- Start Here
- First Questions Asked?
- Jesuits; Rulers of Evil
- History of Geocentric Theory
- The Heliocentric Globalist Theory
- Reasons to Doubt the Earth is Truly a Sphere
- Reasons to Doubt Everything NASA
- Moon Hoax Images
- Moon Hoax Videos
- Trusted FE Links
- Other Author Websites
- The F.E.S.S. Forum
- Flat Earth Videos
- Flat Earth Library
- Flat Earth Gallery I
- Flat Earth Gallery II
- FE Memes I
- FE Memes II
- FE Music Vids
- New! FE Maps
- Flat Earth Book Now On Sale!
Just watch a few of the videos of water spinning in a container. Then go look at a calm lake and see for yourself that the earth is not moving. It is sad that this fake gravity force, that can not be felt, keeps so many tied to the spinning globe lie.
Where is the plastic container holding earth water to the globe.
These are examples of very small scale “experiments”, that are grossly different than the size of the earth and the mass of the oceans, and are not similar to the relative structure of any earthly existence.
There is no evidence in any of this type of “system” that provides information of earth and oceans, lakes, etc.
BTW – as far as something that cannot be felt; try this. Stand and hold your arms out away from your body from your shoulder for 6-8 hours, and tell us what you didn’t feel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
EvidencePlease, at what point does water act in a “different” way in terms of scale?
It’s your story to tell; please explain how these are symbolic of, similar to, or related to the scale and reality of an ocean.
No Evidence, it is your claim that the “scale” makes all the difference. I simply asked you to elaborate and enlighten us as to at what point that occurs.
At what volume does water “change” characteristics? From an ocean, to a lake, to a pond, to a pool, to a bucket, or to a cup?
Your claim is there for all to see: “Just watch a few of the videos of water spinning in a container. Then go look at a calm lake and see for yourself that the earth is not moving. ”
Despite some obvious differences, you equate these videos to a lake (or perhaps also an ocean) of water [please clarify if this is not your intent].
I merely point out that an ocean is not similar to the water of these videos. The proof is evident (btw – oceans are a bit larger). Oops – I’ve gone ahead and supplied proof – use it in good health!
Water in motion versus water at rest. You are the one claiming scale matters and that structures somehow change due to mass:
“These are examples of very small scale “experiments”, that are grossly different than the size of the earth and the mass of the oceans, and are not similar to the relative structure of any earthly existence.”
I simply asked you to prove it with evidence please.
Why do two pieces of copy paper each weighing the same. Drop at different speeds, after one of the copy papers is crunched up into a ball shape and falls faster than the un-crunched copy paper.
Because of air resistance, it is certainly not because, a non existent force that can not be felt, can distinguish between the two papers that still weight the same. The only difference being, one now has less air resistance.
On a non moving flat earth there is simply no need for a science created force called gravity. God has built in us, our own level, that can easily tell when we are not standing straight up lean to the left or right and that is easily detected.
Science uses these large numbers in their created world that can not be modeled and they know it, but again they also know that the average person will just accept their claims and not challenge or question their claims because simply the numbers are too large, million, billion and trillions of years and miles etc.. just provide one, in scale, working model of any one of sciences claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poolman / d taylor,
I need to apologize for getting confused and responding to poolman as if he was the original poster, which of course was d taylor. I wrote that poolman had made claims, which was not the case.
So . . .
As to providing evidence; here is what I can say: the videos above present, and are labeled as “containers” of water (liquid). The earth is not a container of liquid. That is one gross difference I was referring to (quite obvious, I’m surprised it actually had to be explained to anyone).
Additionally, the “containers” are being used with not very much water; no more than about 5 gallons by my estimates. On earth, examples of bodies of water such as lakes, ponds, and oceans have been mentioned (all around, I think). There is a great difference in the amount of water between these scenarios (again, quite obvious).
Also, the videos present a closed object spinning around a central axis with the water inside (is this an accurate model of the earth?). Furthermore, it might not be an obvious thought, but the apparatus itself is situated within an earthly system. I wonder what we might see if the video was on a moving roller coaster, or in a road vehicle on twisting, hilly course? Unless you control for the environment, results and conclusions might be variable.
In the end, there are many differences that are plain and simple, obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at these with an open mind. This is evidence to support my original comment.
