You do look, my son, in a moved sort, As if you were dismay’d. Be cheerful, sir. Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air; And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.
Wm. Shakespeare from the Tempest—Act IV, sc. i
******
Gravity
The name is derived from the Latin word “ gravis,” which means “ heavy,” “ having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “ That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”
Empirical Research:
A way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Much of Newton’s evidence was collected by observations,directly and indirectly, then with logical reasoning, he made informed decisions….
****
Direct Observations
Newton noted that apples always fall vertically (straight down). Apples never fall up or sideways. Since the apples are falling in one direction, vertically, instead of speed, scientists call the motion velocity.
Velocity is the speed of a moving object in a certain direction.
A Force is any action (a push or pull) that causes an object to change in speed, change in direction, or change in shape. As long as the force is applied, the speed of the object continues to change; and/or the direction of the object continues to change; and/or the shape of the object continues to change.
Newton’s hypothesis was that some(?) Force was pulling the apples vertically downward. Newton coined the word “gravity” to name this force.
~ Note that the word “weight” is left out of the definition of Newston’s Law of Gravity.
*****
Gravity, the Primordial Glue of all Life in the Universe
SO, the “Official Universally Accepted Modern Scientific Story of our Creation” as agreed by the highest degrees of academia, physics and astronomical science tells us that after the Big Bang… after atoms were created out nothing, from absolutely nothing….some 14.3 Billion years ago, our entire Universe came to be.
Then the atoms, through unidentified attractions began to hook up (sex atoms?). They then began creating dust particles and gaseous vapors made up primarily of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.
All the while exploding outward at the speed of light, projecting in all directions at an unfathomable 670 million miles-per-hour for billions and billions and billions of years .
Out of this Primordial soup stars began to form including our maybe one and only Sun. Then, about 4.5 Billion years ago, so we are told, the Sun spun us off into the ether of space where we flew away from her at such great speeds that we settled some 93 million miles away from him in a locked not so perfect orbit.
Out of this all minerals and gases were formed including our multi’-layered atmosphere, all minerals like gold, and all sentient life as well as life-giving water.
| Atomic clock | |
|---|---|
 |
The Earth settled into such perfect orbit billions of years ago that an atomic clock can measure our past, present and future time of spin and revolution down to nano seconds, never varying for million of years to come.
The Moon stuck in our orbit all the while traveling around our girth at 2,333 mph over the course of a little less than 28 days while it slowly rotates as well yet pulling our tidal waters up and down twice a day from some 238,000 miles away.
Earth settled completely down so that we now orbit some 533 million miles back to start in one birthday year traveling at 1,000 miles per second to do so. This is also in lockstep with Earth’s rotation of 1,000 miles per hour each day, traveling 24,383 miles around the Equator each and every day in atomic perfect time keeping.
We are told we are stuck like glue to Earth, as well as all buildings and all oceans of this world even with all this spin and revolution, except when a butterfly flies or a man jumps in the air or a plane takes off .
And we all stay velcroed to Earth, the Moon to us, the Sun holding both in orbits as well as Mercury, Mars, Venus, Saturn, the Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto for billions and billions of years…
…all due because of Gravity!
There’s just one huge problem, it’s all a lie! A Great Big Lie. All of it. And 99.9% of all on Earth believe this to be true without question or investigation.
****
Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to earth from a tree in his garden.
Persons gifted with ordinary common sense would say the apple fell down to earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air’ but if, instead of an apple, a fluffy feather been detached from a tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.” “Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth”.
“Give up a drop and gain the whole ocean” ~ Satchidananda
“If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards. If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster.
If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground. And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground.
Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight. That is very different from “gravity.” Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.
Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun?
The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.” ~ Eric Dubay, Atlantean Conspiracy
****
Earth spinning at 1,000 mph, which no one has ever felt, is checked by invisible gravity holding us down some 233 times greater than the external spinning Earth force, so the story goes…
Sir Isaac Newton’s Big Lie Mistake
Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “ That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true ; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that everything is not attracted towards every other thing. . . The definition implies that it is a force ; but it does not say so, for that phrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “ The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”
There is not anything or force in the universe that is absolute! No thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things. The thing is impossible; and it is not true; wherefore it has fallen to me to show where the inconsistency in it lies.
The name given to this mutual action means “ weight,” and weight is one of the attributes of all
matter. Merely to say that anything is matter or material implies that it has weight, while to speak of weight implies matter. Matter and weight are inseparable, they are not laws, but elemental facts. They exist.
But it has been suggested that gravitation is a force, indeed we often hear it referred to as the force of gravitation ; but force is quite a different thing than weight, it is active energy expressed by certain conditions and combinations of matter. It acts.
All experience and observation goes to prove that material things fall to earth because they possess the attribute of weight, and that an object remains suspended in air or space only so long as its weight is overcome by a force, which is contrary.
And when we realize these simple facts we see that gravitation is in reality conditioned and modified by every other active force, both great and small.
(note NASA logo)
Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically
unsound. . .
Every man, however great his genius, must be limited by the conditions that surround him ; and
science in general was not sufficiently advanced two hundred years ago to be much help to Newton, so that— for lack of information which is ordinary knowledge to us hving in the 20th century— he fell into the error of attributing the effects of “ weight ” and “ force ” to a common cause, which— for want of a better term— he called gravitation ;
but I have not the slightest doubt that if he were living now he would have arrived at the following more reasonable conclusions:— That terrestrial things fall to earth by “ gravis,” weight; because they are matter ; while the heavenly bodies (which also are matter) do not fall because they are maintained in their courses by magnetic or electric force. (Source)
*****
“It was said, in effect, by Newton, and has ever since been insisted upon by his disciples: ‘Allow us, without proof, which is impossible, the existence of two universal forces –centrifugal and centripetal, or attraction and repulsion, and we will construct a theory which shall explain all the leading phenomena and mysteries of Nature.’
An apple falling from a tree, or a stone rolling downwards and a pail of water tied to a string and set in motion were assumed to be types of the relations existing among all the bodies in the universe. The moon was assumed to have a tendencey to fall towards the earth, and the earth and moon together towards the sun.
The same relation was assumed to exist between all the smaller and larger luminaries in the firmament; and it soon became necessary to extend these assumptions to infinity. The universe was parcelled out into systems–co-existent and illimitable.
Suns, planets, satellites, and comets, were assumed to exist infinite in number and boundless in extent; and to enable the theorists to explain alternating and constantly recurring phenomena, which were everywhere observable, these numberless and for-ever-extending objects were assumed to be spheres.
The earth we inhabit was called a planet, and because it was thought to be reasonable that the luminous objects in the firmament, which were called planets, were spherical and had motion–ergo, the earth is gblobe and moves upon axes, and in an orbit round the sun!
And as the earth is a globe and is inhabited, so again it is only reasonable to conclude that the planets are worlds like the earth, and are inhabited by sentient beings. What reasoning! What shameful perversion of intellectual gifts!” Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy”
****
*****
Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it!
There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it.
To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science. ~ Eric Dubay
Gravity is the lynchpin that holds all heliocentric theory together.
It is what holds everything to everything else. King Velcro. Except when it isn’t, like when a butterfly flies and flitter’s or a person jumps up or when an airplane takes off.
Gravity, physicists tell us, is invisible and undetectable by using human senses, we are told. The source of gravity is a mutual attraction principle determined by its mass to another mass. “Weight” is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects.
The famous story goes that Gravity was “discovered” by Sir Isaac Newton, former President of the Royal Society of London, Head Coin Minter for the Crown of England and Freemason.
This was later expanded by A. Einstein’s “Relativity Theory” which allowed gravity to cause a spacetime curvature, in effect saying that even light was bent due to gravitational pull.
All school children have been taught for several generations that an apple falling from a tree was his “aha” moment when he realized, then said to prove mathematically, that some type of Earth “tractor beam” was the attraction that pulled the apple to the surface.
He then went on to “prove” that gravity was also beholden in all of the spinning orbs and that this validated the works of previous Freemasons and Roman Catholic priests such as Nick Copernicus and Johan Kepler.
For thousands and thousands years before this magic discovery, geocentrists believed that it was the mass, or simply the weight and aerodynamics of the object that caused it to fall to earth alone. For if the world was a flat plane, this was a natural observable phenomenon combined with common sense.
*****
How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!?
How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force?
How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction?
Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses! ~ Eric Dubay
Q: So why does a wet tennis ball fling water outward when gravity, applying to all objects big and small, and is 233 times stronger than even the centrifugal force of an Earth spinning on axis at 1,000 mph?
Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and said that:
1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.
*****
“If the sun is pulling with such magnificent gravity power at the earth and all her sister planets, why does not they fall onto the Sun?”
(Phys.org) —New research by a team of European physicists could explain why the universe did not collapse immediately after the Big Bang.
Studies of the Higgs particle – discovered at CERN in 2012 and responsible for giving mass to all particles – have suggested that the production of Higgs particles during the accelerating expansion of the very early universe (inflation) should have led to instability and collapse.
Scientists have been trying to find out why this didn’t happen, leading to theories that there must be some new physics that will help explain the origins of the universe that has not yet been discovered. Physicists from Imperial College London, and the Universities of Copenhagen and Helsinki, however, believe there is a simpler explanation.
In a new study in Physical Review Letters, the team describe how the spacetime curvature – in effect, gravity – provided the stability needed for the universe to survive expansion in that early period. The team investigated the interaction between the Higgs particles and gravity, taking into account how it would vary with energy.
They show that even a small interaction would have been enough to stabilise the universe against decay. (Source)
*****
Moon, 1/6th the Gravity pull and 1/4 the size of Earth, travels 238,000 miles and Moves our Oceans Up and Down Twice Each and Every Day… and travels East to West, no matter what you see with your own eyes….so the story goes.
Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon’s action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world.
Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer.
By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)
“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality.” -Bernard Brauer
“They want you to believe that the Moon’s rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that’s why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious – that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon’s speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don’t think there is one person in many, many thousands – regardless of education – who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon’s observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall
*****
Tides occur mainly in oceans because that is basically one huge body of water that is free to move all over the earth. Lakes and rivers do not cover enough area to have their water be moved significantly by gravity, or in other words, to have tides. (Physics.org)
****
Earth’s gravity measured by NASA’s GRACE mission, showing deviations from the theoretical gravity of an idealized smooth Earth, the so-called earth ellipsoid. Red shows the areas where gravity is stronger than the smooth, standard value, and blue reveals areas where gravity is weaker. (Animated version.)[1]
~ Yet Earth’s rotation is so perfect that the atomic clock keeps time of spin down to a second error over 30 million years?
****
Since we postulate that gravity is a curvature of spacetime and that photons follow geodesics in spacetime, we find that “gravity bends light” (to be precise, it is the spacetime which is bent). The effect was experimentally verified in the famous 1919 eclipse expedition of Arthur Eddington. During a total eclipse of the Sun, the position of a star very near the Sun’s limb was measured. The star’s position was found to be shifted by an amount predicted by the general theory. This experiment played a big role in making Einstein the “scientific genius” and public figure that he was to become in the 20’s, 30′, and 40’s.(source)
Einstein’s Spacetime Curvature; What you See is not What Is, You See?
