Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-16-2014, 07:16 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
North - South

02.03.2013. this guy started the thread with this question:


Will compass work in Southern Hemisphere?

My wife and I will be going to Patagonia next week for ten days. From there we go to Antarctica for three weeks. Will be doing some hiking but just day stuff. Here is a question for all of you as I can't seem to find a straight answer on the Internet - does a compass work in the southern hemisphere? Will the magnetic needle still point north? This is not a huge issue for me but just wondering. Thanks for your help!


03.25.2013. after he had come back he wrote this:

I just got back from my five week Patagonia/Antarctica trip last week. Just before leaving for the Antarctica segment of the trip, I did an experiment in the city of Ushuaia which is located on the southern tip of South America. It's latitude 54°48′south. I visited a local park that had a large decorative compass made out of stone. I used it to get my north, south, east, west bearings. Side by side I set up a North American compass, a global compass, and an iPhone compass. All three pointed in the exact same direction - north (see photo below). I mentioned my experiment to a guy I met from Australia. He said, "Of course they pointed north. A compass will point north unless you sitting on the South Pole..." As I mentioned in my previous post, this was not a huge issue for me but it was fun finding out the answer.

Here is the picture of his compasses:



How do you comment that?

I would just like to add this:

Let C, fig. 87, represent a dipping needle on the "equator"

of a globe. A mere inspection of the diagram is sufficient to make it demonstrated that the needle C cannot be horizontal, and at the same time pointing towards the north pole N. If a ship sailed east or west on the equator where the compass is horizontal, it is evident that its north or south end would describe a circle in the heavens equal in magnitude to the circumference of the earth at the equator--as shown by D, E, F.



fig. 87

My point is that there is no south pole whatsoever!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-16-2014 at 07:18 AM.
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 05-16-2014, 08:15 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
I found this very interesting:

The great traveller Humboldt says:--

"We saw distinctly, for the first time, the cross of the south, on the nights of the 4th and 5th of July, in the 16th degree of latitude. It was strongly inclined, and appeared from time to time between the clouds. . . . The pleasure felt on discovering the Southern Cross was warmly shared in by such of the crew as had lived in the colonies."

If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator. More especially ought it to be at all times visible when the nearest star belonging to it is considerably nearer to the so-called "pole star of the south" than is the nearest of the stars in the "Great Bear" to the pole star of the north. Humboldt did not see the Southern Cross until he

p. 288

was in the 16th latitude south, and then it was "strongly inclined," showing that it was rising in the east, and sharing in the general sweep of the stars from east to west, in common with the whole firmament of stars moving round the pole star of the northern region.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight

p. 289

line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.


2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

p. 290

all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.



How about this:

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-16-2014, 08:37 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
I would like to remind us all to several previously posted facts in one not so appropriate thread (E mc2) for this (proving that the surface of the earth is flat) purpose...

http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

Full Moon and Sun - same side of Earth:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/n3jd58guwnj0m9ym81p3.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8hcbtpe7jebm9c03w546.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/x24sgeg76osfczxxwwwu.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/1f4qesfxbjh3orxv7f5q.jpg
http://zaslike.com/files/brhj1egosnhyahmnb6dg.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/u2dr44l1jnfer2vmgbhr.jpg

Full Moon and Sun - positioned 90 degrees to each other:
http://www.zaslike.com/files/yqx06cocmi5chdtczt.jpg

http://www.energeticforum.com/254038-post265.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/254089-post269.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/254058-post267.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253978-post260.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253284-post137.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/253578-post196.html
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-16-2014, 08:55 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Let me remind us how it all began:

The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...


Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge (See Below Article: Exposing The Copernican Deception: The Cataclysmic Impact On Every Field Of Modern Man’s Knowledge)

The Christian Bible (and the Koran!) declare the earth to be motionless. The mathematical Copernican model says the earth rotates on an "axis" (at over 1000 MPH) orbits the sun (at 30 times rifle bullet speed), and is whooshing around a galaxy (at 250 times rifle bullet speed) .....all at the same time.

Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.

In his preface to the creationist textbook Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, John N. Moore says that “true science” requires that the data “simply be presented as it is,” and that “a philosophic viewpoint regarding origins” cannot be science.9

One prominent geocentrist, astronomer and computer scientist James N. Hanson, shows more candor. In a public lecture, he said of non-geocentric astronomers, “They lie a lot.”11 Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”12

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false.
Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”13

Since flat-earthism is the paradigm of Bible-Science, it should be discussed first. It’s difficult to see how the scientific creationists, some of whom claim to discern the laws of thermodynamics in the Bible, can fail to see its flat-earth implications.

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.26



EARTH IS STATIONARY ! ! !

"Are there any Earth-is-stationary proofs?", you might be asking.

Yes! -There are quite a few undeniable proofs that the Earth is stationary - that it does not rotate about its axis daily.

Why is that important?

“The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis”, says Dr. Shaban in his book, The Verses of Deus (page 77). The reason for that is obvious: If the Earth does not rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours, but if it does revolve around the sun, then one side would always be in daylight, while the other half would experience continual night. It would be similar to what we see of the moon, as it revolves around Earth.

1) If the Earth rotated about its polar axis, it would have to be moving fastest at the equator and slower at each mile closer to the north and south poles. Theoretically, the tiny point at each pole would not be moving at all. (We will explain this proof below, after listing a few additional points.)

2) As Dr. Shaban says, “The rotation of the air-layer next to the rigid Earth is without cause . . . [and] is the greatest hoax ever invented by mankind.” (Quoted from The Verses of Deus, page 77.) That is, there is no cause for the air atmosphere near the Earth to rotate with the Earth. If the Earth was rotating fast enough to complete 360 degrees every 24 hours, the atmosphere would long ago have been hurtled away. (And see point 3.)

3) Similar to points 1 and 2, IF the atmosphere was rotating along with the Earth, it would have to be moving faster at the equator than at any other northern or southern degree of latitude (= distance from the equator). But in fact, the atmosphere does not move – it has the same force (atmospheric pressure) except for relatively small, and predictable, variations based on altitude and temperature.

4)
If the Earth was rotating as we are told (i.e., from west to east in direction), an airplane would have to travel much faster to fly from Los Angeles to Miami than from Miami to Los Angeles. And the required speed to fly west-to-east at cities close to the equator would be much greater than speed needed to go from, say, Toronto to Moscow (since the Earth’s speed of rotation closer to the North Pole would be less than farther to the south).