BTW – poolman; have you tried the arms held away from your body for several hours yet? Perhaps too risky a topic to address?
d taylor, your comment on paper is a great one. It was the kind of inspiration for testing falling object inside a vacuum, to see what happens with almost no atmosphere present. The lack of air, and therefore air resistance provides evidence for any theory why things accor the way we experience them.
I’d be interested in your take on the findings form such experiments, and the evidence they provide for falling objects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The earth is not a container of liquid.”
I disagree. The earth contains many things with water the most abundant.
“There is a great difference in the amount of water between these scenarios”
So, at what volume (collective amount) do the characteristics of water change? That was my question to you and so far you’ve failed to address it. Evidence. Please.
“the videos present a closed object spinning around a central axis with the water inside”
Okay. Where does the earth stop and “outer space” begin in your model? What separates them one from another?
[Though I know we are not spinning or on a ball and outer space is total make believe]
“In the end, there are many differences that are plain and simple, obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at these with an open mind. This is evidence to support my original comment.”
Um, no. Water reacts the same in a cup or in a lake. Volume makes NO DIFFERENCE except maybe to amplify the result of ANY movement imposed upon it.
Try being honest and provide an answer to the question of volume (quantity), if you can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The question about vacuums and with the vacuums creating an environment where objects fall at the same rate. I have not actually seen that in person so i do not know actually much about this from a personal level as i do with the dropping of paper which any person can do at home.
I question do vacuums exist in actual nature i do not believe they do. It goes back to the point where people say, outer space is a vacuum but as a person who believes the earth is flat and that there is no outer space. Then there are no vacuums
To have a vacuum and do these experiments, there is needed a solid container (plastic, glass, etc) to create the vacuum in.
Also will a balloon filled with helium float up in a vacuum. This person states that the helium balloon sank in the vacuum because the helium fill balloon became less dense that the space inside the vacuum no mention of gravity having any effect but the helium filled balloon became less dense than the space inside the container.
If science can create a vacuum with out having to use a container, then they may can say gravity exist
LikeLiked by 1 person
Poolman, you may be right.
Perhaps a cup of water is no different than 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water. Is this your position?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons act different than 5,642,720,000,000,000,000,000 cups of water?
[I have no idea where you come up with your quantity, nonetheless…]
Because that is what you assert.
My question remains. At what point does the characteristics of water change in terms of volume or quantity?
You do understand the question you have been avoiding, don’t you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The distance when travelling 10˚ due east or west parallel to the equator.
At 60˚N or S the distance is 300 nm or 555.8 km. Personal experience.
At 30˚N or S the distance is 520 nm or 962.3 km. Personal experience.
On the Equator the distance is 600 nm or 1111.2 km. Personal experience.
For correcting sextant altitudes for the Earth’s curvature the formulae are;
Dip = 0.97 x Square Root (Ht of Eye in feet). Personal experience.
Dip = 1.76 x Square Root (Ht of Eye in metres). Personal experience.
Also magnetic compasses only function because of the earth’s magnetic field, which only exists as it is because the earth is spherical. There is no such thing as a mono-pole magnet in nature. Only people who have actually worked with them or studied their development know this. I have done both. Not a single FE cultist has done either. Not a single one. Never. Not a one. Personal experience.
Gyrocompasses only work because the Earth is slowly rotating and gravity is a fact. Only people who have actually worked with them or studied their development know this. I have done both. Not a single FE cultist has done either. Not a single one. Never. Not a one. Personal experience.
Please explain Metacentric Heights and Metacentres.
Density and buoyancy. Do you shoot into the sky because air is less dense above you? No. End of.
Do you know what sea level means?
I’m confused; are you saying that although a personal experience is real, a photographic video experience, by definition, is automatically not real (that you have to see it live for yourself)?
How might that apply to sports TV broadcasts; since you don’t see it in person, it’s not real?
As far as video of falling objects, there are plenty of examples to google and see. There should be a way to verify the images shown are not faked, and that one can believe what they see; even if not in person.
Otherwise, aren’t all the videos above not to be believed?
As far as out atmosphere; it is well documented that boiling water at relatively higher elevation (Denver, etc.) occurs at a lower temperature than sea level. This is because the air in water will bubble away easier when the air pressure is less (at elevation).
