Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads!

Anthem(0)

 Citizen
  • Content count

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

455 Excellent

2 Followers

About Anthem(0)

  • Rank
    Addict
  1. There is definitely mainstream literature on dielectric forces (as well as diamagnetism) which obviously interpret these demonstrable forces solely through the lens of atomism and particle physics. Most of the interesting writings come from "fringe" sources like Dollard, Ken Wheeler. Or even Walter Russell and the like who often describe the concepts using other terms.
  2. There is no credence to the idea that the age of rocks or the decay of an isotope over thousands/millions of years can be accurately measured to begin with. It's more silly establishment dogma. Particularly when dealing with entirely hypothetical timelines such as millions of years. The establishment claims of consistent radioactive decay have no credibility in the first place.
  3. Kyrie keeps it real. He hasn't backed down in over a year, and stays dropping subtle clues he knows whats up. I applaud his efforts and I can't honestly expect more from any A-list celeb. They have too much to lose.
  4. The bolded isn't talked about enough as it appears to be true for most latitudes. If you spin a 23.4 degree tilted ball being lit by an external source then most of the ball experiences half dark/half light every revolution. The distance traveled in orbit may alter this slightly, but there appears to be no real explanation for the wild variation of day lengths in the helio model. I could be wrong about this, but it seems fairly straightforward and I've yet to hear an explanation which counters this basic logic. If half the ball is continuously lit, then the tilt is irrelevant (outside of the affected polar latitudes) and it should be half/half light and day every day for pretty much all non-polar latitudes. The time of sunrise would shift throughout the year, but not the amount of daylight vs night because half the earth is facing the sun at all times and lines of latitude are continuous circuits through this lit zone. This seems very obvious and it's odd that so many concede this point to globites without a fight on the basis of "it's on a tilt". But maybe I'm missing something equally as obvious. Someone help me understand why the tilt is relevant.
  5. Myopic view imo, as the admittedly limited audience can only grow. It's not like people are going back to believing in a spinning ball. How could they when the hired apologists' pro-globe counterarguments are unconvincing and unscientific appeals to a corrupt authority? So yeah, the cat is out of the bag for those capable of critical thinking. It's all over the internet and this is the Information Age. The simplistic/childish globite arguments are completely played out and frankly embarrassing. Eratosthenes? NASA images? Boats go over the curve? Selective coriolis? The M.I.C. cannot keep secrets so someone would tell (particularly comical, that one)? Microphone drops prove gravity, etc? Really? These are kindergarten non-arguments which are only effective on minds which are already enslaved and trained to obey and believe whatever authority says. Keep it real Von. At the end of the day, the establishment has had somewhere between decades and millennia to present a single piece evidence that the ground is curved and/or moving and has utterly failed to do so. Yes? Once an open-minded critical thinker realizes this fact, there is no going back. The cord is severed. The establishment cannot save face so their only choice is to censor conflicting opinions and continue ordering their legion of mindless drones to ignore the subject. But this is all just getting started. These desperate attempts at censorship will continue to fail because T.H.E.Y. will never win over the deprogrammed critical thinker. Never. So the paradigm is shifting... slowly... inch by inch. And T.H.E.Y. know it. Though I agree with you that exploration will eventually be needed to close the deal.
  6. Whoa, they got Dubay's channel now? This censorship is completely out of hand. YouTube Heroes protecting the masses from dangerous thoughts instead of presenting convincing counter-arguments. Shameful. But what else are they gonna do? They know the cat's out the bag and it's game over unless they shut up the critical thinkers. These countermeasures are just delaying the inevitable though because once one sees the extent of the lies, it's impossible to go back. And the censoring just further ignites the flames dissension and kills any chance that the dissenters can ever be appeased.
  7. I love these old NASA videos. Such flagrant, unapologetic absurdity. How can anyone look at this and not instantly identify it as a silly box prop on a movie set? Gotta love those 60s special fx. Comedy gold. And people continue to buy this because they haven't bothered to actually look at the footage. And to think if Trump is serious (ROFL @ the thought) about faking a sequel to this farce, they'll have to replicate these goofy ass, herky-jerky movements for continuity's sake. Or maybe they won't fake it with an inane dodecahedron box this time.
  8. What a great vid man, seriously. So simple and there's no sensible globe explanation for this. Frozen water tests are where it's at. Kills several birds with one stone.
  9. if only they had CGI this good in the 60s, they might have gotten away with it all. But alas....
  10. Naturally the only rebuttals came from the guys capable of critical thinking and who have a genuine interest in the subject. The apologist characters must first wait to receive their talking points and so they can carefully pick and choose what to respond to and what to ignore. Experience has taught me that they won't touch the rocket issue with a ten-foot pole because their only talking point is "rockets push off their own fuel which itself is pushing off of nothing, not even air." And since such nonsense cannot be rationally defended, they avoid the subject until such a time when they can deflect to a different talking point, a la "you're in it for the money." *Gasp* You mean you're not being paid to continue making videos and post in this thread? You mean you discuss flat earth in your free time and it isn't your job? Could all the apologist characters could honestly make the same claim? It's fascinating to observe how the establishment mind control works. Very sublime and underhanded manipulations of values and perceptions. In this case, you Rothbard are being subtly "forced" to disclose that you are in fact not profiting off of dedicating a great deal of your God-given time (our most precious of gifts, imo) to a cause which means a great deal to you. The underlying message being "you should by no means profit from giving your time to causes which serve your own interests. You should only profit from giving your time to causes which serve the interests of the establishment." There are countless other undertones which emanate from that sort of mind-f**kery, unnoticed by most conscious minds. They Live!! type stuff.