The atmosphere at sea level thus exerts more pressure than it does at higher altitudes. By definition, the atmospheric pressure at sea level is called one atmosphere (atm) and is 760 millimeters of mercury (760mmHg) – which is the same as 29.92 inches of mercury (in a barometer). That is an average of 14.7 pounds per square inch of downward pressure because of the weight of the air above. (In weather forecasting, actual barometric pressure is commonly given in millibars, a metric unit. One atm is equal to 1013.5 millibars.)

Those are facts. Other facts include what happens to a gaseous mixture, such as air, or the atmosphere, when it is away from the center of a rotating system. Dr. Shaban points out that:

“The rotational velocity of the air atmosphere, V, is given by: V=2πr/T Where r is equal to R + h, R is the radius of the rigid Earth, h is the altitude height (from the surface) and T is equal to 24 hours. In any rotational system, the larger is the radius r, the greater is the angular velocity V, the greater is the angular momentum (m V r), and the greater is the amount of inertia (m times r-squared), where m is the mass.” (pages 74 and 75)

He goes on to point out that 2π/T is a constant when Earth rotation is considered, since T = 24 hours.

Thus, “Each atmosphere layer should have a different angular velocity; the angular velocity becomes greater at higher altitude . . .”. He reminds us that the “rotational velocity at the surface of rigid Earth is 1670 km/hr.” But if one goes to an altitude of 500 km (which is getting toward the limit of the atmosphere and the boundary with space – but is not quite that far up), the “rotational velocity at this height is 1800 km/hr (500 m/s), which is the same as the peripheral speed of gas centrifuge.” (pages 77 and 78)

In other words, to be traveling along with the Earth as it rotates around its axis (if it did!), atmosphere at 500 kilometers would be moving at 500 meters per second (about 1,118 mph). Near sea level, the atmosphere would be traveling at 1670 km/hr, or about 1,037 mph. That is about 81 mph greater. So at 500 km (about 311 miles above sea level) the pressure of the atmosphere (gas) would be greater than at sea level. –It has to be, for, as Dr. Shaban points out, the principle of the centrifuge and the centrifugal pump is the same as would be for a rotating Earth: The greatest pressure is at the farthest point from the center of the rotating body or part.

Since we know that actual atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude instead, the Earth cannot be rotating and have the atmosphere we know.

Finally, for this page, the gaseous atmosphere, if rotating with the earth, would exhibit properties for which the centrifuge is made: Heavier elements and molecules would be driven outward. That means there would be relatively more oxygen than hydrogen at high altitudes, and more hydrogen than oxygen (by percentages) near sea level. That is because oxygen is heavier than hydrogen. And the result does not agree with reality (that says the percentage of oxygen stays the same with altitude - just the amount decreases). And that would mean that life as we know it on earth would not have survived.

But life has survived. So the Earth-is-stationary point is proven! The Earth does not rotate on its polar axis. This stands proven and absolutely destroys the possibility that heliocentricity could be true. -Because if the earth is stationary (in terms of having no rotation) but it did revolve around the sun, one side of the earth would be very hot and the other constantly frozen from lack of sunlight.

The earth is not rotating - spinning.

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-16-2014 at 09:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-16-2014, 09:39 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
You have to see this, especially pay attention at what has been said in 13th minute of this video (about the true reasons of organizing Second Council of Vatican): Mic'd Up "The Principle: Is Earth Really the Center of the Universe?"

The Pope then recalled how they saw "that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was one of some ‘contrasts’ from the outset, starting with the error in the Galileo case, "and the idea was to correct this wrong start "and to find a new relationship between the Church and the best forces in the world, "to open up the future of humanity, to open up to real progress."

Now, what Ratzinger really meant by mentioning "THE ERROR IN THE GALILEO CASE"???
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-16-2014, 07:21 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 264
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
wow, I have to say that is twisted

If the earths rotation is 24hours and the earth trip around the sun takes 1day then yes it would always have only on side facing the sun but it takes 365.25 days so that isn't an issue.

The atmosphere isn't an object. If it were a single object then yes it would try to fly off. HOWEVER! being a mass of unconnected gas it acts as a lubricant deflecting each accelerative impact. according to the "logic" presented oceans should be in the sky as they are denser than air. Gravity out pulls the centrifugal forces at that point.

Hot air rises cold air drops due to differences in density Hydrogen fly's skyward at about 15mph from that density difference.

I know the earth spins due to one simple test. Pull the plug on your drain and watch which direction the water swirls. If your in the north it will drain counter clockwise, in the south clockwise.

As far as the universe having warm and cold areas have you ever considered the expansion of the universe is in the shape of a toroid not a sphere. From our perspective we wouldn't be able to perceive it but it would be like a concussive ring born of a bullets passing. Finding one loose thread doesn't unravel a tapestry.

I have only found one religion that makes any sense and here is the entirety of its doctrine:

1 God is great
2 Beer is good
3 People are crazy

That's it.

__________________
 

Last edited by Hrothgar; 05-16-2014 at 07:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-16-2014, 08:08 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
If the earths rotation is 24hours and the earth trip around the sun takes 1day then yes it would always have only on side facing the sun but it takes 365.25 days so that isn't an issue.

The atmosphere isn't an object. If it were a single object then yes it would try to fly off. HOWEVER! being a mass of unconnected gas it acts as a lubricant deflecting each accelerative impact. according to the "logic" presented oceans should be in the sky as they are denser than air. Gravity out pulls the centrifugal forces at that point.

Hot air rises cold air drops due to differences in density Hydrogen fly's skyward at about 15mph from that density difference.

I know the earth spins due to one simple test. Pull the plug on your drain and watch which direction the water swirls. If your in the north it will drain counter clockwise, in the south clockwise.

As far as the universe having warm and cold areas have you ever considered the expansion of the universe is in the shape of a toroid not a sphere. From our perspective we wouldn't be able to perceive it but it would be like a concussive ring born of a bullets passing. Finding one loose thread doesn't unravel a tapestry.

I have only found one religion that makes any sense and here is the entirety of its doctrine:

1 God is great
2 Beer is good
3 People are crazy

That's it.