It is also well documented that at severely high altitudes, the air becomes quite thin, and that supplemental breathing devices are used. These are common for among mountain climbers. The air pressure is also lower atop mountains.
These facts about air describe the decrease in air pressure as altitude increases, and can be directly measured and charted to discover a mathematical ratio. When the altitude is increased enough (well above mountains), the air pressure, and the air itself, can be considered to have “dissipated”, in a sense. Eventually, you reach an altitude where there is no measurable air pressure, and therefore no air. This is the vacuum above our atmosphere.
By definition, a vacuum is the lack of matter (even if not totally empty of matter, the extreme low levels of matter are generally still considered a vacuum).
Where our eyes cannot see, our brain can deduce and figure out the truth (generally speaking). You may not understand the physics and chemistry of semiconductors, but you still agree you (and millions more) are actually using a computer based on this science.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well what i was thinking about in my post, was the video on youtube of the very large vacuum chamber where they drop the feather and bowling ball. I am curious why that was shown in slow motion. When you get organizations that are connected to science and nasa, i just do not trust what they say or actually show in film or photos.
This again just goes back to is there an outer space. I do not believe there is, so no outer space, no place where a vacuum can occur. The air may get thinner the higher up but that does not really confirm the existence of an outer space.
A simple fact is that i see the moon and the sun (except that the sun can not be looked at like the moon) and they are close and in front of the blue above us and not in outer space. No goes past the blue at least no alive
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its fair to ask questions; but one can’t stop there, since additional evidence can be found to respond to the questions. There are several videos that run at normal speed, showing feathers and heavier objects falling at equal speed. Slow motion is not a trick, but a means to slow the movement down to clearly see and compare how the objects are falling.
The evidence that would be important to see is where these objects fall at different speeds in a verified vacuum. That type of evidence would be very significant. Has anyone produced or seen such a verified experiment?
Back to elevation, and air pressure; I would suggest you set aside your conclusion on space, and focus on the evidence of reduced air as elevation increases. If you can follow this evidence, consider what it means as elevation continues to increase. What ideas does that bring to mind?
Perhaps an analogy might be interesting. Take a large container of water, and begin to slowly empty it out. As the water continues to flow, one might consider if the water will ever run out. For most containers, this make be too simple, as we all know the flow will end and the container will be empty.
What if the container was too large to measure, or even be completely seen? It is possible that some may think that the water could flow forever; maybe they just see it that way. Those who can imagine the smaller container, just might be very sure, and predict that a larger container could also become empty (eventually). Small measurements and experiences can help predict larger realities.
Now I knows this was a bizarre example; but the analogy is this: air pressure can also be measured as elevation increases, and predictions can be made that eventually, the air will “run out”.
Now we don’t need to name this condition, to understand the prediction, and if it seems at all likely. We can even disagree. But we should all be able to think about this example ourselves, and come to our own conclusions, based on our knowledge.
Knowledge is the key; not what we;ve been told, but our examination of the evidence, and what conclusions are possible. If we don’t thin teh air will run out, we should be ready to offer another version of events, and support that with related information (no guesses allowed).
So, taylor, where does this journey take your thoughts and what evidence is there to support the case where the air doesn’t just run out?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I looked and all i have found was the same video of the feather and bowling ball drop. I did not look at everyone but i am guessing that everyone is of the same feather and bowling ball drop in slow motion.
It is interesting, was that all the facility was build for, to drop a feather and bowling ball . I really do not see what is the use of this large vacuum, if it is really actually a vacuum.
Even one of the videos is labeled as hammer and feather drop but again it is still the same video.
Again science has a problem with their created universe. Like i have said the earth,universe and all the other ideas that are in their creation gravity, light years etc.. work exceptionally well on their computer models and the math preforms as stated. Gravity is holding their ideas together and the cause for making their world workable.
But again when you start taking their statements and begin to look for what they are saying is happening, in the actual earth and surrounding environment we live in you do not find any idea from their created world working here.
It is as simple as walking outside and looking at a moon that is, close to earth and not large and far away (as compared to what science says). That gives off its own unique light, that does not rotate and that is a created light. Just like the sun but not as powerful but with a cool light.
