Well I'd be interested to discuss this with you- do you have any proof that flights don't actually take place in the Southern Hemisphere? From what I've researched Quantas airlines has one between South American and Australia. And I've spoken with a couple people who have taken these southern flights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh DeJong
No Hewson, the only magic around these parts is how papet mache with tin foil managed to land on the moon, and people like you actual believe it. That's magic. Hmm maybe that's why it's called *holly wood*- the wood of choice for *magical wands*.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J Hewson
Listen man, I hear you.
You drive a hard bargain, there is no need to get testy. How about $75 a bean?
Here is a link to the science to back it up. http://www.science-sparks.com/2016/0...anstalk-beans/
The cringe is palpable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J Hewson
Go troll elsewhere. This is for intellectual discussion only.
You mean like Toroidal? I think the big issue with these shapes is the pole stars rotating in opposite direction in the north and south hemispheres. This means the surface of earth is a complete sphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
Sure it can. When one is near the horizon on one side of the Earth and the other is near the horizon on the other side of the earth. Certainly possible during a partial lunar eclipse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
http://www.trivalleystargazers.org/g...on_eclipse.htm
So in the concave model, the moon must produce it's own light, right? How could we see the moon at all if the Sun was on the other side of whatever-you-call-that-thing-in-the-middle. So it's noon in China and I see a full moon.
So the moon must produce it's own light in your model, yes?
If the moon produces it's own light, then why do we have the phases of the moon?
Well I had about as much "proof" as anyone else has for their theory. I just thought it was an accepted theory for the flat Earth argument. Like that flight that made an emergency stop in Alaska on the way to LA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
And with this model couldn't you just fly in a straight line from one end of the globe too the other since you're going straight through? I mean aside from the celestial sphere of course.
If the earth is an inside sphere as you are proposing, you have a similar problem as regular sphere in aviation in that you would constantly have to correct for altitude.
A plane moving at 600 mph would travel 1 mile every 6 seconds. This is a curvature drop/rise of 8 inches over a distance of 63,360 inches or an angle adjustment of .007 degrees. Now to get an idea how big this angle adjustment is, take out a protractor and make a marking about 8 microns up. Good luck with that though since it's 5 times smaller than the human eye is even capable of seeing xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
So in other words it's insignificant.
Even if it were significant- say 100 feet per mile- the different in air density would be enough to change the lift on the wings to reach equilibrium. You would be entering denser air which applies more upward force upon the wings.
What I meant was that do you have any examples, links, evidence etc that might persuade someone to reconsider the Southern flight path argument? Because as far as I know the flight times work only for a spherical model, and I have spoken with Australians who have taken those southern flights and the times add up for what we would expect. And I don't have reason to believe they were shills or liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh DeJong
Regarding flying between one side to the other, it would in essence be going into 'outer space' which is actually 'inner space'- the air density would become too low for an aircraft to maintain altitude.
In the concave model the moon reflects the sunlight, and to answer your question we would be able to see the moon because as I explained earlier and showed in the illustration, light bends up toward the center, causing the sunlight to loop around the central celestial sphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I think you should rethink your calculations. It's eight inches squared per mile. A flight of 3000miles would have to adjust for 4809081.1222 ft. In height. That's 1,603.027 every six seconds. To give you an idea, planes decend at 3000ft per minute. That's an adjustment rate 5.3 times faster than the rate of decent for landing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
Your diagram showed this light bending, but it doesnt show how light would bend all the way around. The images you've posted show a clear area where the light bends and strikes the outer "shell" of the Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
But when the Sun is on the exact opposite side, over China, how would that reflect off the moon to allow me to see it as full.
So can you draw me a picture or show me a diagram of how the Sun is on the exact opposite side from me, but the moon is full. How is that possible? And if the moon was reflecting light from the sun, wouldn't the phase of the moon change during the night, since the sun is moving around?
This whole light bending thing doesn't really explain the full moon at midnight, nor how the moon is full all night, even though the sun is moving around behind the ether.
