various different methods. Modern geodetic techniques include:
1. Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI)
2. Satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS) or of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS)
3. Laser ranging to artificial Earth satellites of the Lageos or Starlette (Satellite Laser Ranging)
4. Earth remote sensing satellites like ERS1, ERS2 or TOPEX/POSEIDON and Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR).
5. Gyroscopes; accurate measurements of the Earth’s rotation rate can be obtained by using high quality gyroscopes, such as ring laser gyros (RLG) included in tactical grade inertial measurement units.
6. Surveying land over a distance greater than a few miles.
7. Construction engineering for span bridges (ie, Golden Gate Bridge) over water.
8. Airline flight navigation adjustments needed for the Coriolis affect.
9. Foucault pendulum
10. others
LikeLiked by 3 people
Why do you believe that the earth is flat? Is it demanded by your religious conviction or do you just have a low IQ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@jhohn the scientist, why bother argue with 5 year olds, the guy sais educated with evidence in his links yet there is non, he claims religous devotion yet he calls the pope a satan worshiper, btw OP the pope is jesuit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laugh my ass off, it’s spelled says not sais. If you’re going to ridicule someone’s IQ you might want to get your spelling correct.
Explain seasons….
If the moon doesn’t exist, explain tides…
Explain why on the southern hemisphere, looking at the moon is like looking at the moon from the northern, on your head…
Explain the why long distance shooters take into account the Coriolis effect….
LikeLiked by 3 people
By looking at this picture (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160716.html), it is clear that something is spinning. It is either the earth, or everything else visible above us.
Images takes of the sky over the equator (http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3002915) are quite different. How does this image of movement connect to the first one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this website is in danger of being over run by those who have no interest in flat earth and only want to ridicule those who are interested in it.
LikeLike
yea, that is what i deal with everyday. they are paid to disrupt and refute and have been attacking this site since inception. However, the plane truth is getting out to more and more and more,pass it on.
LikeLike
Paid??? That is just not true in my case..
Disrupt? All I did above was post evidence of spinning, with a conclusion that it is either the earth or everything above us. I was adding details to the exact title of this post.
Having found another photo of star tracks near the equator, I included that; just in case this could be helpful in discussing earth and spinning.
I guess I thought such details would lead to a better exchange based on ideas from direct observations. Kinda surprised no one chose to add their voice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So let’s assume I’m on a ball that is spinning 1000mph. If I shoot a bullet straight up into the air: according to relativity it would also be moving 1000mph horizontally at the same time that it is moving UP. Simple math says in 1 second the Earth would cover 0.27 miles aka 1000/60/60. When the bullet is a mile up in the sky and gravity stops it and it starts to fall back down, it would never land anywhere close to where it started. Its straight upward travel would always have to be an arc since the Earth moved a quarter mile in that second going up which means when it hits the ground it would hit 1/2 a mile away. And that’s using the same logic of throwing a ball in an airplane only now we project the object thrown covering a mile up taking 1 second up and 1 second down. Why doesn’t artillery ever take the motion of the Earth into account?
LikeLike
1. “it would never land anywhere close to where it started.” – is this your prediction, claim , or observation? It’s hard to understand what you’re speaking of.
2. “Why doesn’t artillery ever take the motion of the Earth into account?” – are you claiming the military doesn’t know how to hit targets?
Do you have any insight into how the military actually accomplishes artillery fire (to know what they do or don’t calculate for)?
Some additional clarification would be helpful. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m saying it looks like the Flat Earthers are correct. When bullets are shot straight up they often come very nearly to where they left. If Earth were actually spinning then the bullet would always end up like 1/2 a mile away. And all artillery would have to take the speed of the Earth into account but they don’t. This stuff just blows my mind. I’ve been called FEers nuts for about a month since I first discovered the idea. Now I think I’m a believer… egads!!!