It still is interesting that the average person just can not see the moon as it really is. I know science is grateful for that because if people could, their game would be over in a second. That was one of the major points that when i began to look into this, that was a major turning area that opened my eyes up to the lies of science.
But back to the vacuum, earths atmosphere does as we go up decrees in air pressure correct. Can a vacuum reproduce earth atmosphere, with a gradual decrees in air pressure.
Again i believe that there is something holding water above everything in the sky and that something being that it is holding water back is also holding air in and that nobody goes past the something holding water back. I am not sure how high man has been but they are not going past the something holding the water back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a few questions to ask 1. does gravity give us our weight. if so 2. then does centrifugal force affect that. Meaning the greater the centrifugal force the greater the gravitational pull and in turn the greater gravitational force the greater the weight.
If that is correct does a person weigh more at the equator than at the north pole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here are a few more falling vacuum videos to try:
Non-vacuum, but seemingly related:
Also, can you please provide the details explaining “that all the facility was build for, to drop a feather and bowling ball”? That doesn’t make any sense.
I am no scientist, thank God. But I believe that centrifugal force can be proved by a two dimensional linear observation (i.e. swinging a bucket of water around) but, if this bucket of water can be swung three dimensionally (360 degrees in every which direction), then surely IF anyone could stand in an equatorial position or the north pole position on THIS bucket, his weight would be the same regardless?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thinking about this again. If we are on a spinning globe (which we are not) and there is a north and a south ‘pole’, I suppose at those points there would exist some kind of a peculiar ‘feeling’ (if that is the right word?) that you would not experience in other places, for we are ‘reliably’ informed by mainstream science that we are spinning on an axis. I don’t believe that Amundsen/Scott said any such thing? So perhaps someone would weigh more on the equator than the poles? But this is all conjecture!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was the reason for asking this is if a person weighs the same at the equator and say at or at least close to the north pole where the spin would be less (i am not sure but i believe at the equator the spin is 1000+ and around the north pole 500 mph?)
Then i would say that would be another factor of evidence of a non spinning earth and of no gravity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For all to see.
Why do some ask for “evidence” for a flat earth, when we have no “evidence” for a ball shaped earth? (unless you want to believe NASA!).
It is my sincerely held belief that Newton and the rest based all their theories on a false premise. Without the Copernican theory taking hold; necessitating in millions and billions of miles (and light years!) the false theory of evolution would never have taken root.
Left to the Bible alone, we could only know the earth to be flat. Because of the heliocentric deception, the mantra became “modern science has disproved the Bible!” Has it???
Now, if scientists in their laboratories can hang a model globe, say 3′ in diameter, on absolutely nothing, completely cover it with water to a depth of 1″ and make it spin at a 1000mph without any water flying off, I might well take their claims seriously!
If we were truly spinning on a axis, everything would tend to be forced outward perpendicularly from that axis. Think of a tire or fan. That would make everything lean more the further away from the equator one traveled. People on the poles would be unable to get off the ground. Plumb bobs would not work except where directly passing over the equator.
The whole concept ‘science’ claims as fact quickly falls apart when scrutinized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since when does a fan or a tire provide any evidence of what a spinning earth is liKe?
Your claims have no basis since you have no proof your suggested models simulate earth in any sense. You might be inclined to consider that a snowflake and an avalanche are similar, and one can be used to predict the other.
That would also be a false comparison.
LikeLiked by 1 person
EP provide your definition of spin for all to see. We wouldn’t want a false comparison.
The direction of outward force an object spinning on either an axle or an axis would be perpendicular (at right angle to) that axle or axis. It has a name. Centrifugal force. That is how things work in the real world at every scale.
How would anyone stand upright against that force near the axis if we are actually spinning? They could not. One more piece of evidence to refute your false theory.
The earth is fixed and not moving by all evidence that can be examined.
You have NO Evidence or supporting laws of physics that make your pretend spinning globe even work. In all our exchanges, you’ve failed to provide evidence for any of your theories. Your name is misleading and there is no reason to even be here for you. Unless, of course, this site is your evil job assignment. What else could you be getting out of it, just saying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To quote you: “If we were truly spinning on a axis, everything would tend to be forced outward perpendicularly from that axis. Think of a tire or fan.”
You introduced the idea of spinning; I inferred you were referring to the earth spinning (“we were”). I’ll let you clarify what your words meant.
