Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: cassini on February 22, 2025, 09:48:43 AM
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-secretive-u-s-spaceplane-just-snapped-a-stunning-view-of-earth/ar-AA1zzoDL?ocid=nl_article_link#
(https://i.imgur.com/H1p5e0S.png)
-
Fake and gåy
I'm talking about mainstream media like MSN.
But space is fake & gåy too.
-
Their images have actually become more fake and cartoonish as time has gone on. I suspect it's due to increasing use of AI. Perhaps it's a DOGE efficiency play ... use AI, since it's a lot cheaper, and 95% of the fools out there will believe anything, and the ones who won't believe are not going to get fooled even if you put together some expensive CGI.
-
They also can't keep their lies straight. Max alleged altitude of this plane is reportedly 500 miles or 800 km. Go to Google Earth and see what the earth allegedly looks like at an altitude of 800km (ca. 500 miles). It would be about 5 or 10 times larger than this egg-shaped ball.
-
They also can't keep their lies straight. Max alleged altitude of this plane is reportedly 500 miles or 800 km. Go to Google Earth and see what the earth allegedly looks like at an altitude of 800km (ca. 500 miles). It would be about 5 or 10 times larger than this egg-shaped ball.
That was the first thing I noticed. It looks like it's halfway to the "Moon" as per the Apollo myth. The earth is *far* away in that photo. That's not even orbit at that point. You're drifting in the vacuum of space, you'd never crash into the earth whatever you do, if the Earth looked like the photo in question from where you stood. You'd be almost completely outside it's "gravity". Again, I'm talking about from the POV of their own space religion/mythology (which I'm quite familiar with, I should point out).
Of course, gravity is such a crock. There's no way there's an invisible string from the earth to your "spaceship" if the earth looked like that, forcing you to "orbit" the earth. Likewise, the Moon is supposed to be several times further away -- and much smaller than the earth. Yet it's supposed to cause our tides? Yeah, not any lakes or other bodies of water, just the ocean. There is NO good reason for that. And although the Moon somehow overpowered or vanquished Earth's gravity, even though the water being fought over is RIGHT NEXT TO the earth where it's gravity would be STRONGEST, and the earth is much larger (massive, more powerful gravity to begin with) -- somehow the water doesn't keep rising up after being vanquished in the gravity contest by the Moon's gravity. Doesn't make sense at all.
Sometimes gravity makes things attract each other, sometimes gravity makes things "orbit" each other. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES. NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.
And think about what orbiting MEANS. Orbiting is a near-constant changing of angular velocity. What happened to the conservation of momentum? Where does the extra energy come from? How does the earth (for example) slow down and accelerate constantly? Unless there were a literal string connecting the two, you can't just hit the gas full-throttle (no brakes) and magically go in a circle.
Could you "do a donut" (drive in a circle) without ever hitting the gas to add speed? See my point?
And do you know how much a volume of ocean water weighs? Why doesn't the moon's gravity affect other physical things on earth? Like butterflies, rocks, fragile stacks of rocks, or anything else? Why can't the Moon cause stress or movement on *anything else* with its powerful gravity?
Like I said: I'm not turning off my brain. I'm asking the questions I always wanted to ask. Saying the things that never made sense to me. I'm going with common sense on this one.
-
My husband found this article.
https://www.space.com/space-force-x-37b-1st-photo-from-orbit-earth
This quote was particularly interesting.
Previous X-37B missions were flown in low Earth orbit, but as this photo reveals, the space plane is currently operating much farther from Earth. SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is capable of launching payloads into geosynchronous orbit (https://www.space.com/29222-geosynchronous-orbit.html), over 22,000 miles (35,000 km) above our planet.
-
Yes, they count on 95% of people being stupid and just accepting whatever they put out there, like the absolutely ridiculous "Tesla in space" that even Musk admitted "looked so fake" ... but except for the small percentage of skeptics, they moronic sheep just lap it up.
