Monday, January 25, 2016

Gravity Does Not Exist!





If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it, the balloon will immediately fly upwards.  If you fill a balloon with hydrogen, a substance even lighter than helium, the balloon will fly upwards even faster.  If you blow a dandelion seed out of your hands, a substance just barely heavier than the air, it will float away and slowly but eventually fall to the ground.  And if you drop an anvil from your hands, something much heavier than the air, it will quickly and directly fall straight to the ground.  Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with “gravity.”  The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight.  That is very different from “gravity.”  Gravity is a hypothetical magnetic-like force possessed by large masses which Isaac Newton needed to help explain the heliocentric theory of the universe.

Most people in England have either read, or heard, that Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation was originated by his seeing an apple fall to the earth from a tree in his garden.  Persons gifted with ordinary common-sense would say that the apple fell down to the earth because, bulk for bulk, it was heavier than the surrounding air; but if, instead of the apple, a fluffy feather had been detached from the tree, a breeze would probably have sent the feather floating away, and the feather would not reach the earth until the surrounding air became so still that, by virtue of its own density, the feather would fall to the ground.”  -Lady Blount, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40)

Wilbur Voliva, a famous flat-Earther in the early 20th century, gave lectures all over America against Newtonian astronomy.  He would begin by walking on stage with a book, a balloon, a feather and a brick, and ask the audience: “How is it that a law of gravitation can pull up a toy balloon and cannot put up a brick?  I throw up this book.  Why doesn’t it go on up?  That book went up as far as the force behind it forced it and it fell because it was heavier than the air and that is the only reason.  I cut the string of a toy balloon.  It rises, gets to a certain height and then it begins to settle.  I take this brick and a feather.  I blow the feather.  Yonder it goes.  Finally, it begins to settle and comes down.  This brick goes up as far as the force forces it and then it comes down because it is heavier than the air.  That is all.”

Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (8)

The ‘law of gravitation’ is said by the advocates of the Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern astronomy.  If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of the ocean, and this ‘most exact of all sciences,’ this wonderful ‘feat of the intellect’ becomes at once the most ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (36)

Einstein’s theory of relativity and the entire heliocentric model of the universe hinges upon Newton’s “law of gravitation.”  Heliocentrists claim that the Sun is the most massive object in the heavens, more massive even than the Earth, and therefore the Earth and other planets by “law” are caught up in the Sun’s “gravity” and forced to orbit perpetual circles/ellipses around it.  They claim that gravity also somehow allows people, buildings, the oceans, and all of nature to exist on the under-side of their “ball-Earth” without falling off. 

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth?  Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun!  What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun?  The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon.  By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth.  Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth?  The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent.  Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun?  What is the cause of this permanence?”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

If the sun is pulling with such power at the earth and all her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him?”  -A. Giberne, “Sun, Moon, and Stars” (27)

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world.  There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it!  There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it!  Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it.  To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

That bodies in some instances are seen to approach each other is a fact; but that their mutual approach is due to an ‘ attraction,’ or pulling process, on the part of these bodies, is, after all, a mere theory. Hypotheses may be sometimes admissible, but when they are invented to support other hypotheses, they are not only to be doubted but discredited and discarded. The hypothesis of a universal force called Gravitation is based upon, and was indeed invented with a view to support another hypothesis, namely, that the earth and sea together make up a vast globe, whirling away through space, and therefore needing some force or forces to guide it in its mad career, and so control it as to make it conform to what is called its annual orbit round the sun! The theory first of all makes the earth to be a globe; then not a perfect globe, but an oblate spheroid, flattened at the ‘poles’; then more oblate, until it was in danger of becoming so flattened that it would be like a cheese; and, passing over minor variations of form, we are finally told that the earth is pear-shaped, and that the ‘elipsoid has been replaced by an apoid!’  What shape it may assume next we cannot tell; it will depend upon the whim or fancy of some astute and speculating ‘scientist.’”  -Lady Blount and Albert Smith, “Zetetic Astronomy” (14)

How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!?  How is it that “gravity” holds our bodies clung to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but yet we can easily raise our legs and arms, walk or jump and feel no such constant downward pulling force?  How is it that “gravity” can cause planets to revolve elliptical orbits around a single center of attraction?  Ellipses by nature require two foci, and the force of gravitation would have to regularly increase and decrease to keep planets in constant orbit and prevent pulling them into direct collision courses!