All I was discussing was your apparent comparison for “a tire or a fan” to “we were truly spinning”, directly from your words Once you clarify your words, I can clarify my comparative comment.
Wrong again, EP. That’s your spin. I did not introduce the idea of spinning. Colmford was describing it in his posts and I responded to his comments.
My words are clear and concise. Yours, however, are not.
Now provide that definition of spin I asked you for? The one that you claim is different than a tire or fan. You know those items actually spin, don’t you?
In your post labeled:
poolman [March 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm],
your message contains this:
“If we were truly spinning on a axis, everything would tend to be forced outward perpendicularly from that axis. Think of a tire or fan.”
It is almost as if you wanted to say: “If you had a spinning wheel or fan, everything would tend to be forced outward perpendicularly from that axis.” But that’s not what was in your post.
You really should acknowledge the simple facts from your post, and maybe we can discuss the difference of the two quotes I provide here (above).
BTW – please search this web page for “spin” and point out the timestamp where I used this word outside of any reference to an earlier mention of it being used by someone else.
I’ll certainly acknowledge such facts that exist on who used the word as an original context.
Wrong again. You’re consistently wrong. Here is what I was responding to and it appears just above my post you quote from:
“Now, if scientists in their laboratories can hang a model globe, say 3′ in diameter, on absolutely nothing, completely cover it with water to a depth of 1″ and make it spin at a 1000mph without any water flying off, I might well take their claims seriously!” -colmford March 27, 2018 4:02pm
Then I made the comment and you responded with:
“Since when does a fan or a tire provide any evidence of what a spinning earth is liKe?” EvidencePlease April 1, 2018 at 9:56
I asked you to provide your evidence disputing my claim and so far you are unable or unwilling to.
Provide your definition of spin for your pretend tilted axis globe and prove it doesn’t describe the spinning example I provide.
I’m not sure what is wrong, as you say. I gave the time for your comment (March 31), and you gave the time for mine (April 1). Where I come from I was taught that 3-31 comes before 4-1, and my reference to spin was in direct response to what you wrote.
Perhaps you think I should care why you wrote that (in response to a post on 3-27). Frankly, I don’t, because you created your own message, and that was the topic I made my comment about.
I did have a posting mistake, already mentioned, regarding crossing comments by d taylor and you, but that was cleared up late on 3-28.
As to any claim you’ve made; perhaps finding it is not very easy. Is your claim part of the “If we were truly spinning on a axis” sentence? (does a claim begin with “IF”? Or was it something else?
Honestly, I’m still not clear what words I used to lead you to believe I was introducing spin not already mentioned by others. Sorry.
“my reference to spin was in direct response to what you wrote.”
Yes. I am not disputing that. But since YOUR response was to dispute my example, I merely asked you for your evidence.
You are avoiding the question and neglecting to provide evidence for your reason to dispute my claim.
Past time to provide some evidence please.
For all to see.
OK; just to be clear, here is your claim: “If we were truly spinning on a axis, everything would tend to be forced outward perpendicularly from that axis” that I will respond to.
In response, all I can say is that your words are merely a claim, and I dispute there is any evidence provided therein to support it. As far as I can tell, it is strictly an opinion.
My claim is that we are not spinning. Period.
For none of the effects of the centrifugal force associated with spinning can be experienced on the earth. That is fact.
The ball is in your court. Show us the spin.
You claim on there being no earthly spin is perfectly, clear, although it’s offered here with no earth-based evidence to support such a claim.
Next, you state another claim about earth and spin, while still not mentioning any earth-based evidence in support.
While not having an actual need to justify any non-mentioned claim by me on earthly spin; I will add some clear observations on this topic.
From my understanding, a spinning object is not unusual. On a nearly a daily basis for several decades, I (and all others on earth) have had an opportunity to observe the sun’s image as each day begins and ends.
The first and last glimpse of the sun daily is a small portion of the full-disk image we see throughout the day. The image changes size and brightness either increasing or decreasing in size. The shape of the image is always that of a disk partially obscured, either coming in or out of view.
When one half of the image is visible, the shape is clearly a semi-circle. Each and every day for everyone. When the image is fully visible, it always is clearly circular in shape. This visual images are exactly what one would see if the earth was spinning, and the sun was progressing from not visible to fully visible (or the reverse sequence). This is evidence of an earth that spins, as no other reasonable explanation for these images can be provided.
