***
The heliocentric story goes that all life and planetary objects are held like Velcro to the Earth due to massive gravitational pull from the center of the Earth until one reaches the outer space, defined by science as the Karman line at about 100km.
This is why, we are told, that a plane in the air traveling East to West at 500 mph can keep up with a spinning Earth of 1,000 mph.
This is why, heliocentric science tells us, that the mighty oceans are pasted to Earth (yet Moon’s gravity moves it up and down 2X a day) and not thrown out into space even though the Earth is tilted on its back at 23.5 degrees, meaning the gravitational pull on the backside of the tilt must by that much greater to hold us, and the oceans in place.
This is why, it is said, the clouds, the rain and the winds are held in while we spin so rapidly. Yet we never feel the Earth rotating at 1,000 mph, or the Earth moving around the Sun at 68,000 mph, or our solar system trucking around the Milky Way at science estimated speeds of some 500,000 mph.
In addition, according to the Big Bang, our galaxy has been traveling away from center of the Big Bang the moment we exploded from nothing at the speed of light for some 4.5 billion years.
So if everything is rotating at the same speed earth,ground and air from west to east how can a hurricane travel west off the Atlantic towards the Coast? If we turn at roughly 1000 plus miles per hour in one direction, then any wind travelling in the opposite direction of earths rotation would therefore have to be going 1000 MPH plus its own windspeed in order to successfully push against earths natural airspeed. If airplanes can travel the same speed in either direction give or take 100 MPH for Jet stream then the air above us could not possibly be in motion at the same speed as the earth or planes could never fly west.
This is because, we are told, we live in an atmospheric bubble around the Earth, and like traveling in a car, we never feel the speed outside our bubble, so we are told. Though the centrifugal force of revolving 1,000 mph outward is completely countered by the some 233X more pull of gravitational force, that keeps everything nailed down on Earth and those people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth.
Additionally, the centrifugal forces at the Equator would be significantly higher than at the poles due to distance traveled on a round ball-Earth, meaning gravity would have to magically increase in kind. hmm.
Earth’s Complex Atmospheric Layers.
” I would say, however, that what is currently deemed “science” like Einsteins theory of relativity and Newton’s supposed “law of gravity,” are what’s truly dubious. Heliocentrists cannot show us a single object massive enough that by virtue of its mass alone, causes other smaller masses to stick to or orbit it as they claim happens with the Sun, Moon, Earth, Stars and Planets. If you cannot give me a single practical example of “gravity” smaller than the Earth or the Sun, then it is merely heresay, not science! Other than magnets, there are no objects they can point to to prove their supposed “gravity” that’s strong enough to hold people, buildings and the oceans stuck to the underside of a spinning ball-Earth, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, and helium balloons to fly away with ease. If there was a magical magnetism that held our feet firm to the underside of a spinning ball, we would feel this magical force every time we lifted our leg, and the force would increase like a magnet the closer our foot was to the ground. ” Eric Dubay
Yet, randomly, and effortlessly, feathers can float, clouds can meander this way and that and Dandelions are “free” to ride the current of the winds in whatever direction it may be taken.
I can raise my arms up and down, or jump in the air without being “stuck” to the surface. A balloon can rise with the heat and smoke lifts away into the air without effort completely defying gravity because, we are told, we live in a cocoon, or placenta called Earth’s atmosphere.
But what happens when we get outside that “bubble” of Earth atmosphere over the “Karman Line” and into outer space? NASA science says we no enter a vacuum, a void. A vacuum of little to no resistance or drag, no matter what size the object.
****
Astronomer/NASA mumble jumble:
Space is a partial vacuum: its different regions are defined by the various atmospheres and “winds” that dominate within them, and extend to the point at which those winds give way to those beyond. Geospace extends from Earth’s atmosphere to the outer reaches of Earth’s magnetic field, whereupon it gives way to the solar wind of interplanetary space.[94]
Interplanetary space extends to the heliopause, whereupon the solar wind gives way to the winds of the interstellar medium.[95]
Interstellar space then continues to the edges of the galaxy, where it fades into the intergalactic void. (source)
Accelerating Atmospheres
According to science, our layers of atmosphere help hold all in place on Earth, yet the higher one travels, the less dense the atmosphere and the freer one is of gravitational pull. This assumes that the Earth’s atmosphere is rotating right along with us at 1,000 mph while being held together while we travel over 1,000 mp/second around the Sun.
