RS2--daniel

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm**

Hi Daniel,

It's been a while but have been meaning to check back in for a while now. I personally love that the religion of science, well false science, is being exposed for the sham it is. The veil is lifting - the information apocalypse.

So I have a topic I'd like to bring to the table (sorry didn't check the forum for this topic before responding to this thread so if it should be moved, please do that). In the same vein of scientific credibility being lost, I'd like to bring up the topic of flat earth. I know that many think this is a psy-op and maybe I'm just a gullible sucker and this topic doesn't deserve your time but I was hoping to create some intellectual discourse around this topic. It's actually been quite surprising how many "free thinker" are unable to look at this critically and objectively but I digress. So, onward...

It occurred to me a long time ago well before I had ever heard anything about the flat earth theory: How do we know we are actually where science, NASA, governments, et al tells us we are? That is to say, unless you've been to space and seen the blue marble rotating in space, how do you KNOW where you are? The simple answer is: you don't. All we are able to do is theorize. Sure, NASA gives us images from "space" but they are all admittedly composites and artist renderings. To my knowledge, there is no existing genuine image of Earth from space. In some official images released by NASA, you can easily spot the copied and pasted cloud formations, continents vary greatly in size, and even the color of Earth varies greatly.

Further, the Pythagorean Theorem used to calculate the curvature of the Earth seems to fly out the window when using high powered cameras or binoculars. Objects that should be hundreds or thousands of feet below the horizon remain in almost full view.

I also find it very interesting that on Werner Von Braun's tombstone, the father of modern rocketry, it simply says Psalm 19:1. This passage states: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
There are many more examples in religious texts referencing an immovable, domed, closed system we call Earth but I will stop here for now and leave you with a quote from Tesla about Earth.

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT."

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2017 3:24 pm**

Kano,. I also did some research on the FET. I was also a bit bamboozled be the half science that most flat eathers completely swallow. After a while I came to this conclusion. The only way I was able to solidify my belief that the Earth is round is to trust my own eyes and senses. Everything else is me trusting someone else's senses. Try this... In the morning when the sun is just about to rise, look at the clouds. You will notice they are illuminated from below and as the day progresses the cloud is now illuminated from above. This phenomen is impossible with the FET.

That being said, all other experiments are second hand and therefore less valid in my eyes. Good luck!

Posted: **Fri May 26, 2017 11:58 am**

Hi Kano, nice to see you back.

I addressed the Flat Earth in my last paper, The Colonization of Tiamat, Part V: The Annunaki Strike Back on pages 20-25.

Kano wrote: ↑
Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm
It occurred to me a long time ago well before I had ever heard anything about the flat earth theory: How do we know we are actually where science, NASA, governments, et al tells us we are? That is to say, unless you've been to space and seen the blue marble rotating in space, how do you KNOW where you are? The simple answer is: you don't. All we are able to do is theorize. Sure, NASA gives us images from "space" but they are all admittedly composites and artist renderings. To my knowledge, there is no existing genuine image of Earth from space. In some official images released by NASA, you can easily spot the copied and pasted cloud formations, continents vary greatly in size, and even the color of Earth varies greatly.

NASA cannot get pictures of the Earth simply because they cannot get a spacecraft very far out. The first thing they hit is the Van Allen belts of magnetism and radiation, which is devastating to electronics. Then there are the cosmic rays--atoms "stripped of their electrons" moving at near the speed of light, possessing incredible energy. And cosmic rays get more frequent the further out you get. (Good video on cosmic rays: The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays (1957)). Of course in the Reciprocal System, we know the origin of cosmic rays to be the cosmic sector--not particles playing magnetic ping-pong as the video describes. The third thing is they cannot get past the gravitational limit of Earth, because you are no longer in a 3D coordinate space environment. So even if they overcame the first two problems, they still could not get further out than the orbit of the moon.

Kano wrote: ↑
Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm
Further, the Pythagorean Theorem used to calculate the curvature of the Earth seems to fly out the window when using high powered cameras or binoculars. Objects that should be hundreds or thousands of feet below the horizon remain in almost full view.