On the other hand; the FE visuals of a sun floating above the surface of the earth, traveling in a circle (which varies throughout the year in ever increasing or decreasing diameter), has no credible explanation, and resembles no motion known of on earth. Oh yeah, this visual scenario would also not produce the visible sunrise ans sunset images described above.
Just a few basic observations we all share, that should inform what may or may not be happening. Nothing complicated; it only requires our individual eyesight, and general reasoning. We should all try this method one in awhile.
If the sun is in outer space why do we only get fake images from our science people.
look at this fake cgi / paintings, the only actual photo is at the start. the Bible clearly states that the sun is a light not a ball of fire.
and that is what we see everyday a light moving over the earth
Science is fortunate that a majority of people just simply take their statements as true. Because if you begin to look into what they are saying the the fake images are obvious as are the lies.
It’s not clear why you would choose to reply to my personal observation comment with your personal opinion on “science”.
As a start I’ll share a definition: “Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
If you feel science is such a problem, perhaps you should consider a boycott of all things that result from science. You may want to start by avoiding your electronics devices and the internet, due to their origins based entirely on science (FYI – the internet is also fake, like all science!).
Using transportation vehicles and electricity are also acknowledging science, so they have to go as well. Food bought at the store wouldn’t be there without science; so start a garden. I guess you’ll want to live in a temperate climate, to avoid the science of indoor heating, cooling, plumbing, etc. Entertainment should be limited to live performance, to avoid electronic delivery, like radio and TV.
Your goal to avoid all science may be difficult, but if that is what you believe, it can be doable. Make sure you’re consistent and don’t let any science taint your life.
Enjoy your personal certainty in the new world where all things follow your beliefs. It will be sad to miss these exchanges,as you leave these messages behind. Good luck living in your world view!
Because the sun is moving you claim that is evidence that the earth is spinning? That is not a conclusion based on any scientific observation nor does it follow any logical path of thought. It is blind faith in the doctrine of institutions designed to control humanity. These ideas are not even factual proofs and remain today merely theories based entirely on mathematics and are not observable reality.
Tesla said it best:
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
The ancients saw the very same sun and tracked it. We have record from many of these past civilizations. It has a predictive cycle just as do the moon and all the celestial bodies we observe from earth. It is a big clock in the sky for us to observe, marking the times and the seasons. And it does. It is described accurately in texts that existed way before institutional science came about.
These are things we can observe with our own eyes. Our senses assure us we are not moving. At all. All repeatable experiments prove we are stationary and essentially on a flat surface..
You cannot explain why we experience no centrifugal force, a force common with ALL spinning objects.
So, since we can feel no movement and see no curvature, we must conclude the earth is not like the heavenly bodies that travel above us.
In your world there is no up or down, just spin without the experience of it.
I am done refuting your false statements. You have yet to provide any proof of your theories and have not been able to provide representation of the spin you claim exists that doesn’t produce a centrifugal force.
“Because the sun is moving you claim that is evidence that the earth is spinning?” – no, I didn’t say this.
I did discuss the image of the sun at sunset and sunrise, and that what they look like is evidence consistent with a spinning earth (unlike FE, which has no explanation matching what these look like.)
“You cannot explain why we experience no centrifugal force, a force common with ALL spinning objects.” – a claim with no evidence (which groups all objects together, regardless of their differences.) It seemingly denies there may be other forces at play in the real world that affect an object’s motion.
Oddly enough, I just had a thought about a swinging object being used to strike a person in the face (travelling at 1′ / sec). Do you suppose the mass of the moving object matters to the face being struck?
In your world, mass seems unimportant, so I had to wonder???.
BTW – if you want to stop refuting my false statements – don’t worry. You rarely or ever present any actual false statement; so no effort is needed on your part.
“I did discuss the image of the sun at sunset and sunrise, and that what they look like is evidence consistent with a spinning earth” – EP
Interesting. You claim to look at the sun set and the sun rise, yet somehow the movement of that object in the sky makes you think what you are set upon is moving. Hmmm. Does that happen when you watch planes or birds fly into and then away from your field of vision too, or is it just the sun? Is that like sitting in a parked car and another car rolls past you giving you the impression you are moving?