One of A.E’s biggest ‘theories” was that light bends by yielding to gravity yet the speed of light is always constant. This is impossible for if anything is to bend it must slow and then accelerate around the bend or arc.
Light is weightless and immaterial, yet not according to science, otherwise it would not be effected by gravity, since all things of mass are only effected by gravity.
The above mentioned experiment was erroneous, as are all experiments assuming parallax measurement, because it assumed that measuring the same object from two different points six months apart, would give us accurate distance.
The problem is the very fact that if light bends, how can the object being measured using light when it bends and curves and changes speeds??
****
Einstein’s Psuedo Science and Fictitious Forces
A person in a free-falling elevator experiences weightlessness and objects either float motionless or drift at constant speed. Since everything in the elevator is falling together, no gravitational effect can be observed.
An observer in an accelerated reference frame must introduce what physicists call fictitious forces to account for the acceleration experienced by himself and objects around him. Einstein’s master insight was that the constant, familiar pull of the Earth’s gravitational field is fundamentally the same as these fictitious forces.
A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force, d’Alembert force or inertial force, is an apparent force that acts on all masses whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame.
However, four fictitious forces are defined for frames accelerated in commonly occurring ways: one caused by any relative acceleration of the origin in a straight line (rectilinear acceleration), two involving rotation,—(centrifugal force and Coriolis force)—and a fourth, called the Euler force, caused by a variable rate of rotation, should that occur.
Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
Pseudo; not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham
Fictitious; not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated.
~ So here we have ol’ A.E. telling all that to understand gravity one must delve into fiction and pseudo sceince, doesn’t get more plain vanilla than this.
Tagged: gravis, gravity, law of gravity, newton, spacetime curvature
Aplanetruth.info 
In response to: “Sir Isaac Newton’s Big Mistake : […] we realize these simple facts we see that gravitation is in reality conditioned and modified by every other active force, both great and small.”
You misunderstood the definition. It is said that gravity cannot be modified; it was never said it could not be countered by other forces. Actually what we realize from these simple facts is that “the *movement* of any object is in reality conditioned and modified by every active force, both great and small, *gravitational force included*”. Do not confuse forces and movement. The movement of an object results from the application of all the forces in presence over time. The gravitational force is just one of these forces, just like wind pressure, Archimedes principle, the electromagnetic force, the centrifugal force and many others. It’s the *sum* of these forces that matters, not one of them in particular.
When you talk about gravitation here you seem to talk about the movement that objects tend to naturally follow. That is your big mistake: gravitation is only one influencer of that movement, not the movement itself. The Law of Gravitation describe the particular influencer that seem to exist when 2 objects of a certain mass are in presence. It can only tell you what will theoretically happen if you let them move freely *when there is no other force in presence* – which is practice never happens, because most of the time you have air/electromagnetism/rotation/contact/whatever that will also influence the movement of the objects and possibly cancel the effects of gravitation. Yes, it’s only a theory, a model, a principle, a “law”. Just like electromagnetic fields or air pressure are theories. But it’s useful because when you combine all these theories together you can confidently predict what the actual movement of an object will be with little error. These theories do not explain why these forces exist, or why they depend on mass/density/distance/etc. It just states that they exist and how they behave. The “why” is left to the enthusiastic philosopher.
Hence your confusion: “Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth?” If the question is “how do planets move?”/”how do people move on Earth? ” then gravity is only one part of the answer, not the answer itself. In the case of planets the gravitational force indeed applies, but there is another strong force in presence : the centrifugal force (due the planets following a circular movement). These two forces are (roughly) equivalent but in opposite direction, and so their sum is (roughly) null. The planets are trapped in equilibrium, in a never ending orbit. In the case of people the gravitational force applies as well as the centrifugal force, but here the centrifugal force is not strong enough to counter gravitation because the earth is not spinning fast enough around its axis. That’s why the resulting movement that we observe seems to be induced by gravitation only – although it’s not. Why does a 80kg person float in the sea but a 80kg anchor sinks? Because while the gravitational force is the same (because same mass), the Archimedes force is not (because different density), and so the movement is different. Again, forces and movement, very different. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
And so, to address your questions and concerns:
1) “FOCS 1, a continuous cold caesium fountain atomic clock in Switzerland, started operating in 2004 at an uncertainty of one second in 30 million years.” -> That just indicates the level of precision of the clock, according to units we arbitrarily chose to measure time. It does not in any way indicates that the Earth (or anything else) keeps spinning at this level of precision. On the contrary, it provides a way to measure days (as defined by international standards) that is more reliable than the rotation of the Earth.
2) “…all due because of Gravity!” -> Nope, all due to the combined effects of all the forces in presence, gravity included.
3) “Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.” The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight.” -> Sorry, I beg to differ. The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply the manifestation of different forces opposing each other. As said above, gravity (or weight) is only one of these forces.
4) “And when we realize these simple facts we see that gravitation is in reality conditioned and modified by every other active force, both great and small.” -> As said above, the right conclusion is that “the movement of any object is in reality conditioned and modified by every active force, both great and small”. We can only observe (variations of) movements, not forces. By definition a movement can only be induced by forces, so when we try to understand a movement we try to identify what forces caused it. Fortunately there is a hypothesis saying that we can isolate these forces independently and consider their global effect as the sum of each of their individual effect. That’s very convenient, I will give you that. Yet it seems reliable enough for practical use so we stick with it.
5) “The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound…” -> The situations described here are situations of equilibrium, where opposing forces negate each other. There’s nothing unnatural here: nature loves equilibrium!
6) “the heavenly bodies (which also are matter) do not fall because they are maintained in their courses by magnetic or electric force.” -> Magnetic force and electric force are one and the same thing: the electromagnetic force. And this force has been shown to be induced by electromagnetic fields. Now we might not know what EM fields are (they are a theory, just like the rest), but we sure can measure them. No such fields were measured that would be strong enough to explain the movements of planets by themselves.
7) “There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it!” -> Hmm, so celestial bodies aren’t a natural example of that? If I claim that dogs don’t exist, because all the dogs that we see on Earth might very well be cats wearing a dog disguise, does that make the study of dogs anatomy irrelevant as proof (because all vets are deceived by the evil cats)? You can’t just claim that every single proof we have about the nature of celestial bodies is irrelevant because you do not believe in that nature in the first place. That’s just circular reasoning.
8) “How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!?” -> As stated above, gravity is just a force that pulls objects towards the center of the Earth. There might very well be other forces that counter it.
9) “How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force?” -> Keep you arm horizontally straight for 2 hours. I guarantee you’ll feel the effect of the gravitational force soon enough.
10) “How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction?” -> Again, other opposing forces. These forces are actually fluctuating: as the planet moves farther from the sun the sun’s gravitational force decreases, but so does the speed of the planet (because the area swept out is always the same per unit time) and thus the centrifugal forces decreases as well. This is heavily documented. Look up for Kepler laws.
11) “Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!” -> Yes, that’s exactly what it does (because the distances change regularly).
12) “So why does a wet tennis ball fling water outward?” -> Because the centrifugal force applied to water by the rotation of the ball is far greater than the gravitational force between them. The ratio (centrifugal force due to ball’s rotation)/(gravitational force between ball and water) is very different than the ratio (centrifugal force due to Earth’s rotation)/(gravitational force between Earth and people). The math is easy to do.
13) “So gravity only works when solid objects only are involved?” -> No. I don’t know how you inferred that from Newton’s shell theorem.
14) “Then what about huge gaseous planets like Jupiter and Saturn that orbit the Sun??” -> The Sun is not an empty shell containing all the planets inside of it, thus the shell theorem does not apply here.
15) “If the sun is pulling with such magnificent gravity power at the earth and all her sister planets, why does not they fall onto the Sun?” -> AGAIN, because of the presence of other (well-known) opposing forces. But you know that now, right?
16) “So now size matters. Lake Erie, one of the largest lakes in the world, is said to have tidal change but “too small to be measured”” -> Well yes, mass matters, so the size of the body of water matters. The size of Lake Erie does not change so its mass remains roughly constant. The gravitational force of the Moon is not strong enough for us to observe the displacement of a significant fraction of that mass.
17) “Yet Earth’s rotation is so perfect that the atomic clock keeps time of spin down to a second error over 30 million years?” -> Again, nobody said the clock measures the movement of the Earth. It measures fixed, arbitrary units of time as reference for other clocks in the world.
18) “light bends by yielding to gravity yet the speed of light is always constant. This is impossible for if anything is to bend it must slow and then accelerate around the bend or arc.” -> That’s simply not true. You can follow an arc movement at constant speed.
19) “The problem is the very fact that if light bends, how can the object being measured using light when it bends and curves and changes speeds??” -> It all depends on what object you are trying to measure. According to the size of the object and the distance between it and you, the bending of the light might or might not be significant.
20) “So here we have ol’ A.E. telling all that to understand gravity one must delve into fiction and pseudo science, doesn’t get more plain vanilla than this.” -> You seem to misunderstand the purpose of science. The goal of all these laws and theories is not to explain what the reality is. The goal is to explain how the reality behaves, so we can predict what will happen if we do this or that. Saying that “gravity does not exist” leads us nowhere: we just observe some movements that seems to be caused by a force attracting objects towards Earth, and this force seems different from all the other forces that we already identified. So it’s only natural to give it a name: gravity. Now, we observe that this exact same force can also explain the movements of the celestial bodies that we can see from Earth. So we have a theory describing this force, the Law of Gravitation. Remember, a force does not “exist”. It’s just a mathematical construct that is useful for our comprehension of movements, just like air pressure is a construct that help us understand the effect of the molecules of air on a given object). You are free to disagree with the theory, but so far it gave us great results. At no moment was it stated that gravity is a reality. Gravity is nothing but a theoretical model that helps us understand what we see, and project ourselves in the future. And like any other models, it has its limitations – and its detractors. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
A small correction about Eric Dubay’s questions 8) and 9): “How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!?” – “How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force?”
I just realized that I did not accurately answered these questions because I did not understand what Eric Dubay meant by “under-side of the ball-Earth”. But now I get it : Eric keeps thinking that even if Earth was as ball, there would still exist some absolute “up” and “down” directions, and that some attractive force would keep pulling everything “down”. So the “under-side” of the Earth would be the face of the Earth facing “down”, where somehow gravity would be able to compensate the attractive force of “down” without impairing with our natural movements.
Okay, so let’s be clear: there is no “down” – at least not in the sense that Eric gives. “Down” means “directed towards the center of the Earth”. It’s a relative direction, not an absolute direction. The force that pulls everything “down” is gravity itself, not some mysterious other force that would be pulling us in an absolute direction and that gravity would have to compensate somehow. And so, there is no “under-side” of the Earth.
I hope that clarifies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julien, where do you dream all this stuff up??