LikeLike
It’s because the bullet is already moving at the same speed as you. When you fire it, the bullet is now moving at the product vector of the 1000 mph sideways movement and the upward motion it now has. As a result, it comes down very close to where it was fired, since both the bullet and you moved sideways at the same speed and therefore covered the same sideways distance.
LikeLike
WillieNAz,
Well, “then the bullet would always end up like 1/2 a mile away.” is a premise, and isn’t presumed to be true until tested thoroughly enough to find out how this actually works.
Reality of moving objects just might be more complex than simple everyday actions. To rule out a moving earth theory, actual negative test results compared to known observations would likely be needed.
As far as artillery, who can say what they do or don’t factor in, unless they are experts on the subject. A related question is if or how artillery takes into account the shape of the surface of the earth; do they aim at targets across a flat or curved surface?
I couldn’t find a source on that, but did find a 1967 military doc (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/826735.pdf) that used a rotation factor in artillary calculations (Compensation for Rotation of Earth).
LikeLike
What do you expect would happen if you are in a car going 1000 mph and fire a bullet out the window straight up? I would expect that the bullet would always land behind the car no matter if you are going east, west, north or south. I would expect that a bullet fired from an Earth moving 1000mph would always end up about 1/2 mile or more west of my current location, but they always come back very close to where they are fired from. And if I’m on the North Pole looking up (making snow angels) you’d think you could feel that 1000mph motion like the difference between sitting at the edge of the merry go round and looking out verses sitting in the center of the merry go round. I can see I’m going to have to go find a playground today, LOL.
LikeLike
WillieNAz,
Well now you’ve asked a different question. If you have questions and are looking for answers, think about what kind of test wold prove or disprove any possible answer.
This second question using a car isn’t the same scenario you were first discussing, so you need to be careful, so a test matches the problem or idea.
Any thoughts on military artillery? Did you check out what they say on the topic?
LikeLike
Just lay on a merry-go-round and have your friend spin it once in 24 hours. That should give you a good estimate.
LikeLike
I did look at the artillery document and my eyes mostly glazed over at the math. The section on accounting for the rotation of the Earth looked like b.s. I didn’t see any mention of accounting for east vs westward shots. If that extra calculation does anything it might compensate for tradewinds by pretending it has to do with rotation. So actually if you think about rotation… you’d have 1000mph max linear displacement at the equator… then as you move north or south from the equator (still assuming a globe) the felt speed would decrease since less miles are passing beneath a setpoint in the galaxy. The Earth is nearly 25000 at the equator, but halfway between the equator and the north pole you’d expect something like 12500 miles meaning 500mph, so once you got to a point near the north pole where there is a 24 mile circle it would take 1 hour for the Earth to rotate 1 mile (not accounting for the wobble). Inside a 24 foot circle the Earth would go 1 foot per hour, so your probably wouldn’t get nauseated too easily doing snow angels up there. Within a 24 inch circle which basically would be around your head as you lay there it would be an inch an hour. That’s like paint drying effect. So lay on a merry go round that is 6′ in diameter and turn in so 4″ at the edge move past a point every hour and that should be the same effect. A flat Earth could not rotate since if you draw wheel spokes from the north pole America would have 4 time zones in the continent, but someplace south of the equator like Africa could only have 2 or 3 zones since the wheel spokes would be so far apart, unless the sun and moon doing a ying yang spiral overhead might actually compensate for a rotating Earth. So rotation might exist whether the Earth is flat or not. If it is flat and rotating then the south pole is probably going at 50,000mph or more and you’d think the longitude and latitude calculations in artillery would have to take that into effect for certain.
LikeLike
Willie,
Dude, I bet you have no idea what you just said. Your comments about US military are incredibly disrespectful. “Well, the math was too much for me (my eyesight, actually), and I didn’t get the rotation stuff, so it sounds like BS”. Man, this is incredible. I didn’t get the math myself; maybe only a few out of a thousand ever would. But I surely knew this was a serious topic, and that these folks knew exactly what was needed to do their job.