From the paper:

Light is assumed to go in a straight line. It is well known in science that light bends in a gravitational field. Astronomers know the effect as “gravitational lensing” and it is the basis of the science of optics. Light actually slows down when traveling through a medium, such as glass and bends significantly passing the edge of an object, such as a slit. This was documented by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in the 18th century, explaining why a spectrum only appears at the edges of light passing through a slit—not through its center. If a slit in paper can bend light into a spectrum, what do you think happens to light in a gravitational field the size of a planet?
The Earth is a smooth sphere. It is a flattened sphere (technically a geoid) and not really smooth, anywhere. The gravitational pull of the Earth varies considerably across its surface, due to the different mineral content below the ground. Denser elements have a stronger pull than lighter ones. The only place where the Earth gets smooth is over the deep oceans, where the depth of the water tends to normalize out these variations (not on the coast).
The continental crust is curved like the ocean is. Due to the fact that the Earth is constantly expanding, valley floors tend to drop about the same amount as the curvature of the Earth rises, sometimes more, making the crustal regions a series of flat surfaces with the edges being mountain ranges, much like a polyhedron.

Kano wrote: ↑
Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm
I also find it very interesting that on Werner Von Braun's tombstone, the father of modern rocketry, it simply says Psalm 19:1. This passage states: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

From the paper:

In Biblical cosmology, the firmament is the structure above the atmosphere, conceived as a vast solid dome. According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the “waters above” the earth from the “waters below” the earth. The word is anglicized from Latin firmamentum, which appears in the Vulgate, a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible.

Firmament
from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki’a. This word means simply “expansion.” It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki’a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Genesis 1:7). The raki’a supported the upper reservoir (Psalms 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:14), and is spoken of as having “windows” and “doors” (Genesis 7:11; Isaiah 24:18; Malachi 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

Now we get to the truth of the matter, with the keyword being, “expansion.” Flip back a few pages to where the gravitational limit was discussed, as being the impenetrable boundary between the progression of the natural reference system—the expansion of the Universe—and the local, gravity-bound, 3D spatial coordinate system. “Firmament” is just the ancient, Biblical name for Larson’s “gravitational limit.” A firmament does exist, though the nature of it has been cloaked by centuries of theological interpretations. The Reciprocal System was able to lift this cloak and reveal what was beneath and it is consistent with the ancient descriptions of a firmament.

Kano wrote: ↑
Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm
There are many more examples in religious texts referencing an immovable, domed, closed system we call Earth but I will stop here for now and leave you with a quote from Tesla about Earth.

Also discussed in the paper. Might want to take a read.

Temper wrote: ↑
Thu May 25, 2017 3:24 pm
Try this... In the morning when the sun is just about to rise, look at the clouds. You will notice they are illuminated from below and as the day progresses the cloud is now illuminated from above. This phenomen is impossible with the FET.

Excellent point!

Also, if you notice the Flat Earth models with the rotating sun, the sun only illuminates 1/3rd of its path, so even when circling the equator, the Flat Earth model gives 8 hours of day and 16 hours of night--not the 12/12 split that is actually measured.

Posted: **Fri May 26, 2017 4:18 pm**

Thanks very much for the reply. I want to dedicate the correct amount of time on my response so will try to do this over the weekend as there is a lot to respond to.

Posted: **Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am**

NASA cannot get pictures of the Earth simply because they cannot get a spacecraft very far out. The first thing they hit is the Van Allen belts of magnetism and radiation, which is devastating to electronics. Then there are the cosmic rays--atoms "stripped of their electrons" moving at near the speed of light, possessing incredible energy. And cosmic rays get more frequent the further out you get. (Good video on cosmic rays: The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays (1957)). Of course in the Reciprocal System, we know the origin of cosmic rays to be the cosmic sector--not particles playing magnetic ping-pong as the video describes. The third thing is they cannot get past the gravitational limit of Earth, because you are no longer in a 3D coordinate space environment. So even if they overcame the first two problems, they still could not get further out than the orbit of the moon.

So are the Van Allen belts the firmament? One thing that is obvious is the heliocentric model requires gravity to maintain its validity. But at this point, science doesn't even know what gravity is. It is simply a mainstream scientific theory. All science can do is observe the effects of what we think is gravity. However, the same effects could be caused by electromagnetism and doesn't require gravity at all. It seems Einstein relied more heavily on mathematics than actual physical laws to explain his theory of General Relativity which is the gospel for the mainstream gravitic model. Pretty much Einstein was a shill in my humble opinion.

Ah yes, the moon - fascinating topic. This is probably loosely tied to the Flat Earth Theory, but I find many anomalies with the moon (as do many). One that I've decided to test myself is that the light given off by the moon is actually cooler than the shadow the moonlight produces. How is that possible if the moon is reflecting the warm sunlight? There should be a measurable warmth in the moonlight but what has been found is that the opposite applies. The moonlight is cooler than the shadow it produces. Perhaps there is good reason for this but I bought an infrared thermometer to test it myself. Full moon will be in a few days and I will conduct my little experiment and report back.

One other thing I'll mention that I can't rectify is the shadowing on the moon. Modern Astronomy tells us that the moon phases are caused by the shadow of the earth cast by the sun. However, I can look up in the day and see the moon high in the sky with just a sliver of a crescent and then see the full sun in another part of the sky. Logic tells me that the earth is in no way casting a shadow on the moon based on simple geometry, so why isn't the full surface of the moon displayed?

Light is assumed to go in a straight line. It is well known in science that light bends in a gravitational field. Astronomers know the effect as “gravitational lensing” and it is the basis of the science of optics. Light actually slows down when traveling through a medium, such as glass and bends significantly passing the edge of an object, such as a slit. This was documented by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in the 18th century, explaining why a spectrum only appears at the edges of light passing through a slit—not through its center. If a slit in paper can bend light into a spectrum, what do you think happens to light in a gravitational field the size of a planet?

Again, this relies on gravity actually existing in order for this to work. Since there isn't any proof that it does, I remain skeptical.

[*]The Earth is a smooth sphere. It is a flattened sphere (technically a geoid) and not really smooth, anywhere. The gravitational pull of the Earth varies considerably across its surface, due to the different mineral content below the ground. Denser elements have a stronger pull than lighter ones. The only place where the Earth gets smooth is over the deep oceans, where the depth of the water tends to normalize out these variations (not on the coast).

Again, gravity is needed to make this work. How then are there are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot? A level expanse of this extent is incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity."

In Biblical cosmology, the firmament is the structure above the atmosphere, conceived as a vast solid dome. According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the “waters above” the earth from the “waters below” the earth. The word is anglicized from Latin firmamentum, which appears in the Vulgate, a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible.

Yes! I have wondered if the ancient flood that is referenced most all native cultures and religious texts around the world was due to a crack or hole in the firmament. Or perhaps the creators caused this because humans 1.0 were not what they wanted?

I've read that raki'a descends from a verb meaning "strengthen" and that raki'a is literally translated as "hammer out" as in a forge which gives a more literal translation to a firmament or hardened dome. But who knows what is correct. I don't speak Hebrew so I'm relying on what I read and there are a lot of conflicting translations.

Now we get to the truth of the matter, with the keyword being, “expansion.” Flip back a few pages to where the gravitational limit was discussed, as being the impenetrable boundary between the progression of the natural reference system—the expansion of the Universe—and the local, gravity-bound, 3D spatial coordinate system.

Speaking of coordinates, this reminds me of yet another issue I cannot rectify with the heliocentric model. Mainstream science tells us that the earth rotates at roughly 1000mph, and that the earth orbits the sun at roughly 67,000mph, and further, the sun is racing through the Milky Way like a comet dragging all the planet behind it at roughly 483,000mph. If this is true, how then do the same stars appear in the sky in the same places for millenia? How is it that Polaris remains the only unmoving star in our sky permanently fixed in place? It would seem that the constellations would also change - or rather our perspective of them from earth.

Try this... In the morning when the sun is just about to rise, look at the clouds. You will notice they are illuminated from below and as the day progresses the cloud is now illuminated from above. This phenomen is impossible with the FET.

Thanks for this. However, this is not my experience. I often wake up the rising sun or just before day break and this is not what I observe. I will remain open and continue to watch for this phenomenon.

Also, if you notice the Flat Earth models with the rotating sun, the sun only illuminates 1/3rd of its path, so even when circling the equator, the Flat Earth model gives 8 hours of day and 16 hours of night--not the 12/12 split that is actually measured.

I have not seen the Flat Earth model that show only 8 hours of daylight. I have only seen the 12/12 split you mentioned.

I do want to say that I am not convinced of the Flat Earth. But I am saying that there are a lot of compelling pieces of logic and empirical evidence that supports we do not live on a blue marble floating through space. I look forward to your comments!

Posted: **Wed May 31, 2017 4:33 pm**

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Modern Astronomy tells us that the moon phases are caused by the shadow of the earth cast by the sun. However, I can look up in the day and see the moon high in the sky with just a sliver of a crescent and then see the full sun in another part of the sky. Logic tells me that the earth is in no way casting a shadow on the moon based on simple geometry, so why isn't the full surface of the moon displayed?

I think it is because of lensing effect, I also think that half moon is on the side of the earth relative to the sun so thats why we see straight half instead of crescent shape. Gotta think 3 dimensionally to understand spacial bodies. And it is hard to do so, I know. I was thinking why the half moon's shadow doesnt seem to be straight compared to the suns position, when you draw a straight line to it, it doesnt match, should be more angle (cant explain any better for the lack of vocabulary and some other things its around midnight now so). But when you think about the curvature of the earth that acts like a big lens then you would see it makes more sense. Because there is this lensing effect going on in the atmosphere and its all in the air that we breath and some other gases, maybe the moisture too, that gives a nice distortion too. Its like looking at a fish in a stream, its actual position is slightly shifted from where you actually see it. Can't remember if its some degrees up (forward) from the seen location, but I guess you get the point.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Again, this relies on gravity actually existing in order for this to work. Since there isn't any proof that it does, I remain skeptical

I think you should know by now that modern science is not to be trusted so much. They might not know of enough proof of gravity existing, but some other scientists like in RS/RS2 might know better. I for one think that gravity exists.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
the sun is racing through the Milky Way like a comet dragging all the planet behind it at roughly 483,000mph. If this is true, how then do the same stars appear in the sky in the same places for millenia? How is it that Polaris remains the only unmoving star in our sky permanently fixed in place? It would seem that the constellations would also change - or rather our perspective of them from earth.

I've been thinking that thing too, one thing comes to mind all of the other "stars" are moving in the same direction at the same speed. Or they are not actually stars but other celestial bodies, planets and moons and maybe a few dwarfs (i.e. dead stars) etc. asteroids, meteors..

Then there is another thing maybe our solar system is not moving like they say it is, maybe the real movement would be circular and not straight like a bullet.

Posted: **Wed May 31, 2017 8:33 pm**

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am

daniel wrote:NASA cannot get pictures of the Earth simply because they cannot get a spacecraft very far out. The first thing they hit is the Van Allen belts of magnetism and radiation, which is devastating to electronics. Then there are the cosmic rays--atoms "stripped of their electrons" moving at near the speed of light, possessing incredible energy. And cosmic rays get more frequent the further out you get. (Good video on cosmic rays: The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays (1957)). Of course in the Reciprocal System, we know the origin of cosmic rays to be the cosmic sector--not particles playing magnetic ping-pong as the video describes. The third thing is they cannot get past the gravitational limit of Earth, because you are no longer in a 3D coordinate space environment. So even if they overcame the first two problems, they still could not get further out than the orbit of the moon.

Kano wrote:So are the Van Allen belts the firmament? One thing that is obvious is the heliocentric model requires gravity to maintain its validity. But at this point, science doesn't even know what gravity is. It is simply a mainstream scientific theory. All science can do is observe the effects of what we think is gravity. However, the same effects could be caused by electromagnetism and doesn't require gravity at all. It seems Einstein relied more heavily on mathematics than actual physical laws to explain his theory of General Relativity which is the gospel for the mainstream gravitic model. Pretty much Einstein was a shill in my humble opinion.
I don't believe the idea that we are solid and do not move with a firmament above us is valid! Science does know what gravity is and has for a long time. Have you read any of the Larson books? And Einstein completed his theory as far as I know. We have been lied to for a long time now about how we should look at the universe. It is just as daniel says in his papers. They have everything backwards.

Kano wrote:Ah yes, the moon - fascinating topic. This is probably loosely tied to the Flat Earth Theory, but I find many anomalies with the moon (as do many). One that I've decided to test myself is that the light given off by the moon is actually cooler than the shadow the moonlight produces. How is that possible if the moon is reflecting the warm sunlight? There should be a measurable warmth in the moonlight but what has been found is that the opposite applies. The moonlight is cooler than the shadow it produces. Perhaps there is good reason for this but I bought an infrared thermometer to test it myself. Full moon will be in a few days and I will conduct my little experiment and report back.

One other thing I'll mention that I can't rectify is the shadowing on the moon. Modern Astronomy tells us that the moon phases are caused by the shadow of the earth cast by the sun. However, I can look up in the day and see the moon high in the sky with just a sliver of a crescent and then see the full sun in another part of the sky. Logic tells me that the earth is in no way casting a shadow on the moon based on simple geometry, so why isn't the full surface of the moon displayed?

What?! The moon has different phases because it is sun light on the moon and we see different angles of this light and darkness. The earth does not cause a shadow on the moon until an eclipse. It is reflective light not warming rays coming from the sun!
daniel wrote:
Light is assumed to go in a straight line. It is well known in science that light bends in a gravitational field. Astronomers know the effect as “gravitational lensing” and it is the basis of the science of optics. Light actually slows down when traveling through a medium, such as glass and bends significantly passing the edge of an object, such as a slit. This was documented by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in the 18th century, explaining why a spectrum only appears at the edges of light passing through a slit—not through its center. If a slit in paper can bend light into a spectrum, what do you think happens to light in a gravitational field the size of a planet?

Kano wrote:Again, this relies on gravity actually existing in order for this to work. Since there isn't any proof that it does, I remain skeptical.

daniel wrote:[*]The Earth is a smooth sphere. It is a flattened sphere (technically a geoid) and not really smooth, anywhere. The gravitational pull of the Earth varies considerably across its surface, due to the different mineral content below the ground. Denser elements have a stronger pull than lighter ones. The only place where the Earth gets smooth is over the deep oceans, where the depth of the water tends to normalize out these variations (not on the coast).

Kano wrote:Again, gravity is needed to make this work. How then are there are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot? A level expanse of this extent is incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity."
What?! You don't believe in gravity? How on earth did you come up with that?

daniel wrote:In Biblical cosmology, the firmament is the structure above the atmosphere, conceived as a vast solid dome. According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the “waters above” the earth from the “waters below” the earth. The word is anglicized from Latin firmamentum, which appears in the Vulgate, a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible.

Kano wrote:Yes! I have wondered if the ancient flood that is referenced most all native cultures and religious texts around the world was due to a crack or hole in the firmament. Or perhaps the creators caused this because humans 1.0 were not what they wanted?

I've read that raki'a descends from a verb meaning "strengthen" and that raki'a is literally translated as "hammer out" as in a forge which gives a more literal translation to a firmament or hardened dome. But who knows what is correct. I don't speak Hebrew so I'm relying on what I read and there are a lot of conflicting translations.

daniel wrote:Now we get to the truth of the matter, with the keyword being, “expansion.” Flip back a few pages to where the gravitational limit was discussed, as being the impenetrable boundary between the progression of the natural reference system—the expansion of the Universe—and the local, gravity-bound, 3D spatial coordinate system.

Kano wrote:Speaking of coordinates, this reminds me of yet another issue I cannot rectify with the heliocentric model. Mainstream science tells us that the earth rotates at roughly 1000mph, and that the earth orbits the sun at roughly 67,000mph, and further, the sun is racing through the Milky Way like a comet dragging all the planet behind it at roughly 483,000mph. If this is true, how then do the same stars appear in the sky in the same places for millenia? How is it that Polaris remains the only unmoving star in our sky permanently fixed in place? It would seem that the constellations would also change - or rather our perspective of them from earth.
We (earth) are spinning! Therefore we have Days. The moon is spinning around the earth, therefore we have Months. The Earth is spinning around the Sun therefore we have Years. Whether we are actually moving like the animation you saw is just someones opinion.

Temper wrote:Try this... In the morning when the sun is just about to rise, look at the clouds. You will notice they are illuminated from below and as the day progresses the cloud is now illuminated from above. This phenomen is impossible with the FET.
Thanks for this. However, this is not my experience. I often wake up the rising sun or just before day break and this is not what I observe. I will remain open and continue to watch for this phenomenon.

daniel wrote:Also, if you notice the Flat Earth models with the rotating sun, the sun only illuminates 1/3rd of its path, so even when circling the equator, the Flat Earth model gives 8 hours of day and 16 hours of night--not the 12/12 split that is actually measured.
I have not seen the Flat Earth model that show only 8 hours of daylight. I have only seen the 12/12 split you mentioned.

I do want to say that I am not convinced of the Flat Earth. But I am saying that there are a lot of compelling pieces of logic and empirical evidence that supports we do not live on a blue marble floating through space. I look forward to your comments!

Posted: **Wed May 31, 2017 10:57 pm**

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
So are the Van Allen belts the firmament?

No, the gravitational limit is.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
One thing that is obvious is the heliocentric model requires gravity to maintain its validity. But at this point, science doesn't even know what gravity is.

Bruce did a model of the solar system based on RS scalar motion--NO GRAVITATIONAL FORCE in the model, at all. And sure enough, the planets look like they are in orbit!

A simple analogy... take two Deloreans and put them on a 1-lane road, 10 miles apart, so they are facing each other. Get each one going at 88 mph then shift into neutral. Each Delorean weights 2712 pounds. Calculate the gravitation force of attraction that is pulling them together, with eventual collision.

Now you should say "that's nonsense!" There is NO gravitational force pulling the Deloreans together--they are just moving at each other, at constant velocity. Well, that's all the planets are doing with the sun and each other.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Full moon will be in a few days and I will conduct my little experiment and report back.

Looking forward to the results.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
One other thing I'll mention that I can't rectify is the shadowing on the moon. Modern Astronomy tells us that the moon phases are caused by the shadow of the earth cast by the sun. However, I can look up in the day and see the moon high in the sky with just a sliver of a crescent and then see the full sun in another part of the sky. Logic tells me that the earth is in no way casting a shadow on the moon based on simple geometry, so why isn't the full surface of the moon displayed?

It has to do with triangulation, not shadows. Take a flashlight and put it on the table, pointing at you. Hold a ball in your hand (the moon). Stand behind the ball from the flashlight... it is dark. Slowly move the ball around you and you will see the light from the flashlight lights it up, just like the phases of the moon. It only gets to be "full" just before it crosses into your shadow.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Again, this relies on gravity actually existing in order for this to work. Since there isn't any proof that it does, I remain skeptical

Gravity is just a 3D, inward scalar motion (read Beyond Newton: An Explanation of Gravitation by Larson). It originates from the 2D inward, magnetic motion coupled with the 1D electric motion. 2D + 1D is 3D... gravity is not an independent "force,"

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Again, gravity is needed to make this work. How then are there are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot? A level expanse of this extent is incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity."

Water always goes downhill... even if it is a billionth of an inch. The net, inward motion we call "gravity" is perpendicular to the surface of the Earth, all the way around, so it behaves as if it were flat.

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Yes! I have wondered if the ancient flood that is referenced most all native cultures and religious texts around the world was due to a crack or hole in the firmament. Or perhaps the creators caused this because humans 1.0 were not what they wanted?

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

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Speaking of coordinates, this reminds me of yet another issue I cannot rectify with the heliocentric model. Mainstream science tells us that the earth rotates at roughly 1000mph, and that the earth orbits the sun at roughly 67,000mph, and further, the sun is racing through the Milky Way like a comet dragging all the planet behind it at roughly 483,000mph. If this is true, how then do the same stars appear in the sky in the same places for millenia? How is it that Polaris remains the only unmoving star in our sky permanently fixed in place? It would seem that the constellations would also change - or rather our perspective of them from earth.

We're dragging the starfield along with us; if you read Part IV, then you realize that these "stars" are just Jupiter-sized "gas giants" (mini stars) and asteroids--very few "stars" like our sun, and they are easy to pick out because the DON'T move correctly with the starfield.

Easy proof--take any of the 3000+ "exoplanets," keep their orbital period but reduce their distance from the "star" by a factor of 10. Then compare to the orbital data for plain old moons around the outer planets--every one I've looked at had a match, meaning they found exomoons around gas giants, not planets around stars.

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

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
Thanks for this. However, this is not my experience. I often wake up the rising sun or just before day break and this is not what I observe. I will remain open and continue to watch for this phenomenon.

Go do some camping up in Wyoming, Montana or the Dakotas--"Big Sky country" and you'll see this every morning and evening. It only lasts a short time, as the sun's angle changes quickly (15 degrees an hour) and we've only got a 6-mile gap between the ground and cloud base. But I've even seen it throw chemtrail shadows UP to the clouds above... looks weird, like "black chemtrails."

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
I have not seen the Flat Earth model that show only 8 hours of daylight. I have only seen the 12/12 split you mentioned.

Bruce did a model of it, using the precise data from the Flat Earth society for sizes and positions. As you can see in this snapshot, the little sun lights roughly 1/3rd of the path it follows. Draw a circle, half way between the center (Arctic) and rim (Antarctic), which would be the location of the equator--and you'll see the lit-up bit is roughly 1/3rd of the distance.

: Flat earth; FEM.png (140.01KiB)Viewed 64402 times

Kano wrote: ↑
Wed May 31, 2017 11:12 am
I do want to say that I am not convinced of the Flat Earth. But I am saying that there are a lot of compelling pieces of logic and empirical evidence that supports we do not live on a blue marble floating through space. I look forward to your comments!

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

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

Posted: **Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:45 pm**

I don't believe the idea that we are solid and do not move with a firmament above us is valid!

I respect your opinion but as they say: "Your guess is as good as mine."

Science does know what gravity is and has for a long time.

This is simply untrue. To be clear, I am referring to mainstream science. Maybe you will find this quick clip from Neil DeGrasse Tyson helpful to demonstrate what I mean since he's the poster boy for mainstream science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh4bu4rcbs

We have been lied to for a long time now about how we should look at the universe.

This is my point exactly and why we should move forward with what we "know" with extreme caution and discernment.

What?! The moon has different phases because it is sun light on the moon and we see different angles of this light and darkness. The earth does not cause a shadow on the moon until an eclipse.

Right, I mispoke. Mainstream science tells us that the Earth does not cause shadows on the moon but rather has to do with our perspective on the moon.

It is reflective light not warming rays coming from the sun!

Regardless, if you want to call it reflective light, there should still be a measurable warmth coming from the reflective light since the reflective light's source is the sun.

What?! You don't believe in gravity? How on earth did you come up with that?

Again, see above in reference to gravity. Careful about what you "know". Just as this forum you've joined says: "Everything We Know is Wrong."

We (earth) are spinning! Therefore we have Days. The moon is spinning around the earth, therefore we have Months. The Earth is spinning around the Sun therefore we have Years. Whether we are actually moving like the animation you saw is just someones opinion.

With all due respect, this is simply your opinion one you are passionate about. Great! Just as Daniel has mentioned, we cannot get a spacecraft out far enough to even see the entirety of the Earth. Therefore, none of what you said can actually be confirmed. Just your opinion. And that is actually a fact.

Posted: **Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:57 pm**

I think it is because of lensing effect, I also think that half moon is on the side of the earth relative to the sun so thats why we see straight half instead of crescent shape. Gotta think 3 dimensionally to understand spacial bodies. And it is hard to do so, I know. I was thinking why the half moon's shadow doesnt seem to be straight compared to the suns position, when you draw a straight line to it, it doesnt match, should be more angle (cant explain any better for the lack of vocabulary and some other things its around midnight now so). But when you think about the curvature of the earth that acts like a big lens then you would see it makes more sense. Because there is this lensing effect going on in the atmosphere and its all in the air that we breath and some other gases, maybe the moisture too, that gives a nice distortion too. Its like looking at a fish in a stream, its actual position is slightly shifted from where you actually see it. Can't remember if its some degrees up (forward) from the seen location, but I guess you get the point.

Thanks for this response. I can understand what you mean and can see that this could be a plausible explanation. I need to look more into the lensing effect you are talking about to get my head around it a bit better.

I think you should know by now that modern science is not to be trusted so much. They might not know of enough proof of gravity existing, but some other scientists like in RS/RS2 might know better. I for one think that gravity exists.

Yes, I definitely know mainstream science is a sham full of intellectual prostitutes. If there is proof of gravity in the RS/RS2 models, please point me in that direction.

I've been thinking that thing too, one thing comes to mind all of the other "stars" are moving in the same direction at the same speed. Or they are not actually stars but other celestial bodies, planets and moons and maybe a few dwarfs (i.e. dead stars) etc. asteroids, meteors..

Yes, Polaris staying fixed in place is quizzical but Daniel thinks this is not actually the case. He says to give it 10,000 years and we will notice a difference. So I'll get back to you on that.

However, I would think even if it would take 10,000 years to see a noticeable difference with the naked eye that there would be a way/method/instrument today that could show even the slightest variance in position in the sky. Humans have been tracking stars, in particular Polaris, for more than 10,000 years and as far as I know there hasn't been any change in its position in the sky but this is something that I'll have to look into further.

Then there is another thing maybe our solar system is not moving like they say it is, maybe the real movement would be circular and not straight like a bullet.

A definite possibility!

RS2--daniel

Flat Earth theory

Flat Earth theory

Re: Science Losing Credibility as Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Flat Earth

Re: Flat Earth theory

Re: Flat Earth

Re: Flat Earth

Re: Flat Earth

Re: Flat Earth

Re: Flat Earth

Re: Flat Earth