LikeLike
Thanx for supporting the work and the site. mucho appreciado
LikeLike
At magical math and science land, BOTH OF WHICH CAN BE DONE YOURSELF, (Apologies for all caps, but emphasis was required) which is something this place often ignores. They claim this information is fed to us and we blindly accept it, but at any point in your life with a calculator and the formulas you could prove this math yourself. Instead, however, you’ve decided to blindly follow a contrived book made thousands of years ago, none of which can be proven. And before the ” proof denies faith” argument comes out, all that is being said with that is ” I have no proof so I need some sort of argument to avoid looking like an idiot.” Too late, by the way. Thank you, Julien, for being at least mildly intelligent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hahahaha. Never it is too late to find out the Truth of things. But you can follow the path down to your ‘perdition’. Julien is a Shill to talk gibberish as he defends nonsense engraved in his feeble mind since his childhood with no appreciable reasoning skills.
LikeLike
As I already said in another thread I’m only explaining [my own understanding of] the theory. If there are things that don’t make sense in what I write here then please let me know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HI Julien,
I believe you are sincere, but seriously have you looked at all the thousands of faux NASA pics? Do you realize that all pictures of space come from them and that the entire org. was founded by NAZI’s who built and designed the rocket bombs that killed tens of thousand allies in WWII? And that the head of NASA Apollo, Fred Kleinschedt, is a 33rd degree Freemason who went on to head the Scottishrite Freemasons in Wash. D.C. after he retired?
Do you see with your own eyes any curvature of Earth? A plane traveling at 500 mph would have to decline one-half mile per one minute just to stay in curvature with the Earth, it never happens. do you feel the planet moving at 1,000 mph, and 1,000 mp/second around the Sun, like heliocentrics tells us? NO? of course not.
do you see the Sun move? of course you do. Do you see the Moon shine bright to light up our Earth at night on a full moon? how did the astronots walk on the moon if it reflected (gray?) so harshly it is felt 239,000 miles away on Earth? they say the Moon rotates 27.3 days to make one rotation, yet we never see the backside. The moon’s gravity is 1/6th the EArth yet moves our mighty oceans up and down 2X per day.WTF???!!
They say their is this tractor beam holding us all in, yet I can jump up when I want and a feather can float and clouds can go there merry way, though gravity is constant.
For anyone with basic logic, common sense and a little independent thinking, it is an easy conclusion that we have been lied to on a grand scale. you don’t need all the personally conducted calculations, et. al.
Why are you having so much trouble with this? I speak to teenagers who get it right away. I show kids photos of NASA images and they get it right away. it’s the left brain, believe in science and that government really likes us who have the most problem accepting this truth.
It’s all a lie, my friend. The facts are onerous and the programming professional, long term and deep.
Abracadabra, Time for all to Wake Up!
LikeLike
Hey, thanks for your reply.
As I said I’m more interested in the validity of the Newtonian theory than in the fact that NASA might be telling lies or not. What I want to know is if you can leverage the Newtonian theory to build stuff or not. I will just say that you keep talking about NASA, but there are more than 20 spatial agencies in the world – all managed by different (and often concurrent) governments. Not to mention the thousands of private companies that work with these agencies. And they all say the same thing. If this is indeed a lie, then I’m genuinely impressed by the level of control these Freemasons have over the scientific world.
Anyway, about your questions:
– “Do you see with your own eyes any curvature of Earth?” -> I’m desperately trying to tell you that you can’t see it with your own eyes.
– “A plane traveling at 500 mph would have to decline one-half mile per one minute just to stay in curvature with the Earth, it never happens.” -> I’m desperately trying to tell you that if it does happen, no one notice it. Everything happens exactly as if the plane remained at the same place and the Earth was rotating below it. You would not notice that the plane follows a curved trajectory.
– “do you feel the planet moving at 1,000 mph, and 1,000 mp/second around the Sun, like heliocentrics tells us?” -> I’m desperately trying to tell you that we do not feel constant speeds: we only feel changes in speed (acceleration and friction). If you were somehow affected by constant speeds, how would you be able to walk casually in a train or in a flying airplane?
– “The moon’s gravity is 1/6th the EArth yet moves our mighty oceans up and down 2X per day.” -> I’m desperately trying to tell you that gravity decreases with the (square of) the distance. The moon’s gravity may be 1/6 the Earth’s gravity on the surface of the moon, that doesn’t mean it is still 1/6 at the distance between the moon and the Earth!
– “I can jump up when I want and a feather can float and clouds can go there merry way, though gravity is constant.” -> I’m desperately trying to tell you that there are many other forces in nature than gravity. Forces which are, in specific contexts, strong enough to cancel gravity completely. People jumping, bugs flying, anchors sinking, clouds drifting is not the consequence of gravity alone. It’s the consequence of all these powerful forces opposing each other.
– “how did the astronots walk on the moon if it reflected (gray?) so harshly it is felt 239,000 miles away on Earth?” -> I don’t have a good answer to this particular question. Thanks for raising it.
– “they say the Moon rotates 27.3 days to make one rotation, yet we never see the backside.” -> Supposedly because there is a situation of equilibrium in which the rotational period of the Moon is exactly the same as its orbital period. I do admit that this is far-fetched. Yet, situations of equilibrium are very common in nature.
“Why are you having so much trouble with this?” -> Because, even if I do admit that you have some good arguments, it’s also painfully obvious to me that many other arguments posted here are flawed. They look just like “grass is green, therefore Earth is flat”. I can’t help but to intervene and say “Well you know, even if Earth wasn’t flat grass would most probably be green too, which means that the color of grass is not a relevant information to conclude whether Earth is flat or not”. That’s all I’ve been doing. Replace “color of grass” by “level of the horizon in an air balloon” and you will certainly see what I’m talking about.
These obviously flawed arguments weaken your case. Why not discard them and focus on the good arguments?
“It’s all a lie, my friend.” -> If everything is a lie, including Newton laws which are used by millions of engineers everyday to build stuff, than how come the bridges don’t collapse? How come skyscrapers don’t fall? Just today Japan announced that their new train reached a max speed of 375 mph. Is that a lie too? Or is there some part of truth hidden somewhere? Because I’d really like to know what is true and what is false. Imagine what we could build if we used the right theory! (As you probably have guessed by now, I’m an engineer. I like to build stuff.)
Also, and I don’t plan to elaborate on this now, another reason I have trouble with this is because there seem to be so many holes in the flat-Earth theory. We’ll probably have a better opportunity to discuss this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Man you’re crazy. My eyes have been opened. All the stuff I learned studying statics and dynamics was a lie. I can’t see air so it can’t exist, so clouds floating is magic to me.
– “they say the Moon rotates 27.3 days to make one rotation, yet we never see the backside.” -> Supposedly because there is a situation of equilibrium in which the rotational period of the Moon is exactly the same as its orbital period. I do admit that this is far-fetched. Yet, situations of equilibrium are very common in nature.
I have wondered about this too. You would think that the various impacts to the moon (those off of the COG causing a torque) would cause it to have some rotation relative to us.
LikeLike
But Julien, you just keep trying to explain it all based on more unproven imaginary forces!! It’s like a liar…when they tell a lie and end up having to create more and more lies to cover their first lie! Can’t you see that?
LikeLike
No, he’s relating proven forces to more proven forces that fit together and explain everything. It’s you guys who are simply shouting “Blasphemy! Burn him!” Science is not a single set of answers, but rather a way to find them. When gravity was first discovered it didn’t answer everything, and more forces needed to be discovered and proved themselves to explain the entire idea. Your arguments dismiss these proven things, and then use the gap created by their absense to call us crazy. They say a plane has to drop in altitude to stay at the same altitude at a different latitude, but level is simply equidistant from the earth’s core. In order to achieve the flat-perspective flight out the earth’s atmosphere a pilot would have to constantly angle themselves upward. Gravity will keep the plane level because, once again, down is the direction to the earth’s core. So if it flies straight, it IS technically curving in a spatial sense, but constantly remaining flat in the relative sense we perceive. The notion the earth is flat simply comes from our own inability to fully accept anything we cannot prove/see for ourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also Bob…there is no such thing as outer space. Earth is a flat plane and not a planet.
Do some research friend!
Try Google or Youtube first: Flat Earth, Flat Earth Clues, Eric Dubay, Mark Sagent, to start.
Go to youtube and type in the search box for Satellites are hung from balloons. There are no Satellites in space, nothing in orbit, no ISS. It’s all a NASA Lie….which is another search topic.
have a nice day.
LikeLike
The curious attribute of the Moon’s rotation (always presenting the same half to the Earth) actually has a scientific explanation. The Moon used to experience tides due to the Earth’s proximity. These tides slowed down the Moon’s rotation until they stopped altogether. And evidently they could stop only when the Moon would not rotate seen from the Earth.
Incidentally and similarly, the Earth’s tides slow down the Earth’s rotation. This produces a–very slow–increase of the day’s duration, a–very slow–increase in the distance between the Moon and the Earth, and a–very slow–decrease in the Moon’s orbiting speed.
And yes, Newton’s laws are “good enough” to account for this.
Love,
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.aamorris.net/properganderatpropaganda/2016/1/19/einsteins-general-relativity-is-an-ether-theory
LikeLike
im no scientist but the overall point one can take from all of these writings is: To explain gravity someone came up with an equation, and to make it work he added more forces to explain annomolies. More forces or other forces should be mathematical equations and not vague words… just my take on it. each should also have a calculated effect on one another. In such a case a feather would be affected by gravity and 2s^ resulting in The answer. That should be provable right
LikeLike
silly post really, let me know when you actually get around to refuting some of the scientific methods, observations (e.g. Neptune, Einstein’ s star) experiments etc which has proven for a fact mass bends spacetime with contrary scientific evidence instead of basically saying it makes no sense to you, so therefore it’s obviously wrong.
LikeLike
This is ridiculous. A failure to grasp even high-school physics, really. There is so much wrong here and I am not sure it is even worth trying to correct for someone who went through the time and effort of making this site. Even science recognizes that they don’t fully understand gravity (and that gravity might even be an emergent phenomenon), but you are spouting conspiracy theory nonsense under the premise that the world is flat, which is easily disproven with simple observations.
LikeLike
Everything in this blog makes perfect sense. I feel pity for you and others that have been deeply Brainwashed and irreversible damaged your neurons since Childhood and now are unable to break free from the shackles that have been attached to your Reasoning Skills.
I am a Graduate in Physics and Sciences but my profession is on the IT industry. And I can tell with certain confidence that most of our science is wrong, unproven and a concoction to tie us up to a fake hell-iocentric model for the last 200 years. Previous to that everyone knew that Gravity was nothing more than a natural event based on mass and aerodynamics (buoyancy, density) along with other factors such as Temperature and Pressure.
In order to accommodate this new principle called Gravity, the Bible got corrupted by Jesuits, followers of Copernicus and Galileo, Science took the high altar_place of Religion based on Faith, Bias, Distortions, Lies and Failed experiments supported by Mathematical equations far away from Real events.
I advice you to delve deep into the history of Papal Power, Enlightenment along the secret freemasonry organizations and the role of Money that always has played along our Wars. Perhaps that would open your eyes to so much Deception and Control the Elites have always exerted on and intruded into our daily lives.