Have you ever heard the term ‘your eyes can deceive you’?
Physical objects can be seen, however forces like wind and magnetism cannot be seen. But we can detect their presence and record their effect physical things we can see.
Since mass and scale are two subjects you brought up, tell us at what point these physical properties affect the unseen forces so as to change them entirely.
“Your eyes can deceive you” correct!
Only last week I was looking at an object that l was convinced was concave, it was only when I walked up to it and touched it that I knew it to be convex!”
I remember some years back being parked on a hill, half asleep in the sun, and another car moved forward to the side of me, It was a very unnerving experience!
I am sure we can be deceived in numerous ways without knowing it? Often when turning right against the traffic, it is near impossible to judge how fast a car is approaching you.
These ‘great’ men of science and their x-ray telescopes and other such devices, have you read the conclusions they are coming up with? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43648152
How clever; using misleading editing to avoid the comparison I actually claimed – what about this part of what I said that you omitted: “(unlike FE, which has no explanation matching what these look like.)”.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that it was an accepted ‘fact’ in mainstream science/astronomy that our ‘globe’ is supposed to be spinning on a tilted axis?
I try not to be clever above my station so to speak, but from what I can digest, I find no fault with Poolman’s analogy. A tire or fan has to spin on an axis, does it not? Now, obviously a simpleton like me can deduce that the micro explanation may not necessarily ‘hold water’ for the macro position, but these analogies are all we have to go on, are they not? Think of the ‘great’ man and his apple, Sir Isaac Newton?
A tire or fan, however, demonstrates a centrifugal action; and surely nothing could freely rest on their relative surfaces, for would they not fly off into the sky-no ‘gravity’ to keep them from doing so?
It is my considered belief that although technology is improving exponentially, (having nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of our so-called ‘little planet’) modern theoretical physics/astronomy has become so very far detached from empirical observation and all reality, being founded on a false premise-the Roman Catholic Copernican deception.
Let us be guided by our God given sense and what is written in His word rather than the wild theorizings of His creatures?
My decades have been in a northern USA climate, which is a result of the earth existence described by tilt, rotation, and orbit. There is the consistent 24 hour day, with the cyclical annual changing
length of daylight and temperature, easily understood by a tilted earth in relation to the sun, as we repeat an annual orbit. I expect you’ve had similar experiences where you have lived.
The overhead night sky changing as the hours pass, as well as the changing stars visible on an annual pattern that repeats year-in an year-out, are easily and directly explained by rotation and
An FE approach to the earth cannot explain any of these direct observational parts of a lifetime. What FE gimmicks are falsely created to explain these (while not creating extreme physics anomalies)?
Why are they so complicated, and unlike anything we see on earth?
BTW – who cares what happens with a tire; it is not comparable to the earth, due to scale of overall sizes and the mass involved. If you don’t like “gravity” (as a word); try and explain what happens
when you do or don’t let go of a heavy object held in your outstretched hand.
If you let go, which direction does it move, and why? If you hold it, why do you eventually feel fatigue, before you eventually drop it due to muscle pain? There is also your household scale; what is
happening when you step on it? What is the nature of the value displayed (and why would it be measurable)?
Our common world is filled with mundane events and observations that we may take for granted. How are they explained within a FE worldview?
“BTW – who cares what happens with a tire; it is not comparable to the earth, due to scale of overall sizes and the mass involved.” – EP
I will ask again for evidence for your claim. Why does scale and mass matter, and at what scale or mass do the characteristics of the earth’s elements change?
EP, I have read your ‘explanations” on your various posts and I am very sorry to say that I don’t find them at all convincing, not one little whit!
I live on the northernmost tip on a tiny island peninsula in the western isles, north of the Scottish Highlands where I can see a vast and uninterrupted sea-scape from east to west and northwards, and the horizon looks FLAT as far as the eye can see!
I see with my own eyes the sun and moon rising and falling, and stars/planets moving on a daily basis; therefore the Earth is fixed, that is geocentric.
Please also understand that I am a Bible believing Christian; that God’s word states in no unequivocal terms that we are stationary! There are some 70 Scriptures that speak of the motion of the sun and the moon, but you will search its sacred pages in absolute vain to find just ONE verse that remotely speaks of the motion of the Earth-earthquakes apart!