If this is true, then the outer layers of Earth’s atmosphere, would have to be increasing in speed the higher up one went in space since the outer layers of atmosphere would be traveling much greater distance to keep in symmetry with the Earth and its gravitational pull.
(This is why, it is said, that at 130 miles in space, in the Thermosphere, the ISS space station must travel at 17,500 mph to keep in “free fall” orbit with the Earth.)
So we have a round ball (Earth) that has a faster spinning lower atmosphere where each of the other three levels of atmosphere must also be increasing in speed, by definition.
Yet where is the “boundary” where we are free from such great rotation? Why do we never hear about space ships having to use increasing energy to break free from ever stronger rotational pulls higher up in Earth’s atmosphere’s?
****
And when do we ever feel the winds and resistance from when we finally break free from Earth’s gravitational pull? Answer: Never! We never stick our heads out the Earth’s window and feel the effects of Earth’s mass of orbital and rotational movement.
Science tells us that, viola’, we are suddenly in the “vacuum of space” where their is little resistance and no drag, and density has been diminished so that even a bowling ball and feather will fall to an imaginary ground equally, in a vacuum.
(note how cheesy this “great experiment” is, and how we do not see the full falling of the objects in real time but in slow motion. Also, the quick cutaway to the elated NASA scientists and the massive feathers used compared to the bowling ball)
In the audio of the transmission in the below video of Apollo 15 on the Moon, listen to the instantaneous communications between Moon, 238,000 miles away and Earth. It should take 2.3 seconds per one-way radio communication, yet they are literally talking over one another. NASA deliberately used 2 GHz transmission frequency from Apollo craft, which ham radio and other independent operators could not monitor, to verify location of the Apollo craft. Only 3 satellite dishes, all owned and controlled by NASA, received the “live television footage” of the landing. Highly suspicious.
A Vacuum in space was also “proven” on the Moon by the Astronots in a very grainy, could of been anything, using an alleged hammer, instead of a bowling ball, experiment
Also note how the camera zooms in at the right time while the two astronots are in the shot. Who was at the camera during filming the experiment. WTF?
****
Vacuum in Space
Vacuum; Wiki definition:
Outer space, or simply just space, is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including the Earth.[1] It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust and cosmic rays.
There is no firm boundary where space begins. However the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) above sea level,[7] is conventionally used as the start of outer space in space treaties and for aerospace records keeping.
In Aeronautics, level flying higher and higher meant to deal with less and less dense atmosphere, thus to the need of greater and greater speeds to have the flying machine controllable by aerodynamic forces. A speed so big in fact, that, above a certain altitude, could be close or even bigger than the circular orbital speed at that altitude (i.e. lift was no longer needed, since centrifugal force took over; and consequently aerodynamic flight was meaningless).
An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] “vapor”[1] and σφαῖρα [sphaira] “sphere”[2]) is a layer of gases surrounding a planet or other material body of sufficient mass[3] that is held in place by the gravity of the body. An atmosphere is more likely to be retained if the gravity is high and the atmosphere’s temperature is low.
So if there was little to no drag and little to no resistance, how can an astronot, untethered in space control direction and speed?
How could a spaceship stay on course and not go gyrating out of control with nothing to “push” against like while in the Earth’s atmosphere? Rudders, flaps and Aileron’s and other vehicle control mechanisms would be minimized for there would be no countering force with which to steer?
Movement = Force applied against Resistance. In space their is only “residual” resistance, according to Never A Straight Answer, NASA
****
Falling From Space
“If a person drops a hammer and a feather, air will make the feather fall more slowly. But if there were no air, they would fall at the same acceleration. Some amusement parks have free-fall rides, in which a cabin is dropped along a tall tower. If a person let go of an object at the beginning of the fall, the person and the object would fall at the same acceleration. Because of that, the object would appear to float in front of the person. That is what happens in a spacecraft. The spacecraft, its crew and any objects aboard are all falling toward but around Earth. Since they are all falling together, the crew and objects appear to float when compared with the spacecraft.”
So when does the massive gravity of the Sun make us “Fall” into it and Why does not the Moon “Fall” into the Earth? There is also gravity from massive planets like Jupiter and Saturn, being ‘tractor-beamed’ towards the Sun, yet is never accounted for by astronomers.