Some intellectual quotes for you.
“Real Eyes realize Real Lies”.
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments (and vice_versa), and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”.
“2nd Hand Knowledge is no Truth to our 1st Person Experience”.
Sin ninguna Acritud hacía tu persona. Have a Good Day.
LikeLike
maybe you need to do more re-earch. click on “Jesuits; Rulers of Evil” in top links.
thank you.
LikeLike
Braulio Irrutia,
Are you telling us you graduated in “Physics and Sciences” without ever using math as part of proving anything; and that simple visual observations were satisfactory?
At which institution did you provide proof for the claim: “And I can tell with certain confidence that most of our science is wrong,”? What does “certain confidence” even mean in higher education?
BYW – what do you mean by “Graduate in Physics and Sciences”?
LikeLike
i liked reading the comments it was funny
LikeLike
If what we know as gravity is just a product of mass – the lead ball falling and the gasses rising, and there is no force pulling down, shouldn’t something thrown out of an airplane fall upward as the atmosphere is thinner in that direction?
LikeLike
Nothing ‘falls’ upward. Falling is a downward direction. Of course air is ‘thinner’ the higher up you go. That is why it is toward the top. Denser things sink below less dense things, no matter what elevation they are ‘thrown out’ at. Gravity isn’t anything real or testable.
LikeLike
you just debunked the FE idea of density lmao! why does air fall or sink through air? they’re exact same density, if things only fell due to density air would be same at 200000 feet as it is at sea level. also in order to calculate the velocity of objects falling “due to density” you would need a different equation for each atomic number. also in order to calculate buoyancy you need the gravitational constant in the equation, unless you can come up with a different number? the real problem is you don’t actually know what gravity is you’re just repeating the FE cult mantra that it’s not real. gravity has been tested, reproduced, experimented, calculated and observed millions of times, Mass distorts spacetime that’s a solid proven science fact. unless you can produce contrary verifiable scientific evidence to that?
LikeLike
poolman,
Your use of “sink” and “below” appear to be biased directional words. Can you rephrase your comment on relative density in terms of “movement (towards or away from . . . )” to avoid this phrasing?
LikeLike
madmanwbluebox, ‘air’ describes the gases in the atmosphere.
Air is not an element.
Some gases in our atmosphere commonly called ‘air’ are denser than others just as liquids (including waters) vary in density.
The rest of your diatribe isn’t worth debate.
LikeLike
sorry your response has no scientific basis, the composition of air of elements is uniform, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen are equally distributed at any elevation, there’s just more of it at sea level due to gravity. so again explain how this uniform compound falls through itself. as for the rest of what I stated, you’re ignorance of elements atomic numbers, calculating falling velocities or mass warping spacetime is why you deem it “not worthy” LMAO now again in front of all of social media give a scientific verifiable contrary response
LikeLike
FactYouAll, sink and below are PURPOSELY directional and intentionally biased.
LikeLike
poolman,
Thanks for clarifying your words. The question then becomes; what is the cause of the directionality; why sink and why move below. Why are denser things obliged to move in this favored direction?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Uniform? Uniform isn’t an element, nor does it apply to air above the fruited plane. This table proves science really isn’t your thing, madman.
And though I disagree with the notion of space as described in this next jpg, it does indicate why the air forms upper and lower layers, answering FactYou’s question.
LikeLike
poolman gotta love these stupid FE’ers every time they try to use science they debunk themselves you just presented a table that proves the exact percentages of elements air is uniformly made up of at any elevation be it sea level or 200000 feet air is always comprised of the same radio of elements and thus it’s density according to flat earth should be only reason it falls but since it’s same ratio of elements and thus exact same density it shouldn’t fall according to flat earth, don’t know what the hell you’re trying to prove on 2nd table but it debunks the idea of firmament since how can you have a vacuum inside a firmament? sorry bro you can’t cherry pick portions of globe science that you “think” support you and throw out other portions lmao!!! now if you could give me an equation to calculate the velocity of objects falling based on density alone that’d be awesome
LikeLike
poolman gotta love these stupid FE’ers every time they try to use science they debunk themselves you just presented a table that proves the exact percentages of elements air is uniformly made up of at any elevation be it sea level or 200000 feet air is always comprised of the same radio of elements and thus it’s density according to flat earth should be only reason it falls but since it’s same ratio of elements and thus exact same density it shouldn’t fall according to flat earth, don’t know what the hell you’re trying to prove on 2nd table but it debunks the idea of firmament since how can you have a vacuum inside a firmament? sorry bro you can’t cherry pick portions of globe science that you “think” support you and throw out other portions lmao!!!
LikeLike
poolman,
I don’t know how a picture can explain movement, as you described, and I asked about.
To repeat: what is the cause of the directionality; why sink and why move below. Why are denser things obliged to move in this “favored” direction?
In case you intend to answer in terms of weight, my next question would be for an explanation of the essence of weight? How is it measured? What is being measured?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Obviously madman doesn’t have the capacity to understand words and their meaning. I really don’t think he/she is trying. At all. It might be helpful if he/she knew something about temperature and/or pressure and how they affect earth’s gases, but I digress.
He/she doesn’t understand the simple definition of uniform, a word he/she presented.
I’m done, madman. I hope you have a blessed rest of your life.
____________________________________________________________
FactYouAll, pictures are commonly used to indicate movement. As example, road signs are pictures that direct the movement of traffic. Have you seen an arrow used in a visual format? Of course you have. So, though I do think your answer is a cop out, I think you are missing the real point.
According to that picture, the layering of the atmosphere is based on humidity, temperature, water content, and gas content. Do you agree, or are you part of the school of madman that claims all air is uniform.
As with all gasses and liquids, density and buoyancy cause a particular mass to move up or down relative to the other masses surrounding it. Here’s a picture of what it looks like with solids and liquids AFTER that movement takes place:
There is a gif of the same showing the dropping of the cherry tomato which sinks and finds its place in density.
LikeLike
poolman you’re an idiot, the composition of elements of air is identical at any elevations, you proved that yourself it’s always exact same ratio of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen. Boyles laws have nothing to do with density or composition of gases. maybe you should hqvrvbren awoke in school? ( PV/T = P2V2/T2) now you’re making yet another incorrect claim that temperature affects density show me the flat earth equation for that and show me the flat earth equation for pressure THAT DOESN’T USE GRAVITY. the equation for atmospheric pressure e.g. how we arrived at the measured repeatable value of 14.7 psi at sea level USES GRAVITY. pressure = density x gravitational field strength x height. so sir, please do your own research and now show social media the flat earth equations that will correctly calculate pressure and velocity of falling objects based solely on density? can you do that for social media? or not?
LikeLike
I know the earth is flat. I have no idea how the rest works, only that 14.7 psi at sea level is an accurate pressure reading and every 33 feet you go down is one more atmosphere of pressure. It is obviously the weight of the water we are dealing with, not gravity pulling it somehow. When you are down 99 feet that is 3 atmospheres of pressure. When you have a wet suit on and come up from depth, your skin will have creases from the wet suit pressing in on you. It’s the pressure from the weight of the water.
All I know for sure is that it works under water. The Navy Dive tables kept me safe for many years when I was a master diver.
This is practical experience from a few hundred hours under the ocean.
LikeLike
you have no idea how the rest works LMAO!!! the Navy dive tables were calculated using gravity omfg buildings and bridges are designed using gravity, seismic analysis uses gravity, Neptune was discovered using gravity, but yet you “know the earth is flat”
LikeLike
Listen madmanbluebox, how the Navy dive tables were designed is no concern of mine. I know they work and the calculations have to do with water pressure. When your depth gauge says it is 100 feet below the surface it is measuring water pressure above your head, not gravity. So it might be good to temper your comments until you have some practical experience.
I can care less about gravity. My comments were on water pressure and nothing else.
and I can prove the earth is flat, no matter if you comprehend that or not. Your comprehension is not my concern.
If I can stand on the shore of Cozumel Island Mexico and see the shore of Cancun, 12 miles away, that means the water is flat, which means the earth is flat.
and no, I have no idea how the rest works…..I can care less actually. Truth is what is important to me.
I don’t care about building design or bridges or seismic anything.
As for Neptune….well friend, you are talking out your ass on that one. Neptune is a wondering star, not a planet.
Earth is flat, there is a huge dome over us and above the dome is water, not space. The stars and wondering stars aka planets are in the water, just outside the dome.
The dome turns, not the earth. Earth is stable and does not move in any direction.
Do some real research and stop laughing your ass off. Keep that up and you won’t be able to sit down.
LikeLike
look MJ day, why don’t you research how pressure is “derived” I just gave the scientific equation above to the other FE’er. it uses gravity, go ahead bro, Google the scientific equation for buoyancy. I love engaging FE’ers in forums because the more they write the more social media gets to see how truly ignorant and crazy they are. buy yourself a telescope or join astronomy club and actually look at the planets, they’re certainly not “wandering stars”. calculate the earth’s curvature from cancun to cozemel, works perfect on globe, again I’ve thoroughly researched flat earth it’s a hoax, it’s a cult of either very ignorant people, religious fanatics, and paranoid people. I offer $1000 for every scientific verifiable proof of a flat earth on my instagram. the flat earth model is fatally flawed and not viable according to every theory and law of science , from theories of electricity, magnetism, thermodynamics, motion, fluid mechanics and gravity. a simple compass debunks FE, as a flat and stationary earth can not create an ELECTROmagnetic field around itself
LikeLike
Sorry friend, I refuse to banter with the blind. You are well programmed.
As for the earth curve from Cozumel to Cancun…according to “Science”, you should not be able to see Cancun shoreline from Cozumel.
So go away until you can come up with something better than your foolish answers on here. I have been around your kind before and they are rich in book knowledge…just like you…and totally ignorant in practical experience.
Go and stand on the shore of California and observe Catalina Island sometime. That is not possible if the earth is a globe and the curve charts are accurate.
So much for your Science.
LOL
No need to respond friend. You can’t explain away the fact there is no curve over water. NO amount of money will make the shorelines invisible due to a curve either.
Educated Idiots are all alike! They are all funny to watch…just like you and your desperate to be right responses. LOL
LikeLike
every so called flat earth proof is debunked by science, I offer $1000 to anyone who can refute the debunks using verifiable contrary scientific evidence, science is truth, your ignorance is not a rationale reason for your belief lol but sir please keep talking here I want social media to see just how stupid believers in the FE hoax actually are. gyros tilt over in planes, compasses prove an electromagnetic field, flights and ships cross the southern hemisphere in 12 hours and 15 days respectively, did you use nautical miles in Navy? then you proved earth’s curvature every time you successfully navigated to a new Port lmao!!! your stupidity is amazing, 1 nautical mile = 1 minute of 1 degree of earth’s curvature, thus if the earth was flat and you charted your courses using NM you would never get there it’s really disgusting the ignorance these cult believers have of simple basic math and science
LikeLike
if so-called science debunks a flat earth. How can I see Cancun from Cozumel?
