Brazilian scientists claim that our Earth is convex in shape

Ilmarinen

Active member
Messages
28
Reactions
168
I’m wodering why this video/research, along with its consequent publication was allowed to happen. Never before was there such a combined scientific effort.
My first intuition about that video was that it was controlled opposition, part of the controlled soft 'disclosure' of the next paradigm they chose for us. The key is the idea of the "other world in a puddle" right next to known "earth". This opens possibilities to act and solve on so many current open questions for the ELites in case they need to. Governments are also known to produce distractions professionally, looking almost like unprofessional and sincere but what is a scam all along.

Personally my working theory is that we live in a cave, one of many, and that there are gates, pathways to other caves which could be anywhere, just like in smaller cave systems, but are now hidden by the same Elites who painted this fantasy-ball for us.
 

UnusualBean

Well-known member
Messages
210
Reactions
771
...The narrator literally says "around the world" within the first minute :LOL:
 

Obertryn

Active member
Messages
63
Reactions
140
Good man, giving us both skeptical accounts from both flat earth proponents and those who dismiss all of it entirely. This is what I call an open-minded approach to scientific inquiry. Though that first one almost got me rolling my eyes when the first several sections were dedicated entirely to ad hominems, but then it got better.
 

Bald Eagle

Active member
Messages
46
Reactions
146
Good man, giving us both skeptical accounts from both flat earth proponents and those who dismiss all of it entirely. This is what I call an open-minded approach to scientific inquiry. Though that first one almost got me rolling my eyes when the first several sections were dedicated entirely to ad hominems, but then it got better.
I think it's important to not get all hung up on one's self "being right" when trying to ascertain the truth.
It's 2019. We ought to be able to put this "What's the shape of our world" baby to bed.

Bit by bit. Irrefutable, confirmable, repeatable, sensible, sane, reasoned, bit by factual bit.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle

I'd say that the more ancient investigations into the question are the simplest, and probably the most trustworthy.
The currently accepted model is a heliocentric solar system with an Earth that is an oblate spheroid tipped at 23 deg.

Start from there and any extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Poke a solid hole in the currently accepted model, and that's the only real start for diverging from it.

We have planes and boats and people crawling all over the globe with cameras and telescopes and looking at, across, and out from the surface. We have satellites and geosynchronous satellites, and weather balloons and drones, and naval guns that require correction for the Coriolis effect in order to hit the target out to the distances that they can fire projectiles.

Inertial frames of reference are a thing - and have been for a long time.

Foucalt's pendulum - other than being a fun novel by Umberto Eco - is an elegant demonstration of Earth's rotation.
Foucault pendulum - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core

If these things are false, then they must be solidly refuted, and the refutation must not open some can of worms in all the rest of physics as we know it. Modern physics (let's not get into quantum theory) appears to present a cohesive, consistent, internally non-contradictory system of how things work. Any alternate theories must do the same.
 

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
238
Reactions
537
It seems the coriolis effect is not taken into consideration for anything provable. I thought Foucaults experiement disproved rotation.
The whole point is modern science is not presenting a non contradictory view point, which includes physics. Most would agree themselves that even math doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.
All of this is not a new fad, either.

There are new and old books etc out there answering these issues with their own evidence to these and other questions/theories. A general statement that science has proven so and so, the other side must also, is true but totally doesn’t answer what has already been answered by evidence (except circularly). Either Very neat double speak, or do the research.

Start with something easy that was taught to everyone in school- why the formula for earth curvature and the horizon doesn’t work without just saying the math is true for spheres- which it is, but does it correspond with reality. Edward hendries book gives many examples of old timey proof that this formula does not work, mostly with ships and light houses, canals, railroad lines, salt deserts, for instance. And there are many examples of modern proofs that it isn’t working.

I’m not being combative. If I see reasonable answers to the questions already posed I would consider them. It was a shock to everyone the globe/heliocentric model seems to have a A LOT of problems.
 