That the sun’s path is an exact circle for only about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hours - at the equinoxes and solstices - completely disproves the ‘might have been’ of circular gravitation, and by consequence, of all gravitation … If the sun were of sufficient power to retain the earth in its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the attractive force (unless very greatly increased) would be utterly incapable of preventing the earth rushing away into space ‘in a right line forever,’ as astronomers say.  On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun’s attraction were just sufficient to keep the earth in its proper path when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it rushing off into space; the same power of attraction when the earth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, that (unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) nothing would prevent the earth rushing towards and being absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus to prevent such a catastrophe!  As astronomy makes no reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the great ‘discovery’ of which astronomers are so proud is absolutely non-existent.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (44-45)

We are asked by the Newtonian to believe that the action of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest exercise of volition in raising an hand or a foot, is so overwhelmingly violent when we lose our balance and fall a distance of a few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible under usual conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the fracture of every limb we possess?  Common-sense must reject this interpretation.  Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely the result experienced.  If the influence which kept us securely attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more immediately conscious of its masterful presence and potency; whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is supposed to be most dominant that we find an insurmountable difficulty in accepting the idea of its existence.”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Heliocentrists claim the ball-Earth is perpetually spinning on its axis at a mind-numbing 1,038 miles per hour, or 19 miles per second, and somehow people, animals, buildings, oceans, and other surface phenomena can stick to the under-side of  the spinning ball without falling or flying off.  Take a ride on the “Gravitron” at your local amusement park, however, and notice how the faster it spins, the more you are pushed away from the center of spin, not towards it.  Even if the centripetal (inward pulling) force of gravity did exist, which it does not, the centrifugal (outward pushing) force of the ball-Earth’s supposed 19 mile per second spin would also exist and have to be overcome, yet neither of these opposing forces have ever been shown to have any existence outside the imaginations of heliocentric “scientists.”

Gravitation is the term now used to ‘explain’ what common-sense people look upon as inexplicable.  Globularists say that all orbs in space are globes gravitating towards each other in proportion to their magnitude and power of attraction - there being a ‘centripetal’ force (tending towards the center) and a ‘centrifugal’ force (tending from the center); but how inert matter can set up any automatic force, and cause one body to gravitate towards another body, has never yet been made palpable to the senses.  It belongs to the regions of Metaphysics (‘existing only in thought’).”  -Lady Blunt, “Clarion’s Science Versus God’s Truth” (40-41)

We are not like flies which, by the peculiar conformation of their feet, can crawl on a ball, but we are human being, who require a plane surface on which to walk; and how could we be fastened to the Earth whirling, according to your theory, around the Sun, at the rate of eighteen miles per second?  The famed law of Gravitation will not avail, though we are told that we have fifteen pounds of atmosphere pressing on every square inch of our bodies, but this does not appear to be particularly logical, for there are many athletes who can leap nearly their own height, and run a mile race in less than five minutes, which they could not possibly do were they thus handicapped.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (3)

The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the surface of the earth than at a distance from it.  Is it so?  If I spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might ascend more than four feet from the ground; but if I jump in a curve with a low trajectory, keeping my highest elevation about three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth of about eighteen feet; so that practically I can overcome the so-called force (pull) at the distance of four feet, in the proportion of 18 to 4, being the very reverse of what I ought to be able to do according to the Newtonian hypothesis.”  -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction.  If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around.  If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s.  Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly.  Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon’s gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon’s grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused.  Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence.  But the tides are not uniform.  At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet.  This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep.  In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides.  But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

It is affirmed that the intensity of attraction increases with proximity, and vice versâ. How, then, when the waters are drawn up by the moon from their bed, and away from the earth's attraction,--which at that greater distance from the centre is considerably diminished, while that of the moon is proportionately increased--is it possible that all the waters acted on should be prevented leaving the earth and flying away to the moon?  If the moon has power of attraction sufficient to lift the waters of the earth at all, even a single inch from their deepest receptacles, where the earth's attraction is much the greater, there is nothing in the theory of attraction of gravitation to prevent her taking to herself all the waters which come within her influence. Let the smaller body once overcome the power of the larger, and the power of the smaller becomes greater than when it first operated, because the matter acted on is nearer to it. Proximity is greater, and therefore power is greater … How then can the waters of the ocean immediately underneath the moon flow towards the shores, and so cause a flood tide? Water flows, it is said, through the law of gravity, or attraction of the earth's centre; is it possible then for the moon, having once overcome the power of the earth, to let go her hold upon the waters, through the influence of a power which she has conquered, and which therefore, is less than her own? … 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.’ Thus we have been carried forward by the sheer force of evidence to the conclusion that the tides of the sea do not arise from the attraction of the moon, but simply from the rising and falling of the floating earth in the waters of the ‘great deep.’ That calmness which is found to exist at the bottom of the great seas could not be possible if the waters were alternately raised by the moon and pulled down by the earth.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (159-175)

Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

Bearing this fact in mind, that there exists a continual pressure of the atmosphere upon the Earth, and associating it with the fact that the Earth is a vast plane ‘stretched out upon the waters,’ and it will be seen that it must of necessity slightly fluctuate, or slowly rise and fall in the water.  As by the action of the atmosphere the Earth is slowly depressed, the water moves towards the receding shore and produces the flood tide; and when by the reaction of the resisting oceanic medium the Earth gradually ascends the waters recede, and the ebb tide is produced.  This is the general cause of tides.  Whatever peculiarities are observable they may be traced to the reaction of channels, bays, headlands, and other local causes … That the Earth has a vibratory or tremulous motion, such as must necessarily belong to a floating and fluctuating structure, is abundantly proved by the experience of astronomers and surveyors.  If a delicate spirit-level be firmly placed upon a rock or upon the most solid foundation which it is possible to construct, the very curious phenomenon will be observed of constant change in the position of the air-bubble.  However carefully the ‘level’ may be adjusted, and the instrument protected from the atmosphere, the ‘bubble’ will not maintain its position many seconds together.  A somewhat similar influence has been noticed in astronomical observatories, where instruments of the best construction and placed in the most approved positions cannot always be relied upon without occasional re-adjustment.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (108-110)

In the past several decades, NASA has shown video of astronauts, supposedly in low-Earth orbit, experiencing complete weightlessness, or “zero gravity,” how is this weightless effect achieved if gravity doesn’t exist?  As it turns out, for the past several decades, NASA together with Boeing have been perfecting so-called “Zero G planes” and “Zero G maneuvers,” which are able to produce weightlessness at any altitude.  Aboard modified Boeing 727’s specially trained pilots perform aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas.  Planes climb with a pitch angle of 45 degrees using engine thrust and elevator controls, then when maximum height is reached the craft is pointed downward at high speed.  The period of weightlessness begins while ascending and lasts all the way up and over the parabola until reaching a downward pitch angle of 30 degrees, at which point the maneuver is repeated.  Therefore all NASA’s footage of astronauts aboard “space shuttles,” or “the International Space Station” can be easily hoaxed and simulated in Earth-atmosphere aboard a Zero G plane.  In fact, watching footage of Zero G plane flights alongside footage of NASA astronauts supposedly floating around their “space shuttles” and “space stations,” no observable difference can be seen between the two.

Astronomers claim to have measured all the planets distances, shapes, orbits, weights, relative positions, and times of revolution all based on the “law of gravitation” and without gravity, their entire cosmology folds under its own weight.  Without gravity, people cannot stand upside-down on a ball-Earth! Without gravity, the Earth and planets cannot be revolving around the Sun!  Without Newtonian gravitation, Einsteinian relativity, Copernican heliocentricity, and the entire Big Bang ball-Earth mythos cannot exist and falls to pieces.  Gravity, both metaphorically and quite literally, just does not hold any water; not as a sound theory of cosmology, and not as a law supposedly responsible for holding in the world’s oceans!

Man's experience tells him that he is not constructed like the flies that can live and move upon the ceiling of a room with as much safety as on the floor: - and since the modern theory of a planetary earth necessitates a crowd of theories to keep company with it, and one of them is that men are really bound to the earth by a force which fastens them to it ‘like needles round a spherical loadstone,’ a theory perfectly outrageous and opposed to all human experience, it follows that, unless we can trample upon common sense and ignore the teachings of experience, we have an evident proof that the Earth is not a globe … If we could - after our minds had once been opened to the light of Truth - conceive of a globular body on the surface of which human beings could exist, the power - no matter by what name it be called - that would hold them on would, then, necessarily, have to be so constraining and cogent that they could not live; the waters of the oceans would have to be as a solid mass, for motion would be impossible. But we not only exist, but live and move; and the water of the ocean skips and dances like a thing of life and beauty! This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (21-88)

Nearly a hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation. The name is derived from the Latin word ‘gravis,’ which means ‘heavy,’ ‘ having weight,’ while the Law of Gravitation is defined as ‘That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.’  Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be ‘That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.’ That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing . . . The definition implies that it is a force; but it does not say so, for that phrase ‘mutual action ‘ is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.”  -Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (14-15)