I will NOT even begin to try to explain how God ordains the motions of the heavenly bodies, please understand that this is beyond my remit and knowledge. All I KNOW is that He is “upholding ALL things by the word of His power” Hebrews 1.3, that He “doeth great things and UNSEARCHABLE; Marvelous things WITHOUT number. Yea, and wonders without number.” Job 5.9, 9.10, Romans 11.33.
You say “Our common world is filled with mundane events and observations that we take for granted.” I agree with you that many do, however, I believe that is where many err. Is it not a ‘miracle’ that a single blade of grass grows?
Think on these things.
poolman – I know for a fact that a tire and the earth are different; no proof is necessary. For clarity can you please state if you think a tire and the earth are not different, it that is what you believe.
I can’t imagine this is a topic with more than one answer.
If you want to compare these different things, feel free. However, don’t expect anyone to accept simplistic similarities, without addressing the tremendous differences. Would you let yourself be fooled by an argument on trivia similarities, that avoided major differences? I think not!
BTW – I’m not actually trying to compare them anyway, it appears you are looking for certain similarities.
The point was spinning. Spin. The spin and the forces due to spin. Of course a tire is not the same thing as the earth. But it is subject to the same forces everything else on this earth are. Regardless of scale. Everything including the earth itself. Mass or scale is relative. Spin is motion and that means it is detectable. Measurable. In contradiction to your claims.
That is where you always fall short of evidence.
Which way do you want this to be: you can’t claim a tire is both different than, yet also the same as the earth. If you want to compare things, you’ll have to use some form of comparative language which is logically consistent.
One style is to use a premise-conclusion construct. One old example I recall is: “if it’s raining outside , then the sidewalk will be wet”. Another might be “if a tire having a coating of water begins spinning sufficiently fast, then the water will be repelled away from the tire by centrifugal force”.
However, it is not logically consistent to say: “if a tire spinning sufficiently fast repels water on its outer surface, then a earth spinning (at the same rate?) will repel water from its surface”.
This claim needs to consider not just the similarities of the objects spinning, but the differences of the objects themselves. Proof matters , after which valid claims can be made, as long as there is evidence to back it up.
And as we’ve been told: “Of course a tire is not the same thing as the earth.”
Instead of generic feedback, what part of my reply to you directly above do you find is very different to your experience (sunrise/sunset/stars/heavy objects, etc.)?
As far as grass, our’s is very good at growing tall and thick, with no need for anything but sun and water. These are parts of nature, no known miracles involved. I expect that all grass around the world (in all shapes and sizes) is the same.
I may add, that if I had to guess, I wouldn’t be surprised that our world contained over a billion trillion blades of grass (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Are all these miraculous. or just nature? Hmmm?
“Which way do you want this to be: you can’t claim a tire is both different than, yet also the same as the earth. If you want to compare things, you’ll have to use some form of comparative language which is logically consistent.” – EvidencePlease
Let us take your own statement to show how clueless you are.
I never said a tire was the same as the earth. Those are your words – your personal interpretation. Once again, here is the point:
The spin of a tire (not the tire object itself) compares with the spin of a fan (not the fan object itself). Yet there is no evidence of earthly spin. No spinning planet force detectable. At all. In conclusion, the earth is very unlike a tire or a fan because they can spin but the earth cannot.
You should practice a little reading comprehension. It is likely why you exhibit no skills of learning anything fresh from what you’ve read.
And, as a bonus, here is an example how it can be both ways:
Humans are the same. Every human is different. There. Those statements seem contradictory, yet both are actually true.
Of your 13 comments responding to me, you have yet to provide evidence of an earth spin nor have you answered the question of at what point in mass/scale/volume laws of physics suddenly change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you’re mind numbing cognitive dissonance is dizzying
EvidencePlease (It’s not clear why you would choose to reply to my personal observation comment with your personal opinion on “science”.)
I was challenging your preconceived observations: If you are honest you would have to say that you have personally never seen the sun as was shown in the video i posted a fire ball out in space.
That being the sun as a fire ball surrounded by black space, The closest a person has seen where the sun appears without the blue behind it, the way we see on earth. Is from photos from weather balloons of the sun. But in these photos, the sun still does not look like a fire ball in outer space but as a light shinning.