Calculating The Distance To The Sun

Some time ago, I wrote an article similar to this one. I used my current location in the UK and Winnipeg in Canada, but I was never happy with that set-up as the locations weren’t exactly the same latitude and the sun could never be said to be over-head (90°).

I was reluctant to re-do this effort because I am well aware that different outcomes are achievable when different assumptions are made. For example, if you assume that the earth is a ball and that the sun is 800k miles wide and the rays are parallel, then we can calculate  the distance to the sun as 93 million miles.

FE Voliva drawing 90 45 45 triangle distance measure sun on FE and globeScreenshot from 2015-07-05 13:44:24.png

90 45 90 Screenshot from 2015-08-30 19:48:39

However, since I can now say that I am able to prove the earth is a flat stationary plane (see my gyroscope experiments) it would no longer be an assumption to use the following “Plane” trigonometry to determine the approximate height of the sun. So I decided it was worth documenting again.

It is understood that:

A right angle triangle has a 90° angle at one of its corners and that all angles of all triangles add up to 180°.

If one of the other angles was 60° then the final angle would be: 180° – (90+60)= 30°

If In another 90° triangle, the second angle is 45° then the 3rd angle must be 45° in order to total 180°

M’kay so far … A 90°+45°+45° Triangle has a special quality, that others don’t, namely the two sides coming away from the 90° corner MUST be equal lengths

So if you know the distance between two places and the angles of observation then you know the distance to the object that both locations are viewing.

This method has been known about for a very long time and was the basis for a trick the old native Americans used to gauge the height of trees etc

90 45 45 triangle measuring height An Old Indian TrickScreenshot from 2015-10-12 12_44_51

 

There is no reason why this method of trigonometry would not work on a flat plane to determine the apparent height of celestial objects such as the sun. I say ‘apparent’ height because the atmosphere we view the sun through can add enormous variables in terms of looming, magnifying, refracting, diffracting etc which is beyond the scope of this post.

========================

I wanted to choose two locations on the equator that were separated by water, such that when it was 12 o’clock midday in one location with the sun 90° overhead, from the other location the sun would be exactly 45° elevated to the horizon, thus forming the 90° 45° 45° triangle we are looking for.

librevill to macaba map showing equator line linking both Screenshot from 2016-06-27 17:54:58.png

 

I choose Libreville in Gabon, Africa and Macapá the capital of Amapá state in Brazil.

So, as you can see below, the correct angles can be achieved at the end of March/September near the spring/autumn equinox when the sun is travelling directly over and around the equator.

Macapá 90° angle to the sun, midday 23 MarchMacapa 90 degree sun Screenshot from 2017-03-22 21:09:50

Gabon 45° angle to the sun, 15.30 23 March

Libreville 45 degrees sun angle Screenshot from 2017-03-22 21:31:28

At the time of researching this information, Macapa was GMT-3 hours and Gabon was in line with Greenwich mean time. So best efforts were made to line up the times with the angles, but this is open to refinement, hence why this will be an approximate measurement.

time zones for macapa and libreville 3 hours GMT Screenshot from 2017-03-30 15:12:05.png

Another reason I choose them was because around the equinox of March and September they are directly under the sun’s path, meaning we can make the all important 90° triangle, far better than at my previous location of 52 degrees North.

Macapa Brazil

macapa-brazil-sept-23-2016-showing-sun-over-head

Liberville Gabon

libreville-gabon-sept-23-2016-showing-sun-over-head-screenshot-from-2016-06-27-182609

So all we need now is the distance between Libreville and Macapa in order to determine the perceived height of the Sun above the stationary plane of Earth. This is where it got a bit tricky as google maps and google earth measure the rhumb line between any two objects, which translates to a Great Circle route. In this case it would measure around the equator at 4183 miles, but that’s not the straight line distance we are after, plus this distance is based on a ball earth model with an imaginary radius of 3959 miles.

libreville-gabon-to-macaba-brazil-4183-miles-screenshot-from-2016-06-27-175341

What we are wanting to calculate would be the red line in the diagram below based on the flat plane of Earth, whereas what we are told from google would be the green line based on a ball and as such, inaccurate.

how-to-calculate-the-cord-screenshot-from-2016-11-29-223146

At this point I went off to seek better brains than me (Cheers Adam @larcheored) and we started kicking around how to calculate it.

First we determined the longitudinal bearing of each location from the North Pole, so as to determine the angle between the two locations.

libreville macapa long Screenshot from 2017-03-28 21:11:09
Macapa is 51° West and Libreville is 9° East – giving us a polar angle of 60°. A 60° triangle is an equilateral triangle, and therefore all sides and angles are the same values. Meaning that the distance from the pole to Macapa is equal to the distance between the pole and Libreville, which is also the distance between Libreville and Macapa, and therefore, ultimately the nominal distance from the earth’s surface to the perceived height of the Sun.

So all we need to know now is the distance between the North pole and the equator on the flat Earth.

As it happens the ball earth answer to this is the same as the Flat Earth Gleason Map answer

On the ball, we are told that the distance from the Pole to the Equator is:

Ball earth distance to equator from pole 5400 NM Screenshot from 2017-03-28 19:54:58

Which is further confirmed by the inscription at the bottom of the Gleason’s Azimuthal Equidistant map

gleason 60 miles highlighted Screenshot from 2017-03-28 20:02:11.png

5400 nautical miles (90 degrees x 60 nautical miles) = 6214 Land miles from the Pole to the Equator.