The system of gravitation which makes the sun the moving centre of the Universe, the awkward principles of which are anything but certain since they apply to invisible circumstances so that they cannot be checked, is here replaced by the old geocentric system, universally accepted until the 17th century in view, of course, of its undisputable obviousness, and in which the earth, in a state of immobility and surrounded by the planets visibly moving round it including the sun, is at the centre of our Universe. These two facts which explain almost everything are firstly, the positive existence above the earth of a solid dome constituting the sky; and secondly, the non-material nature of the planets and constellations, which are not physical masses, but merely luminous manifestations without substance. These are the two circumstances which lead today to the fundamental transformation of astronomy.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (vi)

The theory that motions are produced through material attraction is absurd.  Attributing such a power to mere matter, which is passive by nature, is a supreme illusion.  It is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man’s mind, but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and judgment.”  -Professor Bernstein, “Letters to the British Association”



Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu.



Buy The Flat Earth Conspiracy 252-Page Paperback, eBook, or ePub

25 comments:

nyse said...

Awesome post. It makes no sense when you break it down. Well done - keep 'em coming!

L.B said...

great post again.

i was looking for a high resolution "modern" flat earth map for an investigation i want to make. i could find something satisfying. do you have a link?

nyse said...

Rapper BOB just made a diss track for the biggest shill ever, Neil DeGrasse Tyson LMAO!!!

https://soundcloud.com/bobatl/bob-flatline-feat-neil-tyson

albumfixer said...

Thanks man, I almost got into a fist fight over this argument the other day. May the "force" of gravity be with them. In the meantime, I'll be living in reality.

Anonymous said...

Yes! This all makes more sense to me than the gravity nonsense. The only thing I haven't quite grasped is why does denser gas sit below less dense air?

Jeremy Newton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremy Newton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ross said...

If 'gravity' at the surface is 1G, and in orbit is zero (technically 'micro-gravity but known as 'weightlessness')how does the force diminish between those two points? Is it a smooth gradient, or does it continue at 1G then suddenly stop at a certain altitude? I've never heard this discussed. If it diminishes with distance, then shouldn't you weigh less at altitude? As with so many things it seems, once you look at something that you have been indoctrinated into believing unquestioningly it often falls apart (no pun intended!). Gravity is supposed to be an attractive force, yet it keeps the moon and earth apart - that doesn't make sense.
Oh dear, I'm never going to get back in the Big Club am I?

Jeremy Newton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redbilly said...

Eric I'm really interested to know how you came to discover that the earth is flat. I certainly wouldn't have if not for your work. Thank You

Jeremy Newton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary Martha said...

I bring all of this up to anyone with a brain who will listen. (I have the 200 proofs coffee table book. They keep picking it up and putting it down like it is a hot potato) I get a tiny flicker and then they glaze over and revert back to their "programming". These people are smart folks, "surveyors, ranchers, metallurgical engineers, physicians, meteorologists, artists, authors..." (yup I have got a wide array of friends.) I am just a homemaker and mother but If I can wrap my brain around this why can't they? They think I have gone off my rocker.... The dark side has done a really great job.

nyse said...

How anyone can REASONABLY and OBJECTIVELY consider the EVIDENCE of FE and come away still thinking we are on a spinning sphere (sorry, "oblate spheroid") is beyond me. That is all.

allayukoneat Smith said...

I've been quite convinced of a flat earth now since April 2015. I realize now that technically gravity; as a force does not exist. But I still have lots of trouble understanding how density can COMPLETELY explain for how denser (heavier) material tends to drop to the earth, while less dense material tends to goes up. There still seems to be a need for some kind of force to even be the motivation any material to head one way or another through less dense material. Wouldn't you at least agree that there is a built-in TENDENCY in the flat earth universe for material to fall DOWNWARDS towards the flat earth from above, no matter what elevation something is? In other words, does the REAL universe have a definite top and bottom part, with the bottom being effectively the flat earth and whatever might be below it, in order to cause things to fall?

Anonymous said...

Ross, there *is* no orbiting or 0g space. What goes up must come down.

Full stop.

Ross said...

@anonymous
When you look at it it is hard to disagree...

The media is wetting its collective panties today about the 'discovery'of 'gravity wave ripples'which 'prove' Einstein 'was right'. One thing that strikes me is that they repeatedly use the model (in some form) of the heavy ball in the middle of a trampoline to illustrate how 'gravity bends space'. The clear inference from that model, which is left unmentioned, is that it indicates an 'up' and 'down' in the universe. Otherwise the 'ball' would be bending the space above as well wouldn't it? Then the whole thing falls down (there's that accidental pun again!)