What is the point of your first sentence? There is no point in your sentence, but your pointless sentence reminds me to one question that has a great point: in geocentric universe everything is spinning around Earth, how can it be?

Answer: It can't be without great modifications of the geometry, and relations (distances) between celestial objects (and their sizes) in the universe as we generally perceive it on the basis of current fraudulent scientific dogma!!! That is why geocentrists are much lousier guys than heliocentists! Geocentrism without Flat Earth Hypothesis is just a disastrously preposterous idea, ultimate stupidity! Listen this excellent question, and then excellently stupid answer: Mic'd Up "The Principle: Is Earth Really the Center of the Universe?" - YouTube

Regarding your simple test of watching which direction the water swirls i just have to say this:

Did i say:

I advise you to make these few tests for the beginning:

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 1

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 2

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 4

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 5

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 6

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 7

Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter II. Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane: Experiment 9

Do you feel any wiser now?

1 God is great
2 Beer is good
3 People are crazy

That's it.

Just couldn't agree more!!!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-16-2014 at 08:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-17-2014, 03:35 AM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 264
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
sorry didn't read to closely

So where are the edges located and what is at the bottom on the other side?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-17-2014, 10:32 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrothgar View Post
So where are the edges located and what is at the bottom on the other side?
The edges are located in "the south" and "the south" is not the south in ordinary meaning of that word. The south means farther (southerner) from North Pole which is in the central position of the Earth.

Regarding another part of your question we should first reconsider something else:

One atheistic view:

Quote:
Despite the obvious sincerity of those who so view the Bible, the inerrancy doctrine has no basis in fact. That the Bible contains mistakes in every area mentioned by Mr. Till is a truth widely recognized by reputable Bible scholars. One of the most consistent scientific errors that Bible writers made concerned their misconception of the earth's shape. In Psalm 24:2, for example, it was said that "the world and all that is in it belong to the Lord; the earth and all who live on it are his. He built it on the deep waters beneath the earth and laid its foundations in the ocean depths," (GNB).
Now, let see if it is really true that the inerrancy doctrine of the Bible has no basis in fact...
Quote:
IT has been shown that the doctrine of the earth's rotundity is simply a plausible theory, having no practical foundation; all ideas, therefore, of "centre of attraction of gravitation," "mutual mass attraction of earth and moon," &c. &c., as taught in the Newtonian hypothesis must be given up, and the cause of tides in the ocean sought in some other direction. Before commencing such an inquiry, however, it will be useful to point out a few of the difficulties which render the theory contradictory, and therefore false and worthless...

...In both the above experiments it will be seen that the water will be drawn away from the sides representing the shores when it is elevated in the centre. Hence the supposed attraction of the moon upon the waters of the earth could not possibly cause a flood-tide on the shores which are nearest her meridian action, but the very contrary; the waters would recede from the land to supply the pyramid of water formed immediately underneath the moon, and of necessity produce an ebb tide instead of the flood, which the Newtonian theory affirms to be the result.

The above and other difficulties which exist in connection with the explanation of the tides afforded by the Newtonian system, have led many, including Sir Isaac Newton himself, to admit that such explanation is the least satisfactory portion of the "theory of gravitation."... You have to read this through - The cause of tides
Then you have to read this:

Location

The exact depth of the waters known as the great deep within the Earth's crust varies with different models. The Hydroplate theory places the water below a 10-mile thick crust, the remnants of which are now the continental crust. This theory is the first flood model to deal with the springs of the great deep. Modeling the springs of the deep is an important aspect of any Flood model and one where hydroplate theory excels. It is an important aspect of flood geology but one that still requires much work.

Location map showing the boundary of the High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer, major cities and roads, and altitude of land surface.

Large underground aquifers exist today that may represent remnants of the waters that burst forth during the global flood. One of the largest known aquifers is known as the High Plains Aquifer (Ogallala aquifer). The Ogallala is an ancient, non-replenishing body of water that supplies nearly one-third of the water used for irrigation in the US. The aquifer lies beneath 8 states in the U.S. and occupies some 175,000 square miles. More than 5 trillion gallons of water are pumped from the aquifer each year.

There seems to be water beneath the Tibetan Plateau. According to a 2001 Science report, a layer of aqueous fluids could produce the conductance observed in Tibet with a lower fluid fraction and/or layer thickness than considered above for partial melt. For example, a layer only 1.6 km thick containing 10% of 100 S/m brine would be needed to yield the observed 10,000-S conductance.[6]


The idea of there being vast amount of water in the earth’s mantle is a well documented theory and is actually required for the old earth model. Water is believed to transport materials and is responsible for some seismic properties.[7] In fact, if it is assumed that there is no water below the crust, much water would be missing. The old earth model for the earth’s formation requires much more water then what is seen at the surface.[8]

There are a number of evidential grounds that lend credibility for creationist predictions, others are actual observations of water currently in the mantle.

In 1997 scientists discovered that the zone between the upper and lower mantle is actually wet and may contain about 10-30 times the amount of water currently in all of our oceans combined. Experimental work was followed and what was discovered is that 70% of what comes out of volcanoes is water. Additionally, certain minerals can hold water in even the worst temperatures.

Scientists have also discovered a blob in the earth's mantle. It is located more than 500 miles under the western Caribbean Sea and is about 80 miles thick by 380 miles tall. This is most likely lava, but this may be a left over of a spring that ruptured during the Flood. This fits nicely with hydroplate theory.[9]

According to a recent model, there is a strange anomaly in the pacific. It appears to be an enormously huge section of hydrate minerals. Though this is a far cry from a fountain of the deep, it fits nicely into the idea. This could very well be the left over of a fountain.[10]

Motohiko Murakami, of the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Japan, found that there may be five times the amount of water in the mantle then all the earth’s oceans. He found the water about 1,000 kilometres below the Earth's surface at temperatures of 1,000o C. He also did calculations on the capability of water to be held under such pressures.
“ The lower mantle's minerals can retain about a tenth as much water as the rocks above, Murakami's team finds. But because the volume of the lower mantle is much greater than that of the transition zone, it could hold a comparable amount of water.[11] ”

National Geographic magazine quotes him as saying,
“ Our results suggest that the lower mantle can potentially store considerable amounts of water.[12] ”

One phenomenon that has eluded scientist for some matter of years is unexplained earth quakes in the deep mantle. Theoretically, water in the deep parts of the earth could explain this. Water being squeezed out of it’s source could cause underground earth quakes and can potentially cause plate movement.[13]

There is also the Beijing Anomaly. It is an anomaly in seismic waves, which hint (at a 700-1400 km depth) at a large amount of water in the mantle.[14] More recently, researchers found that there is a reservoir as large as the Arctic ocean in the mantle.[15]

There has also been testing and research done on the upper mantle of the earth. A mineral called wadsleyite, holds about 3% water by weight. And the estimated amount of wadsleyite that exists, the water contained in it works out to be about 30 of our oceans. 30 oceans worth of water is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.[16]




Genesis 7:18

And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.