We can note from Gleason’s that roughly 4 lines of longitude lay between Libreville and Macapa (leading to a distance figure of about 4000 miles if we assume the sun travels at 1000mph at the equator, as we are taught)

libreville and macapa on gleason's map Screenshot from 2017-03-23 14:24:40.png

However, if the radius of Earth’s pole to the equator is actually 6214 miles, this would make the circumference of the equator 39,043 miles, which in turn would mean that the sun’s speed is now more like 1626 mph as opposed to the prescribed 1000mph.

So if sun is travelling at 1626 mph then the distance between Libreville and Macapa would be more like 6507 miles (4×1626), however this would be the arc length (the green line below). Making the cord length between Libreville and Macapa the same as we previously calculated it to be – 6214 miles (According to this cord calculator)

gleason overlay with distances Screenshot from 2017-03-28 16:47:59.png

 

Therefore, this makes the true height of the perceived Sun to be

6214 miles or 10,000 Kilometres above the stationary plane

true height of the sun libreville macapa Screenshot from 2017-03-28 19:49:52.png

Since we can now remove the assumption that the Earth’s a ball, we are finally left with the assumption that modern navigation and Gleason’s measurements are correct (ie. 60 nautical miles to the degree). We cannot confirm this, of course, until we have a reliable map of our world, or we map it out ourselves. I would, however, concede that some things just have to be accurate for aviation, maritime and other industries to function with any degree of dependability …. time will tell.

So in conclusion the following can be argued:

The Height of the perceived sun is approximately
6214 miles (10,000 km) not 93 million miles

The speed of the Sun is approximately 1626 mph at the
equator not 1000mph

The distance between Macapa and Libreville is 6214 miles not 4183 miles.

Tobacco – Smokin’ the Propaganda

nicotiana-tobacco-plant-screenshot-from-2017-01-24-195735

So, it came to a point in time when I decided, as a researcher & a smoker, to find out about the horrors of tobacco. I figured I would scare the crap out of myself with the cold, hard facts about my awful vice, and have no other reason but to give up & live happily ever after.

I secretly hoped there was a conspiracy at play, and that the true amount of damage the evil weed was inflicting was, some how, not as bad as I’d been told my whole life. What I ended up finding was a rabbit hole of hidden studies, skewed statistics and out right fraud, leaving me with the resolute determination not to give up any time soon.

Let me clarify this from the beginning, I’m not talking about your branded packet cigarette here, I am talking about rolling tobacco, as pure as you can obtain & preferably home grown. So, from my research, it turns out there could be a very plausible reason why the Establishment does not want us to have access to mind altering substances such as nicotine and cannabinoids ….

“Increasingly, studies are beginning to show that complex information processing, and perhaps consciousness itself, may result from coordinated activity among many parts of the brain connected by bundles of long axons. Cognitive problems may occur when these areas don’t communicate properly with each other. […]

Using nicotine, they stimulated the axon to determine how it would affect a signal the brain cell sent to the cortex. Without applying nicotine, about 35 percent of the messages sent by the brain cell reached the cortex. But when nicotine was applied to the axon, the success rate nearly doubled to about 70 percent” [1]

“Nicotine DOUBLES the efficiency of our thinking. Hmmm… I think that makes it pretty clear why the PTB (Powers That Be) wish to stamp out smoking. After all, as one comment to the article mentioned, “if our immunity to emotional manipulation and psychopathic propaganda is directly proportional to the cortical control we can exert over the knee-jerk emotional reactions programmed into the amygdala. If smoking can DOUBLE the effective communication between the cortex and other parts of the brain, then what does that say about efforts to do away with smoking in the general population? Can’t have any of the hysterical sheeple accidentally waking up and thinking rationally about their actions.” [1]

As another ‘motive’ we could look at comparative costs, a tobacco product in 1994 was £2.40, it’s now nearly £10. That’s a nice little earner for the Establishment and cancer nazis. In 2012-13 the UK Government Mafia trousered £12 Billion from tobacco revenue (That’s nearly a fifth of the NHS budget. They plan on raising this cost by another 50% by 2020, but that’s beyond the remit of this blog post.

The proposals, put forward in a document by the Independent Cancer Taskforce, are part of the latest attempt to drastically cut down cancer deaths.

Currently, a packet of 20 cigarettes costs about £9.60, and tobacco is seen as being the main cause of cancer, followed by obesity.

The report suggests the 50 per cent price hike could be put into place by 2020.
(as reported in some controlled rag) [2]

So smoking is “seen” as being the main cause of cancer eh?

Well lets have a closer look at whether there is any evidence to back up such claims which inevitably domino on to what can only been described as ‘robbing us blind’ taxes. Have you seen the cost differences just across Europe? It’s the same product so why the enormous difference in price?

tobacco prices costs over EU europe Screenshot from 2017-01-24 20:22:47.png

For as long as I’ve been buying beer from the supermarkets it’s been possible to get a can of weak pish for 50p (using promotions and the football events etc). The price of a single can would be way over £2 by now if the Government had taxed it in line with tobacco, but I can still get nearly a pint for 50p today. Of course, the price of a pint in a local boozer has sky-rocketed along with tobacco, as they can’t have us socialising and communicating with each other, now can they. The last time I bought a pint in Britain it was £4.50 and that was a while ago. Tell me, would you pay £4.50 for a pint in the non-smoking pub, or would you pay 50p for nearly a pint in the comforts of your ‘own rulz’ realm at home?