Last edited:

Mabzynn

Well-known member
Messages
73
Reactions
264
You're telling me some satellites are in geosynchronous orbit?

21010


Atmospheric drag
Atmospheric drag at orbital altitude is caused by frequent collisions of gas molecules with the satellite. It is the major cause of orbital decay for satellites in low Earth orbit. It results in the reduction in the altitude of a satellite's orbit. For the case of Earth, atmospheric drag resulting in satellite re-entry can be described by the following sequence:

lower altitude → denser atmosphere → increased drag → increased heat → usually burns on re-entry

21009



At 35,000 KM above the surface? When the atmosphere was just shown to extend past the moon? The recent results stated it extends past 630,000 KM.

Previously they said it was 300 miles up where the the thin edge of the atmosphere meets space. With the 35,000 KM model that gave you all the way up to 21,741 miles before you could reach conditions with no gas molecules. Still it just wasn't quite enough wiggle room. This would mean every high earth orbit satellite that they claim is up there would be requiring a boost or it will start to descend towards earth. I'm aware of at least 15.

I could care less if the earth is a hot dog or a giant space nipple... But to act as if the current particle physics model needs significant refuting is a bit silly when your theories on the micro and macro scales of the universe don't even communicate together.

Furthermore, if the entry on wikipedia for "butt plug" has 15 times the length than that of the wikipedia entry for "high earth orbit" with two whole sentences... Then you're probably not really talking about science.
 

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
116
Reactions
564
There are many studies that show the Coriolis effect actually affects actually very little, except the direction the winds converge on the equatorial region. Some of you, especially those that have an alternate view on the Earth's shape are probably tired of reading me talk about this, but the Spaceweather.com and Suspicious0bservers channel from Youtube have some very interesting space-weather studies that involve the long-term study of the Sun's behavior and how it ties geomagnetically to the Earth and how it affects everything from Earthquakes to simple Weather patterns. The Earth's magnetic field has an induction zone around the equator and it APPEARS that the winds follow the energy flow of the magnetic field. It defies normal science, especially geology and meteorology in that the Sun itself is almost directly responsible for weather, wind, lightning, and earthquakes. There are other factors of course, but for us to presume the Earth is a closed system and that everything in our ecology is predicated simply by the Earth itself and the "external" forces around us are to be ignored is silly. The core of the work, to me personally, is that the object that lights our planet seems to be pushing energy at our system, and as it changes and goes through cycles, the Earth follows.

There are contradictory statements and falsehoods presented by NASA and the other space organizations, definitely. If you look at their science with an open mind and run some of the ideas they espouse with visible evidence from other sources, it's quite obviously contradictory. Many people throw Occam's Razor out at people over Flat Earth and other 'Conspiracy theories' about many, many subjects, and yet, to support the mainstream view of the Globe we're presented with in every form of media available, they use more and more convoluted mathematical models as support against basic observation and mathematics. It is quite literally very simple. There are plenty of videos from YouTube and first hand accounts posted in this thread about how you can stand at a point and use a long-view scope to pull objects that should not be visible over the curvature of the Earth back into view. The reasons this can occur are given many, many different explanations, from weather effects to ionization of the atmosphere, reflections and more math models. Personally, I believe the pendulum experiment needs to be repeated inside of Faraday cages with variable positive and negative charges to see how, if at all, the Earth's magnetic field and the flow of energy through everything on this planet, affect the outcome. Experiments are only as reliable as the person and science they're based on. If you leave out critical factors, then your experiment will always be faulty, no matter the actual outcome as correlation does not equal causality. In this particular case, I am of the opinion that external factors to our habitat were not taken into effect. I'll stop here. Question and Verify everything.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,308
Reactions
4,089
Sun's behavior and how it ties geomagnetically to the Earth and how it affects everything from Earthquakes to simple Weather patterns. The Earth's magnetic field has an induction zone around the equator and it APPEARS that the winds follow the energy flow of the magnetic field. It defies normal science, especially geology and meteorology in that the Sun itself is almost directly responsible for weather, wind, lightning, and earthquakes. There are other factors of course, but for us to presume the Earth is a closed system and that everything in our ecology is predicated simply by the Earth itself and the "external" forces around us are to be ignored is silly. The core of the work, to me personally, is that the object that lights our planet seems to be pushing energy at our system, and as it changes and goes through cycles, the Earth follows. I am of the opinion that external factors to our habitat were not taken into effect.
I very much agree that external (to earth) factors influence phenomenon on earth. The bible indicates that the heavens were made for the earth (or at least the "firmament" part of heaven), that earth was made for man, and that man was made for god.