*****
(from NASA.gov website)
Words to Know:
Free fall: the condition of moving freely in an environment in which gravity, and nothing else, is causing acceleration
Vacuum: the absence of all matter, including air
Microgravity is the condition in which people or objects appear to be weightless. Microgravity is sometimes called “zero gravity,” but this is misleading. Gravity causes every object to pull every other object toward it. Some people think that there is no gravity in space. In fact, a small amount of gravity can be found everywhere in space. Gravity, however, does become weaker with distance. It is possible for a spacecraft to go far enough from Earth that a person inside would feel very little gravity.
If 90 percent of Earth’s gravity reaches the space station, then why do astronauts float there? The answer is because they are in free fall. In a vacuum, gravity causes all objects to fall at the same rate.
What does it mean to fall around Earth? Earth’s gravity pulls objects downward toward the surface. Gravity pulls on the space station, too. As a result, it is constantly falling toward Earth’s surface. It also is moving at a very fast speed – 17,500 miles per hour. It moves at a speed that matches the way Earth’s surface curves. If a person throws a baseball, gravity will cause it to curve down. It will hit the ground fairly quickly. An orbiting spacecraft moves at the right speed so the curve of its fall matches the curve of Earth. Because of this, the spacecraft keeps falling toward the ground but never hits it. As a result, they fall around the planet. The moon stays in orbit around Earth for this same reason. The moon also is falling around Earth.
~ So according to NASA.gov ISS space walkers up a couple hundred miles can space walk due to being in a vacuum where all weight is equal, yet their is still a 90% gravitational pull, meaning a 200 pd Man would weigh 180 pounds….yet all weight would be equal and solely by gravitational pull would they “fall” towards Earth’s center. How can all weight be equal yet have different weight?.
WTF?
****
****
Vacuum of Space…Except for….
There are millions of micro-meteors traveling at speeds as fast as 6000 mph.
More than 500,000 pieces of space debris orbit Earth, traveling at speeds up to 175,000 mph. A small piece of space debris traveling at these velocities could significantly damage a spacecraft or a satellite.It could also pose a threat to the lives of astronauts living on the International Space Station.At the low altitudes at which the ISS orbits there are a variety of space debris,[243] consisting of many different objects including entire spent rocket stages, defunct satellites, explosion fragments—including materials from anti-satellite weapon tests, paint flakes, slag from solid rocket motors, and coolant released by US-A nuclear-powered satellites. These objects, in addition to natural micrometeoroids,[244] are a significant threat. (source)
To protect satellites and astronauts (and soon, space tourists), engineers have to give the ships some sort of armor. Right now, NASA uses something called “Whipple Shielding”:
In the 1940s, Fred Whipple proposed a meteoroid shield for spacecraft, called the Whipple shield in recognition of his contribution. The Whipple shield consists of a thin, aluminum “sacrificial” wall mounted at a distance from a rear wall. The function of the first sheet or “BUMPER” is to break up the projectile into a cloud of material containing both projectile and BUMPER debris. This cloud expands while moving across the standoff, resulting in the impactor momentum being distributed over a wide area of the rear wall (Figure 2). The back sheet must be thick enough to withstand the blast loading from the debris cloud and any solid fragments that remain.
In updated versions of this design, says NASA, “bulletproof” Kevlar or other materials are placed between the outer sacrificial wall and the inside plate.
The designs amount to, essentially, putting something thick in the way that will hopefully stop the micrometeorite before it can ram its way all the way through your spacecraft. But once that hole is punctured, the strength of the shield is reduced until it can be repaired—not the greatest if you want to leave your satellite up there for years at a time, or you want your commerical space ship to do back-to-back flights. (Source)
A chip of paint at this speed in space would rip a hole in an uprotected astronot! Yet NASA has it all under control, nothing to be concerned with, we’ve done it thousands of times, logging hundreds of hours and no problema!
Positions of all numbered asteroids and all numbered comets on 2009 January 1
The nuclei of most comets are thought to measure 10 miles (16 kilometers) or less. Some comets have comas that can reach nearly 1 million miles (1.6 million km) wide, and some have tails reaching 100 million miles (160 million km) long.