But for you to not take their work seriously, and presume that artillery is not a complex math problem that needs solving to protect other people is, quite frankly, rather disgusting. Although, maybe you aren’t in the US, since this is the WWW, so maybe respect isn’t necessary. However, a little humility and decency would go a long way to proving your humanity.
And to then insult their work some more, you add in your personal feelings about how you think rotation works (what could the military know, anyways), and begin your own stream of BS consciousness. BTW, what kind of person is so fixated on snow angels at the north pole?
I’m reminded of what you said earlier: “And all artillery would have to take the speed of the Earth into account but they don’t.”
Well, what do you think you want to say now, Mr. Know-it-all????
—————–
I apologize to the blog owner and patrons for getting after Willie; his comments related to our military just rubbed me the wrong way.
LikeLike
No disrespect intended. The artillery calculations are extremely difficult and in the old days had to be done by hand, so mucho kudos to being able to handle the math… I don’t think I could pull it off. What I’m saying about the rotation part of the equation being b.s. is that I think some math geniuses threw those in so they would appear to be necessary, but probably don’t affect the accuracy very much. Something probably like a 0.001% change by factoring in the rotation, because everybody has to believe and accept that the Earth rotates since we’ve all been taught that from birth.
And as for the snow angels it’s just the best way to simulate the effect of being on a merry go round. I originally thought that at the North Pole you’d have 1000mph spin and you’d get super sick looking up in the sky if that were the case, but at an inch an hour it would probably be hard to even notice the spin. I am retired Air Force and have a lot of respect for our military, so hate me if you like. I’m just chatting out loud here trying to wrap my head around the possibility that Earth might actually be flat. Dismissing the rotation calculation, has nothing to do with dissing our military and everything to do with trying to figure out how deep the conspiracy would need to be to hide a flat Earth from even our military. But surely the pilots would need to be told the truth, I’d think. If the Earth doesn’t rotate then the pilots would have to deliberately slow down heading west to keep up the illusion of a spinning Earth for us plebes. And I don’t claim to be a Know-it-all… if the Earth is flat then I know way more than I ever thought I did… and I’m too freakin’ old to relearn all this stuff. I know a little about physics and am way to lazy to do math.
LikeLike
Willie,
I appreciate the effort, but I think you fell short in this response. 3 words as a kind-of apology (not really, however). Then it’s back to all about you.
First, your explanation of the math you already said you didn’t read, and can’t understand; but you say this was faked information, cause, after all, it is just a tiny factor.
Then it’s back to a false 1000mph story (sigh). Followed by a bit of respect, from a former military career in the Air Force. So I have I question; are you familiar with the Norden bombsight, and its role in WWII? Think about what that was all about; I’d be interested in your perspective.
LikeLike
If I actually thought I had insulted the military then I would give a genuine apology. The military has always had compartmentalization to maintain secrecy and security, so there’s no reason to expect that lower level people are tricked about the rotation of the Earth IF the Earth is actually flat.
And no I didn’t say the math WAS faked, I said “I think” it was faked. I’m thinking out loud and still not saying I’m any kind of expert. And what’s false about 1000mph? If the Earth is 24000 miles in diameter then at the equator it would have to pass 1000 miles per hour.
Pretty interesting info on the Norden bombsight. “Norden described his Mark XV sight as being able to provide ground speed, angles of drift, and true air speed. It could also hold a true compass course and compensate for earth rotation.” What I can’t understand is why would the elite need to keep a flat Earth secret into our modern era. Are they really that power hungry that they need to make top level scientists lie about a non-existent rotation?
I ran across this video and at 1:09:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtKlZihEB4 there is an interesting perspective of a navy seaman about no using the curvature of the Earth for weapons.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info on what Norden said, including the rotational factor. Additionally, I do believe the Norden used specific bomb data to account for the gravity and speed of its fall to the target.
I wonder how we could of used any aerial bombing with accuracy if we didn’t take a scientific approach to targeting. Hitting a target would have been much more random.