How can I see Catalina Island from the California shore? It’s not possible according to YOUR science.
Give it up! YOU LOSE!
LikeLike
MJDay it’s simple you too ignorant to use the earth’s curvature correctly, convert standard FE miles to nautical miles and add the height of observer and object, when you correctly use the equation it is EXACTLY PERFECT on a globe earth, now go research non stop flights and ships crossing southern hemisphere or how an electromagnetic field is created, or how jet streams are created, please do get back to all of us here on social media with your FE “science” to explain these simple globe proofs
LikeLike
It appears you owe me $1000. but since globe earth folk are liars and idiots, I know you have no intention of paying up.
So go the fuck away until you pay up….LOSER!
LikeLike
poolman,
I see my comment can be taken too literally, so I’ll revise it: “I don’t know how
this picture can explain movement, as you described, and I asked about.”
I’ll also repeat the main question, which I feel has been avoided: why sink and why move below. Why are denser things obliged to move in this “favored” direction?
Your liquid image shows a result “AFTER that movement takes place”. So what about that movement? is this an action void of energy or force? Does movement occur without a physical cause?
I understand things can have different densities as a quality of their physical nature. What is it that uses density to create movement? Are you avoiding this for some reason?
To answer your question, I don’t have specific knowledge of the “layering of the atmosphere” in a scientific sense. The image you presented offers no evidence other that the inclusion (independant overlay?) of certain words on an atmospheric level image
I’d hope we can agree the image and words are not evidence.
Thanks.
LikeLike
re:mjday47362 July 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
Please forgive the intrusion into your thread with madman, but i thought this needed to be considered.
MJDay – you say “according to science . . .”, but then don’t provide the precise scientific conditions, measurements, predictions; including any of your evidence that the science has been shown inaccurate.
Science has a well defined process, and using only words to “refer” to it doesn’t really offer “information” of value. We would all benefit from your details on this matter, so we can examine them, perhaps test them, and reach our own conclusions.
Please consider sharing this when convenient for you.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I tried posting this 5 times throughout today in response to your July 16 12:59pm comment, but it got lost in the ether EVERY time. Let me see if it will post this time…
FactYouAll, the image IS evidence. It is the result of an experiment that ANYONE can do for themselves. Words and diagrams are used to record that physical evidence.
That IS the scientific method at its core!
Do you agree the results will always be the same given they are done in the same atmospheric conditions?
Do you agree the volume and weight of EACH substance matters not, in that they would still form the same layering order?
It seems you want me to claim there is some ‘pull’ on these masses that comes from the ground or somewhere below it causing a downward movement. This “pull force’ I suspect you are hinting at is accepted theory without supporting evidence. There is a belief in modern ‘science’ that a magic unseen force called gravity affects mass, but it has never been proven.
So, if that is where you are going with this, then why isn’t EVERYTHING stuck to the ground? How can anything rise? The compression alone would suffocate anything crawling on the surface.
LikeLike
Glad you got through the post blocking; I’ve had that on some occasions myself.
You’ve just asked (“do you agree”) about “results” and “form the same layering order”, which I perceive are each versions of an outcome. The outcome is not my question; it is movement I ask about (why do these outcomes happen).
You used a version of movement in the July 15, 2017 at 5:20 am post (sink below); and as far as I can tell there has been no cause for such movement provided since then. All I want to understand, is what this cause/action is all about (and if it requires energy).
If we can perhaps pursue this line first, then subsequent topics raised can be addressed. Would this work OK?
LikeLike
facts you all- brilliant, the fundamental laws of conservation of energy, motion in any direction requires energy, the laws of conservation of energy is another “fatal flaw” to the FE model as the motion of a sun orbiting nothing is impossible, but you certainly can apply it the reason for things falling down too. now FE’ers will say “electromagnetism” or “diametric covalence” or “magnetic divergence” or “tutti fruitti ice cream” any pseudo science babble that has zero scientific meaning. a flat stationary earth cannot generate any type of electromagnetic field”. and magnetism cannot attract all elements and compounds.
LikeLike
If the ocean is flat, so is the earth. End of subject!
LikeLike
@mjday I agree if oceans were flat, but they’re not, you proved it in the Navy, you sailed “nautical miles” and successfully arrived at your destinations every time 1 nautical mile = 1mibute of 1 degree of earth’s curvature, if you charted NM’s and earth was flat you would have gotten lost every time, please give me your contrary verifiable FE scientific explanation for this anomaly
LikeLike
AGAIN……..for all you globe earth idiots who are book smart but head ignorant….If I can stand on the sandy shore of Cozumel Island Mexico and see the sandy shore of Cancun Mexico, that would not be possible if the earth curve charts worked. But since they don’t work and you Globe Heads don’t have enough basic understanding about you for problem solving, this very basic understanding, I won’t go into it very deeply for you.
Cancun should be over the curve of the earth by 70 feet or more from Cozumel. If the earth was a globe, I could never ever see Cancun. But I can, so the water is flat and you all can just kiss my ass because I am not going to mess with you any more.
You are book smart and dumb as hell.
The only way you can see the truth is if your consciousness shifts and allows it.
LikeLike
for retarded FE’ers when making assertions please provide the GPS coordinates between the 2 points and the respective Heights of each observer, and convert to nautical miles obviously most of you don’t have this information because you only repeating like a parrot a meme you saw on IG or a YouTube conspiracy theory video. unless you can prove all 250 million square miles of earth’s surface is flat discovering some flat areas, even as large as 1000 square miles is like finding a tiny dent or a dimple on a golf ball, it certainly isn’t proof the entire earth is flat. imbeciles think they can find 1 flat area and it proves the entire flat earth theory WRONG!! FE has to stand on its own merits compatible with all science laws
LikeLike
mjday unfortunately finding dimples on a golf ball does not prove the entire golf ball is flat, how about you explain how does the FE sun travel at 1000 mph without making a sonic boom or how it defies the laws of conservation of energy and motion and of course how does a 35 mile diameter object at 9000 degrees heat up 250 million square miles? again defying laws of thermodynamics, when you can prove FE model is compatible with science I’ll gladly send you a PayPal for $1000 for each
LikeLike
I appear to be in the midst of deaf, dumb and blind, well programmed Idiots.
Amazing!
No need to reply…………I don’t have time for your kind.
LikeLike
Mjday yes as is typical in every convo with a flat earth cultist as soon as you confront them with basic science principles and laws they either 1) change subject 2) insult 3) ignore 4) runaway it’s some common number 4 that my hash tag on instagram where you can find each scientific debunk is #basicallyrun so here you are just running away because as all of social media is witnessing you don’t have any contrary verifiable scientific evidence
LikeLike
I appear to be in the midst of mindless, deaf, dumb and blind, well programmed, blue pill people.
If shit like this is not in the bible, it should be. LOL
LikeLike
madman,
What can you do in these situations? It reminds me of a quote, that I recall begins “I refuse to have a battle of wits . . .” or something like that.
Cheers.
LikeLike
facts you all lol yes he’s unarmed, he’s in the midst of the dumb, mindless , well indoctrinated all right, they’re called the cult of flat earthers lol I was waiting for a reference that it’s “globe” science or some other stupid shit. I had a FE’er claim that ALL telescopes contained CGI to make wandering stars looks like solid planets lol
LikeLike
Yes, mjday. Yes you are. Apparently they are a team.
LikeLike
gravity has been proven millions of times, in every HS science class, by observations of planets, by lensing of stars, by time dilation experiments, now if you could come up with contrary scientific verifiable observations, tests and experiments to each of these then you might have a potential plausible argument. your density argument fails by the fact “air” (made up of the exact same proportion of elements) falls down through “air”. totally debunking your argument. we observe (anyone with a telescope) ice forming on the north and south poles of globe planet Mars, totally debunking the idea of a universal “down” direction. you can’t calculate atmospheric pressure without using density I challenged you to do that and to determine the velocity of falling objects without gravity using only FE science, you can’t, so here we are on social media and you can’t put forward a valid contrary argument
LikeLike
Here is over 200 video links for those who just don’t get the fact the earth is flat.
LikeLike
at MJday, that’s 200 videos of stupid people asking stupid questions who can’t grasp simple basic science and math principles, Eric Dubays 200 proofs are 200 reasons why he’s scientifically illiterate, none of any of those are “scientific proofs” you know what would be a real proof? how does a stationary object create an electromagnetic field, how does a stationary earth generate 250+ mph jet streams, how does FE sun move over stationary earth at 1000 mph? how does 35 mile diameter FE sun heat up 250 million square miles defying fundamental laws of thermodynamics, how does FE sun continuously orbit around “nothing” defying laws of motion and conservation of energy, see imbeciles these are scientific proofs you need to even entertain any possible argument earth is flat.
LikeLike
You don’t even know up from down. You already proved you don’t know enough about air. Maybe you should come out of your blue box and visit the real world.
LikeLike
yes Poolman flat earth rule #3 when stumped by scientific questions begin a personal attack, lmao, why don’t you instead answer the questions, provide the scientific contrary verifiable evidence to all the established tests, experiments, observations of gravity? you are only one who can’t grasp that air is made up exactly same proportion of elements at any elevation, and you are unable to calculate air pressure or velocity of falling objects without gravity now sir please stay on topic and answer these fundamental science questions that debunk FE
LikeLike
http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/19/here-are-10-proofs-that-the-earth-is-actually-flat-not-round-6016710/
LikeLike
Flat Earth Michio Kaku Debunked Newton’s Theory of Gravity
Are you globe earthers looking for science to hold your hand or truth to open your minds?
LikeLike
there was absolutely nothing about the physicist in that video but that’s how really stupid FE’ers roll, they just repeat stupid shit without actually researching it themselves. now take a earth ball size of basketball and cover it to a depth of 0.0015 inches of water (representing deepest ocean) and spin it at 0.00069 RPM and omfg! water sticks to it proving that water will stick to a spinning ball or you can just look at planet mars and see ice sticking to North and South poles of a spinning globe planet, your stupidity has just been debunked bro
LikeLike
thats such a joke almost as stupid as FE’ers claiming Tesla believed the earth to be flat, now idiots are trying to claim eminent physicist Michio Kaku is a flat earther ROTFLMAO
LikeLike
The Natural Physics of Water Prove Earth Flat
LikeLike
@mjday omfg keep making more Posts I love social media to see how totally ignorant you are, in 1915 Einstein debunked all of Newtonian Physics can you at least catch up with modern physics?
LikeLike
NASA WANTS THIS VIDEO REMOVED by Captain Obvious. FLAT EARTH PROVED, SATELLITES IN SPACE DON’T EXIST
LOL……..hell, there is no such thing as space. Space is Water!
There is a big ass dome over our flat earth.
It’s well past time for all you globe heads to go and diddle yourselves or each other.
You annoy the hell out of those who are awake and who have thinking brains.
LikeLike
Just for shits and giggles……….I have a question for you Globe heads on this blog.
Do you think Jet Planes flew into the twin towers on 9/11 and caused them to collapse?
Do you think a jet plane flew into the pentagon?