***
~ Sidebar: In 1958, the Federation Aeronautic Int’l (FAI) created the Int’l Commission of Astonautics with the acronymn CIAstr, later changed in 1987 to to ICARE, the Int’l Commission of Astronautical Records to record space flight achievements. This consortium was originally made up of the U.S., France, Spain, Russian. (This allowed all data to be compiled and coordinated through one source.)
****
Summary:
There is no cocoon of an atmosphere from gravity that holds all in, yet at a distance, all objects are equal in weight in a vacuum of no air.
How can astronots spacewalk w/o getting godsmacked just opening up the bay door and sticking their head outside the capsule? Oh yea, the are “falling” back to earth and all objects are still in the Earth’s gravitational placenta where there is little to no friction or resistance in the vacuum.
Yet rocket thrusters are said to be used to move the space ships and move the astronots around in space so precisely that they can free fall in space and make perfect trajectory adjustments in the Big Void, where Immense gravity from the Sun, gravity from the Moon, from the planets have no effect.
Space debris, meteors, comets, solar winds, etc. also have never impacted or effected any space walks or missions either.
It all makes no sense.
We here it all the time from NASA and Astronomers, “Space is a Vacuum”.
This vacuum is what allegedly allows space craft to travel, and astronots to space walk with very little or no resistance or friction.
“Apparently”, as scientific research is fond of using the term, their is an edge to the Earth’s atmosphere up in space, some 100-130 miles in space that allows astronots to float in “micro-gravity” or weightless, completely unaffected by the friction of an 1,000 mph rotation of Earth’s spin, the Moon’s gravity that moves the ocean up and down 2X per day or keeping up, untethered from their spaceship traveling right next to them at some 17,500 mph.
So if they are in a vacuum where resistance and friction are minimized, how do they control their hand jets to get them to move around? How does a spaceship use its adjusting thrusters, if their is no resistance in space to “push” against?
They would be tumbling out of control in wild gyrations without ability to correct or counter spin because they are in a vacuum.
http://www.waykiwayki.com/2014/11/earth-hoax-part-1-of-2-dont-spin-out.html
Additionally, where in space is the effect of traveling at 1,000 mph earth rotation, combined with 68,000 mph earth orbit of the Sun, or over 1,000 mp/second, combined with the some estimated by NASA, 500 mph speed of our solar system trucking around the Milky Way?
The thermosphere extends from about 56 miles (90 km) to between 310 and 620 miles (500 and 1,000 km). . . .
The exosphere, the highest layer, is extremely thin and is where the atmosphere merges into outer space.
http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
This allows much of the heliocentric theory to further the idea that all life is in a vacuum, with edges and boundaries, yet undefined as to where atmosphere ends and the space “vacuum” begins.
Aplanetruth.info 
Many of the questions regarding gravity were already presented in article #25, and I tried to answer them the best I could. Here is a summary of the main points to remember:
– Gravity (gravitation) is a force, not a movement.
– The movement of an object results from the cumulative effects of all the forces that apply to this object over time.
– The effect of gravity, like the effect of any force, can be countered by the effect of opposing forces.
– Consequently, gravity alone does not explain the various movements of objects that we observe everyday. You need to consider all the eventual other forces that apply to these objects: air pressure, Archimedes’ force, electromagnetism, contact forces, centrifugal forces, friction, etc.
– The force that pulls everything “down” is gravity. And because gravity is directed towards the center of the Earth, that means “down” is actually a relative direction : “down” is not an absolute (fixed) direction. There is no absolute force pulling everything in an fixed direction; thus, there is no “underside of the Earth”. Gravity behaves the same way in every direction pointing towards the center of the Earth.
Now, let’s try to answer the new questions:
1) “I can raise my arms up and down, or jump in the air without being “stuck” to the surface. A balloon can rise with the heat and smoke lifts away into the air without effort completely defying gravity because, we are told, we live in a cocoon, or placenta called Earth’s atmosphere.” -> The Earth’s atmosphere does not explain everything. For example, you are able to jump because your muscles are able to produce a force which is strong enough to oppose gravity.
2) “heliocentric science tells us, that the mighty oceans are pasted to Earth (…) and not thrown out into space even though the Earth is tilted on its back at 23.5 degrees, meaning the gravitational pull on the backside of the tilt must by that much greater to hold us, and the oceans in place.” -> The tilt has no effect on gravity. Remember, there is no force trying to make us “fall from the Earth” that gravity would have to compensate somehow to make us stick to the Earth. There’s just gravity.