Let's have a look at this purported image from the Cupola of SpaceX Dragon mission from September 2021, which allegedly hit a maximum altitude of 585km.
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6gtnVNT/dragon-cupola.png)
But when I go to Google Earth and set the "camera height" to 580km (closest I could get to 585km), this is what you see ...
(https://i.ibb.co/v6vJx5z0/earth-580km.png)
This is literally just northern half of Ohio (my neck of the woods) and Western PA, and the very Eastern edge of Indiana. Does this look like you'd see the tiny ball as from the Cupola of Space X Dragon?
It's laughable that so many people are dumb enough to buy this ... and the Tesla in space. In fact, people caught glitches in the "Tesla in space" footage where the "space" background briefly disappears (for a frame or two) and you see the exact same background the car had when it was in the hanger before.
-
It kind of resembles the egg that Mork from Ork used for his travels.
-
Yeah, that looks fake. The altitude doesn't appear right.
It doesn't mean that the earth is flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHU_6Ot067M
That was the first thing I noticed. It looks like it's halfway to the "Moon" as per the Apollo myth. The earth is *far* away in that photo. That's not even orbit at that point. You're drifting in the vacuum of space, you'd never crash into the earth whatever you do, if the Earth looked like the photo in question from where you stood. You'd be almost completely outside it's "gravity". Again, I'm talking about from the POV of their own space religion/mythology (which I'm quite familiar with, I should point out).
Of course, gravity is such a crock. There's no way there's an invisible string from the earth to your "spaceship" if the earth looked like that, forcing you to "orbit" the earth. Likewise, the Moon is supposed to be several times further away -- and much smaller than the earth. Yet it's supposed to cause our tides? Yeah, not any lakes or other bodies of water, just the ocean. There is NO good reason for that. And although the Moon somehow overpowered or vanquished Earth's gravity, even though the water being fought over is RIGHT NEXT TO the earth where it's gravity would be STRONGEST, and the earth is much larger (massive, more powerful gravity to begin with) -- somehow the water doesn't keep rising up after being vanquished in the gravity contest by the Moon's gravity. Doesn't make sense at all.
Sometimes gravity makes things attract each other, sometimes gravity makes things "orbit" each other. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES. NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.
And think about what orbiting MEANS. Orbiting is a near-constant changing of angular velocity. What happened to the conservation of momentum? Where does the extra energy come from? How does the earth (for example) slow down and accelerate constantly? Unless there were a literal string connecting the two, you can't just hit the gas full-throttle (no brakes) and magically go in a circle.
Could you "do a donut" (drive in a circle) without ever hitting the gas to add speed? See my point?
And do you know how much a volume of ocean water weighs? Why doesn't the moon's gravity affect other physical things on earth? Like butterflies, rocks, fragile stacks of rocks, or anything else? Why can't the Moon cause stress or movement on *anything else* with its powerful gravity?
Like I said: I'm not turning off my brain. I'm asking the questions I always wanted to ask. Saying the things that never made sense to me. I'm going with common sense on this one.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false/impossible.
-
Yeah, that looks fake. The altitude doesn't appear right.
It doesn't mean that the earth is flat.
It means they lie. In fact, all the pics look fake precisely because they are.
I am embarrassed for cassini. He tried to pawn off such garbage here less than three months ago?
-
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false/impossible.
Oui.
-
But I do understand it quite well. That's why I don't believe in gravity. It makes no sense, and contradicts other laws that *can* be observed and measured.
I won't be gaslit into believing my own common sense is actually a "confusion" or "lack of understanding".
To those I say, "go jump in the lake" and that's the polite version.
If you believe a big bang exploded and coalesced trillions of stars with gas clouds, forming innumerable planets with residual "orbiting" action around said stars (suns), then you are the crazy one. Not me. And yes, the Big Bang is married to the whole "outer space, trillions of stars and planets" cosmology.