I’m just trolling to see if any of you globe earthers are awake at all.
LikeLike
mjday,
I want to follow-up on an earlier comment you made, regarding Cozumel Island
and Cancun (both in Mexico). If you want anyone to understand this, they really need the following details:
* actual coordinate positions for each location (and thereby distance)
* observers height (their eyes) above sea level
* an exact description of what can be seen (surf on the beach, house tops, tree tops, etc.
Furthermore, if anyone claims the observation or sighting is not possible under a globe scenario, it is up to them to provide detailed evidence to support this claim.
Words are not sufficient to claim “seeing” something, and that this is “impossible according to a globe model”. If you want to claim something is impossible, you are responsible to show your evidence, in sufficient detail for others to examine and independently affirm or deny the claim (with their supporting details, naturally).
So, I was wondering what your details were on this matter?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Fact You All: According to earth curve charts, I should not be able to go to Cozumel and see the shore of Cancun because it is 12 miles away. According to any chart you look at that shows earth curve, Cancun should be over the horizon by around 70 feet and I should only see water, not Cancun.
No position is necessary in my statement. Any body of land 12 miles out across the water should not be visible….shoreline to shoreline.
A copy of the book “The Lighthouses of the World” and a calculator are enough to prove that the Earth is not a globe, but an extended flat plane. The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a globe Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon!
The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away which means it should be 220 feet below the horizon. The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon. The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight. The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, putting it 280 feet below the line of sight. The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon. And the lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph’s Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!
“The distance across St. George’s Channel, between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbour, near Dublin, is at least 60 statute miles. It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay. The Lighthouse on Holyhead Pier shows a red light at an elevation of 44 feet above high water; and the Poolbeg Lighthouse exhibits two bright lights at an altitude of 68 feet; so that a vessel in the middle of the Channel would be 30 miles from each light; and allowing the observer to be on deck, and 24 feet above the water, the horizon on a globe would be 6 miles away. Deducting 6 miles from 30, the distance from the horizon to Holyhead, on the one hand, and to Dublin Bay on the other, would be 24 miles. The square of 24, multiplied by 8 inches, shows a declination of 384 feet. The altitude of the lights in Poolbeg Lighthouse is 68 feet; and of the red light on Holyhead Pier, 44 feet. Hence, if the earth were a globe, the former would always be 316 feet and the latter 340 feet below the horizon!” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!”
“The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed ‘curvature’ given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no ‘curvature,’ on the surface of the sea – ‘the level of the sea,’- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight. The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world was a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight! The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth was a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon! The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!
“The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.”
Is that enough detail for you?
LikeLike
I’ve debunked all of these claims that you simply cut and pasted from Atlantean Conspiracy, you didn’t verify any of them personally lmao! no sir you can’t see statute liberty from 60 miles away, it’s smaller than a 747, which is barely visible overhead at 7 miles away, see? complete fabricated, flat out lies
LikeLike
madmanwbluebox July 18, 2017 at 11:40 am
I’ve debunked all of these claims that you simply cut and pasted from Atlantean Conspiracy, you didn’t verify any of them personally lmao! no sir you can’t see statute liberty from 60 miles away, it’s smaller than a 747, which is barely visible overhead at 7 miles away, see? complete fabricated, flat out lies.
=====================
Dear Mad: You have not debunked jack shit…..But you do talk a good number though.
If you check it out, there is a youtube video where a boat took photos of the Chicago skyline, 50 miles away and held the cameras on the skyline as they took their boat across the lake and the only thing that changed was the clarity of the skyline until it became clear.
According to calculations that skyline should be 1,667 feet over the earth curve.
The guys doing this video were at 46.2 miles from the skyline of Chicago and that should have been 1210 miles over the curve……yet the camera lens brought up the skyline just the same.
Keep on debunking all you want. You still lose no matter what your words are because you still can’t prove the earth is a globe and spins at over mach 1…[1000 mph] and doesn’t even make the wind blow. LOL!
Why don’t you try proving the earth is a globe for a change. You can’t do it!
Now go away, “you bother me boy, you bother me!” WC Fields quote!
LikeLike
I’ve seen the video it’s fabricated lie, see how that works it’s only 46 miles from dunes in Michigan to Chicago so it would be impossible for a boat to be 46 miles away, and again I’ve debunked the video if you read the comments under it, you ignorance is amazing, you are incorrectly using the earth curvature equation
LikeLike
Madman: Well, I’m sure you can debunk about anything but you can’t prove what you say you have debunked. You just talk a big game.
Let’s see you prove some of your so-called Scientific Laws….ROTFLMFAO
AND you haven’t produced anything but someone else ‘s own personal opinions and theories. So what did you debunk? NAFT!
LikeLike
just debunked the fact the boat wasn’t 46 miles away because it’s 46 miles from top of dune in Michigan Park to Chicago tower, see the video is debunked, how stupid are you?
LikeLike
madmanwbluebox July 18, 2017 at 1:12 pm
I’ve seen the video it’s fabricated lie, see how that works it’s only 46 miles from dunes in Michigan to Chicago so it would be impossible for a boat to be 46 miles away, and again I’ve debunked the video if you read the comments under it, you ignorance is amazing, you are incorrectly using the earth curvature equation
==================
YOU have got to be a fucking kid. If you have some special scientific wizardry calculations for earth curvature other than what all the charts say, please…….indulge my ignorance and show the world how smart you are.
When I punch in 8 X Distance in Miles X Distance in Miles divided by 12 I always get a correct answer. My calculations and the charts are always the same.
So……smart ass………..show me where I am wrong.
Oh, and and I’m sure you are right about the 46 mile distance you mentioned above too. You surely have a better way of calculating that distance than Google Earth…which is what they used from where they were.
And they were not at the dunes, they were at a boat ramp….! ROTFLMFAO Again
LikeLike
yeah that’s wrong equation, you’re not accounting for height of the observer and you’re not converting the distance to nautical miles, give me the GPS longitude and latitude to correctly calculate the distance between, according to long/lat, it’s 46 miles from sears tower to top of sand dune in Michigan Park, at elevation of 800 feet above sea level, the photographer who took the photo stated explicitly you cannot see any part of Chicago skyline from the beach so yeah rob skiba is lying about the location of boT, it’s proven by 2 sources the photographer from top of dunes and GPS distance between the 2 points
LikeLike
madmanwbluebox July 18, 2017 at 2:47 pm
yeah that’s wrong equation, you’re not accounting for height of the observer and you’re not converting the distance to nautical miles, give me the GPS longitude and latitude to correctly calculate the distance between, according to long/lat, it’s 46 miles from sears tower to top of sand dune in Michigan Park, at elevation of 800 feet above sea level, the photographer who took the photo stated explicitly you cannot see any part of Chicago skyline from the beach so yeah rob skiba is lying about the location of boT, it’s proven by 2 sources the photographer from top of dunes and GPS distance between the 2 points
=======================
YOU are so full of shit it is pathetic. YOU would try to argue your way out of death if there was a 14 inch blade through your heart.
My calculations were correct. YOU how ever have more shit than a 10,000 acre Texas cattle ranch.
YOU have not won one time in your arguments with me. You have debunked nothing and you have proven nothing. You have a lot of words and nothing to back those words with.
I on the other hand have truth on my side. Truth always prevails.
Go fuck yourself and leave me alone. I don’t have time for shills who only take up someone’s time as sport.
LikeLike
social media here you have a classic example of cognitive dissonance, I invite anyone to verify my claims to the distances and statements made by the photographer who took photo from on top of the sand dune 800 feet above sea level. unlike FE’ers I do the pain staking research for the truth
LikeLike
mjday,
Let me see if I understand your details (with a few important gaps filled in):
– Your at waters edge in Cozumel, eyes about 6 ft above water surface
– you are looking across what is “measured” as 12 miles of open water
– you see a beach ball at waters edge on the Cancun beach (what amount of magnification is needed to see this, BTW).
Curve calculators predict that waters edge at Cancun is 54-70 ft below the horizon (no beach ball visible), and yet you can see it bobbing in the waves. BTW, with atmospheric refraction, perhaps this is only 44 ft below the horizon.
The missing element in all this is what is seen at this distance (actual visual image vs apparent size), and a better handle on where the line of sight is directed (on beach ball, or something else). Of course, the above is based on my version, not what you were trying to convey. Can you supply your specific details of what is seen, its size, and relation to waters edge?
Science requires precise details to determine the reality using calculations. It is not enough to merely “see Cancun”, you have to explain in detail what you see.
Thanks.
LikeLike
From: FactYouAll July 18, 2017 at 10:24 am
Let me see if I understand your details (with a few important gaps filled in):
– Your at waters edge in Cozumel, eyes about 6 ft above water surface
Between eye level with the water to 6 foot if standing.
– you are looking across what is “measured” as 12 miles of open water
Yes
– you see a beach ball at waters edge on the Cancun beach (what amount of magnification is needed to see this, BTW).
I said nothing about a beach ball now did I. You can see where the land becomes water.
Curve calculators predict that waters edge at Cancun is 54-70 ft below the horizon (no beach ball visible), and yet you can see it bobbing in the waves. BTW, with atmospheric refraction, perhaps this is only 44 ft below the horizon.
Where do you get this beach ball? It must be a part of that globe earth paranoia you all seem to be suffering.
— 12 miles across the water equates to a 96 foot drop over the horizon.
The missing element in all this is what is seen at this distance (actual visual image vs apparent size), and a better handle on where the line of sight is directed (on beach ball, or something else). Of course, the above is based on my version, not what you were trying to convey. Can you supply your specific details of what is seen, its size, and relation to waters edge?
Science requires precise details to determine the reality using calculations. It is not enough to merely “see Cancun”, you have to explain in detail what you see.
Thanks.
Science doesn’t require a damn thing my blind friend. I have been to Cozumel numerous times and no matter where I am, in the water at eye level, sitting at the dock, on the beach or on a rock, you can still see Cancun.
If the waves are up, you can still see the land below the buildings. It is suppose to be 96 feet over the curve.
I can see that you are not looking for truth, you are only looking at how you can disprove the flat earth. And that train has already left the station.
The globe earth “Theory” died over a hundred years ago.
Question: If I am in a small airplane, flying at 3500 feet, why wouldn’t I have the need to constantly trim the nose down because earth curve dropping beneath me?
Every 20 miles I should gain 266 feet in altitude. But it does not work that way. You never ever have to adjust for earth curve when flying.
How can the horizon be horizontal as far as the eye can see and there is never ever a curve downward. Horizon=horizontal
If earth is round like a ball, where is the curve being hidden?
LikeLike
Nice going, mjday. That Rob Skiba video is good. I have watched it before. Actually it was 42.6 miles from Chicago from where they chartered to boat and began filming. They filmed the skyline the entire way PROVING it was not a mirage and Proving there is no curvature to the earth. No one can find curvature. At all. Skiba has been doing some good research at his testing the globe project.
This tag team of naysayers are here with sole intent to disrupt any seekers of truth. Unfortunately, they are probably paid to troll. The government has hired an army of internet disinfo agents.