  11. "You're making flat earth videos for the money" is probably the silliest of all the apologist talking points. It gives me pause to wonder why they continue to use it since it's such a dead argument. Is implanting the false idea that people are making "Big $$$" by making YouTube FE videos intended to enrage the globite masses? Is that the angle? "How dare these people make profit, only those of us pushing officially-endorsed establishment lies should be allowed to make profits" kinda thing? Strange tactic, but it probably has some modicum of success.
  12. The nerve of them to pretend those pictures are taken from 250 miles away. Indefensible.
  13. Indeed. Vectored thrust in a resistance-filled atmosphere. Ave! As an aside, another large factor the establishment glosses over is role temperature plays in the chemical reactions and machinery involved in flight. At the alleged temperatures in space, even IF combustion is still occurring inside the rocket (due to cold-immune fuel and machinery, rofl), it is undeniable that the environment it is being ejected into is incompatible with any form of combustion so whatever reaction was occurring would end as the ejecta exits the nozzle. Realistically consider what we're being told and contrast it with what is known to be true in reality. For instance, we can easily demonstrate that the combustion process in general is greatly affected by temperature (as well as air pressure). Our cars are noticeably slower to start in the winter than the summer. This is because the temperature environment effects both the chemical reactions and machinery. And this obvious change occurs while still within in the warm atmospheric environment where the ground is a constant source of heat. Conversely, we are told space is infinitely cold in all directions and that there are no nearby heat sources keeping everything somewhat toasty. Yet we're to believe that rockets (mere chemical reaction machines) are unaffected by this extreme temperature flux and the total lack of air pressure. And that that the few inches of metal surrounding the fuel is sufficient to insulate the fuel from the infinitely cold inert vacuum environment which surrounds it in all directions. This is further reason why it makes no sense to invoke Newtons Laws. That's not what is occurring here. That whole deflection is a huge red herring and has nothing to do with the subject of flight mechanics.
  14. Sure, it's entirely likely that in a vacuum environment, the rocket ejecta would make the craft to flop and spin about wildly like a hose. It wouldn't travel in a straight balanced line in the other direction because there is no resistance forcing it to, just like there is no resistance in the hose scenario. And even if the apologist is granted every concession on the issue of propulsion (which by no means should they be), there is still no means to steer, especially not at the reported speeds, because there is no air to swim through. A singular nozzle at the rear obviously cannot direct steering for the rest of the craft. Planes and missiles have wings and aerodynamic shapes for a reason. They are not fancy adornments, they maintain the balance of the thrust through the medium. It's actually amazing that so many people shy away from the rhetoric that rocket propulsion doesn't require a medium when the only proof of this is NASA videos. I suppose many are intimidated by math equations, but once you understand that all math equations involving flight imply a medium then there's very little to fear from the subject. This variable may not be directly expressed in the shorthand/internet-version of the equations, but it is there all the same and it is integral to the mathematics of flight. And in a vacuum, all resistance is lost in all directions. Mathematically, this means any part of the equation reliant on air resistance (the entire reaction basically) is thrown completely out of whack. Practically and demonstrably, the literal means of directed flight is removed if the air is removed. The establishment claim that this MASSIVE change in environment would have no effect on flight or means of propulsion "because it's a rocket" is just silly establishment rhetoric. The Rocket Program is part and partial to the whole Nature of Reality/Space Hoax. Perhaps by means of some anti-static electric force flight through a vacuum would be possible, but this "rockets pushing off of their own fuel" nonsense has no backing in demonstrable reality of flight mechanics. Simply put, how can the rocket be pushing off of the fuel when the fuel isn't pushing off of anything? Haha, not beating you up at all, just trying to be thorough in my answers. The shape of the nozzle may in theory create resistance until the point of ejection, where the ejecta will disperse wildly due to the vacuum. There is no resistance to keep the ejecta in a straight line. This is like follow-through on your shot when playing pool. You can be aimed straight and accurate up to the point impact with the cue stick and the cue ball, but if your follow through isn't also guided, your shot will not go straight.
  15. Assuming the spring is not on the ground or wall or anything, and is coiled and primed to eject a lighter object, then why would the spring go anywhere when the object is ejected? No realistic experiment of this sort could ever be performed. But it doesn't need to be in order to understand how thrust works. And thrust requires a medium of resistance. Zero resistance is not a medium of resistance. Rockets are not magical things. They are explosions used for propulsion through an air medium rather than air being used for propulsion through an air medium. The output of the explosion must meet resistance in order to propel the craft in the opposite direction. If you remove the very medium providing the resistance which is responsible for the propulsion, there can be no propulsion. This is the reason why means of propulsion which work though water mediums don't work through air mediums. Submarines obviously cannot "fly" in the absence of water (no matter how hard they push against themselves), but the liars who faked the moon landings will have us believe that AIR rockets can "fly" in the absence of air. Their only proof of this are absurd space program videos featuring spinning boxes suspended from strings.
×