Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
So are the Van Allen belts the firmament?
No, the gravitational limit is.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
One thing that is obvious is the heliocentric model requires gravity to maintain its validity. But at this point, science doesn't even know what gravity is.
Bruce did a model of the solar system based on RS
scalar motion--NO GRAVITATIONAL FORCE in the model, at all. And sure enough, the planets look like they are in orbit!
A simple analogy... take two Deloreans and put them on a 1-lane road, 10 miles apart, so they are facing each other. Get each one going at 88 mph then shift into neutral. Each Delorean weights 2712 pounds. Calculate the gravitation force of attraction that is pulling them together, with eventual collision.
Now you should say "that's nonsense!" There is NO gravitational force pulling the Deloreans together--they are just moving at each other, at constant velocity. Well, that's all the planets are doing with the sun and each other.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Full moon will be in a few days and I will conduct my little experiment and report back.
Looking forward to the results.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
One other thing I'll mention that I can't rectify is the shadowing on the moon. Modern Astronomy tells us that the moon phases are caused by the shadow of the earth cast by the sun. However, I can look up in the day and see the moon high in the sky with just a sliver of a crescent and then see the full sun in another part of the sky. Logic tells me that the earth is in no way casting a shadow on the moon based on simple geometry, so why isn't the full surface of the moon displayed?
It has to do with triangulation, not shadows. Take a flashlight and put it on the table, pointing at you. Hold a ball in your hand (the moon). Stand behind the ball from the flashlight... it is dark. Slowly move the ball around you and you will see the light from the flashlight lights it up, just like the phases of the moon. It only gets to be "full" just before it crosses into your shadow.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Again, this relies on gravity actually existing in order for this to work. Since there isn't any proof that it does, I remain skeptical
Gravity is just a 3D, inward scalar motion (read
Beyond Newton: An Explanation of Gravitation by Larson). It originates from the 2D inward, magnetic motion coupled with the 1D electric motion. 2D + 1D is 3D... gravity is not an independent "force,"
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Again, gravity is needed to make this work. How then are there are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot? A level expanse of this extent is incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity."
Water always goes downhill... even if it is a billionth of an inch. The net, inward motion we call "gravity" is perpendicular to the surface of the Earth, all the way around, so it behaves as if it were flat.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Yes! I have wondered if the ancient flood that is referenced most all native cultures and religious texts around the world was due to a crack or hole in the firmament. Or perhaps the creators caused this because humans 1.0 were not what they wanted?
Unfortunately for the Flat Earthers, the "crack in the firmament" is in the "waters below," not above.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Speaking of coordinates, this reminds me of yet another issue I cannot rectify with the heliocentric model. Mainstream science tells us that the earth rotates at roughly 1000mph, and that the earth orbits the sun at roughly 67,000mph, and further, the sun is racing through the Milky Way like a comet dragging all the planet behind it at roughly 483,000mph. If this is true, how then do the same stars appear in the sky in the same places for millenia? How is it that Polaris remains the only unmoving star in our sky permanently fixed in place? It would seem that the constellations would also change - or rather our perspective of them from earth.
We're dragging the starfield along with us; if you read Part IV, then you realize that these "stars" are just Jupiter-sized "gas giants" (mini stars) and asteroids--very few "stars" like our sun, and they are easy to pick out because the DON'T move correctly with the starfield.
Easy proof--take any of the 3000+ "exoplanets," keep their orbital period but reduce their distance from the "star" by a factor of 10. Then compare to the orbital data for plain old moons around the outer planets--every one I've looked at had a match, meaning they found exomoons around gas giants, not planets around stars.
Polaris moves; just very slowly. Check its location in about 10,000 years, and you'll see what I mean.
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Thanks for this. However, this is not my experience. I often wake up the rising sun or just before day break and this is not what I observe. I will remain open and continue to watch for this phenomenon.
Go do some camping up in Wyoming, Montana or the Dakotas--"Big Sky country" and you'll see this every morning and evening. It only lasts a short time, as the sun's angle changes quickly (15 degrees an hour) and we've only got a 6-mile gap between the ground and cloud base. But I've even seen it throw chemtrail shadows UP to the clouds above... looks weird, like "black chemtrails."
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
I have not seen the Flat Earth model that show only 8 hours of daylight. I have only seen the 12/12 split you mentioned.
Bruce did a model of it, using the precise data from the Flat Earth society for sizes and positions. As you can see in this snapshot, the little sun lights roughly 1/3rd of the path it follows. Draw a circle, half way between the center (Arctic) and rim (Antarctic), which would be the location of the equator--and you'll see the lit-up bit is roughly 1/3rd of the distance.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/219b6/219b664f66ec67e63b83c76ba18b0d722c962054" alt="FEM.png"
- Flat earth
- FEM.png (140.01KiB)Viewed 69459 times
Kano wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
I do want to say that I am not convinced of the Flat Earth. But I am saying that there are a lot of compelling pieces of logic and empirical evidence that supports we do not live on a blue marble floating through space. I look forward to your comments!
Not if you apply common sense and some basic geometry (which I've noticed seems to lack in most people these days).
Things aren't as we've been told, by mainstream science or Flat Earthers.