Flat Earth theory

[Kano]

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.

But if the sun is darting like a comet through the galaxy and the planets are circling around the sun, what keeps the planets circling the sun in a consistent distance from it without flying off out of the solar system?

Looking forward to the results.

As am I. Have you ever heard that the moon's light is cooler than the shadow it produces?

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.

Ok, I'm going to have to spend more time on this one. I still cannot get around the fact that the sun is way high in the sky, say 45 degrees to my left and then there is the moon way high in the sky 45 degrees to the right yet there may only be a small crescent of the moon exposed. I know that is basically what I said before but I'm having trouble with this one.

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,"

Ok, this makes a little more sense. I will read Beyond Newton and see if it clears it up for me.

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.

Quite simply, I don't understand what you are saying here.

Unfortunately for the Flat Earthers, the "crack in the firmament" is in the "waters below," not above.

Oh? What do you mean exactly?

Polaris moves; just very slowly. Check its location in about 10,000 years, and you'll see what I mean.

Ha, ok. Note to self.
Polaris has been studied and observed for over 10,000 years so wouldn't there be some sort of variance at this point? Our solar system would've moved through the galaxy some 1.7 trillion miles in the last 10,000 years. Surely that is enough to change our perspectives on not only Polaris but the constellations as well. However, they remain just as they were observed well over 10,000 years ago. Still not sure how this is possible.

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."

Lucky for me, camping just like that is on the docket this summer so I will certainly be looking out for it.

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.

Ok, thanks for that. This does seem like a flawed model for sure.

Not if you apply common sense and some basic geometry (which I've noticed seems to lack in most people these days).

With all the bullsh*t, misinformation, disinformation and psy-ops out there, common sense is increasingly subjective and decreasingly objective.

Things aren't as we've been told, by mainstream science or Flat Earthers.

100% agreed. No one has the full story. That's why forums like these are so important!

[daniel]

But if the sun is darting like a comet through the galaxy and the planets are circling around the sun, what keeps the planets circling the sun in a consistent distance from it without flying off out of the solar system?

EXACTLY the same thing that keeps water molecules together, when you pour yourself a glass of water. (The hydrogen-oxygen bonds are like moons and planets.)

Nice thing about the RS is that you can use the SAME equations for interatomic cohesion--for astronomical purposes!

As am I. Have you ever heard that the moon's light is cooler than the shadow it produces?

No, I never heard of that. But I have heard that the moon reflects more light than is possible for its albedo.

Ok, I'm going to have to spend more time on this one. I still cannot get around the fact that the sun is way high in the sky, say 45 degrees to my left and then there is the moon way high in the sky 45 degrees to the right yet there may only be a small crescent of the moon exposed. I know that is basically what I said before but I'm having trouble with this one.

It is just a matter of learning how triangles work (earth, moon, you making the vertices).

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.

Quite simply, I don't understand what you are saying here.

You have to remember, "there is no gravity, the Earth sucks."

Once you understand that, it will all make sense.

Unfortunately for the Flat Earthers, the "crack in the firmament" is in the "waters below," not above.

Oh? What do you mean exactly?

Did you know that the discovered a subterranean ocean, about 400 miles beneath the surface, that contains about 3 TIMES as much water as the surface ocean. If a fissure opened up between them, well, interesting things could happen, depending on which way the water went.

Polaris moves; just very slowly. Check its location in about 10,000 years, and you'll see what I mean.

Ha, ok. Note to self.
Polaris has been studied and observed for over 10,000 years so wouldn't there be some sort of variance at this point? Our solar system would've moved through the galaxy some 1.7 trillion miles in the last 10,000 years. Surely that is enough to change our perspectives on not only Polaris but the constellations as well. However, they remain just as they were observed well over 10,000 years ago. Still not sure how this is possible.[/quote]
That is not true, either. Study stellar drift.

Not if you apply common sense and some basic geometry (which I've noticed seems to lack in most people these days).

With all the bullsh*t, misinformation, disinformation and psy-ops out there, common sense is increasingly subjective and decreasingly objective.