The blueboxmadman couldn’t debate my 14 year old grandson. 😆 The only thing he/she/it has proven is his/her/its total ineptness and blind faith in the false religion of science.
LikeLike
I watched rob skiba video too and debunked it right on YouTube, no way he was 42 miles if the dunes were 46 miles away and the entire city skyline is invisible from the beach according to the photographer who took the infamous photo, somebody is lying and it’s Rob, also the entire elevated shore drive can’t be seen in Rob video he was certainly not 42 miles away and it certainly wasn’t a continously shot video at best he was 15-20 miles away the entire timing of trip was way off too, FE cult is nothing but lies that cannot be verified, you people are scientifically illiterate at basic fundamental levels
LikeLike
It appears the village idiot has gotten out again. Why don’t you consider just going back home and take on another shill assignment. it is not working here.
No matter what sort of stupid ass “calculations” and “Theories” and Voo-Doo “Science” you throw on the page, it is all just bunk.
You certainly do not have anything that can debunk flat earth. You can not debunk the truth.
As for your comment about Rob Skiba…it doesn’t make a rats ass worth of difference if he was 50 miles or he was 40 or 30 miles or even 20 miles away. The fact was and is that you can still see the skyline that is supposed to be WAY over the horizon and out of sight.
If the earth was a globe, possibly they could see the tip of the “Sears” Tower but you could see the entire skyline.
So you LOSE again because you are a Loser. You have picked the wrong fight because as I said above, you can not debunk the truth.
Now, go back and do some real research.
You might as well learn right here and how that you can not put an awake may back to sleep. You can not un-see once you have seen or un-know what you now know to be true.
Have a nice day…!
LikeLike
keep responding you keep proving how stupid you are, of course it matters how far away he was and what height of observers are, I gave you the right equation to use, you don’t even acknowledge it because it debunked your stupidity, likewise you don’t even acknowledge the fact you personally debunked FE while in Navy navigating using nautical miles which accounts for curvature of earth, 1NM= 1 minute of 1 degree of earth’s curvature. BTW in 4 weeks your cult comes to an end when a total eclipse occurs across USA, the moon will be observed passing in front of sun across USA, impossible on the FE model with the sun and moon orbiting over the tropic of cancer at only 3000 miles up. when that occurs even the stupidest person will realize earth isn’t flat
LikeLike
mjday47362 July 18, 2017 at 11:15 am
I’d reply, but seem to be blocked for no apparent reason.
LikeLike
you do realize that if earth is flat then the government explanation is true! in order to even begin to challenge the narrative theory of gravity is required as is theory of thermodynamics and the theory of conservation of energy? all these Theories debunk the flat earth, but if those theories are incorrect then jet fuel can melt steel beam as easily as a 35 mile diameter sun can warm 250 million square miles, and the building can collapse because things of same density e.g. air can fall all the way to ground, basically if you believe earth is flat the you support the official explanation
LikeLike
keep posting I think your stupidity speaks for itself, I’ve debunked a lot if these my comments are actually already on these videos your coming up with, because unlike you, I’ve thoroughly researched every FE claim and found it to be a hoax which is why I offer $1000 for each valid FE claim
LikeLike
It appears all the village idiots have congregated on this blog…LOL
I don’t want any of your shit to rub off on me so I’m out of here. No time for bantering with folks who are not looking for truth and continually wave voo-doo science all around like it was real or their words mean something.
Science and Theories is now and always has been about money and influence peddling. Theories are not eternal. Theories, when dis-proven are supposed to be cast aside, not enshrined like some of you are doing on this blog. Flat Earth has been proven now and the Globe earth model was cast aside many years ago. So kicking a dead horse is all you are doing. Globe Earth Theory died over a hundred years ago. Get over it! You lose!
So as I said earlier, I’m out of here. I have better things to do than banter with willfully ignorant people.
I would rather be drinking my coffee, which I am about to do.
Have a nice day 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
omfg Lmao you simply stating FE has been proven is probably funniest thing I’ve heard from a FE’er yet, and over 100 years ago???? omfg you are delusional but via glad social media gets to read how stupid you are as an example of all of the FE cult believers. I gave you scientific laws and principles that debunk the FE model, I’ve debunked every “how come I can see this from there” as either blantant lies, or incorrectly using curvature equations. you have yet to address any question I gave you and you have yet to support any allegation with verifiable contrary evidence, everybody is seeing this!!!! you haven’t produced anything but your own stupid personal opinion, and now like every other cult believer you’re running away because you have no substance to back up anything you’ve said yet
LikeLike
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=35&h0=5&unit=imperial
use this link to correctly calculate how much curvature is hiding
LikeLike
Reblogged this on FactYouAll Blog.
LikeLike
mjday, (re: July 18, 2017 at 11:15 am)
Thanks – I’m glad we are discussing the details. The beach ball is a stand-in for a specific visual reference, with a specific position above the water. Seeing where the land becomes water is a different reference, and is a visual observation, not a singular and measured point of reference.
For example, under a curvature scenario, the land visually meets the sea, despite part of the land or sea not being visible. Specific reference points are needed to avoid visual corruption and our interpretation of what we “see”. In the end, it’s what we can measure that provides evidence, not what we see. 🙂
I’m not disagreeing with “you can still see Cancun”, but that is where the details become critical. Cancun is an area, at various elevations, and not a point of reference to be measured.Seeing Cancun is just not scientific data (sorry).
LikeLike
I’m indeed looking for truth (facts / evidence; aren’t you?), and am not picking a winner before science (not opinion or personal interpretations) can support/explain a set of “non-vague” conditions.
I’m still interested in the set of details visible across 12 miles; What clearly identifiable structures or landscape features can be seen, and used for comparison.
An example would be a specific number of floors of a multi-story building. One can test the actual number of floors to those visible at a long distance for evidence.
That would be something!
Thanks.
LikeLike
Fact: I would highly recommend that you travel to Cozumel Island Mexico, Jet or Cruise. Go to the shoreline where the mainland is and just look for yourself.
Sounds like you need something to do other than ask such redundant questions, over and over and over.
Go there and look for yourself. Be sure to have a camera with a nice telephoto lens and you can take pictures of people on the other shore. It’s only 12 miles for christ sake and except for swells..the water is flat.
Knock yourself out friend! Have fun and be sure to go to Senor Frog’s while you are there.
http://senorfrogs.com/cozumel
LikeLike
Notice how pool man dropped the stupid ring magnet explanation when he got debunked lol, sorry but finding dimples on a golf ball doesn’t make the golf ball flat, the actual height of sea level differs by as much as 400 feet due to earth’s gravity this has been measured by ships crossing the ocean, ad the force of gravity depends upon the mass of the solid rock below the ocean
LikeLike
That was god for a laugh. you’re asking someone else to provide evidence that you can’t deliver.
Perhaps you actually believe that “I can see that city from this city across 12 miles of water” can ever be considered evidence in relation to a scientific question. Hmmm.
LikeLike
I’d post my calculation sources, but they are blocked for no apparent reason.
LikeLike
madmanwbluebox July 19, 2017 at 12:45 pm
keep responding you keep proving how stupid you are, of course it matters how far away he was and what height of observers are,
No, it does not matter. If you can see land at a distance, the water is flat and so is the earth. Even a shit for brains like yourself has to be able to comprehend what your eyes see as opposed to a calculation or chart. LOL
You are a shining example of dumbed down. You honestly have no clue and I see that now…
I gave you the right equation to use, you don’t even acknowledge it because it debunked your stupidity,
There was no need to acknowledge something so unnecessary to this debate. You lose again!
It matters not what you calculate or how you calculate it. If I can stand on the sore of one body of land and see another body of land, right at the shoreline, the water must be flat.
likewise you don’t even acknowledge the fact you personally debunked FE while in Navy navigating using nautical miles which accounts for curvature of earth,
Well shit for brains, when you actually debunk something, I will acknowledge it. LMFAO
You are an amazing individual. A true Rainman!
1NM= 1 minute of 1 degree of earth’s curvature. BTW in 4 weeks your cult comes to an end when a total eclipse occurs across USA, the moon will be observed passing in front of sun across USA, impossible on the FE model with the sun and moon orbiting over the tropic of cancer at only 3000 miles up. when that occurs even the stupidest person will realize earth isn’t flat
Only a stupid person would make such a statement about the flat earth. The sun circles overhead like the hour hand on a clock. The sun circles overhead faster than the moon. And obviously they are not at the same altitude or they would bump into each other. It’s pretty simple.
How high up is the sun and moon? Personally have no clue but it is not 93 million miles. The suns rays prove that and it is obvious the sun heats the earth directly, which it could not do from 93 million miles away.
Besides, above the dome is water, not a vast void of space. The only vast void of space is between your ears!
Okay, your turn to show your stupidity some more. I want to read more calculations and exact science. Please….debunk away and I’ll keep reminding you of the same thing, over and over and over. If you can see the land, the water is flat.
You can not debunk what is there, right in front of your eyes. But the village idiot can try! So keep trying and I will keep laughing at you.
Oh, one more thing…you do realize that earth has always been flat and eclipses still went off just fine. De-Nile is more than a big river in Africa. LMFAO
LikeLike
mjday, keep posting social media is seeing what a moron you ate, clearly Skiba was lying as you can’t see Chicago from the beach in Michigan, you have to go up 800 feet above sea level just to see part of it and no you’re not seeing Lake Shore Drive from the boat because it was hidden by curved Lake water. sorry you’re not awoke, you’re in a cult, most people in cults think they’re awoke lol, your navy travels proved earth is globe, you sail rhumb lines, constant straight course following a compass heading, impossible on a flat earth, a compass is impossible on a flat earth lol you can’t make an electromagnetic field on a stationary object try it, show us the FE experiment that proves you can? the Eclipse will debunk FE model, otherwise direct all of social media who is reading this to a model that shows how the FE sun and moon can possibly align themselves to name a total solar eclipse over North America from the tropic of cancer, see you’re not addressing the details and specifics, you have been thoroughly debunked here on social media but please keep responding I don’t want to lose an idiot like you who every time he post only proves more what a hoax FE is
LikeLike
LikeLike
poolman seriously? how is a natural ring magnet in any way related to a flat earth? where is north on a ring magnet just to begin with? what is the field strength of any naturally occurring magnet ever discovered on earth in the entire history of mankind, I’m going to put some paper clips right now on my doorstep in Brooklyn go find a magnet that can grab them from where ever you are. in fact you can’t even find a magnet that could grab them from across the street LMAO! I want social media to see the stupidity that is flat earth cult when they try to apply science to their hoax, now please give social media the scientific explanation on how the 65000 mile circumference of a flat earth can possible be a ring magnet, and again north would be on top and South on bottom of ring (or vice versa) not remotely located in center, sorry you failed, the earth isn’t surrounded by a naturally occurring magnetic field , it’s surrounded (key word round) by an ELECTROmagnetic field
LikeLike
I already know what stupidity is about to follow one of these fools is going to post a link to cryogenic levitation LMAO! and then try to claim that’s how the 9000 degree sun is held up omfg! it’s frightening how stupid these people are 1) sun isn’t frozen to zero degrees 2) you need energy to create the magnetism 3) you need energy to move the sun, so if you’re going to try to throw out some more pseudo science realize I’m just going to debunk it and embarrass you on social media, I’m a nuclear physicist, we’re building $8 billion dollar nuclear plants that run on gravity meanwhile dolts like yourselves are denying it’s real
LikeLike
“I’m a nuclear physicist,…”
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
That is hilarious! A comedian, eh? I see now you’ve been trying to be funny the whole time. I was laughing at your posts the whole time, but didn’t realize you were trying to be funny.
