Isn't is another unproven fallacy that gravity comes from the center of the earth?  Round earth depends on this foundation.

Absolutely.  No one has ever demonstrated that "masses" per se attract one another, much less that they can act on one another over a distance.  If you were to place a massive object somewhere and then suspend a marble next to it on a string ... in vaccuм and zero-G environment ... they would absolutely not move toward one another.  If there were such a thing as a zero-G or low-G space station, that could have been one of the first things proven conclusively, that masses should move toward one another.  But it can't be demonstrated ... because it doesn't exist.

No, things are drawn toward the earth for an entirely different reason.  Now the earth itself has a negative charge, while the atmosphere has a positive charge.  I've seen experiments done between two plates where the polarity was changed, so that the negative charge was above it and the positive charge below, and the object flew up and clung to the top plate.  I forget the name of the mechanism that was used.

So the fact that things move toward the earth is likely some function of electro-magnetism or else the pressure of ether, as Tesla held.

   


But you know that the earth is flat. 

And after Walter van der Kamp you dishonestly (or ignorantly and foolishly?) misuse Nicola Tesla as a witness for your flat heap of dung.


Which ones? Nicola Tesla? Walter van der Kamp?

You contribute nothing to the conversation.  One can cite one scientist for one thing, and another for another ... just as one might cite St. Thomas Aquinas, but then cite some other authority regarding the Immaculate Conception.  Point of citing scientists is precisely to demonstrate that there's no monolithic consensus.

Yes, I know that the earth is flat.  There's plenty of evidence for it.  Simply because I don't have millions of dollars to go send something up to the moon to investigate its true nature does not mean that there's nothing I can know.

You arguments are absurd, and you're acting like a complete buffoon.

The sheer vitriol lobbed at anyone who suggests other than the mainstream narrative on the shape of the earth is mind-boggling to me.

Yes, this says something here.  What does it matter to them if some fool has what they consider a nutty idea?  Move along.  If someone on the street came by and told me he believed that reptilian alients from Alpha Centauri ran the local gas station, I'd just roll my eyes and move along.  I'm not going to take the time to point fingers and insult and ridicule the person.

Propaganda about the globe has been so deeply instilled in people that it causes extreme psychological discomfort to people to think that their entire view of the world has been a massive lie.

Even if you don't believe that the earth is flat, just do a simple thought experiment.  Just imagine that it IS flat, that you just discovered that the earth is flat and coverered by a firmament ... and that everything you thought you knew was a lie.  It's a bit painful to think about.  And that's why you get the vitriol and hostility.

Yes, I know that the earth is flat.  There's plenty of evidence for it.

You repeatedly claim there's plenty of evidence for it, but never provide that evidence.

Simple fact is that stars can be seen THROUGH the moon, and it appears translucent.

Prove it. This sounds like nonsense.

Except that nobody's ever measured any force of gravity between two non-planetary objects.  It was invented precisely to back the heliocentric theory.  What we experience here on earth is most likey due to the fact that the earth is negatively charged and/or the pressure of ether (which is what Tesla held).

Yes, you can measure the force of attraction between two non-planetary objects. It's done routinely in college physics classes and matches that predicted by the law of gravity.

Charges cannot be related to gravity in any direct way, or we could change what objects weigh by changing their charges. That doesn't happen.

And the only answer consistent with all experiments is that there is no luminiferous ether. [That doesn't rule out certain other types of "ether" that don't interact with light.)

Either it's level or it bends, ball earthers want it both ways. They can't have it both ways.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Are all points on the circle the same distance from the center of the circle? Yes. Is the circle curved? Yes.
So you can have it "both ways".

Using simple binoculars, people observe that the moon shows always the same face to anyone, wherever he may be on earth.

Yes, I'm glad you bring it up.  It's amazing that people can use "simple binoculars" to see 85-km wide features on a moon that's allegedly 263,000 miles away.  One of the most recognizable features on the moon, "Tycho's crater" is about 85 kilometers in diameter.  ONLY 85 kilometers, and you can see it with the naked eye, much less with "simple binoculars".  It's absurd that you can see something that's only 85 kilometers in diameter from 263,000 miles away.  Ridiculous.  Find something on Google Earth that's about 50-miles in diameter.  Now move the camera back out.  By the time you get to about 10,000 up, it becomes a tiny dot that you can't make out anymore.  Now take the distance out to 263,000 miles.    And it can be seen with a "pair of binioculars".

Yeah, the face of the moon is the same precisely because it's NOT A ROTATING SPHERE.  It's utterly ridiculous that the moon's rotation is perfectly sychronized ... to the second ... with that of the earth.  Even if it were a few second off, the moon would have changed the side facing the earth at least some over hundreds and thousands of years.  Also, even though the moon is 400x smaller (allegedly than the sun), it JUST SO HAPPENS to be EXACTLY 400x farther away so that it's size matches that of the sun during eclipses.

THOSE things are languable.

And the only answer consistent with all experiments is that there is no luminiferous ether. [That doesn't rule out certain other types of "ether" that don't interact with light.)

To claim a wave without a medium is pure nonsense. When there's nothing, then there's nothing that can swing. Vacuum permeability and vacuum permittivity are oxymorons. Hence, likewise vacuum speed of light. That's against common sense and true philosophy. Where there's nothing, nothing is red or heavy or permeable or swinging.

There's a related famous Newton quote about gravity. You need an agent, he said.

Modern physics is nonsense. And we all laugh about the gravity-waves junk, and weep about the dollars.

To claim a wave without a medium is pure nonsense.

Correct.  And light is a wave.  It's precisely the reason scientists believed in the ether.  But then Michelson-Morley demonstrated that the earth doesn't move, so they had to get rid of the concept ASAP.  Thus the mythical unproven Lorentz contraction.

And, BTW, it's been proven false that the speed of light doesn't change ... as assumed by Einstein et al.

Speaking of light and ether, we have actual stars as they are, not worlds as NASA pretends, but rather, lights.  Maybe Scripture got it right after all.