Genesis 7:20
7:20 mountains. The words “high hills” and “mountains” are the same in the original Hebrew. The waters were 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains, patently including Mount Ararat, which is now 17,000 feet high. In the “local-flood” theory, Mt. Ararat would have had the same elevation before and after the Flood, but it should be obvious that a 17,000-foot flood is not a local flood!

ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-17-2014, 02:09 PM
Hrothgar's Avatar
Hrothgar Hrothgar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 264
Send a message via Yahoo to Hrothgar Send a message via Skype™ to Hrothgar
nuff said


did I say

So in summary it's not a Dyson sphere, its a Jesus sphere.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-17-2014, 04:08 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
You must be confused by the position of God on above schematic, aren't you?

Well, you should be just a little bit subtler, but let me help you not to die of so much laughing, this is the key for understanding God's position in above schematic:

Paul Before the Areopagus
…26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation. 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

If there is anything else that you would like to ask about, but you are too timid to step up and pose the question, feel free to ask what ever you want, just don't be so shy. And i warn you: to much laughing could be deadly dangerous...

Regarding great flood you have to chose between these options:

1. It didn't happen at all
2. It happened but it was local event
3. It happened and it was global event

You can not prove the trueness of any of the first two options, but i can prove to you that the third option is true.

Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.


Is there evidence that the flood was global?

I will quote here just the first one evidence (out of six):

1. Fast moving water can erode away dirt, sand and even rock. When the water slows down, the dirt, sand and rock are dropped. This sediment may contain minerals that can be weathered away quickly. In the San Francisco area of California, beds of sediments hundreds of feet thick contain minerals that would have been destroyed if not buried quickly. Such beds can be seen in many other areas world-wide. These sediments could not have been laid down slowly over thousands of years otherwise the minerals would have been destroyed by weathering. Such beds tell us that a great quantity of water was involved and the sediment was deposited and buried quickly.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Now that you see that there is plenty of evidence for Global Great Flood you have to ask yourself if such a global event could be possible on the rotund Earth (Globe), especially rotund and spinning Globe?

It is obvious at the first glance that the answer to that question is: NO, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE!

Underlying the flood story in Genesis 6-9 is the ancient Israelite view of the cosmos as made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water.[14] Below the earth were the "waters of chaos", the cosmic sea;[15] the waters were also above the earth, and so the solid bowl of the raqia (firmament) was necessary to keep them from flooding the world.[16]

You see: if there was a Global Great Flood, Earth surface has to be Flat!!!

But that is just one among innumerable proofs of Earth's Flatness and Motionless!!!

If that is still funny to you feel free to laugh, just remember: you were warned about related health issues!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-17-2014 at 04:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-17-2014, 05:32 PM
ethan ethan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 44
What do you expect to happen if you travel in the same direction? Fall off the edge?

You think the moon, sun, planets are all plates?

Throw a handful of water into the air...When gravity pulls it back down...it turns into spheres.

viola' earth is round.

Planets form into spheres while in their molten state while being pulled in by the suns gravity.

Why do bible followers lack logic? Seems like that's a requirement to have "faith".
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2014, 06:36 PM
Bob Smith Bob Smith is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 765
I was recently put onto the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis around geocentrism - mindblowing stuff, quoting a lot of scientific findings to support his position. Here's a great interview with him:
Dr Robert Sungenis - Geocentrism Geocentric Cosmology - YouTube
In short, he maintains that the earth is at the center of mass of our universe, and the universe rotates around the earth, analogous to the way a thrown tennis racket rotates around its center of mass.
I hope I'm not quoting something already cited in this thread.
Bob
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2014, 07:57 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethan View Post
What do you expect to happen if you travel in the same direction? Fall off the edge?

You think the moon, sun, planets are all plates?

Throw a handful of water into the air...When gravity pulls it back down...it turns into spheres.

viola' earth is round.

Planets form into spheres while in their molten state while being pulled in by the suns gravity.

Why do bible followers lack logic? Seems like that's a requirement to have "faith".
Voila:

An argument for the earth's rotundity is thought, by many, to be found in the following facts:

"Fluid or semi-fluid substances in a state of motion invariably assume the globular form, as instanced in rain, hail, dew, mercury, and melted lead, which, poured from a great height, as in the manufacture of small shot, becomes divided into spherical masses."

"There is abundant evidence, from geology, that the earth has been a fluid or semi-fluid mass, and it could not, therefore, continue in a state of motion through space without becoming spherical."

In the first place, in reply to the above, it is denied that hail is always globular. On examination immediately after or during a hail-storm, the masses present every variety of form, and very few are found perfectly globular. Rain and dew cannot so well be examined during their fall, but when standing on hard surfaces in minute quantities, they generally appear spherical, a result simply of "attraction of cohesion." The same of mercury; and in reference to the formation of shot, by pouring melted lead from the top of a very high tower into cold water, it is a mistake to suppose that all, or even a large proportion, is converted into truly spherical masses. From twenty to fifty per cent. of the masses formed are very irregular in shape, and have to be returned to the crucible for re-melting. In addition to which it may be remarked, that the tendency in falling fluids to become globular is owing to what, in chemical works, is called "attraction of cohesion" (not "attraction of gravitation "), which is verylimited in its operation.

Its action is confined to small quantities of matter. If, in the manufacture of shot, the melted metal is allowed to fall in masses of several ounces or pounds, instead of being divided (by pouring through a sieve or "cullender" with small holes) into particles weighing only a few grains, it will never take a spherical form. Shot of an inch diameter could not be made by this process; bullets of even half an inch can only be made by casting the metal into spherical moulds. In tropical countries the rain, instead of falling in drops, or small globules, often comes down in large irregular masses or gushes, which have no approximation whatever to sphericity. So that it is manifestly unjust to affirm, of large masses like the earth, that which attaches only to minute portions, or a few grains, of matter.