I can’t imagine a conspiracy so HUGE, that would have placed thousands of lives at risk for a mere chance of hitting a target, as well as the cost of planes, fuel, bombs, etc. that a conspiracy would need to take into account. The actual bombing would have been pitiful as far as results.
So I wonder, did we actually win the war, or is that part of a conspiracy as well?
LikeLike
Can you imagine if the SS broke into Roosevelt’s office and got him to sign a secret surrender and then moved their base of operations to America? Almost seems like what happened with Operation Paperclip. The FDA, ADA and NASA probably even NSA are run or greatly influenced by former Nazis. hitler was Time’s man of the year and he loved Margaret Sanger whose Planned Parenthood took off after the war “we won”. hitler became disgusted with his own people so he was happy for us to keep bombing them. They may have discovered and claimed land beyond the South Pole and set up shop there. We had really accurate bombing during WWII. It may be possible to say you are including rotation into the equation and tell people to look at a chart to pull up the factors to account for it. I remember taking Physics classes with slide rules and we’d go to the charts and look up the values for cosign and tangent… no one took the time to prove whether those values were correct it was an accepted figure. If I’m a bomber and someone tells me to plug in a value that will account for the rotation of the Earth and also windage, I wouldn’t question it. The chart may only account for windage, but if I believe that rotation is a necessary factor to account for then just being told that it in there (like Ragu)… I’d accept it and be happy that someone has my back. Your plane is being shot at by anti-aircraft guns and other planes are shooting at you… you probably would never question whether the data didn’t actually account for the rotation… the bombs freakin’ worked and you got home, end of story. Here’s a Ted talk on Norden..
LikeLike
Try so think of this without using what you think you a certain of. Be rational and realistic. We are not spinning or rotating. We certainly don’t revolve around the sun.
LikeLike
We have been lied to. You don’t have to believe anyone. Just do the math and you will see.
LikeLike
As far as the ball in the train. When you throw the ball up it is traveling the same speed as the train and with the absence of outside interference (Eg wind) will continue you to do and so will apparently fall straight down but will have effectively traveled horizontally the same distance as you and the train in the period it was in the air
LikeLike
That’s flawed. You would hear the wind due to the cars speed. Don’t need windows to know you are moving, go outside close you eyes and walk. Have you ever fallen out of bed while sleep you feel that even while sleeping. Just because we are told we are constantly moving that doesn’t mean we can’t feel the 1000 mph rotation. Our senses tell us so much we can detect movement no matter how slight or great.
LikeLike
When you travel East on a spinning earth you still have your original momentum. You don’t suddenly become stationary and then try to catch up with the earth. It’s the same when you drive in a car and throw a heavy ball in the air. It doesn’t stay where it was, it moves forward in an arc with the car because of momentum. An outside observer will see the ball go up and to the side and down in a parabola.
The speed of an object is irrelevant to the forces it will experience unless it changes direction or speed. Centrifugal force is minimal because the earth rotates only once in 24 hours which is 0.00069 rpm. That will give you around 1 gram of upward force for every kilogram of downward force (weight) at the equator (negligible). The reality is that any object at the earth’s surface is travelling at 1000mph almost in a straight line. This means you only change direction very gradually and basically feel no force. The earth rotates 15 degrees in 1 hour (15 × 24 = 360 degrees) which equates to 0.25 degrees every minute (15 ÷ 60 = 0.25) or 0.00416 degrees per second (0.25 ÷ 60 = 0.00416). So if you are travelling east at 444 metres per second, you are only changing your direction by 4 thousandths of a degree in that second. That is a barely noticeable change in direction so you would not feel any forces just like you feel no forces when you travel at a constant velocity in an airplane at 800 km per hour (222 metres per second) unless you make drastic changes in direction.
If you are on a flat earth and you travel east along the equator then you should always be turning slightly left like traveling around a very large circular race track. There is no evidence that this happens when traveling along the equator. Three equatorial locations that are equally spaced on the equator should not line up in the flat earth model. This can be easily tested to disprove this nonsense theory.