Now this should tell you an awful lot about the motivations behind the ‘apparent’ vices our government pushes us towards and steers us away from – it’s called social engineering

bertrand-russell-mutton-quote-screenshot-from-2016-07-18-135950

Of course, the Establishment would like nothing better than to ban tobacco outright, but they’ve learnt from past attempts that the only way is by pricing most people out of the vice. This is a not so veiled display of taxing the poor and financial discrimination, but there is nothing new under this Sun.

smoking-ban-3-screenshot-from-2017-01-24-225009smoking-ban-2-screenshot-from-2017-01-24-224952smoking-bans-already-tried-screenshot-from-2017-01-24-224805

We have all seen the ‘nocebo’ inducing anti-smoking propaganda, shoved down our throat from day 1, so below is a collection of ‘alternative’ articles, studies & history you may not have been made aware of. The mental prisoners of peer review will be screaming at this point, but in reality there are dozens of studies & papers available for those that actually go looking.

As always, you decide…

 

The Smoking Gun

“Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”,

black lungs Screenshot from 2017-01-24 17:16:31.png

 …with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.”

 

The Truth About Tobacco with Richard White

http://www.sott.net/article/299965-The-Health-and-Wellness-Show-21-The-Truth-About-Tobacco-with-Richard-White

Right click to download, left click to stream online

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/709/show_7709943.mp3

Smoking Down, Lung Cancer Up

https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/smoking-down-lung-cancer-up/

In 1950, the first substantial post war antismoking statistics were published. They marked the starting point of a great stampede against smoking. Until now that stampede has lasted 60 years. Although it is showing signs of decay, it has not yet run out of steam.

The pretext for the antismoking stampede was, that by ‘eliminating’ smoking, lung cancer would be ‘eliminated’. While smoking has certainly lost some of its former popularity in the ‘western’ world, lung cancer remains on the rise. In the United States, cigarette sales topped in 1981, with 636 billion cigarettes. While cigarette consumption has almost dropped to half of this figure, the same cannot be said of lung cancer. Lung cancer does not seem to mind whether people smoke or not.

Once a year the American Cancer Association publishes estimates of cancer figures. The 2010 estimates were released recently. Lets have a look at them here:  Cancer Facts and Figures 2010.

Smoking and Lung Cancer Stats

https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/smoking-and-lung-cancer-stats/

“Greece has the highest prevalence of male smoking, but doesn’t have the highest incidence of male lung cancer. That honour goes to Hungary, where there are slightly fewer smokers than in neighbouring Austria.

Russia wins the prize for having the highest prevalence of male smoking, but it doesn’t have the highest incidence of lung cancer.

China is another hard-smoking country, not too far behind Russia, but it has male lung cancer incidence less than the USA, where less than half as many men smoke.

There is a higher prevalence of male smokers in India than in the USA, but only a fifth as much lung cancer.

There is a higher prevalence of smokers in the Yemen than in the USA, but the USA has 14 times as much lung cancer.”

 

Lies, Damned Lies & 400,000 Smoking-related Deaths: Cooking the Data in the Fascists’ Anti-Smoking Crusade

https://www.sott.net/article/229156-Lies-Damned-Lies-400000-Smoking-related-Deaths-Cooking-the-Data-in-the-Fascists-Anti-Smoking-Crusade

“Sterling and his coauthors report that not only is the death rate considerably lower for the CPS sample than for the entire U.S. but, astonishingly, even smokers in the CPS sample have a lower death rate than the national average for both smokers and nonsmokers. As a result, if OTA were to have used the CPS death rate for smokers, applied that rate to the total population, then subtracted the actual number of deaths for all Americans, it would have found that smoking saves 277,621 lives each year. The authors caution, of course, that their calculation is sheer nonsense, not a medical miracle. Those “lives would be saved only if the U.S. population would die with the death rate of smokers in the affluent CPS sample.” Unhappily, the death rate for Americans is considerably higher than that for the CPS sample.

 

Nicotine – The Zombie Antidote by Gabriela Segura, M.D.

https://www.sott.net/article/254745-Nicotine-The-Zombie-Antidote

Yes, tobacco has its pollutants, but they are found in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in baby food, you name it, in even higher concentrations. A conservative estimate is that over 80,000 new chemicals have been introduced into society since the 1800s, only a few hundred of which have been tested for safety; this doesn’t even take into consideration nanotechnology and GMOs, which are already pervasive in the food chain. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 2.5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released annually by large industrial facilities. And the authorities are worried about a plant that produces the learning and memory-enhancing, natural chemical nicotine? It really is laughable. You see what mainstream education indoctrination does to your brain? You breathe thousands of chemicals every time you inhale air, whether you like it or not, and whether or not you are sitting next to a smoker.

“Yes, you’re reading this right; as a doctor, I don’t discourage patients from smoking in this increasingly stressful world. I do encourage them to choose organic tobacco and papers, or to go back to the old traditional ways of smoking pipes or cigars. The smartest people on Earth smoke and it is a veritable sign of the times that smoking is so highly discouraged in this modern, zombie culture.”