Genesis 1:16-18
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. (This indicates that the heavens are made for the benefit of the earth).

Psalm 115:16
The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind. (States emphatically that the earth was made for man).

Isaiah 43:7
[Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory. (States that man was created for god).

It makes sense to me that the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, planets, stars, etc.) would have effects on earth; that's what they were made for. You can't "govern" if you don't have some effect on things.
 

Obertryn

Active member
Messages
63
Reactions
140
If these things are false, then they must be solidly refuted, and the refutation must not open some can of worms in all the rest of physics as we know it. Modern physics (let's not get into quantum theory) appears to present a cohesive, consistent, internally non-contradictory system of how things work. Any alternate theories must do the same.
OK, this part I disagree with. In my opinion, a person, if they discover a flaw in current scientific understanding that makes the rest of the house of cards fall apart, is under no obligation to provide a substitute theory that accommodates the new research while tying everything up in a neat bow. This kind of thinking is what is causing a crisis in modern science, where people are more concerned with mending holes in current understanding with theories that have plenty of holes of their own, instead of being OK with just saying "we don't know, we need to investigate more, until then we'll leave this page open for further editing".
 

fabiorem

Member
Messages
27
Reactions
56
Im not convinced by the flat earth theory, because of the movement of the sun, which can be observed directly everyday. The sun moves vertically, and its always the same size the entire day. The sun makes an arch above your head, and since the other side of the Earth is dark at the same time, you can conclude, from direct, empiric observation, that the Earth is round.

Flat-earthers, on the contrary, claims the sun moves horizontally (at least thats what they show in their flat earth map, a small sun moving around horizontally). And since the sun is moving like a plane, it would become bigger by morning and then smaller afternoon, finally disappearing in the sky, like a plane would do. However, thats not what happens. The sun keeps the same size, implying its much more bigger than we see, and much more distant from Earth than it looks, and it have a vertical trajectory, doing an arc above your head, which implies the Earth is round.

The only question which would remain, then, is if the Earth revolves around the sun, or the contrary. I noticed that most flat-earthers are people who need to appear different from the majority, due to a lack of confidence in themselves, so if they want a different theory to call attention, they could adopt geocentrism. Geocentrism can be debunked by astronomy, but is much more open to debate than the flat earth theory, which can be debunked by simply, direct, empiric observation from your window: just look at the sunset and you will notice the Earth is not flat.
 

SonofaBush

New member
Messages
6
Reactions
7
It looks like some "researchers" when all-out to hoax a flat Earth documentary. Personally I'm not buying the Flat Earth Theory and lean heavily toward Spherical (more or less) or He Who Shall Not Be Named knows what else (but that is another story). The researcher whose name abbreviates to none other than UFO (meaningless by itself) is into ufology, nonmainstream history and archeology, and the paranormal. Still okay so far, until you found out that several years ago he was supposedly told by ET Bilu hiding behind a bush at night about the true shape of the Earth. By the way, Bilu told me that John Bolton was originally a walrus until the Deep State performed several genetic experiments which obviously were only partially successful. Honestly, you can trust me. Would I misspeak? However, that is another story. The relevant Jewtube videos (several years old) are still available under several accounts such as the Projeto Portal account (Projeto Portal) last I checked.




also see:


 
Last edited:

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
116
Reactions
564
Im not convinced by the flat earth theory, because of the movement of the sun, which can be observed directly everyday. The sun moves vertically, and its always the same size the entire day. The sun makes an arch above your head, and since the other side of the Earth is dark at the same time, you can conclude, from direct, empiric observation, that the Earth is round.