It's actually 8 inches per mile squared and is a rule of thumb that only works for marginal distances on the earth. Regardless, you are setting up the problem wrong. Remember it's a function of the distance squared. Which means it's an exponential increase in curvature beyond the first mile. The first mile will be an 8 inch drop, the second will be a 32 inch drop, the third will be a 72 inch drop, etc. But this is measured from the starting point to the end point. The plane itself only has to adjust 8 inches for each linear mile, regardless of where it is on its flight path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
Does this make sense? At the 1 mile mark the plane has adjusted its velocity to be tangential with the surface of the earth at that point. The next mile won't be a 32 inch drop as you are calculating, but an 8 inch drop because it's like starting back at the 0 mile mark.
Thanks my math was there, words are just out of order ;) eight inches per mile squared. How is it just a rule of thumb? The point is they fly leveled off not at standard point above or below the horizon level.
Well there goes that "evidence" I guess. It just seemed odd to me that those seemingly way out of the way flight paths turn into straight lines on the flat Earth map. Like I said I'm still fairly new to all this, and I'm not really 100% committed one way or the other. I just find it fascinating that after all this technological advancement we've made we're essentially back in Galileo's time when everyone was just sorry of spitballing lots of different but totally plausible options.
I haven't even decided which is scarier. Hurling through infinite space or realizing this Earth is literally all there is of creation (or whatever you wanna call it)?
Yeah I know what you mean.
I think it's a human tendency to want to give everything a definite shape. But it is possible the Earth has no shape at all. It could just be a System- as Tesla proposed. Just as light is actually a wave and only collapses into a particle when observed, Earth could very well be a projection of our own consciousness- pure potentiality that exists only as information until "decoded" or collapsed into physicality by our consciousness.
"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, did a tree actually fall?"
A simple line experiment would do however XD but no one has the time or money to set one up. No one in the alternate earth research department at least.
So no explanation for full moon at midnight?
So that brings me tally up to 3 i think. Why doesn't the sun appear larger at noon if the earth is concave? How can I see a full moon when the Sun is on the exact opposite side of the firmament from me if it does not produce it's own light? Why does the phase of the moon not change during the night as the sun moves around the firmament?
I don't need to ask you about planet formation, or gravity, or why your moon always faces us, or how big the Sun is and how far away. It's primitive observations that I can make without math or science. Just observation, logic, and reason.
All these observations make sense on a round Earth. Is it improbable that the moon appears the same size as the sun? Sure. But something being observably true and improbable is not a logical paradox. It just means that either something unlikely happened, or you are incorrect in your calculations of the probability.
This is what most people who believe the Earth is round fail to realize. They have not actually done the thinking and reasoning necessary to know it themselves. They have simply taken other people's word for it. That's why I'm such a big fan of this subject. It quickly gets to questions about how we know something, what real proof is, and how to think critically.
What's equally strange to me is people who DO think things out enough to realize what's true, but choose to cling to fringe theories that don't explain observable reality very well.
It's almost as if the emotional attachment to the idea is stronger than reason.
Craig, there seems to be a pattern here. You ask a question and I answer it in a sufficient way (in my mind at least). Then a few posts later you ask the same question again as if it wasn't answered. Why not phrase a new question based off the answer I give you- that way we can have a discussion that leads somewhere.
Given the illustration I provided you should be easily able to answer your own question of "how can the moon be full when the sun is on the opposite side". Look at the picture - light bends. I'm not saying it's 100% indisputable fact. I'm saying that according to the model it is pretty simple to figure out based on "observation, logic and reason".
That diagram doesnt show that at all, from my perspective. You're suggesting light bends all the way around the firmament to illuminate the moon on the opposite side, but doesn't get any light anywhere on the outside of the shell?
Makes no sense, diagram or not.
Why would light shine on the outside of the shell? It wouldn't. It would bent around the inside and converge at a point 180 degrees opposite from the sun's position, which is exactly what we witness with the anti-solar illumination point (gegenshein).
This is basically how all electromagnetic fields operate:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=...91517284610331
Notice how it leaves one pole, starts bending around and converges on the opposite side. Why would any light shine on the outside? That makes no sense.