Pestilence, the Great Plague and the Tobacco Cure

http://www.sott.net/article/234667-Pestilence-the-Great-Plague-and-the-Tobacco-Cure

“For personal disinfections nothing enjoyed such favour as tobacco; the belief in it was widespread, and even children were made to light up a reaf in pipes. Thomas Hearnes remembers one Tom Rogers telling him that when he was a scholar at Eton in the year that the great plague raged, all the boys smoked in school by order, and that he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking. It was long afterwards a tradition that none who kept a tobacconist shop in London had the plague.” – A J Bell writing in about 1700.

“When we connect the dots through medicine, science, history, psychology and sociology, the truth emerges plain as day: the all-out global propaganda campaign against tobacco is part of the same push for ‘full-spectrum dominance’ over humanity in all other spheres. The targets and victims of the fake ‘War on Terror’ are the same targets of the war against tobacco. We are expected to believe that our wonderful ‘leaders’ encourage us to eat poisonous GMO food yet are oh, so concerned about the alleged health effects from smoking? Give us a break!”

Let’s All Light Up!

http://www.sott.net/article/139304-Lets-All-Light-Up

Long-Term Smoking Protects Against Parkinson’s, Study Confirms

https://www.sott.net/article/204692-Long-Term-Smoking-Protects-Against-Parkinsons-Study-Confirms

Dr Michael Greger doctor talking about smoking being good for you (tobacco)

20minutes in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajhX5jWmlL0&feature=youtu.be&t=1177

Medicinal uses of tobacco in history

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/

Above, is a mainstream article on the medicinal uses of tobacco that manages to stay within the confines of Establishment acceptability with it’s continual assurance that tobacco is not good for you these days, it was just a fad… nothing to see here

Further reading:

Enough Is Enough: Attitudes to UK Smoking Policies 2016

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2017/1/25/supermarket-sweep-mp-wants-ban-on-sale-of-tobacco-in-major-c.html

The Smoking Scare Debunked by Dr W T Witby

smoking-fascism-screenshot-from-2017-01-24-211254

 

The Great Gyroscope Bearing Friction Test (finally)

[UPDATED] Edited version of both gyroscope experiments (far more viewer friendly)

Since uploading the original 6hr gyroscope test to determine whether the earth was turning or not, I have been keen to run a test confirming the bearing in the gyroscope gimbal was sensitive enough for the job at hand. This sounded like an easy enough task, but after a number of attempts with bits of things I had lying around, I soon found out it was actually quite tricky. The experiment is a follow-up to the original 6hr gyroscope
experiment found here
or the much more palatable 3min summery here:
The purpose of the experiment was to test whether the friction in the main bearing of my gyroscope gimbal would be strong enough to overcome the proposed slow rotation of the Earth The initial experiment spanned 6 hrs and was designed to demonstrate the Earth rotation (ala Foucault 1852), however, as predicted the gyroscope didn't move at all. The YouTube comments suggested (some quite rationally & politely) that friction in the bearing was to blame for the non-movement, and invalidated the whole thing. (click the images to enlarge)
There was even a response from the manufacturing company owner 
http://imgur.com/HbwcsTc
The discussions carried on on Twitter too
https://twitter.com/swearyG/status/802999624705409024
About  year ago I contacted the owner of the manufacturing company that made 
the Precision Gyroscope and had some in-depth discussion on the topic.
Mr. Turner was convinced that his Precision Gyroscope was not capable of 
registering any movement of the earth, [wait for it] due to the amount of friction on the main bearing, and therefore it was not capable of registering 15 degrees
of movement every hour, or the rotation of the earth.
I maintained that it would be sensitive enough, due to the high 12,000 rpm 
being able to generate more than ample energy to overcome any bearing 
friction from an already precision tooled main bearing.
This was, of course, just my opinion.

Unfortunately Mr. Turner has not been back on twitter since we talked, but 
I will email him shortly to inform him of the results.
glenn turner gyroscope twitter Screenshot from 2017-01-08 223740.png 

So, I've been working on a viable way to #TESTIT

In order to test this opinion, I obtained a high torque 24 hour clock mechanism 
where the hour hand shaft rotated 360 degrees in 24 hours (same as the 
proposed spin of the earth)
I attached a platform to this hour hand shaft and placed the gyroscope 
on top of the platform
gyro friction 2 Screenshot from 2017-01-09 18-50-21.png

I could see two possible outcomes

If the gyroscope was not sensitive enough to register the hour hand turning, then the entire gyroscope and gimbal would have rotated with the 15 degree per hour platform.

Alternatively, should the gyroscope be sensitive enough for the job, then we would see the gimbal legs move with the platform, BUT the gyroscope would remain ‘rigid in space’ and pointing in the same direction it was when it was spun up.

[Unedited raw version)

As we will see from this initial 2 hour test, the gyroscope performed perfectly and remained rigid, thus demonstrating that it IS sensitive enough to register a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour, or 360 degrees per 24 hours., or the claimed rotation of the spinning ball earth

 

So What Does This All Mean

Though the video is mind numbingly boring, despite something actually moving this
time, It’s significance is literally world stopping

What this means is that the main criticism regarding the initial “Spin of the Earth Detection Experiment” has now been shown to be unwarranted. Meaning the 6hr non-rotation  demonstration and results still stand, unchallenged.

Via the Scientific Method –

EARTH IS STILL A STATIONARY PLANE

[PS. Please feel free to provide any counter evidence that refutes this, but I do mean actual evidence not just opinion from the peanut gallery]

The Religion Of Scientism: A Steaming Pile of Peer Review

hubble-meme-screenshot-from-2016-12-22-170704

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf

What Hubble is literally saying in his book, is that the results do not match the theory, so therefore, the results will have to be changed.