A nuclear physicist trolling a flat earth blog. Priceless!
LikeLike
yes, it’s not a joke, neither is fact nuclear plants that use gravity are under construction in 3 countries around the world. but you probably don’t believe nuclear fission or fusion is real (as they both debunk the flat earth)
LikeLike
Poolman…This guy who calls himself madmanwbluebox doesn’t have a job unless it is a paid military Shill. He may even be a computer program running.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
If he is a nuclear physicist for real, I bet he has no clue there are no such thing as nuclear bombs and nuclear warheads. Hell, the two Japanese cities devastated by so called
Atomic bombs were not atomic bombs at all, they were fuel bombs. Do your own research on the Hoax that is Atomic Bombs. It’s just more bullshit and lies.
I have learned over the past 30 years, many things and the hardest thing I have had to learn is that EVERYTHING we have been told about anything major is a lie.
The United States is a Corporation and only includes Washington DC, not the nation we call America. They are not one and the same. It is all a great fraud.
There was no such person by the name of Jesus….ever. Jesus is a work of fiction created by Rome and Constantine.
Science is all about Grants, not truth.
Cancer has been cured for many years and governments and organizations keep the cures covered because billions of dollars are made on the treatment and deaths of cancer patients. Cancer in general is no big mystery. I can cure cancer in my own home. The secret is your pH level. Get your pH up over 7.6 and you will not only not get cancer but you will not get sick.
Earth is flat, we live under a huge dome and there is water over the dome.
Earth does not spin, travel, rotate or move in any direction.
Earth is a machine with the consciousness of the Tetragrammaton.
All men and women are slaves through the Birth Certificate fraud. In this fraud, the Pope is your father, you are the bastard child of your mother. The birth certificate is created for the Afterbirth, not the birth child. the birth child is a native born American who is enslaved into the system through fraud eventually.
There is no Legal System in the United States. There is however Contract Law. You are not compelled to contract with anyone for anything. Get a traffic ticket…and unless you agree to contract with “them” and give them jurisdiction over you, then there will be nothing they an do about it.
Click to access 632-retired-judge-spills-the-beans.pdf
God did not create mankind…other living beings created man who look somewhat like us. Most of mankind was gene spliced into existence using the Rhesus Monkey. The Rh factor has to do with Rhesus Monkey blood and genes. A very small percent of humanity has royal blood without the Rh factor and that is O- blood people, of which I am one of them. O- people have natural abilities and gifts that are unexplained but still there. I can’t explain it myself but I still know and see things others do not. It’s in the blood someway. And at the same time I was just born this way. I have no idea why.
The United States has started all war since the Spanish American war. Churchill started the war with Hitler. Hitler was a savior, not a tyrant. The Jews who control the world right now changed the history about Hitler. The Jews have been kicked out of 109 countries since 250 AD so they have a bad history of fraud, slavery, satanism, drinking blood, eating human flesh and a lot more. Christopher Columbus was a Crypto Jew and was expelled from Spain when he went on his historic 1492 discovery adventure and went down as one of the greatest tyrants and murderers in history.
We live in a matrix of some kind. We can see things are just not right but we can’t put our finger on the real problem. The problem is this…those who are really in control of this flat earth live just outside the frequency we can visually see. We can feel things at times that seem to not be there….but in reality they are there. We just can’t see them.
There is only one god and that is the god within you and me. Learn to connect with the god within and you have connected with the Tetragrammaton. YHWH according to the Torah. YHWA is not a man. Do some research on Tetragrammaton vs Star Tetrahedron. That is the stuff of the real god. The energy and consciousness that creates everything that is.
I’m finished bantering with the dipshit Physicist who claims he is the higher power for knowledge. In all actuality, he is the village idiot….or a computer program. If he can’t see that we are not spinning at Mach 1.2, which would spin the water off in space, he has to be an idiot. Can you imagine how the wind would blow over the earth if the globe was spinning at Mach 1.2? People like Madman Science boy are paid to be stupid….and it obviously works well with him.
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
@mjday I’m so glad you posted all that, I really want social media to see what an imbecile you are. no such thing as nuclear fusion and fission? I suppose the dentist x-rays of your teeth are actually CGI? as a nuclear physicist I’m here to stop monsters like you from spreading stupidity and pushing mankind back into the dark ages. your stupid FE cult ends in about 4 weeks when a total solar eclipse crosses USA, impossible on any FE model where the sun and moon are only 3000 miles high orbiting at 1000 mph without a sonic boom over the tropic of cancer. as for the idiot who claims he swam in a spent fuel pool drinks SFP water and eats radioactive materials, well I saw a man catch a bullet with his teeth in Vegas, looked pretty real but it was obviously faked. from now on when your getting x-ray take off the lead cover, let me know how that works out for you, of course you have special blood that’s what indoctrinated cult members aways believe, they’re special, they’re awakened etc. you should be in a padded cell before you hurt somebody that’s how delusional you are
LikeLike
madmanwbluebox: I have no idea what sort of meds you got off of but you need to get back on them….Pronto!
It appears you arm wrestled god and you actually think you won and know it all.
Your arrogance and boastings are are a marvel to read. Marvel Comics that is! LOFAO
Give it Up MAD Rainman!
Oh…………BTW, Nuclear bombs do not exist….just like Jesus. No such thing! LOL
LikeLike
you’re ignorance of basic fundamental science principles is a joke on society, every please look at this fool, if he did any real research he would find that you can make nuclear weapons using the radioactive cobalt that’s used in his dentist x-ray. again please keep showing social media how stupid you are
LikeLike
mjday,
Are you no longer interested in examining the details of the Cancun scenario that you first introduced? Just curious if you’ve abandoned this topic. 🙂
LikeLike
FactYouAll: What else is there to discuss? I didn’t abandon any topic, I simply moved on. Water is flat, earth is flat. How many times can that be said? It can never be debunked and only a complete idiot who ignores all the pertinent facts would use the words Flat Earth and debunk in the same comment.
Why are you asking me this question anyway? What more do you want to know?
LikeLike
Well, it isn’t difficult to find that “move on” and “abandon” are synonyms, as an aside. But as far as the Cancun “conjecture”, that of an FE because you can “see it” from Cozumel; you claim an imprecise visual affect, that itself neither proves or disproves anything as it is so vague to have no scientific value.
If you are trying to disprove the curvature of the earth, that things are no longer visible at distance (according to measurements and calculations), it is nonsense to use a common action of ‘seeing”. with no detailed description of that which is being seen, to discredit any of the curvature aspects ascribed to a globe.
In a nutshell, you can’t disprove science with non-science (or is that nonsense?).
However, since you basically gave up the conversation, you were essentially sending a message that you were unable to provide any repeatable evidence that others could make us of. Mere personal opinion is all that remains (which is OK; it just isn’t evidence of anything).
LikeLike
I am no scientist, so do not burn me for any of this.
I came here just to see how proven “gravity” is, and as far as I can tell, from this anyway, that gravity is a general term, encompassing all forces we do understand, such as density, mass, etc, as gravity cannot be defined without another force. If I am way off base here, can someone please explain in more laymen’s terms.
And I have to chime in on this, as this is absurd. If the Earth is flat, how come I cannot stand on my beach here in Victoria, BC, Canada, and see Japan. Am I looking the wrong way? Or does the bearing straight not actually exist, and that is where you fall off? Shouldn’t I be able to at least see the city skyline with a telescope, especially at night, with all those lights?
LikeLike
gravity is not a general term, FE claim it’s density and buoyancy but they can’t account for the energy which causes movement (in any direction) if you research buoyancy equation you see you need the gravity constant to make it work. I’ve challenged the imbeciles here to provide me with the 118 different FE equations to determine the velocity of falling objects due only to density thus far they can’t. if you have even a basic grasp of science you would know why you would need 118 different equations. also if things fall due to “density” only why does “air” at 100000 feet fall down through air? one of idiots here above tried to answer that but he just doubled talked. air at any elevation is made of exact same elements with exact same density, thus air shouldn’t “fall” down to sea level. now in 1915 the force of gravity was debunked, gravity is mass that bends space and time, and this is a proven fact proven repeatedly by numerous scientific tests, experiments and observations that anyone can research. I’ve challenged the idiots above to provide contrary verifiable scientific evidence to the experiments that prove gravity, but thus far they have been unable, in fact they didnt even “know” mass curves both time and space, so how can they “deny” existence of a science fact without even knowing what the facts are? all they do is try to repeat their cult mantra. you got the other idiot above denying nuclear fusion and fission, meanwhile his doctors and dentist use same substance in bombs to take x-rays, so I guess he thinks his x-rays are fake or cgi? again these ignorant people make no sense
LikeLike
If you read the article it is explained quite well how weight is muddled into gravity. Professors and scientists in fact are upset we still use the correct term of weight measured in pounds. They want you to break this into mass and times it by gravitational acceleration. This just adds an extra step. If you have the weight in pounds you do not need this, outside of doing equations for a theoretical location in ‘outer space’. By using mass, you will need to multiply it by gravity to use in equations like Newtons Laws of Motion. These Laws don’t depend on or require the Theory of Gravity. Laws are greater than Theories and can never depend on them
LikeLike
So In general relativity ,gravity is not a force but curved space time. Now if its not a force and just the illusion of gravity how can it do work I’ve gone through all the curvature calculators on google and they all use metric or imperial miles or kilometers. You type in the distance and height of observer and you get hidden by curvature value. Now the footage i am seeing of cameras 1 ft above ground seeing objects at 20 miles at sea level is showing me that ether all these guys are talking shit or that the sea is indeed level and boats going over the curve bottom up is simply an angular resolution effect. Obviously lensing, looming, refraction and various other things should be considered.,
LikeLike
Sorry but when looking at the conversation between the globers and Fe guys here it appears almost staged like the FE guy talks a whole lot of shit and the glober guy smashes him with SCIPOP, is this for real.. I need an answer from a glober,what is the maximum distance I should see a 6ft object being a 6ft observer looking out at sea on a perfectly clear day ruling out refraction looming and lensing and obviously the atmosphere itself,i mean obviously it is more compounded just above the sea.. When will the curvature start obstructing my view. We have done a mall test on a carpet floor perfectly level with a p1000 camera 1ft above the floor; People start disappearing feet first after given amount of distance and this is obviously dew to angular resolution and not a curve.. I have multiple curve calculators aswell as advanced types but none of them use nautical miles I would like an opinion from a globe expert.
LikeLike