Without denying that the earth has been, at some former period, or was, when it first existed, in a pulpy or semi-fluid state, it is requisite to prove beyond all doubt that it has a motion through space, or the conclusion that it is therefore spherical is premature, and very illogical. It should also be proved that it has motion upon axes, or it is equally contrary to every principle of reasoning to affirm that the equatorial is greater than the polar diameter, as the inevitable result of the centrifugal force produced by its axial or diurnal rotation. The assumption of such conditions by Sir Isaac Newton, as we have seen when speaking of the measurement of arcs of the meridian, was contrary to evidence, and led to and maintains a "muddle of mathematics" such as philosophers will, sooner or later, be ashamed of. The whole matter, taken together, entirely fails as an argument for the earth's rotundity. It has been demonstrated that axial and orbital motion do not exist, and, therefore, any argument founded upon and including them as facts is necessarily fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Smith View Post
I was recently put onto the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis around geocentrism - mindblowing stuff, quoting a lot of scientific findings to support his position. Here's a great interview with him:
Dr Robert Sungenis - Geocentrism Geocentric Cosmology - YouTube
In short, he maintains that the earth is at the center of mass of our universe, and the universe rotates around the earth, analogous to the way a thrown tennis racket rotates around its center of mass.
I hope I'm not quoting something already cited in this thread.
Bob
See post #7!!!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-17-2014 at 08:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2014, 11:39 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,114
Fat Erf Poof



This contrail is no more vertical than the road is, and nor are the power lines at 45 degrees.
Everything is horizontal – it’s the just the angle you are viewing it from. All of these show horizontal contrails.

A Problem of Perspective - New Year's Eve Contrail - Contrail Science » Contrail Science

Round earth theory debunked in less than 2 minutes - YouTube

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-18-2014, 04:21 AM
ethan ethan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 44
Spherical

Wind resistance will alter the shape of any semi-liquid form being pulled by gravity.
Im sure nothing is actually spherical being dropped inside the atmosphere. Probably more oval.

....ok lets argue some of your "facts".....

Quote:
If the Earth was rotating fast enough to complete 360 degrees every 24 hours, the atmosphere would long ago have been hurtled away.
If an object were dropped from the tip of the atmosphere, it would hit the ground within...lets say...a half hour.

60mi thick atmosphere
120mph terminal velocity

That means earth would basically have to rotate 360 degrees within 30 minutes for its centrifugal force to become stronger than gravity and "hurtle away" its own atmosphere.

Earths gravity = Centripetal Force....Is greater than....Earths rotation = Centrifugal Force

Earth Centrifugal Force is already extremely weak. Then take into consideration, your talking about its affects on the atmosphere (highly energetic gaseous molecules) which is rotating with earth due to viscous drag. Then take into account the mass of gaseous molecules is extremely small.

What you end up with are incorrect assumptions and calculations by Dr. Shaban

Quote:
the angular velocity becomes greater at higher altitude
angular velocity is based on angular momentum which is based on....mass

the higher the atmosphere altitude the thinner is gets which means it has less mass...which reduces the angular velocity.


Quote:
So at 500 km (about 311 miles above sea level) the pressure of the atmosphere (gas) would be greater than at sea level....The greatest pressure is at the farthest point from the center of the rotating body or part.
Unless that rotating body (atmosphere) is extremely light, exerting very little centrifugal force. Not to mention the higher the altitude, is the less amount of atmosphere above it, which reduces the pressure due to less atmospheric weight above it.

Quote:
Heavier elements and molecules would be driven outward. That means there would be relatively more oxygen than hydrogen at high altitudes
No. Gravity is stronger than the centrifugal force. Gravity wins.
Oxygen is heavier and naturally settles lower.
Throw a water balloon onto a pile of empty balloons. The heavy one sinks.

Quote:
Since we know that actual atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude instead, the Earth cannot be rotating and have the atmosphere we know.
Earth does rotate. Gravity produces a centripetal force which counteracts earths rotational centrifugal force. Its all relative to everything within the earth which makes its interaction hard to measure, even more so for gas particles which practically have no mass.

The atmosphere does rotate with the earth at the same speed due to viscous drag.
The atmosphere is a gas, which means it does not react to angular velocity, gravity, or centrifugal forces to the same degree as solid mass (like us, or centrifugal pumps) does.

Quote:
"attraction of cohesion" (not "attraction of gravitation "), which is verylimited in its operation.
Its action is confined to small quantities of matter
Scale is relative. Larger scale would require more time to attract and cohere.
Larger molten shots, need to be dropped higher. Tropical storms rain too much water from too short a distance. ECT...

Earth...had millions of years to complete the semi-liquid cohesion.

...................................

OK im done with the "Flat Earth Theory". Its as real as the tooth fairy.

Answer these questions...
What happens when you get to the edge?
Why has no one ever seen the edge?
Why does the sun rotate like a sphere? Its equator does infact rotate faster than its poles (like a giant sphere)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-18-2014, 07:11 AM
ethan ethan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 44
Enya - Only Time MUSIC VIDEO - YouTube

Beautiful Song. Beautiful Earth.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-18-2014, 10:04 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethan View Post
Spherical
....ok lets argue some of your "facts".....

Answer these questions...
What happens when you get to the edge?
Why has no one ever seen the edge?
Why does the sun rotate like a sphere? Its equator does infact rotate faster than its poles (like a giant sphere)
Well, first of all, you have to understand what you are talking about when you use exotic words like "gravity" is. Do you really think you have at least slightest idea of what gravity really represents and/or how it really works?

Well, maybe you should read this before you answer:

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.
Read more: E=mc^2

But even if you were right, your inescapable position would still be situated between these two equally lethal positions:

1. If the atmosphere moves along with the spinning Earth (which is obviously your assumption) then you have to plausibly explain away this issue:

If the Earth was rotating as we are told (i.e., from west to east in direction), an airplane would have to travel much faster to fly from Los Angeles to Miami than from Miami to Los Angeles. And the required speed to fly west-to-east at cities close to the equator would be much greater than speed needed to go from, say, Toronto to Moscow (since the Earth’s speed of rotation closer to the North Pole would be less than farther to the south).