From the above testimony of Edwin Hubble, it’s clear to see how personal beliefs and dogmas can influence the outcome of new findings without the trusting public ever knowing the hidden agendas.

I get numerous Pseudo-Science Wiki Warriors smugly drawing any debate to a halt by simply using the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. These disciples of Scienctism merely need to demand “Peer Reviewed” papers and studies or we should yield to their ‘superior’ evidence and intelligence. In this developing Technocratic world, is it not becoming more and more vital to hold our ‘knowledge dictators’ to the standards they claim to employ themselves.

Not only have we been lied to about our cosmology, history, and anthropology, but also the very profession most people blindly entrust their well being to, the medical profession. Although the shape of our world is important, as is whether or not giant lizards came before us, or if it all started with a big bang from nothing – all huge subjects to debate which have a massive bearing on our lives, however, none of them directly affect our health and well being as much as the lofty claims of the synthetic medicine industry.

To blindly trust a medical professional (from any training discipline) is to relinquish responsibility for your health and possibly your life. This decision is purely based on the assumption that said professionals know what they are doing and endeavour to work in your best interests.

The bedrock of this lofty position of godlike knowledge and understanding is the Peer Review Process, which is sold to us as the pinnacle of scholarly fact checking. In reality it’s nothing more than ‘jobs for the boys’ or as Ken Wheeler puts it…

…peer review means you kiss a bunch of ass-holes of people above you, you agree with their crap. And all those people did, was agree with crap before them. It’s a giant circle jerk of stupidity, ignorance and hubris[2]

In a more formal light, we are told…

“Origin of the peer review process
Most often authors date the advent of what we now call editorial peer review to the 1752 Royal Society of London’s development of a “Committee on Papers” to oversee the review of text for publication in the journal Philosophical Transactions. Others insist the Royal Society of Edinburgh had a similar system in place as early as 1731. Peer review pre-dates the invention of the scholarly journal.  Early scientists circulated letters among their peers or read papers in society meetings to report the results of their investigations in hopes of response.  Initially peer review was designed to assist editors in selection of manuscripts, rather than to authenticate findings, and the responsibility for integrity relied on the author.  The origin of the process is from state censorship as developed through practices of state supported academies, as well as an attempt to augment the authority of a journal’s editor.  It was not until the middle of the 20th century that medical journals used outside reviewers to vet manuscripts.  This long history makes it difficult to imagine scholarship without the process. (Fitzpatrick)” [1]

Note how this process is designed to assist editors rather than to authenticate findings, and that the responsibility for integrity relied on the author. Can anyone else see a problem here?

Don’t take Dr. Marcia Angell or my word for it …what follows is a collection of Peer Review headlines, mainly from the medial profession, as this was my chosen focus, but can be applied to most modern pseudo-science professions today.

Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self Correcting |Scientific Credibility: A Fluctuating Trajectory

Authored by John P. A. Ioannidis ( @teppofelin ) Professor at Oxford Saïd | Oxford University

First Published November 7, 2012

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691612464056

“Abstract

The ability to self-correct is considered a hallmark of science. However, self-correction does not always happen to scientific evidence by default. The trajectory of scientific credibility can fluctuate over time, both for defined scientific fields and for science at-large. History suggests that major catastrophes in scientific credibility are unfortunately possible and the argument that “it is obvious that progress is made” is weak. Careful evaluation of the current status of credibility of various scientific fields is important in order to understand any credibility deficits and how one could obtain and establish more trustworthy results. Efficient and unbiased replication mechanisms are essential for maintaining high levels of scientific credibility. Depending on the types of results obtained in the discovery and replication phases, there are different paradigms of research: optimal, self-correcting, false nonreplication, and perpetuated fallacy. In the absence of replication efforts, one is left with unconfirmed (genuine) discoveries and unchallenged fallacies. In several fields of investigation, including many areas of psychological science, perpetuated and unchallenged fallacies may comprise the majority of the circulating evidence. I catalogue a number of impediments to self-correction that have been empirically studied in psychological science. Finally, I discuss some proposed solutions to promote sound replication practices enhancing the credibility of scientific results as well as some potential disadvantages of each of them. Any deviation from the principle that seeking the truth has priority over any other goals may be seriously damaging to the self-correcting functions of science.”

CIA Director everything the american public believe is false quote william casey Screenshot from 2015-09-25 13:09:35.png

CIA owns everyone in the media quote by director of CIA Screenshot from 2016-10-22 13:35:12.png

Don’t talk to me about ‘Peer Review’.

Thr following is mainly centred on the Medical industry, but is rife on all areas of soi-disant ‘Science’

Major Medical Journal Retracts Numerous Scientific Papers After Fake Peer-Review Scandal

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-08/major-medical-journal-retracts-numerous-scientific-papers-after-fake-peer-review-sca

“A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications. As The Washington Post reports, BioMed Central – a well-known publication of peer-reviewed journals – shows a partial list of the retracted articles suggests most of them were written by scholars at universities in China. The Committee on Publication Ethics stated, it “has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals… that need to be retracted.”

Peer review is the vetting process designed to guarantee the integrity of scholarly articles by having experts read them and approve or disapprove them for publication. With researchers increasingly desperate for recognition, citations and professional advancement, the whole peer-review system has come under scrutiny in recent years for a host of flaws and irregularities, ranging from lackadaisical reviewing to cronyism to outright fraud.