3) “where is the “boundary” where we are free from such great rotation?” -> That’s a tricky question. This rotation is (partly) induced by the air pressure in the atmosphere – you just “move along with the air”. But as you go higher until there is no more air, what happens to this rotation? Why do you keep rotating if there is no air to push you?
The answer is simple: because there is nothing to stop you. If you apply an initial push to an object, this object will gain some speed and will retain this speed until another force slows it down. This is simple inertia.
4) “Why do we never hear about space ships having to use increasing energy to break free from ever stronger rotational pulls higher up in Earth’s atmosphere’s?” -> There is no rotational pull in the higher sphere of the atmosphere (because there is no air pressure). The rotational speed in only due to inertia.
5) “And when do we ever feel the winds and resistance from when we finally break free from Earth’s gravitational pull?” -> There is nothing there, so there is nothing to oppose your movement. There is no resistance.
6) “Science tells us that, viola’, we are suddenly in the “vacuum of space” where their is little resistance and no drag, and density has been diminished so that even a bowling ball and feather will fall to an imaginary ground equally, in a vacuum.” -> The density of the objects does not change. What changes is the Archimedes force, because it depends on the density of the object and on the density of the fluid (air) around it. Since there is no fluid around objects in vacuum there is no Archimedes force and no wind to oppose gravity, and so all objects fall like rocks no matter their density.
Note that the experiments of feathers in vacuum is very, very easy to reproduce. You will find countless amateur videos of the same thing.
7) “So if there was little to no drag and little to no resistance, how can an astronot, untethered in space control direction and speed?” -> By projecting matter at high speeds.
Imagine you are on a skateboard, with a bowling ball in your hand, and you throw the ball as far as you can. What will happen? You will start to roll in the opposite direction. Note that you would have the exact same result in vacuum: this has nothing to do with the atmosphere. So why is that? Because momentum is conserved. The speed you give to the ball multiplied by the mass of the ball is equal to the speed that the ball gives you multiplied by your own mass.
Astronauts use bottles of compressed air so they can project air particles at high speed. These particles do not have a big mass, but they are projected fast enough so that the product of their total mass and speed is enough to give significant speed to an astronaut.
8) “So when does the massive gravity of the Sun make us “Fall” into it?” -> Don’t forget that a spaceship located at constant distance of the Earth follows the same movement of rotation around the Sun. Thus the same centrifugal force applies and opposes the Sun’s gravitational force in the same way as for the Earth.
9) “Why does not the Moon “Fall” into the Earth?” -> Because the Moon rotates around the Earth, so the centrifugal force applies and opposes the Earth’s gravitational force. In Space, the centrifugal force is a natural opponent to gravity because it does not require energy or matter to be produced – it just requires an absence of resistance (vacuum) to maintain a constant speed. While on Earth (or more generally, in an atmosphere) the Archimedes force is the natural oppponent to gravity.
Yet the Earth spins around itself, so why does’nt the centrifugal force that applies to us oppose Earth’s gravitational force this time? Because the Earth does not spin fast enough. The centrifugal force is there but is not sufficient to counter gravity (which on the surface of the Earth is 233x more powerful than the centrifugal force).
10) “Additionally, the centrifugal forces at the Equator would be significantly higher than at the poles due to distance traveled on a round ball-Earth, meaning gravity would have to magically increase in kind.” -> That is correct, the centrifugal forces at the Equator are significantly higher that at the poles. Gravity remains the same, it’s just countered more or less efficiently by the centrifugal force depending on the latitude, which means we would indeed feel lighter or heavier depending on the latitude if there wasn’t such a difference in amplitude between these 2 opposing forces. Note however that the presence of stronger centrifugal force at the Equator lead to the choice of launching sites near it in order to reduce the effort required for the take off of rockets.
11) “If 90 percent of Earth’s gravity reaches the space station, then why do astronauts float there?” -> The ISS spins around the Earth. Which means… yay, centrifugal force! The ISS rotates over the Earth at a speed which is high enough to induce a centrifugal force able to exactly oppose gravity. The people in the ISS are trapped in equilibrium between 2 opposing forces, exactly like the Earth or the Moon (altough unlike the Earth and the Moon, the ISS’s mass isn’t enough to produce a significant gravity on its own).
