Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1) by Wild Heretic.
The inside a moving car / train analogy is actually worse. Some other fellow mentioned that in the comments deep below. That analogy wouldn’t even work for a concave earth with a glass sky unfortunately because there is no glass in front of me when I am outside on the earth. It would work if I were in my house but I’d probably still hear the hurricane winds outside. The ultimate question is what is doing the moving in that model. Is it the solid earth or an all encompassing field/force which rotates matter of all densities at the same rate. It has to be the latter obviously. That is what needs explaining.
I’m not sure about the history of round/flat earth to be honest. Karol (youtuber) is more informed on that front. All I know is that Plato thought that we lived inside the Earth (concave) and that there are lots of old maps which show a concave rather than a convex projection (sumstuff52 – youtuber) and the King James Bible shows about 50/50 on/in the Earth quotes. That is all I know.
The lies go back to the Roman Catholic Church (at least, probably further back yet). The question is of course who started the RCC? is it independent or are we talking about an evolution of progression of organization? I don’t know.
Wild Heretic Also Commented
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”): http://www.wildheretic.com/what-are-the-astronomical-bodies/
Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.
It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.
It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
Oh I see. No, the atom bondage thing doesn’t work. It is precisely that reason that “gravity-as-atom-glue” is invoked which keeps everything together.
“Gravity may be a push, but that doesn’t actually matter. Whichever you assume, push or pull, it has the same effect. And it is pretty clear that it is caused by mass.”
How clear? What experiment? Cavendish? Other possible interpretations. Current cosmology is incredibly fragile to the point of a nudge here and a tap there, it falls over. I’ve had enough.
“If you negate the velocity given to you by the surface (assuming the Earth is spinning), the surface will spin under you.”
At what altitude do you “negate” the velocity under you by the surface? 99km, 101km? Is it a sudden relative shift from 1 meter to the next, or perhaps over 100m? No info from the space boys and no clarity. It’s just a bogus theoretical concept found not to exist in reality up to at least 39km, and when they eventually sent rockets up there in the 40s they knew the correct earth model and more. They are lying to you.
An isolated system that is spinning will spin forever- no outside force needed. Why did Earth start spinning? The early universe must have been spinning. Why? No idea. But you don’t know how a geocentric universe came into existence either. If you think about it, why shouldn’t things spin? Of all the different speeds and directions the universe could spin in, what are the odds that it would be zero?
It all boils down to a purely abstract concept of “gravity”, which has yet to be detected. Spinning balls forever relies on a big bang theory which goes from bad to worse. What if Newton, as he was sold to you, was wrong and there is no so far undetected force from mass called gravity? It’s all hocus pocus. They have the wrong thought experiment. But they know this. It is we who are the chumps, not they.
Recent Comments by Wild Heretic
I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.
“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”
I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.
There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?
The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.
Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.
Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.
There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.