And as The Washington Post reports,
  BioMed Central, based in the United Kingdom, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications…”

sciece peer falsifiable Screenshot from 2016-12-21 23:54:53.png

‘Evidence-Based’ Medicine: A Coin’s Flip Worth of Certainty

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/evidence-based-medicine-coins-flip-worth-certainty

nikola-tesla-quotes-science-reality-6

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/

“In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

This is quite distrubing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.”

FE Neil degrasse tyson science is true whether you belive it or not Screenshot from 2015-08-02 18_05_39.png

Independent scientists WARN: ‘Most currently published research findings are FALSE…’

http://www.naturalnews.com/054112_research_fraud_Big_Pharma_independent_science.html

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of [The New] England Journal of Medicine” — These are the words of Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long-time editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed science journals in the world.

The Lancet, another top, well respected peer-reviewed medical journal also publishes research findings that are unreliable and many times false. The current editor-in-chief, Dr. Richard Horton recently spoke out about the fake science often published in the prestigious medical journal. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness,” he warns, as reported by Collective-Evolution.com.”

Publishing: The peer-review scam

When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky 26 November 2014

http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400

“In 2012, he confronted Moon, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. The deception had not been hard to set up. Supuran’s journal and several others published by Informa Healthcare in London invite authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers. So Moon provided names, sometimes of real scientists and sometimes pseudonyms, often with bogus e-mail addresses that would go directly to him or his colleagues. His confession led to the retraction of 28 papers by several Informa journals, and the resignation of an editor.

Moon’s was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers’ computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that — in at least one of the systems — could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. “For a piece of software that’s used by hundreds of thousands of academics worldwide, it really is appalling,” says Mark Dingemanse, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who has used some of these programs to publish and review papers.”

george bernard shaw quote re science and the flat earth Screenshot from 2016-10-06 11:52:56.png

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility

Dubious studies on the danger of hurricane names may be laughable. But bad science can cause bad policy.

July 13, 2014

http://archive.is/20160218054852/www.wsj.com/articles/hank-campbell-the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

“Academic publishing was rocked by the news on July 8 that a company called Sage Publications is retracting 60 papers from its Journal of Vibration and Control, about the science of acoustics. The company said a researcher in Taiwan and others had exploited peer review so that certain papers were sure to get a positive review for placement in the journal. In one case, a paper’s author gave glowing reviews to his own work using phony names.

Acoustics is an important field. But in biomedicine faulty research and a dubious peer-review process can have life-or-death consequences. In June, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and responsible for $30 billion in annual government-funded research, held a meeting to discuss ways to ensure that more published scientific studies and results are accurate. According to a 2011 report in the monthly journal Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn’t be reproduced.

That finding was a bombshell. Replication is a fundamental tenet of science, and the hallmark of peer review is that other researchers can look at data and methodology and determine the work’s validity. Dr. Collins and co-author Dr. Lawrence Tabak highlighted the problem in a January 2014 article in Nature. “What hope is there that other scientists will be able to build on such work to further biomedical progress,” if no one can check and replicate the research, they wrote.”

Copernicus quote don't believe astronomy Screenshot from 2015-11-05 22_33_01.png

copernicus-quote-about-pythagorean-heliocentric-hypothesis-screenshot-from-2016-09-26-182927

Major publisher retracts 64 scientific papers in fake peer review outbreak

August 18, 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/18/outbreak-of-fake-peer-reviews-widens-as-major-publisher-retracts-64-scientific-papers/

“Made-up identities assigned to fake e-mail addresses. Real identities stolen for fraudulent reviews. Study authors who write glowing reviews of their own research, then pass them off as an independent report.

These are the tactics of peer review manipulators, an apparently growing problem in the world of academic publishing.

Peer review is supposed to be the pride of the rigorous academic publishing process. Journals get every paper reviewed and approved by experts in the field, ensuring that problematic research doesn’t make it to print.

But increasingly journals are finding out that those supposedly authoritative checks are being rigged.

In the latest episode of the fake peer review phenomenon, one of the world’s largest academic publishers, Springer, has retracted 64 articles from 10 of its journals after discovering that their reviews were linked to fake e-mail addresses. The announcement comes nine months after 43 studies were retracted by BioMed Central (one of Springer’s imprints) for the same reason.”

Big Bang quote Screenshot from 2015-10-06 22_09_00.png

Up To 50% Of Govt-Funded Scientific Research Is Totally Flawed, Says New Report

“Government funding is leading to scientific research that can’t be replicated, according to a new report detailing growing problems in the scientific community.Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the report illustrates how scientific research is susceptible to bias when it is funded by the government and how a considerable number of scientific studies cannot be replicated or reproduced. As a result, government policy based on the research isn’t based on scientific methods and cannot be accepted as fact.

“Medical research, psychology, and economics are all in the grip of a ‘reproducibility crisis.’ A pharmaceutical company attempting to confirm the findings of 53 landmark cancer studies was successful in only six instances, a failure rate of 89%. ” Donna Laframboise, a journalist who authored the report, said in a statement. “Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test.”