Flat-earthers, on the contrary, claims the sun moves horizontally (at least thats what they show in their flat earth map, a small sun moving around horizontally). And since the sun is moving like a plane, it would become bigger by morning and then smaller afternoon, finally disappearing in the sky, like a plane would do. However, thats not what happens. The sun keeps the same size, implying its much more bigger than we see, and much more distant from Earth than it looks, and it have a vertical trajectory, doing an arc above your head, which implies the Earth is round.

The only question which would remain, then, is if the Earth revolves around the sun, or the contrary. I noticed that most flat-earthers are people who need to appear different from the majority, due to a lack of confidence in themselves, so if they want a different theory to call attention, they could adopt geocentrism. Geocentrism can be debunked by astronomy, but is much more open to debate than the flat earth theory, which can be debunked by simply, direct, empiric observation from your window: just look at the sunset and you will notice the Earth is not flat.
Well, I don't know about everyone else here, but in my observations, the Sun and the Moon both are actually far larger during sunrise and sunset as than when it is directly over head. So, no, it's size is not consistent. It starts out huge, gradually gets smaller, then grows again as it comes towards the horizon. What does that mean, specifically? Don't know. All I know is that plane flight paths are weird and do not really follow the size of the Earth we're told. I know that cities and other things around the world can be seen further away than they should be. I also know that objects that disappear over the "curvature" of the Earth can be zoomed back into view with a powerful enough magnification.

All of that tells me Earth is much larger than we're told. If that's the case, what else is there that we don't know? That's all, just wanted to point that little bit out from my observations of the sun my whole life.
 

BrokenAgate

Well-known member
Messages
329
Reactions
1,096
For me, the biggest issue with FE theory is that nobody has gone to the edge of the earth and taken pictures of what they saw. I mean, every disc has an edge, right? Why hasn't anyone gone out there and taken photos and posted them all over the internet? In these days of mass transportation and mass communication, it would be easy.

I posit that nobody has done this because Earth has no edge--either because it is a sphere or for some other reason. Somebody posted a Russian study from the 1940s in which scientists were saying that it's impossible to know the shape of Earth. Can't find it now, but I wonder why they would be saying that at any time in the 20th Century. They had telescopes and measuring instruments in 1948, why couldn't they determine the shape of our world?

Other problems: On a disc, which way is north? Terry Pratchett solved that problem by replacing north, south, east, and west with "rimward" and "hubward." Yet even flat earthers use the standard directional notations, which wouldn't really mean anything. Is "north" considered to be the center of the disc? Is that the north pole? Where, then, is the south pole?

How do seasons work on a flat world? Why is it that, when I'm enjoying Christmas in North America, my Australian friends on Facebook are complaining about their unbearable summer heat? Why do we have different climatic zones? What is under the disc? What's outside of the dome? What are the stars made of? Are they just little bits of light stuck to the dome? And the sky is not an atmosphere, but a solid, "thing"? I suck at math, so when earth-shape talk turns to mathematical formulas, I tend to grow bored and zone out. The mathematics of it all doesn't mean anything to me and doesn't affect my life, whereas a star falling off the sky-dome probably would. I assume. Perhaps it would just bounce.

Plus, I think FE is a horrid idea. It gives me a mental image of humans living in a giant terrarium, like animals in a glass cage, and there is no hope of ever getting out, of going to the stars to explore new worlds. Okay, so maybe that's not such a good idea, given that humans destroy everything, anyway, but at least it means we aren't someone's pets in a fishbowl. Even worse, there is some awful entity in charge of the fishbowl, and he/she/it can just shake it and kill everything on a whim. Worshiping such an entity does no good, as that simply draws his attention to you even more. Some people actually seem to prefer such notions. Globe or disc, it is all baffling to me, as there are aspects of both that make no sense. But then, I never could figure out humans, or life generally. :-/
 
Top