Some day, grab a copy of a little book written by Thomas Paine, called "Common Sense." It will show you what has been removed from our minds.

[Kano]

EXACTLY the same thing that keeps water molecules together, when you pour yourself a glass of water. (The hydrogen-oxygen bonds are like moons and planets.)

Nice thing about the RS is that you can use the SAME equations for interatomic cohesion--for astronomical purposes!

I see! Fractals!

No, I never heard of that. But I have heard that the moon reflects more light than is possible for its albedo.

It's almost a full moon so I will be conducting my little experiment very soon.

Did you know that the discovered a subterranean ocean, about 400 miles beneath the surface, that contains about 3 TIMES as much water as the surface ocean. If a fissure opened up between them, well, interesting things could happen, depending on which way the water went.

No I did not know that. How was it discovered? Do you think the biblical flood was actually caused by a fissure from the "waters below?"

That is not true, either.

Which part specifically?

Study stellar drift.

Will do.

Some day, grab a copy of a little book written by Thomas Paine, called "Common Sense." It will show you what has been removed from our minds.

Ok, got a lot of reading to do!

[daniel]

I see! Fractals!

Actually, it is "scalar" (same rules apply to different scales--larger or smaller).

No, I never heard of that. But I have heard that the moon reflects more light than is possible for its albedo.

It's almost a full moon so I will be conducting my little experiment very soon.

Do you think the biblical flood was actually caused by a fissure from the "waters below?"

From what the mythology describes, my guess would be that ENLIL had a comet dragged into deteriorating orbit around Earth, and the water and ice it is composed of caused the environmental mist to condense into large amounts of water (rained for 40 days).

[Andrew]

I see! Fractals!

Actually, it is "scalar" (same rules apply to different scales--larger or smaller).

Fractal => scalar. Quantum => finite? What are some other mainstream scientific descriptions that can be clarified in RS?

Do you think the biblical flood was actually caused by a fissure from the "waters below?"

From what the mythology describes, my guess would be that ENLIL had a comet dragged into deteriorating orbit around Earth, and the water and ice it is composed of caused the environmental mist to condense into large amounts of water (rained for 40 days).

Best description I've ever heard for any 40 days of raining. It's funny how MS science, the Bible, and even here, recognizes a planetary flood occurred, but biblical accounts only assume surviving upon the water and not possibly above it. Mainstream science recognizes the flood, but goes no further in its cause; it's just a demon in their practice, as Larson would call it. I can't admit to fathom what kind of technology it would take to redirect a comet. A comet wouldn't have any magnetic motion to it, would it?

[Ilkka]

I can't admit to fathom what kind of technology it would take to redirect a comet.

Maybe it is very simple as hooking up some clamps or harpoons and towing it behind a spacecraft. No need for scifi and tractor beams etc.

[daniel]

Fractal => scalar. Quantum => finite? What are some other mainstream scientific descriptions that can be clarified in RS?

Quantum = "discrete units" in the RS.

Just look at the properties of mainstream stuff, and find the similar properties in the RS. You will learn far more if you do the comparison for yourself.

I can't admit to fathom what kind of technology it would take to redirect a comet. A comet wouldn't have any magnetic motion to it, would it?

All it needs is a nudge in the right direction, at the right time.

We're talking people here that can fly a moon around the solar system, so probably quite easy for them.

[Kano]

it's just a demon in their practice, as Larson would call it.

Was Larson a religious man?

[Andrew]

He would refer to free products of the imagination used in inductively-constructed theories as demons, because they are essentially a guess into why something occurs they can't explain with their physical system. Black holes and dark matter are scientific demons, for instance. I doubt he was orthodox religious. Not too many people that are "religious" address metaphysics directly. But he did believe in soul and spirit, which are qualities of a religious person.

[Kano]

He would refer to free products of the imagination used in inductively-constructed theories as demons, because they are essentially a guess into why something occurs they can't explain with their physical system. Black holes and dark matter are scientific demons, for instance. I doubt he was orthodox religious. Not too many people that are "religious" address metaphysics directly. But he did believe in soul and spirit, which are qualities of a religious person.

Understood. Thanks for that.