Laframboise and the GWPF suspect that environmental and climate science are also in the grips of a similar crisis of reproducibility — much of climate modelling is done via supercomputers and therefore cannot be easily checked by peer reviewers or the general public.”

einstein quote on maths and reality Screenshot from 2015-09-10 14_11_50.png

George Ellis and Joe Silk attack untestable cosmological theories in Nature

https://winteryknight.com/2014/12/22/george-ellis-and-joe-silk-attack-untestable-cosmologocial-theories-in-nature/

“This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.). In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid and cosmologist Sean Carroll have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.”

lawrence-krauss-quote-earth-centre-of-universe-or-all-science-is-wrong-screenshot-from-2016-03-16-172231

Twitter peer review blog

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/02/words-are-magic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/voxpopoli+%28Vox+Popoli

Words are magic

A minor dialogue on Twitter cracked me up today. To put it in context, some scientists and science fetishists on Twitter were in an uproar over my assertion that SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW was not only unreliable, but was nothing more than glorified proofreading. They argued that SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW was all about replicating experiments and testing conclusions, not merely reading over the material in order to make sure the author wasn’t smoking crack.

One guy even demanded to know if I knew what “peer” meant. Because, you know, that totally changes the process.

Finally, I asked a scientist how many peer reviews he had done. Between 10 and 30 was the answer. Fair enough. Then I asked him how many experiments he had replicated as part of those SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWS.

None. Or to put in scientific mathematical terms, zero. Also known as “the null set”.

And what did he actually do in scientifically peer-reviewing these papers? Well, he read them and occasionally made some suggestions for improving them.”

carbon-dating-quote-screenshot-from-2016-10-10-165004

The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?

By Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD BSEM March 2011
The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention

Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British

Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8

Introduction

No pharmaceutical drug is devoid of risks from adverse reactions and vaccines are no exception. According to the world’s leading drug regulatory authority, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines represent a special category of drugs in that they are generally given to healthy individuals and often to prevent a disease to which an individual may never be exposed [1]. This, according to the FDA, places extra emphasis on vaccine safety. Universally, regulatory authorities are responsible for ensuring that new vaccines go through proper scientific evaluation before they are approved. An equal responsibility rests on the medical profession to promote vaccinations but only with those vaccines whose safety and efficacy has been demonstrated to be statistically significant. Furthermore, vaccination is a medical intervention and as such, it should be carried out with the full consent of those who are being subjected to it. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable risks and benefits and, where applicable, a description of alternative courses of treatment. In cases where children and infants are involved, full consent with regards to vaccination should be given by the parents.
Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.

http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BSEM-2011.pdf

theoretical science from earth is not a globe twitter Screenshot from 2016-06-11 15:18:36.png


40 percent of scientists admit that fraud is always or often a factor that contributes to irreproducibile research

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research.

http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

“More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature‘s survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant ‘crisis’ of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.

crisis in science peer review Screenshot from 2016-12-21 23:14:38.png

Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. When he was a student, he says, “I tried to replicate what looked simple from the literature, and wasn’t able to. Then I had a crisis of confidence, and then I learned that my experience wasn’t uncommon.”

Creationist receives six-figure legal settlement from public university

 ‘We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29337/

“A creationist scholar recently received a six-figure settlement from California State University Northridge, a payout that resolved a 2-year-old lawsuit that alleged the scholar had been fired after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops horn and publishing his findings.

The plaintiff, Mark Armitage, had alleged religious discrimination and a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act in his suit, claiming in court documents that after his discovery – which supports a young Earth theory – some professors went on a successful “witchhunt” against him.

Armitage’s attorney, Alan Reinach, called the settlement “groundbreaking,” noting that in his decades practicing law he is unaware of any other favorable settlement of this nature on behalf of a creationist.

‘We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

club of rome quote Screenshot from 2016-08-17 20:34:40.png

 

So lets look at some Peer Reviewed Papers, this one looks very apt for this blog….

 

peer-review-pay-for-pay-wall-screenshot-from-2016-11-15-224137

Oh dear, seems we have to pay for the ‘good stuff’

pay-for-peer-review-pay-wall-screenshot-from-2016-11-15-224235

pay for science carl smythe Screenshot from 2016-10-19 15:09:42.png

This about sums up where we are headed in our Brave New World:

bertrand-russell-mutton-quote-screenshot-from-2016-07-18-135950

Meet the Borg

twitter not a peer Screenshot from 2016-06-06 13:05:08.png

why-science-is-in-such-a-mess-screenshot-from-2016-05-30-190414

moon phases caused by moon shadow Screenshot from 2016-12-21 23:35:51.png

Remember the following and you can’t go too wrong

FE science verses theoretical science chart.jpg

Flat Earth FAQs by Research Royal Rife

Flat Earth: Refraction! Stick and Shadow, Mirage, Experiments, FAQ, Documentary, AWESOME!

Flat Earth FAQ

What are the greatest proofs of a flat earth?