12) “yet their is still a 90% gravitational pull, meaning a 200 pd Man would weigh 180 pounds…” -> Yes, but at the same time this same man would be ejected from its orbit because of its speed. The sum of these 2 opposing effects (gravity: “fall on Earth!”, rotation: “get lost in Space!”) is zero. As a result, there is no movement: the man “floats”.
13) “it is obvious that up is up and down is down, yet they say it is not so, and everyone believes them!” -> Common sense is only accurate when you are aware of all the aspects of a problem. When there are some facts that you ignore, the probability that your common sense leads you to an incorrect solution is absurdly high.
14) “Space debris, meteors, comets, solar winds, etc. also have never impacted or effected any space walks or missions either.” -> You do realize that Space is HUGE, right? Even with millions of debris in it, the probability that you cross the trajectory of one of them is still incredibly low.
15) “So if they are in a vacuum where resistance and friction are minimized, how do they control their hand jets to get them to move around? How does a spaceship use its adjusting thrusters, if their is no resistance in space to “push” against?” -> There is no need to push against anything. Just throw some matter away, and by the laws of momentum you will gain some speed.
16) “Additionally, where in space is the effect of traveling at 1,000 mph earth rotation, combined with 68,000 mph earth orbit of the Sun, or over 1,000 mp/second, combined with the some estimated by NASA, 500 mph speed of our solar system trucking around the Milky Way?” -> Look up for Coriolis forces. And remember that most of the time what matters is not speed but acceleration (or deceleration). If the speed remains constant, things are easy. Just consider the centrifugal force (if the movement is circular) and forget about the speed. Things only get messy when there is acceleration involved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Julien, Thanx for your in depth comments and insights. I’ll get back to you on some of these shortly but just to be clear, what I can observe, what makes common sense, and my belief that the ancients, who clearly knew much more than we do today (see the Great Pyramids), as well as the bible, all believed in a flat earth. Could they have been so wrong, if they build massive monuments, used images that expressed thousands of words in just a single glpyh and were set to the heavenly movements, could of been that wrong??? Doubt it.
LikeLike
Sure, I’ll be happy to elaborate more – in the limits of my own understanding and knowledge of course. There are things that may seem contradictory in what I wrote (too bad I can’t edit my answers), so don’t hesitate to point them out so we can discuss about it. I think you are asking great questions, and trying to answer them helps me get a better understanding of the subject.
Regarding your observation about common sense and ancient civilizations I’d like to say 3 things:
– Be very careful with common sense. Our perception of the world is extremely limited, which means there is a high risk of making mistakes when we try to extrapolate what happens at the limits of our perception. At some point we have to rely on tools to go beyond our perception – and there is always a risk that these tools are flawed as well. Getting an accurate perception of reality is not a simple task.
– Just because ancient civilizations achieved some impressive feats for their time (according to the knowledge we have of their level of knowledge) doesn’t mean that they knew “much more than us” or that they were right about everything. For example, most of these civilizations were polytheist. Does it mean that everyone believing in a single God today is wrong? Also, believe me, building a skyscraper is much more difficult than building a pyramid.
– Finally, I’m not really interested in knowing who’s right or wrong, or who’s lying or not. I’m interested in theories that are good at explaining how reality behaves; theories that we can leverage to build sophisticated stuff. You are welcome to disapprove with Newton’s theories (/”laws”), but remember that his theories are now used everyday to build cars, bridges, airplanes, skyscrapers, and many other things. Surely there must be something “right” in them? “Are Newton’s laws true?” is an irrelevant question. “How accurately do they describe our reality?” is a much better question in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julien, you wrote: Just because ancient civilizations achieved some impressive feats for their time (according to the knowledge we have of their level of knowledge) doesn’t mean that they knew “much more than us” or that they were right about everything. For example, most of these civilizations were polytheist. Does it mean that everyone believing in a single God today is wrong? Also, believe me, building a skyscraper is much more difficult than building a pyramid.
The ancient civilizations didn’t achieve some impressive feats for their time. The achieved impressive feats PERIOD.