2. On the other hand, if the atmosphere doesn't move along with the spinning Earth or if it's properties were of a such kind that there would be no atmospheric resistance (in the air) for flying objects then you have to be able to explain away this issue:

The earth is not rotating - spinning.

and this:

THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

Quote:
What happens when you get to the edge?
You have to come back if you want to stay alive.

Quote:
Why has no one ever seen the edge?
Who told you that? Guys from NASA? Well, read this:

Finally, it has been disclosed by insiders within the space program, N.A.S.A., of a “certain complication”. It was found that when far outside the Earth’s field of influence the stars and sun are NOT VISIBLE! However, the Earth and the Moon are plainly visible. No direct light in outer space, only that made visible by gross physical matter. This gives rise to an important question, does the “light” from the sun propagate with a velocity at all, or is it simply a function of time. The “time delay” may be no more than a hysteresis of the luminiferous aether. Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

Do not skip this: Eric Dollard: THE SUN IS TRANSFORMING FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION #1

In above post you have the answers to you third question too...
Quote:
What the fictitious “aberration of starlight” de facto shows is the parallax Bradley and Molyneux were searching. But it is a geocentric and not a heliocentric one. Our telescopes actually follow the stars in their courses, all of them depending on, and concordant with that of the sun orbiting the earth. Which sun is at the heart of the stellatum, very slowly precessing around that Great Light.

It is this geocentric parallax which allows us to defend and promote a comparatively small universe, dismissing an aberration of starlight which does not exist (see Figure 2). Of triangle S-Earth-M the angle at earth is 41 seconds of arc, and SM = 108 km. By means of triangulation the distance Earth-Star, that is the radius of the Stellatum, can be calculated. It turns out that, on the average, the light of the stars needs 58 days to reach us.

All the foregoing, I realize, the reader will not be inclined to accept or take seriously. The only thing I can do is to reinforce the truth of it with the help of yet another indirect demonstration. It shows how it makes no sense to be a Copernican and at the same time to adduce the 30 km/sec orbital velocity of the earth in explaining the stars' “aberration.”

If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Read more: Airy's Failure Reconsidered
One can reconstruct the origin of these numbers by doing a little geometry, starting from a flat earth hypothesis. Remember the experiment of Eratosthenes, who measured the angular elevation of the sun at two latitudes in Egypt? He assumed that the sun was effectively infinitely far away (or at least so far compared to the earth's size that the actual distance didn't matter). Then he calculated the diameter of the earth using a second assumption: that the earth was spherical.

But suppose you abandon Eratosthenes' two assumptions, and adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat. Then, triangulation from the same data gives the distance to the sun: 3000 miles! See how a simple change of assumptions can drastically alter the entire cosmos? However, the round earth was more than an arbitary assumption for Eratosthenes, for he and his contemporaries, had other very good reasons for knowing the earth was round. [Textbooks sometimes mislead by suggesting that his experiment was designed to prove the earth was a sphere. It was not, it was only intended to measure the size of the sphere.]


Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
Al-Al, you think you can race with me? Well, let me introduce myself to you: alal vera kako ga chera Did you notice that guy on a sagway? Were that you?...

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-18-2014 at 10:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-19-2014, 01:53 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Al-Al, you think you can race with me?
This is a preconceived notion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Well, let me introduce myself to you: alal vera kako ga chera Did you notice that guy on a sagway? Were that you?...
A picture is worth a thousand words. Napoleon Bonaparte



@cikljamas, what do you see in the above photo?

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-19-2014, 07:44 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
This is a preconceived notion.
Al, i didn't say that because i think i am very smart guy, i said that to challenge not just you but everyone who will ever read this thread. In other words i do not think i am very smart guy, i just know i am 100 % right!!!

My real hero is mr Samuel Birley Rowbotham a.k.a. Paralax. He dedicated his life to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, and he really proved that fact beyond any reasonable doubt! THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ROWBOTHAM, YOU WERE ONE OF A KIND, NO, YOU ARE ONE OF A KIND, YOU ARE REAL SAINT MAN who will dwell in Heaven with your TRUE GOD forever and ever! Here is his picture:



Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
@cikljamas, what do you see in the above photo?
In above photo i see below photo:



Learn Al, learn
: EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.

Al, what do you see in next photo:



Let me help you with this little clue: It is about "dipping needle" and my graphic interpretation of needle acting (decreasing/increasing needle angle at different degrees of latitudes) on supposed rotund Earth. Compare it with the diagram (fig. 87.) and related description in the first-opening post of this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-19-2014, 12:26 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
One more example of round-earther's inconsistency

DEFLECTION OF FALLING BODIES.

"The falling of bodies from high places is a further proof of the daily rotation of the earth. By this motion everything upon the earth describes a circle, which is larger in proportion as the object is raised above the surface; and as everything moves round in the same time, the greater the elevation of the object, the faster it will travel; so that the top of a house or hill moves faster than its base. It is found then that when a body descends from a high place, say a few hundred feet, it does not fall exactly beneath the spot it left, but a little to the east .of it. This could not happen unless the earth had a motion from west to east. Were the earth stationary the body would fall immediately under the place it left."

The above "argument" for the earth's daily motion ought to be anything but satisfactory, even to its propounders; because it is the reverse of another "argument"--advanced for the same purpose, see page 63; it is not supported by uniform experimental results; the greatest amount of deflection which has ever been observed is a mere trifle compared with that which ought to be found according to the theory of rotation; and, lastly, because special experiment gives evidence directly against the supposition of diurnal motion.