LikeLike
I try as hard as I can to find any REAL proof of flat earth, yet the only mathematical proof corresponding ot what we see in real world has been provided by people who are disproving FE. Educate yourselves on intertial reference frames, technology used for astrophotography and learn BASIC math, to try to prove your FE theory, that shouldn’t even require calculus…
LikeLike
If the Earth were spinning, its magnetic field would be generating electricity.
Angular momentum at the equator would force obfects “up”.
LikeLike
I’ve noticed a lot of ‘the spin shold make use fly off the earth’ arguments. I’ve calculated the acceleration due to the spin to be about 0.002 Gs. (Assuming speed at the equator to be 1000 mp3 and rotational period of 24 hours.
Why is this a problem?
LikeLike
if your in a car and a fly is with you, is it flying 90 miles an hour? when your in a plane walking to rest room are you walking 300 miles an hour. I really think flat earth people are wasting time.
LikeLike
CIRCLE (EARTH) OT:2329
OT:2329 gWj
chuwg (khoog); from OT:2328; a circle:
KJV – circle, circuit, compass.
Isa 40:17-23
17 All the nations are as nothing before Him; they are regarded by Him as less than nothing and emptiness (waste, futility, and worthlessness).
18 To whom then will you liken God? Or with what likeness will you compare Him? [Acts 17:29.]
19 The graven image! A workman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts silver chains for it.
20 He who is so impoverished that he has no offering or oblation or rich gift to give [to his god is constrained to make a wooden offering, an idol; so he] chooses a tree that will not rot; he seeks out a skillful craftsman to carve and set up an image that will not totter or deteriorate.
21 [You worshipers of idols, you are without excuse.] Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? [These things ought to convince you of God’s omnipotence and of the folly of bowing to idols.] Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? [Rom 1:20,21.]
22 It is God Who sits above the circle (the horizon) of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; it is He Who stretches out the heavens like [gauze] curtains and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,
23 Who brings dignitaries to nothing, Who makes the judges and rulers of the earth as chaos (emptiness, falsity, and futility).
LikeLike
This statement was incorrect:
“We are additionally told that our solar system travels around our entire Milky Way Galaxy over a 25,940 year time period, or also know as Plato’s Great Year…”
This statement is correct:
Our solar system takes 225,000 to 250,000 years to complete one orbit around the Milky Way center, it’s called a Galactic year and not Plato’s Great Year. The Great Year or Platonic Year (25,940) or 25,800 years is how long it takes Earth to complete one precession of the equinoxes or one axis wobble rotation. There are about nine Platonic Years or precession of the equinoxes in a Galactic year.
LikeLike
So, people believe that what happens in a supposed vacuum (the bullet traveling E/W at the same speed without resistance) is the same as what happens on EARTH with ‘wind’ resistance?
Terra Firma and the ‘air’ are not connected… just like the plane routes and their obvious issues with time and distance. Two hours West to my destination will be two hours East on the return; never if the earth is spinning.
Let’s not forget about the dual axes of earth. The spin and the supposed 23.5 degree seasonal changing event. The earth only spins eternally due to a vacuum and no friction. If you introduce a N/S spin, you will destroy the original and there would be chaos. The earth, which does NOT have a physical axis, remember, still must follow certain rules of our physics; if a force has cased another ‘spin’, nothing will stop that spin (as in back and forth to change the seasons yearly). One cannot believe that another force acting upon our daily rotation/spin equally would have no real consequence.
There is that issue of liquid water … guess that goes back to the theory of ‘gravity’ which is just a distraction from reality according the Newton himself.
Not reproduceable in any lab or via any A.I. that’s programmed to be FACTUAL ONLY.
What do I know? I’m only looking for absolute proof of claims about a round earth from someone NOT associated with the gov, UN, major corps, schools and more, and that’s pretty hard these days with data being scrubbed.
LikeLike