Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads!

Open Club  ·  19 members

About This Club

for Flat Earth research and discussion

Club Type

Research
  1. What's new in this club
  2. The Sun

    Gleason AE Map With Dome Glass Joel Tunnah Published on Dec 18, 2017. A demonstration debunking the claim that the Gleason AE map can’t show the correct seasonal daylight coverage with a simple rotating sun. I found the video at FE Friends, where I said this, "That Gleason map video is pretty good. I had never seen it before. It puts the light source above the dome. I thought it was under the dome, but who knows? Either way, there will be some distortion or reflection. On second thought, could it be inside the dome? The Wild Heretic, who is a Concave Earth theorist, puts it below the earth but reflecting up and off the dome. I'll check that site now."
  3. FE maps

    - Urbano Monte map, http://buzzdev.net/urbano_monte_map/
  4. article, "Radio-Carbon Dating Proves a Young Earth,"by Bob Knopf; http://www.creationproof.com/id25.html
  5. The Sun

    Flat Earth - What is EAST and WEST on a GLOBE?
  6. This is funny, except that it shouldn't be.
  7. Cosmo-history, Velikovsky, Fomenco

    Probably the first book I read that opened up the possibility that the things we were taught as facts may not be. Got a first edition of the book which I had a quick skim through but eventually found the passages you quoted Old Chinese cosmology has earth as a square covered by the canopy of the sky - Gai Tian model , or Hun Tian model where the earth is a horizontal diametrical plane of the egg shaped heavens. Think that's correct if memory serves. Spherical earth theory was introduced to China in the 17 century by the Jesuits who took over positions as astronomers at the imperial high courts. What a surprise.. Get the brainwashing underway as soon as possible. Saw a quote about the Chaldean astronomers who had four planets in their system - including Mars - but not Venus. That's interesting .
  8. What are planets? Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, Ch. 3., Tao Planets of the solar system were disturbed by the contacts of Venus, Mars, and the earth. We have already referred to the annals of the Bamboo Books, where it is written that in the tenth year of the Emperor Kwei, the eighteenth monarch since Yahou, “the five planets went out of their courses. In the night, stars fell like rain. The earth shook.” 16 The disturbances in the family of planets were caused by collisions between Venus and Mars. The battles of two stars appearing as bright as suns are mentioned in another Chinese chronicle as having occurred in the days of the same Emperor Kwei (Koei-Kie): “At this time the two suns were seen to battle in the sky. The five planets were agitated by unusual movements. A part of Mount T’aichan fell down.” 17 The two battling stars are recognized by us as Venus and Mars. In the language of Eratosthenes, the Alexandrian librarian of the third century before this era: “In the third place is the star [stella] of Mars. ... it was pursued by the star [sidus] Venus; then Venus took hold of him and inflamed him with an ardent passion.” 18 In an astronomical chart dating from the Middle Ages (1193), used in the education of emperors and known as the “Soochow Astronomical Chart”, 19 it is asserted on the authority of the ancients that it happened that planets went off their courses. It is said that once Venus ran far off the zodiac and attacked the “Wolf-Star.” A change in the course of the planets was regarded as a sign of heavenly wrath, since it occurred when the emperor or his ministers sinned. In the old Chinese cosmology “Earth is represented as a body suspended in air, moving eastward,” 20 and thus was understood as one of the planets.
  9. This thread will look at accounts of people who witnessed worldwide cataclysms in the "ancient" past, which Alt. Historians claim happened a lot more recently than we are taught. I coined the term cosmo-history as a catch-all for cosmology and what I think is a timeline compressed far shorter than the 6000 years of mankind according to mainstream textbooks. The first records accepted as as significant are not the Chinese or Hindu, but the Sumerians of whom Zechariah Sitchin wrote. I heartily recommend Velikovsky, who was as reviled as flatearthers are today. Worlds in Collision is a well-written compendium of his research and conclusions. Please feel free to add or comment on the posts I make.
  10. The Sun

    A torus fractal. Note to myself: Keep this one embedded instead of a link, since its opening image is a map of the shape of the sun's path. Could it also represent the torus of our world, with the surface being its accretion disk?
  11. Thanks to @Malevolent for his thread on the true science of gravity as the effect of dielectricity. This video is a presentation by Michael Tellinger, who tries to simplify our world as a torus. It's still complicated, with lots of terminology that needs to be listed and defined somewhere. Like magnetism, which is not necessarily the ferrous attraction we normally think of.
  12. Excellent! The accretion disk is what I have been looking for -- as the physical location of down. And if we dig a hole in the ground, heavier-than-air objects will fall through it and seek their level of density, as water does. I am still not wording this properly though I kind of grasp the concept of reality, or what we think it is, as a vast pool of electrons which bind together as matter. So it's all a big sorting process, from lightest matter like helium working upwards and heavier objects aggregating at the bottom. That still leaves us with other issues which are insoluble -- is there a container, who made it, what is outside? Oh, one more question. Does the accretion disk have to be a disk? Not a square or other surface? Thanks for making this as simple as possible. Gravity will require a series of statements, first, to define the vocabulary, then to outline the means which explain the phenomenon. Is it too much to ask if any EU theorist has made any graphics --diagrams or memes -- which illustrate it?
  13. Gravity, not a force to reckon with

    In its simplest form, the ground would be the accretion disk of the dielectric inertial plane within the electric field above/surrounding earth. The tendency toward down is an electromagnetic effect on all matter. And all compasses laid flat point north, even those south of the supposed equator. This suggests that even the "southern hemi" is on the same side of the accretion disk as the "northern hemi". This is all very general but a decent starting template for explaining reality via an electric model. There really is no place for gravity in an electric universe. And electricity is a manipulable and testable phenomenon. Gravity on the other hand allegedly surrounds and permeates us at all times, yet to this day it remains completely undetectable except from supernovae explosions from quadrillions of miles away several eons ago.
  14. Here is @Anthem(0)'s definition of gravity. "The force behind the downward tendency of matter is called the dielectric force. It is demonstrable and combined with buoyancy and density explains everything gravity is given credit for here on the ground. Gravity is superfluous."
  15. @Anthem(0), @VonLud, @Redorblue, and all other posters. I wish there were a way to tag you all -- please provide your ideas about gravity as the effect of density, which itself is the way dielecteic particles bond to form matter. I'll refine it after seeing your input. Remember that you can edit your posts indefinitely if you sign in as a mod.
  16.  
×