John Stewart said...

Great articles, but you made a mistake twice. When you say the earth rotates at 1,000 mph you include 18 miles per second. This does not apply to the spin measurement, but to the 67,000 mph orbit around the sun. 1,000 mph is about 1500 feet per second.

جمعه أسامه said...





شركة تخزين أثاث بالدمام
شركة تخزين عفش بالدمام
شركة تسليك مجارى بالدمام
شركة تنظيف بالدمام
شركة تنظيف بيوت بالدمام
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالدمام
شركة تنظيف شقق بالدمام
شركة تنظيف فلل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف قصور بالدمام
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالدمام
شركة تنظيف مسابح بالدمام
شركة تنظيف منازل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف موكيت بالدمام
شركة تنظيف واجهات زجاج وحجر بالدمام
شركة جلى بلاط بالدمام
شركة رش مبيد بالدمام
شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام
شركة شفط بيارات بالدمام
شركة عزل أسطح بالدمام
شركة عزل حمامات بالدمام
شركة عزل خزانات بالدمام
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالدمام
شركة مكافحة البق بالدمام
شركة مكافحة الثعابين بالدمام
شركة مكافحة الفئران بالدمام
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام
شركة نظافة عامة بالدمام
شركة نقل أثاث بالدمام
شركة نقل عفش بالدمام

Anonymous said...

Are saying that the sun and moon are flat disc as well, and now that nearly 99% of know maths and science is wrong.
I've read the bible 1st chapter and yes it points to a flat unmovable earth with the sun and moon and stars in the heavens or firmament not outer space. They can't hide this. I know for a fact they have never been to the moon a masa spokes person makes this clear in his Orion film. Who really gains in keeping this quite people always find out the truth in the end .
God the almighty Jehovah will reveal all truths.

Tom shifter said...

Eric, I have a question that has raised some concerns with me. I've been doing a lot of research on the flat earth and can honestly say my paradigm has gone through a big change over the past couple of months, (your website has been a great help) but my question is.. how do astronauts maintain the zero g in the extended shots of them seemingly floating up, down, and around the iss? I've been in some debates with coworkers of mine and this has stumped me. The zero g planes wouldn't give them enough time to complete the shot, and wires/harnesses wouldn't work because of the tight spaces they seem to be floating through. Nazi scientists were purportedly working on anti gravity before operation paperclip, so could this be some sort of anti gravity chamber that the astronauts are in during these shots? Your insights and thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the good fight. Peace brother.

Justin John Mawle said...

Buoyancy

Anonymous said...

Just observe the sun and moon paths from a high altitude mountain you realize the real thing going on.

they come and goes away from very high altitude it makes sense of flat travel of sun ,moon

history proves about earth shape

in Vedas, Quran,Bible or any other historic religions written as the earth is flat.

Anonymous said...

I have a couple of questions. If the earth truly is flat (which I am slowly concluding as factual), what is the purpose of NASA, etc. for claiming that it is spherical? Is it their way of avoiding the facts of what's underneath, things they don't want us to know about?

LINDA

allayukoneat Smith said...

Linda, from my point of view (a Christian one), NASA (and the powers-that-be) have intentionally hidden the fact that the flat earth is in fact the center of the universe, and that the universe is all built within some kind of dome ("firmament" in the Bible) above us. This 500 year-old lie has led to quite a few other lies, such as the belief that all of life evolved by chance. It has also led to the lie that God either does not exist, or is far too busy with dealing with a near infinite-sized universe. From how I see it, the end game plan of NASA is to convince the world that "aliens" created mankind. Based upon occult communication myself (before I was a Christian) and others have received from demons posing as "aliens," in careful analysis, it sounds like there is a very deceptive plan to stage WWIII in such a way, that "aliens" will appear to have saved the earth from destruction. Ultimately, their goal is to get a mere human, posing as an "alien" or "human/alien hybrid), in the position of being the world dictator, as their representative. A careful comparison of the book of Revelation with Daniel and 2 Thess chapter 2, will show a strong correlation with all these lies. I suspect that others will disagree with at least some of what I wrote, but that is their right.

By the way, after further study, I believe I managed to answer my own question from before as to what is really causing the downward pull from the earth, as opposed to gravity: ELECTO-MAGNETIC ENERGY! Tesla was working on a model for that, but died before completing it. Turns out other scientists have also worked on a model for that, such as physicist Dr. Thomas Barnes.

WM said...

How can we explain objects being dropped in a vaccuum?