I wish you would ask the really good questions, like why giant chunks of ice fall from the sky- some as heavy as 1500 pounds and documented several hundred years before any aircraft were invented. in 2012 a 1000 pound piece fell in Croatia.
These things hit the ground with the force of a missile. Some weigh so much that there is no possible way currents of air can keep them levitating long enough to reach their size (like how hail forms).
Some of these still have pieces in tact that reveal a flat side. Why would Giant chunks of ice fall from the sky and have a flat top to them? It's because they are forming on the glass sky!
The Tunguska explosion did not leave any crater or meteor and in the very center of the "explosion" was a small lake with large chunks of ice. Could it be possible that it was caused by a super giant chunk of ice falling? Seems very likely.
The sky is glass now? And ice forms on it? You want to toss out round earth because the moon is tidally locked but you're ready to accept a glass "ceiling"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
The Tunguska object exploded above ground. The epicenter is well know. The lake nearby has been proven to be far older than the event.
https://sputniknews.com/science/2017...nt-lake-cheko/
wouldn't the ice block your view of the stars, and then when a chunk fell you'd see a clearer picture? I dont observe that at all.
What keeps the sun and moon in the "sky" ? Wouldn't they fall to the shell like the ice does?
Also that latest diagram doesnt match the other diagram of how light bends in your world.
Also if you're going to say light bends based on the same model as electromagnetism, wouldn't a magnet bend light? I don't think we observe that ...
another question... if light from the sun bends all the way around to bounce off the moon so i see it, why wouldn't the light that bounces off the moon bend back to the sun, causing me to never be able to see the moon? The path of the light going to and from the moon would not be the same on the way in as it is on the way out?
is the moon a sphere? Is it made of cheese?
Did you even read through my original post? I said there is a glass sky from the very beginning. And I cited like 15 corresponding phenomenon that are only explained by the glass sky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
you know it just occurred to me that your two criticisms of round earth, namely the tidal locking of the moon and the relative size of the sun and moon, are both present in your model as well.
Sorry i must have missed the glass ceiling bit.
So why doesn't the sun fall to earth like the ice?
Ice is totally transparent when formed at very cold temperatures. And no the moon is not cheese.Quote:
wouldn't the ice block your view of the stars, and then when a chunk fell you'd see a clearer picture? I dont observe that at all.
The Sun is at a much higher elevation than the glass sky- "zero gravity" so to speak. It is held in stasis by the outward force of "gravity" and inward force of 'levity'. The Central celestial sphere is like the inner charge plate of a massive capacitor, with the glass sky acting as a conductor and the outer surface of the earth acting as the opposite charge plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
This might seem like a funny concept to you but it's actually how things really work on Earth. For instance: lightning bolts. The surface has a charge, the clouds have an opposite charge. Boom, all that potential is released. The charge is palpable: it makes the hair stand up on peoples necks.
With the earth however, you have an insulator between these two plates so no discharge takes place. Glass is an excellent insulator. The Earth could very well be a giant spherical capacitor.
It's already been proven that certain setups of electromagnetism have a distinct "anti gravity effect". Because gravity is nothing more than outward charge pressure to begin with. You counter that force and suddenly you are "levitating" (Biefield-Brown effect).
if the ice is falling that means it's accumulating. Which means there is air up there with moisture to condense into ice? But it's cold up there to create completely transparent ice on the ceiling of the earth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
And why doesnt the sun fall? And what shape is the moon?
The moon is round, but since we have never seen the other side of it there is no point in conjecture. The side we can see is likely spherical.
Hey to Eddie bravo I know how to prove earth is flat or a sphere e-mail me at Cantelmichael@gmail.com
Apparently you didn’t even finish reading the article you cited as the very next line describes the reasoning behind the trajectory. This is great example of confirmation bias and bad research.
“ The reason, Krupp’s technicians quickly appreciated, was that the earth’s atmosphere grows thinner the higher the altitude. Consequently, at the higher elevations, a long-range shell is travelling for a greater part of its trajectory through very thin air, increasing the range. This phenomenon would be significant for the Paris Gun project.”