Quote:
WHAT IS ON PAGE 63:

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

It is argued by those who hold that the earth is a revolving globe, that if a ball is dropped from the mouth of a deep mine, it reaches the bottom in an apparently vertical direction, the same as it would if the earth were motionless. In the same way, and from the same cause, it is said that a ball allowed to drop from the top of a tower, will fall at the base. Admitting the fact that a ball dropped down a mine, or let fall from a high tower, reaches the bottom in a direction parallel to the side of either, it does not follow therefrom that the earth moves. It only follows that the earth might move, and yet allow of such a result. It is certain that such a result would occur on a stationary earth; and it is mathematically demonstrable that it would also occur on a revolving earth; but the question of motion or non-motion--of which is the fact it does not decide. It gives no proof that the ball falls in a vertical or in a diagonal direction. Hence, it is logically valueless. Page 63: Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter III. The Earth No Axial or Orbital Motion
It has been argued already (see above quote from the page 63) that a body let fall down a coal pit, or from a high tower, does not deflect, but falls parallel to the side of the pit or tower, on account of the conjoint action of the earth's centrifugal force, and the force of gravity. It is said that at the moment it is liberated, and begins to fall by gravity, it receives an impulse at right angles to gravity, and therefore really falls in a diagonal direction. Thus what is affirmed in one place is contradicted in another! Inconsistency is ever the companion of falsehood. Again, when experiments have been tried, it has been found that a body has sometimes been out of the vertical a little to the east, sometimes to the west and north and south, and sometimes not at all. The amount, when it has been observed, has been very small, very far less than it ought to have been if it had resulted from the earth's rotation.

Thus it is admitted that deflection from a height of 300 feet "is so small as to be practically inappreciable;" that "great heights are necessary for giving only a deviation of one-tenth part of an inch;" that when this amount was observed, "at the same time deviation to the south was given, which was not in accordance with the mathematical calculations;" that "the experiments have considerable discrepancies among themselves;" that "the experiments differed very much;" that "after all there can be no doubt that our knowledge on this subject is imperfect;" that on repeating the experiments with the utmost possible care down a shaft of 1320 feet in depth, the bullets did not fall easterly at all from the plummets, "but from 10 to 20 inches south of the plumb-line," and out of forty-eight bullets, forty-four fell "on the south side of the shaft, in situations which precluded exact measurements of the distances being taken;" and, finally, that puzzled mathematicians, with their ever ready ingenuity to make facts agree with the wildest of theories, even with those of a directly opposite character, conclude that "falling bodies may have either north, south, east, or west deflection from the plumb-line." What value can such uncertain and conflicting evidence possess in the minds of reasoning men? They are shameless logicians, indeed, who contend that, from such results, the earth is proved to have a diurnal rotation! Read more: Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not A Globe: Chapter XIV. Examination of the So-Called ''Proofs'' of the Earth's Rotundity: Deflection of Falling Bodies

Any comment is superfluous!!!

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-19-2014 at 12:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-19-2014, 01:59 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
, i just know i am 100 % right!!!
You did not describe the posted photo
showing vertical (i.e. perpendicular)
chemical trail of a "racket" flying towards ground,
prove that my version is wrong.

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-19-2014, 04:34 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
You did not describe the posted photo
showing vertical (i.e. perpendicular)
chemical trail of a "racket" flying towards ground,
prove that my version is wrong.

Al
Well, it seems to me we just do not understand each other

Al, i know: perpendicular = vertical, but you didn't get the point...

If the needle is in a horizontal position (since "dipping needle" instrument is kind of a vertical compass) it means that the needle is in a perpendicular or vertical position on it's axis (on it's vertical line).

Since the needle is in a horizontal position in "dipping needle" instrument while we are on the equator it seems that the needle points to sky (see figure 87. in the first post), and not towards north magnetic pole.

In my diagram you can see where (at what latitude) we should expect needle to be in a horizontal position (perpendicular to the vertical line of a "dipping needle" instrument). Somewhere in north Canada or north Sweden or north Russia, but not on the equator (as it is in reality).

In addition, on a globe acting of a "dipping needle" instrument would be in chaotic manner (increasing-decreasing-increasing etc...), but on the flat Earth we would expect linear-gradual-steady-continuous decreasing of the angle (of the needle) as we go away farther from north magnetic pole to south, and vice versa. And that is exactly how dipping needle instrument works. So, where are we? On a globe, or on a plane surface of the Earth?


Last edited by cikljamas; 05-19-2014 at 04:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-19-2014, 08:49 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
ARCS OF THE MERIDIAN.

The discrepancies and anomalies so often observed in pendulum experiments, have led the followers of Newton to seek the desired evidence in measurements of arcs of the meridian; but here again they are even more unfortunate than in their efforts with the pendulum. It is certain that the question when attempted to be answered by such measurements, is less satisfactory than was expected, and in many respects the results are contradictory.

How strange it appears, that one of the most ingenious mathematicians the world ever produced, assumed for certain purposes that the earth was a globe, that it revolved, that its revolutions caused the fluid and plastic matter of its substance to determine towards the equator--causing it to "bulge out" to a greater extent than the diameter in the direction of the axis, and therefore the circumference at the equator must be greater than the circumference at right angles, or in the direction of latitude; or, in other words, that the degrees of latitude must diminish towards the poles, and yet "men of the greatest skill," with "instruments of the most perfect construction," having availed themselves of "all that science can do," have succeeded in making measurements the most exact "ever made on the face of the earth," have found results the very reverse of all that the Newtonian theory deemed essential to its consistency and perfection! Instead of the degrees diminishing towards the pole they were found to increase; as if the earth were egg-shaped or prolonged through its axis, and not, like an orange, flattened at the sides--"as if;" to use more scientific language, "the earth were an oblong instead of an oblate spheroid."



The fallacy involved in all the attempts to prove the oblate spheroidal form of the earth, is, that the earth is first assumed to be a globe, the celestial surface above it to be concave, and the plumb-lines to be radii. If this were the true condition of things, then all the degrees of latitude would be the same in length; and if the earth were really "flattened at the poles," the degrees would certainly shorten in going from the equator towards the north. If, however, the celestial surface is not concave, but horizontal, two plumb-lines suspended north and south of each other would be parallel, and would indicate equal length in all the degrees of latitude, thereby spewing the earth to be parallel with the celestial surface, and therefore a plane. The differences required by a globe are not found in practice, but such as a plane would produce are invariably found. Hence the failure of geodesy becomes evidence against rotundity, but demonstrating that the earth is parallel to the horizontal heavens, and therefore of mathematical and logical necessity A PLANE. It is ever the case, when falsehood is tested in the crucible of experiment, that its value is diminished or destroyed, whilst the contrary is the case with truth, which, like gold, the more intense the fire of criticism the more brilliant it appears.