You are entirely wrong when you say it’s much more difficult to build a skyscraper than a pyramid. We cannot duplicate the Great Pyramid today. We don’t have the technology. All of the theories on how ancients accomplished this fall ridiculously short. Modern buildings don’t even come close to duplicating the tremendous precision of the Great Pyramid. I refer you to an engineer’s study of the GP. Chris Dunn’s Giza Power Plant. Our biggest skyscrapers come no where near the amazing tolerances of the GP.
Perhaps everyone IS wrong that believes in a single God today. The Bible itself speaks of the Elohim and says “Let us make man in OUR image.” It also says “Have no other gods before me.” So where do you see a single God?
Your dazzle ’em with bravo sierra strategy hasn’t convinced me one iota. But don’t stop. I’m sure it will sway someone.
LikeLike
” Look up for Coriolis forces. And remember that most of the time what matters is not speed but acceleration (or deceleration). If the speed remains constant, things are easy. Just consider the centrifugal force (if the movement is circular) and forget about the speed. Things only get messy when there is acceleration involved.”
Coriolis and centrifugal are defined as ‘fictitious force’, but I bet you already know that.
I bet too that you also know that the circular motion, by definition, is ‘accelerated’ and not by any means a ‘constant velocity’. Acceleration is indeed involved. Since the system is an orbiting or rotating one, the direction vectors is constantly changing. This is the inertia that were it not for the effect of gravity as centripetal force, would cause the International Space Station to fly like the stone from David’s sling.
Or what causes water beads to fly from a spinning tire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_acceleration
Were it not for such acceleration, there would be no ‘centrifugal force’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
This effect is due to the relative motion of the rotating platform compared to the non moving lab.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/the-coriolis-effect-4407/
LikeLike
The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.
“While the premise makes sense – that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well – in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com
The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes. -The Flat Earth Conspiracy
LikeLike
The Kepler system which defines the Earth’s motion around the Sun is not one of constant velocity as everyone well knows. The circular motion and the fact of Kepler’s great discovery preclude the notion that the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is somehow in a state of constant velocity. It goes against anything we can show in lab on Earth with centrifugal type experiments. The varying apparent velocity of the Earth tangentially to its orbit is obviously not a constant state of motion and one has to hand wave this away.
LikeLike
You did not address how in a vacuum there is nothing to push against.
Tangentially, conservation of inertia, angular movement, libation, blah, blah blah, Sun 93 million miles away, trucking at 1,000 miles per SECOND, around, Solar system trucking at over 500,000 mph around our galaxy…and we never feel a thing.
Measuring stars by infrared radio frequency from hundreds of trillions of miles away that determines orbit, size, mass, content, relation to other planets, etc. ha ha ha
The Earth rotation, at 1,000 mph was caused from Big Bank 14.3 billion years ago when we spun out of the Sun some 4.5 billion years ago, then magically stopped at 93 million miles to spin in such perfect orbit that a clock can be measured in nanoseconds, today, as it was 4.3 billion years ago? due to “conservation of inertia” and “angular movement” which lientists say keeps of in perfect spin due to “no resistance”, yet gravity holds airplanes, oceans and us in its womb, so all is kept in sync where we have layers and layers of different types of atmo-spehers…yet their is no “resistance” Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
All you think you know, all you’ve been taught, has come from ONE agency. NASA.
NASA Lies, they all lie.
LikeLike
Your pathological distrust of authority has nothing to do with science or NASA. The sad truth lies within yourself.
LikeLike
On the other hand, maybe my 25 years working in and on Wall Street has given me unique insight which i’m choosing to share with others who have eyes to see and ears to hear??
see this and then tell me it’s my delusion.
http://tabublog.com/2015/08/22/who-they-are/
LikeLike
Hello all… I wonder if it is useful to keep referring to the earth’s rotational speed of 1,000 mph (at equator) as impressive because we cannot feel this “spin”. I don’t think this is a good proof because all it means to me is that we are sitting on a merry-go-round that takes 24hrs to complete a single revolution / rotation. Not impressive from a physical sensory perspective… in the absence of visual reference to stationary surroundings!!! However, the stars rotating around the polar star is READILY observable from many populated locations… as too is the flatness of horizon, etc
LikeLike
– “Gravity (gravitation) is a force, not a movement”. A FORCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST IN ANY SCIENCE EXPERIMENT, A NAME GIVEN TO VISUAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT ANY PROOF WHERE IT IS, ITS SOURCE, ITS LOCATION……PROOF MEANS: “TO THE ABSOLUTE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES.” – I doubt “the force” can go beyond just a theory. You can casually see how the “presumption” that “force” exists can rationalize everything else on top of it? Once the “presumption” that the “force” exists becomes a “fact” in your “logic” then you can build a “house of cards a mile high” (albeit a very good one that very smart people covet) – just like explaining the sun’s movement in the sky because of “spin”. It’s a “Theory” until a better “reasoning” appears. Just like: the brown stain in my underwear is because i ate brown food. or, a scientist investigating behavior in bullfrogs notices that when startled by a loud noise the frog jumps. Deciding to experiment further he yells “Jump” and notes that the frog jumps a distance of 4 feet.
He then cuts off a front leg, yells jump and the frog jumps 3 feet.
He cuts off the other front leg, yells jump; the frog jumps 2 feet.
He cuts off a back leg, yells jump; the frog barely manages to jump 6 inches.
Cutting off the last leg when he yells jump the frog doesn’t move. He yells louder; the frog doesn’t move.
In his notebook the scientist concludes: “A frog with no legs becomes deaf.”
“Luke, use the force!”
So in the vacuum of space centrifugal force exist? Rocket thrusters work in a vacuum? I think one must distinguish the big difference between “freefail” and “vacuum”. You can light a match in “freefall” and drink beer. But what about in a vacuum?
LikeLike
Not very convincing.Bigbang itself is just a speculation.When inertia is accepted how Big Bang could have happened without an external force?Earth gravitational force seems to keep everything within its fold.It also is cause for the weight of objects.Weight equal to Mg.In vaccuum a clutch of feathers and a metal ball reach down simultaneously when dropped gently from equal heights at the same time say with 0 velocity.When mass is different will they not develop different force while striking the base?Then does it mean force has nothing to do with velocity difference?I think some other thing is there .Kindly explain.
LikeLike
Well done…..I don’t know why you bother arguing with the brainwashed round heads who just repeat as fact unproven theories that they have been taught to memorize, they remind me of the Ashkenazi jews who stole Palestine from the Semitic Arabs who have lived there for thousands of years and have “convinced” most humans that the Nazis murdered 6,000,000 “jews” when there fewer than 3,000,000 “jews” in all of Europe, and about 7,000,000 worldwide, so I guess all the jews from North and South America and Oceania and the middle and far east all emigrated to Nazi Germany within a two year period to help the “holocaust” along…how thoughtful of them…..any sane and intelligent person who has the ability to think and analyze things for him/her self can easily see that these “factual” theories are al based on assumptions that are dubious at best, and not real observation…I have conducted my own experiments, and un did my “heliocentric conditioning” in less than a day….I never really gave it much thought because I didn’t care one way or the other….now, since I have an I.Q. of 158, which is higher than 98% of everybody else, I think I’ll take my own experimental “evidence” over someone who just repeats in parrot like fashion what they’ve been indoctrinated to believe….Really, stop wasting time with these morons, you know the truth, what a fool believes, it sees….the simple fact remains that NONE of these roundhead heliocentric fools can definitively prove ANY of what they believe in, they constantly have to invent new convoluted lies just to overcomplicate things to the point where they themselves don’t even know what they’re talking about…..all one needs to do is sit quietly in nature and observe……truth is simple, only liars and deceitful people need to conjure up complicated stories to confound and confuse….not one roundhead can answer why whenever anyone goes south from anywhere on the plane of earth they always hit the ice of Antarctica….they never wind up at the north pole, because the north pole is the centre of our circular enclosure on the infinite plane on which we are situated….they also have no answer as to why there is virtually no plant or animal life on Antarctica, nor why on average it is twice as cold as the “northern” arctic…..IF the earth was a globe, this would not be the case………..you seem to be too intelligent to waste your time, so don’t……much like a woman or man who is convinced their lover is NOT having an affair, you can show them the panties, hotel and dinner bills, and surveillance tapes, and the fools will just say you, as the investigator, just made it all up or planted the evidence. Seriously, these idiots believe: we live on a spinning ball rotating on a tilt of 23 degrees spinning “east” at 1600 km per hour hurtling through “space” at 60,000 kph and never bump into anything nor feel any movement? YOU’VE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME, ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING STUPID???????? lol!
LikeLike