My cousin, who I basically "grew up with" almost like a brother, and spent tons of time with as a teenager, tried to be clever and embrace "theistic evolution". Didn't work out too well for him. He apostatized in 2000. A bunch of things "got him" -- but the error of evolution certainly didn't help.
-
I could come up with a list of things I demand answers for, before I go back to globe earth (which I once believed, and still understand the position as well as *any of you*)
For starters, why does the Moon pull a huge body of water (the ocean) up, say, 1 foot, enough to create a "tide" -- but does absolutely nothing to a lake a few hundred miles from that ocean? Not so much as a ripple on the surface of THAT water. Why does the Moon exclusively have an influence on salt water bodies? Why is the Moon only in love with the ocean, absolutely nothing else?
And pulling hundreds of metric tons of water up 6 or 12 inches is a LOT of pulling power. Why aren't birds, butterflies, pop cans, or anything else affected by this pulling "gravity" force of the Moon? They certainly weigh FAR less than a cubic meter of water!
And, "Science" claims that the earth's gravity is strongest at the surface. If the moon has wrested control of X amount of water from the earth, so as to pull it closer to the Moon -- why does the Moon give up so easily while it's winning? Why wouldn't the "struggle" be repeated again and again, moving the water higher and higher towards the Moon? The higher it goes, the stronger the Moon's "gravity" and the weaker the earth's "gravity". According to them!
No one can explain that.
-
To get me back to globe, someone would have to provide a solid explanation for how light consistently bends around ball earth. Refraction is utter nonsense as an explanation for far too many and consistent observations, given that it's a random and erratic phenomenon. To me the odds of this happening so often and with such clarity even hundreds of miles away is about the same as for a cell to evolve on its own from some chemical stew ... pretty much zero. Try harder and come up with a theory based on ether flow, electromagnetism or something along those lines and you'll have my attention. Until then :sleep:
-
I could come up with a list of things I demand answers for, before I go back to globe earth (which I once believed, and still understand the position as well as *any of you*)
For starters, why does the Moon pull a huge body of water (the ocean) up, say, 1 foot, enough to create a "tide" -- but does absolutely nothing to a lake a few hundred miles from that ocean? Not so much as a ripple on the surface of THAT water. Why does the Moon exclusively have an influence on salt water bodies? Why is the Moon only in love with the ocean, absolutely nothing else?
And pulling hundreds of metric tons of water up 6 or 12 inches is a LOT of pulling power. Why aren't birds, butterflies, pop cans, or anything else affected by this pulling "gravity" force of the Moon? They certainly weigh FAR less than a cubic meter of water!
And, "Science" claims that the earth's gravity is strongest at the surface. If the moon has wrested control of X amount of water from the earth, so as to pull it closer to the Moon -- why does the Moon give up so easily while it's winning? Why wouldn't the "struggle" be repeated again and again, moving the water higher and higher towards the Moon? The higher it goes, the stronger the Moon's "gravity" and the weaker the earth's "gravity". According to them!
No one can explain that.
Above Matthew you rightly describe Newton's gravity as nonsense. Here is part of a talk describing the fraud.
And what about Newton's supposed discoveries? Upon closer scrutiny, it turns out that he had no discoveries. Take, for example, Newton's alleged law of universal gravitation, which states that the force of attraction of two point masses is equal to the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them, times a constant. This is Newton's so-called inverse square law. It has long been known that this was not really a new discovery, but rather derived by some tinkering from Kepler's Third Law. Kepler had established that the cube of a planet's distance from the Sun divided by the square of its year always equaled a constant. By supplementing this with Huygens's formula for centrifugal acceleration and making some substitutions, you can obtain the inverse square relationship. This issue is settled in the appendices to The Science of Christian Economy [by Lyndon LaRouche, Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991]. But the partisans of Newton still claim that Newton explained gravity.
By opening the lid of the box, we find that Newton himself confesses, in an unpublished note, that his great achievement was cribbed from Kepler. Newton wrote:.