Read more: ARCS OF THE MERIDIAN

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-19-2014 at 08:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-20-2014, 12:55 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Well, it seems to me we just do not understand each other

In my diagram you can see where (at what latitude) we should expect needle to be in a horizontal position (perpendicular to the vertical line of a "dipping needle" instrument). Somewhere in north Canada or north Sweden or north Russia, but not on the equator (as it is in reality).
The altitude of the North Star, which is not visible below the equator (i.e. an "end"/"edge" of the Northern Hemisphere ),
changes with the latitude of the observer therefore, this proves that the Earth is almost spherical.

Da Fonte Ferrenha Ã* Estratosfera - Near Space Photography Portugal - YouTube

Timelapse labels. IRIS - Proyecto Daedalus - 04 - YouTube



Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-20-2014, 06:40 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
The altitude of the North Star, which is not visible below the equator (i.e. an "end"/"edge" of the Northern Hemisphere ),
changes with the latitude of the observer therefore, this proves that the Earth is almost spherical.

Da Fonte Ferrenha Ã* Estratosfera - Near Space Photography Portugal - YouTube

Timelapse labels. IRIS - Proyecto Daedalus - 04 - YouTube

Al
The North Star IS visible below the equator, but it shouldn't be and it couldn't be visible if the Earth were spherical!!! Do you read what i write and quote here (at all)? North - South

We are in 2014., remember, so where is your (at least one) solid proofs of the Earth's rotundity???

You can not have any proof such that, because you should first disprove 1000 irrefutable proofs of the Earth's flatness!

I haven't seen any disproof such that, until now.

Become famous, and show us your rotund proofs, but reasonable one, not stupid one, that's all i ask of you rotund guys!

Is it too much for you? If the answer is "yes" then stay rotund and happy!

And, don't worry, nobody will notice that there is no wind on the surface of the Earth that constantly blows 1600 km/h...

Last edited by cikljamas; 05-20-2014 at 10:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-20-2014, 09:24 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 837
Why?

By now, you surely have already asked yourself: WHY?

1. SECRET SPACE PROGRAM

2. The True History and Purpose of NASA

3. ADMIRAL BIRD - OPERATION HIGH-JUMP:

Quote:
„The fourth culminating expedition, Operation Highjump, was the largest Antarctic expedition to date. In 1946, US Navy Secretary James Forrestal assembled a huge amphibious naval force for an Antarctic Expedition expected to last six to eight months. Besides the flagship Mount Olympus and the aircraft carrier Philippine Sea, there were thirteen US Navy support ships, six helicopters, six flying boats, two seaplane tenders and fifteen other aircraft. The total number of personnel involved was over 4,000. The armada arrived in the Ross Sea on December 31, 1946, and made aerial explorations of an area half the size of the United States, recording ten new mountain ranges. The major area covered was the eastern coastline of Antarctica from 150 degrees east to the Greenwich meridian. The expedition was terminated abruptly at the end of February 1947, six months early, the entire remaining armada returning immediately to the United States. The only explanation ever given for the early termination of the mission was provided in an interview granted to Lee van Atta of International News Services aboard the support shipMount Olympus on the high seas and published in the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio on Wednesday 5 March 1947. The following extracts show the abstract manner in which the admiral was thinking and may explain why conspiracy theorists specializing in alleged Aryan or Nazi activities in Antarctica have speculated extensively about this mission: “Admiral Richard E Byrd warned today of the necessity for the United States to adopt protective measures against the possibility of an invasion of the country by hostile aircraft proceeding from the polar regions. The admiral said: “I do not want to scare anybody but the bitter reality is that in the event of a new war the United States will be attacked by aircraft flying in from over one or both poles.” On the subject of the recently terminated expedition, Byrd said that “the most important of the observations and discoveries made was the of the present potential situation as it relates to the security of the United States…I can do no more than warn my countrymen very forcibly that the time has passed when we could take refuge in complete isolation and rest in confidence in the guarantee of security which distance, the oceans and the poles provide. The admiral warned of the necessity to “remain in a state of alert and watchfulness”. He said that he “realized perhaps better than any other person the significance of the scientific discoveries made in these explorations because I can make comparisons” (i.e. between now and when he was in Antarctica pre-war). We are abandoning the region after making important geographical discoveries.
So, "hallow earth" hoax theory has been invented with the purpose of covering up the truth that there is no South Pole whatsoever?

Admiral Byrd was an active Freemason. He became a member of Federal Lodge No. 1, Washington, D.C. on March 19, 1921 and affiliated with Kane Lodge No. 454, New York City, September 18, 1928. He was a member of National Sojourners Chapter No. 3 at Washington. He and his pilot, Bernt Balchen dropped Masonic flags on the two poles—Balchen also added his Shrine fez. In the Antarctic expedition of 1933-35, 60 of the 82 members were Freemasons and on February 5, 1935 established First Antarctic Lodge No. 777 of New Zealand constitution.

4.







The Children of the Devil
…43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.…

That's why!!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-20-2014, 02:17 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
The North Star IS visible below the equator,

We are in 2014., remember, so where is your (at least one) solid proofs of the Earth's rotundity???
Polaris is not visible about 1+23.5degrees below the "edge" of the NH where the "son" points North (bin there done that).



fanaticism (fəˈnætɪˌsɪzəm)
1. wildly excessive or irrational devotion, dedication, or enthusiasm
fanaticism - definition of fanaticism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Hail Columbia! with Lyrics; First American National Anthem - United States of America - YouTube

Al
__________________
 

Last edited by aljhoa; 05-21-2014 at 01:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-21-2014, 01:45 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,114
All Sky from Both Hemispheres

The two all-sky views compared how the sky looks in a winter night of Turkey in northern hemisphere (left)
and in a similar winter night of New Zealand in the southern hemisphere (right).
Click on the constellation icon above the image to see all the labels and constellation lines.
At left the Milky Way and the zodiacal light are captured from Sinekci Pass in Toros Mountains of southern Turkey, on the way to Kas by the Mediterranean coast.
The right side image is made from Tongariro National Park, the oldest protected area in New Zealand and also a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
At a dark site over Lake Rotoaira just south of greater Lake Taupo on New Zealand's North Island, the Milky Way bridges across the southern sky in its all beauty.
Our galactic neighbors the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds stands above the southern horizon.
Bright stars of Alpha and Beta Centauri are at the lower right, near the Southern Cross. Tunc Tezel

"All Sky from Both Hemispheres" by Tunc Tezel (TWAN)

http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos/3002865-g.jpg





Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers