Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the Moon a Sphere?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mööv View Post


    Well, some of the videos you posted argued that Moon is not real.
    The picture shows mudflats which are a result of tidal action. With what you are proposing, that would not be possible.
    Good argument, for certain, but Galilei argued the tides are caused by the gravitational action of the sun (and not the moon), while the earth spins around its axis.

    And an apprentice of Mach and Einstein could argue that the tides are caused by the rotation of the background stars around a stationary earth.

    Why should anyone prefer your theory over those two? Hell, one could even argue that fairies cause the tides, and the theory would be equally untestable.

    In the end, it has never been demonstrated by experiment that the force which pulled the apple onto Newton's figurative head is the same force that keeps the moon in its orbit. Or the same force that keeps the planets in their orbits. Yes, we are taught in school that this is true, and the scientific establishment assures us that it as true, as scientific theories can be true. And why? Well, because the maths works. But the maths only works because we assign a certain mass to the heavenly spheres based on Kepler's law of planetary motion. Nobody has ever weighed them. Nobody has ever been there, for all we know. So what we are actually doing is to assign arbitrary "weights" in order that the maths of an untested theory works out.

    And all this worked well, and so we were very confident until ... well, until we discovered that the alleged law of universal gravitation (technically, still a theory) doesn't behave as it should on the level of galaxies. So we piled more untested theories on already untested theories, postulating the existence of "dark matter", for which, like for universal gravitation itself, no evidence has ever been found. Every attempt to prove that gravity is a fundamental force in nature (like electromagnetism or the strong and weak nuclear forces) has failed. No graviton has ever been discovered (although we know exactly what it should look like, down to its spin). No functional quantum theory of gravity exists either. In relativity, gravity is not considered a force but an emergent property of spacetime in the presence of mass. An elegant way to avoid the problem that Michelson and Morley conclusively demonstrated that the earth doesn't move. One needs to be a real genius to come with up with such stuff, no pun on Einstein intended.

    So "universal gravitation", or whatever we think it is, could well be an illusion altogether. Maybe it isn't "gravity" at all that keeps the moon in its orbit? Maybe the moon's mass isn't 7.34767309 × 1022 kilograms? Is this too bold a thought?

    I am certain for many it still is. So let me rest my case.
    This is a placeholder for a signature.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Thorburn View Post

      Good argument, for certain, but Galilei argued the tides are caused by the gravitational action of the sun (and not the moon), while the earth spins around its axis.

      This would lock the tidal action with the seasons giving it one per season. Which is not the case.




      Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
      And an apprentice of Mach and Einstein could argue that the tides are caused by the rotation of the background stars around a stationary earth.

      Earth is not stationary. And neither are the stars. So this wouldn't work either.




      Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
      And all this worked well, and so we were very confident until ... well, until we discovered that the alleged law of universal gravitation (technically, still a theory) doesn't behave as it should on the level of galaxies. So we piled more untested theories ...

      So, what should we do? Give up on trying and surrender to the almighty Jewsus and live pointless lives in expectation of going to some retarded imaginary place that we can't actually go to anyway because we're not of the tribe?
      in die Kirche gehen wir nicht
      der Papst das ist ein Arschgesicht
      die Pfaffen wollen wir kastrieren
      die Eier an die Kirchtür schmieren

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Icarus View Post
        Good luck trying to convince people of those proofs. I prefer to keep it simple. A photo like the one you posted should be sufficient.
        Not for the flat-earthers I know.

        Then they start to talk about perspective, atmospheric lensing, and so forth. It's a very attractive theory in fact, because there is a lot of truth in the "flat-earth package" as a whole; most of the typical flat earth arguments do not relate to the shape of the earth at all, but to other issues: geocentrism, the big bang theory, general relativity, the scams pulled by space agencies, scientism, etc.

        Some of them have merit, indeed; many are noteworthy (although they don't prove necessarily what is claimed; e. g. the absence of non-composite photographs of the earth taken from space doesn't prove that the earth is flat, obviously), a few are intellectually challenging (e. g. how airplanes can manage to land on a rotating planet), others again are plainly erroneous ("buoyancy and density" are both clearly gravity-driven; or the claim that rocket engines don't work in space). I don't think the average person knows enough about physics to judge the whole package, so I can see why quite a few critical and well-meaning people have fallen for it.

        But here, I incline myself towards something like the theories of Hanns Hörbiger rather than the grotesque idea of the moon not being a sphere.
        Grotesque, maybe. It's certainly a big step, and one that no sane person will, can or even should accept overnight.

        But yet, you didn't answer my question. So let me give you another one to think about, too: If you look at the moon's craters, why do they all seem to come from near vertical or at most steep angle impacts. If the moon is a rock in space with no atmosphere and little gravitation, as we are told, shouldn't there also be impact craters that give evidence of impacts from low angles (0-30 degrees)?

        And, to answer your question, I don't mean to convince anyone. This is not even humanly possible. It took me decades of reading and studying to arrive where I am now. And even now, I have more questions than answers. All that I can give people is thoughts. And if they are interested and if they are truth-seekers, they can continue to do their own research, and if they have enough time to pursue it, they might convince themselves eventually, after months and years of further research, that some of the things I outlined justify a second look.

        But I assure you, the control system and deception go even deeper than the moon. Nothing is what it seems.

        The "flat earth psyop" is intended to undermine the successes of the Copernican revolution, and at the same time, lump Nazis, nationalists, and other dissidents into the fringes.
        Still afraid to be labeled?

        It's not necessarily a bad thing, I'd say because people also learn a lot about secret societies, false flag attacks, symbolism and the existing control system in the process. I've met quite a few people in the meantime who have moved beyond the "flat earth."

        Certainly, you will differ since you (still) appreciate the Copernican revolution; the enlightenment; the scientific revolution. I do still appreciate certain humanist values, and I appreciate real science (the one that drives a light bulb or a train), but modern scientism has become a substitute for religion; and it constitutes, for Europeans and humanity as a whole, a false religion, a false opium, whose effects -- false humanism, secular materialism and agnostic indifferentism -- have become utterly destructive. One needs to move beyond the deception of the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, of course, so I am almost certain we are not on the same page.

        For nationalists, realizing that there never was evolution, that all we have is devolution, is often the hardest one to swallow.

        Ever wondered what homo sapiens did the other 50,000-100,000 years before recorded history began in Mesopotamia and China some 6,000+ years ago? Ever wondered what's the oldest still living organism on earth? These are good questions...

        Can you really back up that claim? The Copernicans made it clear in their writings where they got their knowledge from: the ancient Greeks, who certainly knew what the celestial bodies were composed of. It's well-documented i.e. Cicero, Pliny.
        No, because I cannot prove a negative, but be welcome to cite.

        21st-century mainstream science has gone asstray in a lot of areas. But it has been making progress in the consciousness department. More and more people are being forced to recognize that plants and animals have potential for consciousness. Several animals have already made huge leaps of progress in this field. This corresponds with what the ancient Greeks (and other pre-Christian civilizations) taught.
        So maybe there is some hope for you after all.

        And since you mentioned the Greeks, ever read Pausania's notes on the Argeans? The pre-Selenes, the people who lived before there was a moon...
        This is a placeholder for a signature.

        Comment


        • Icarus
          Icarus commented
          Editing a comment
          Interesting, I'll come back to this later today.

      • #19
        In the State of Montana there are mountain ranges called island ranges because they are separated from the main stem of the Rocky Mountains and exist out in the middle of the prairie.

        I've climbed to the top of the highest peak on one of these ranges and from the top, as you look out over the mostly flat prairie, you can see the very slight curvature of the planet.

        So these Flat Earth arguments fall flat on me, since I have seen with my own eyes the earth is a sphere. As if the idea of a global conspiracy to hide a Flat Earth Reality wasn't preposterous enough.

        Besides, the question was settled by Eratosthenes ~ 200BC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratos...cumference.svg

        Comment


        • #20
          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          Grotesque, maybe. It's certainly a big step, and one that no sane person will, can or even should accept overnight.

          But yet, you didn't answer my question. So let me give you another one to think about, too: If you look at the moon's craters, why do they all seem to come from near vertical or at most steep angle impacts. If the moon is a rock in space with no atmosphere and little gravitation, as we are told, shouldn't there also be impact craters that give evidence of impacts from low angles (0-30 degrees)?
          Big steps don't always signify a step in the right direction.

          Remind me what that question was. As for the new one, I'm hardly qualified to answer that.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          And, to answer your question, I don't mean to convince anyone. This is not even humanly possible.

          It took me decades of reading and studying to arrive where I am now. And even now, I have more questions than answers. All that I can give people is thoughts. And if they are interested and if they are truth-seekers, they can continue to do their own research, and if they have enough time to pursue it, they might convince themselves eventually, after months and years of further research, that some of the things I outlined justify a second look.
          Indeed.

          It took me seven months to arrive where I am now. That was after 24 years of uninterrupted Christianity. It's only been a year since then.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          But I assure you, the control system and deception go even deeper than the moon. Nothing is what it seems.

          Still afraid to be labeled?

          It's not necessarily a bad thing, I'd say because people also learn a lot about secret societies, false flag attacks, symbolism and the existing control system in the process. I've met quite a few people in the meantime who have moved beyond the "flat earth."
          They hardly know anything about the actual secret societies, past and current.

          The blatant misuse of symbolism in the mainstream venues (i.e. music videos) has the result of some jumping the bandwagon and others scrambling to ascribe symbolism to all sorts of occurrences and objects. This mania for symbolism should be eliminated, exact facts and clarity ought to be cherished in their place.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          Certainly, you will differ since you (still) appreciate the Copernican revolution; the enlightenment; the scientific revolution. I do still appreciate certain humanist values, and I appreciate real science (the one that drives a light bulb or a train), but modern scientism has become a substitute for religion; and it constitutes, for Europeans and humanity as a whole, a false religion, a false opium, whose effects -- false humanism, secular materialism and agnostic indifferentism -- have become utterly destructive.
          Is this the part where you say humanism is the merit of Christianity, that fought against materialism and indifference? Then explain Brazil being the last country in the Western world to abolish slavery.

          According to the wiki (for some reason, the facts occur in two separate articles):

          "By the time it was abolished, in 1888, an estimated four million slaves had been imported from Africa to Brazil, 40% of the total number of slaves brought to the Americas. For comparison, the United States received 10%."

          "In 1889 Brazil became a republic and approved a constitution separating the Church from the State, a trend followed by all of the country's seven republican constitutions. Prior to that, during the Empire of Brazil, Catholicism was the official religion of the country."

          Of course, the wiki alone isn't good enough as a source, but these facts are easily verifiable. The transition was clearly a product of non-Christian humanism. Otherwise, it wouldn't have led to a separation of church and state.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          One needs to move beyond the deception of the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, of course, so I am almost certain we are not on the same page.
          The evolutionary theory has gone off the rails by suggesting on a whim that humans share a common ancestor with apes (based on idle speculation from Darwin. It's worth pointing out that Herbert Spencer preceded Darwin) and by embracing monogenism (the out of Africa theory), which makes it a sequel to Christianity's descent from Adam and Eve. Likewise, the Big Bang theory is a sequel to Christianity's ex nihilo. The globalism being promoted today has a basis in Jewish-Christian teachings (i.e. Alice A. Bailey, Nikola Tesla, Tolstoy), based on misinterpretation of the "image of god" and the acceptance of Acts 17:26 as a historical fact.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          For nationalists, realizing that there never was evolution, that all we have is devolution, is often the hardest one to swallow.
          I have never once identified as a nationalist and I probably never will. As an American, I have been completely cut off from my people. So I have taken another route, become a sort of counter-Kalergi if you will.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          Ever wondered what homo sapiens did the other 50,000-100,000 years before recorded history began in Mesopotamia and China some 6,000+ years ago? Ever wondered what's the oldest still living organism on earth? These are good questions...
          Not really. Knowledge of the laws of life is far more important to me. It's easy to see how quickly people forget their history, such as the tsunami warnings in Japan. That's why it's a good idea to re-discover how the laws operate in this universe.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          No, because I cannot prove a negative, but be welcome to cite.
          As I said before, the Copernicans made their basis of knowledge known in their writings. Even people who weren't involved in the Copernican revolution, such as William Gilbert, today known as the father of electricity, accredited Thales of Miletus as a basis for his theory.

          Originally posted by Thorburn View Post
          So maybe there is some hope for you after all.

          And since you mentioned the Greeks, ever read Pausania's notes on the Argeans? The pre-Selenes, the people who lived before there was a moon...
          Now this part is where you got my attention. It really is fascinating stuff. Either there really was a pre-lunar civilization or it is an allusion to the time of Atlantis. Science presently states there was no global deluge and explains the deluge myths as local events yet it overlooks the reoccurring themes found in these myths (increase in decadence, overpopulation, some even mention conflagrations). Perhaps the submersion of a whole continent would have had an impact on other nations, an account which became distorted into a global deluge over time. Certainly some fiery event would have given way to such a deluge. It could have been caused by a collision with a comet or a moon. Or it could have been a temporarily blotting out of the sun via smoke from wildfires and volcanic eruptions, resulting in a terrible winter, so when the sun returned, the snow would have melted.

          Comment


          • #21
            The Earth is a sphere. The Sun is a sphere. All eight planets (nine if you count poor Pluto) in our solar system are spheres. The moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, etc.... are all spheres. But the Moon is not!

            As for that video (and I wish I could get those 20 minutes back) I wonder why the presenter didn't use a sphere on sphere shadow to demonstrate his point?

            As for all of you Apollo Moon Landing doubters, I think you are letting your personal biases cloud your judgement. Admitting that America made it to the Moon is not an endorsement of Zionism or the One World agenda.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #22
              Originally posted by Æmeric View Post
              As for all of you Apollo Moon Landing doubters, I think you are letting your personal biases cloud your judgement. Admitting that America made it to the Moon is not an endorsement of Zionism or the One World agenda.
              That's not why I doubt it. I could care less whether America or Russia made it to the moon first. What matters is: what does the moon really consist of. Plus, I'm open to both aspects (world ice and moon collision) of Hanns Höerbiger's theory. What is found in the universe is ice, not water. That sounds like something Thales of Miletus would have said. Detractors of this theory claim that the Nazis embraced it to snub Einstein, but Hitler was evidently fascinated by cosmic theories and myths.

              Comment

              Working...
              X