"I began to think of gravity extending to the orb of the Moon and (having found out how to estimate the force with which a globe revolving presses the surface of a sphere) from Kepler's rule of the periodical times of the Planets being in sesquialterate proportion of their distances from the center of their Orbs, I deduced that the forces which keep the Planets in their Orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve....'' (Westfall, 143).
Newton ``arrived at the inverse square relation by substituting Kepler's Third Law into Huygens's recently published formula for centrifugal force'' (Westfall, 402). Hooke and Sir Christopher Wren claimed to have done the same thing at about the same time.
Newton's love of alchemy and magic surfaces as the basis of his outlook, including in his supposed scientific writings. In his Opticks, he asks,
``Have not the small particles of bodies certain powers, virtues, or forces, by which they act at a distance.... How those attractions may be performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be performed by Impulse, or some other means unknown to me.''
This is Newton's notion of gravity as action at a distance, which Leibniz rightly mocked as black magic.
-
To get me back to globe, someone would have to provide a solid explanation for how light consistently bends around ball earth. Refraction is utter nonsense as an explanation for far too many and consistent observations, given that it's a random and erratic phenomenon. To me the odds of this happening so often and with such clarity even hundreds of miles away is about the same as for a cell to evolve on its own from some chemical stew ... pretty much zero. Try harder and come up with a theory based on ether flow, electromagnetism or something along those lines and you'll have my attention. Until then :sleep:
Domenico Cassini falsified Kepler's and Newton's elliptical orbits. He also falsified their proposed Newton's shape of the earth from a gyrating bulging spinning Earth using the science of Geodesy. Cassini measured the Earth as egg shaped. As regards the orbits of the sun and planets, Cassini a geocentrist measured them as Cassini ovals. Further later study discovered Cassinian ovals are directly related to positive electro-magnetic activity in the case of wires of equal current and direction or like-point charges shown in the left side of the diagram below.
(https://i.imgur.com/FjxyoUH.png)
This link can be demonstrated by spreading iron-filings over a 2 positive-pole magnetised surface. This will form directional charge patterns that constitute a whole series of Cassinian ovals. As we can see below, these ovals are present.
(https://i.imgur.com/Mg4NOJR.png)(https://i.imgur.com/2LyLBz3.png)
Back in the early seventeenth century it was discovered that the Earth is a giant loadstone with a magnetic field and that the poles of this field correspond more with the celestial axis than the equatorial north-south pole axis, and that this magnetic field travels way out into space.
(https://i.imgur.com/TJMibck.png)(https://i.imgur.com/gLJGQ3D.png)
Now consider this: Cassini established that the orbit of the sun around the Earth is an electromagnetic related oval, and that the orbits of the planets around the sun are also electromagnetic Cassinian ovals. It follows then that if all orbits of the stars are fixed in similar orbits to the sun, as stellar aberration requires, then their orbits also move by way of the magnetic lines of Cassinian ovals. What both these orthogonally related sets of curves also have in common is that they are all constant-product curves, a fact not all that surprising in a universe bound by constant-product laws as in Boyle’s Law having the Product of Volume and Pressure of a gas equal to a constant or - of more interest to the student of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes light - the law that binds wavelength and frequency in a constancy-of-product relationship.
(https://i.imgur.com/ppJuOiY.png)
He hangeth the Earth upon nothing not to be moved.
Upon what are its bases grounded. (Job 26; 7&38:6)
A blue globe ball representing the Earth, suspended in mid-air by an electronically controlled magnetic field that can be bought in stores.
Having first created heaven and Earth in darkness, the Book of Genesis tells us God then created ‘light.’ He then divided this light from the original darkness in creation. Today, as understood by mankind, science knows what that light is, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, when God created light, he in effect created electromagnetism. God then created the sun and stars to generate such light in ‘heaven and Earth.’ This is what Cassini confirmed with his Cassinian oval