If the earth was a ball, we can calculate the curvature at 8 inches per mile squared (8x^2). This means for example, that at 15 miles away we should have a 150 foot drop. This would easily hide islands, boats, lighthouses, cities and so much more. However that is not what we see. In fact, we can sometimes see 50 plus miles away on a clear day which should be impossible. Since it would result in thousands of feet of curvature. Even at 15 miles there should be a staggering 150 foot drop. However boats, islands and many other things are easily seen at that distance. There is an overwhelming amount of videos showing this. So the myth of things disappearing over the water line has other causes. Over the water there is a lot of refraction and extremely dense air which can occasionally block the bottom of buildings and boats. This air and refraction can cause “Inferior Mirage”, “Fata Morgana” and “Superior Mirage” which can cause light to bend up or down. Air to dense water bends down, dense water to less dense air bends up. Temperature can effect this as well. Air density can block things that are too far away like looking through 1000 sheets of glass. Compare to a foggy day where you can’t see even a few feet in front of you. However, things are seen even at 100 miles away such as Corsica which would be over a mile of curvature. There are too many examples of this to ignore. Also independent high altitude balloon footage not fitted with a fish eye lens shows no signs of curvature even at 20+ miles of altitude. There are so many proofs for example the lack of observable spin, longitude lines and distances over the southern hemisphere, experiments that invalidate curvature and so forth. All of the best information on the subject is scattered throughout the internet and YouTube. However there are priceless gems of information in corners of the internet. A good place to start looking for proof is in Eric Dubays “200 proofs the earth is not a spinning globe”. It should be stated here, that the flat earth movement is about disproving the globe theory and providing a superior model to replace it with. It is a search for truth using science and it is a model of fewer assumptions.

How does the sun set on a flat earth?

Continue reading

Flat Earth Documentary & Transcript by Research Royal Rife

Flat Earth: Refraction! Stick and Shadow, Mirage, Experiments, FAQ, Documentary, AWESOME!

Transcript

Here we will run an experiment and prove that light refracts and even bends in the air. We will show how this effects the famous “Stick and Shadow” experiment. We will show that the method by Eratosthenes to prove a round earth is completely unreliable. We will show how refraction can cause the sun and moon to curve towards you. We will explain why refraction is one of the most important topics in Flat Earth and how it works greatly in favor of it. Other topics covered will be the Stratosphere, Density Gradients, Snells law, Fata Morgana and Mirages, Nikola Tesla, The Suncalc website, Sunsets, The Azimuth Equidistant Map, The False Math Of Relativity, The Diameter of the Sun, The Moons Face, Light Speed Fallacy and Several Other topics. If you want to see specific topics here is a table of contents. However we recommend you watch the entire video especially the parts on refraction.

In our last video, we proved that air density can cause the sun to get cut off from the bottom because air isn’t transparent. However, now people have asked about the suns position in the sky and it’s elevation angle and if it truly could set based on estimations of its size. I’ve decided to make one final video on the subject to cover other important topics, a few which have not been discussed yet in the Flat Earth Movement.

In the experiment, we made sure to make accurate measurements to determine the altitude of a laser pointer using the “Stick and Shadow” method. We simulate refraction in the atmosphere using a pale of water. Then we triangulate the difference in altitude.

First you can see the setup of this experiment so you can try it at home. You would need a laser pointer, pale of water, a thin stick, and a tape measurer.

We made measurements and marked them, we ran the experiment several times and with different lights.

The “Stick and Shadow” experiment method of measuring the suns distance is one of the oldest “Round Earth” experiments. It was widely ignored for thousands of years by all major cultures and religions until the theories become popular again in Europe. The technique involves measuring the height of a shadow compared to the object that casts it. Then you have a right angled triangle. If you measure the distance of that city to a second city or a city that is 90 degrees below the sun, you can get a very good guess of the height of the sun. Eratosthenes guessed that the Earth might be round because he was unable to get an accurate lock on the Suns altitude from this experiment. It’s worth pointing out that the stick and shadow is much worse at predicting the suns altitude in a round earth and it is not even used to do so.

The experiment is a complete fallacy. Mainly because the atmosphere is layered. These layers create a density gradient. Each layer will refract light in a different direction because the refractive index of the primary elements it contains will be different. For our example, we prove how when moving from air to water the Shadow will increase resulting in a lower than expected elevation. The reverse is true when moving from water to air. Or more specifically from a high refractive environment to a low one.

Here you can see us move the water in and out of the path of the laser. There are a few things that happens. First the Shadow Length increases a couple inches. Also we can tell that the position of the light on the ground has changed. Additionally the diameter of the light has increased. This works against a round earth especially when they say they don’t see an increase in the suns diameter at sunset. Mainly because the sun would pass through water and other refractive mediums and absolutely increase its appearance if their claim had any truth in it. Furthermore you can even see the angle change within the water which is quite beautiful. If we film from under the basin we can see the sun change positions. To prove that the plastic container does not greatly exaggerate the Shadow or light we remove it from the light. Although it does cause a slight difference its not as significant as the water. We take water out of the container and then we pour it back in. In this segment you can watch as the Shadow grows in the light. You can also watch the light change positions on the ground. And here for comparative purposes, we shine a regular light on the stick. Here we show how the shape of the container such as the case with a cloud can do the reverse and shrink the Shadow causing the appearance of a higher Sun. We show side by side a ball of crystal and the round water container. At the conclusion of this experiment we triangulated the values of the measurements to show the difference in altitude. The results are shown here. In a moment we will teach you how to triangulate these.

Many Flat Earthers say the sun is 3000 miles up. It is unclear what experiment is used to know the true height of the sun. Our guess is, no such experiment will exist any time soon. In any case, this would mean a 25 degree elevation angle at sunset. Obviously even with air density blocking the sun that is hard justify.

It turns out, that the Sun and Moon tend to set on the Horizon at roughly 10,000 kilometers away from the observer. If the stick and Shadow experiment change due to atmosphere, the question remains in which direction does it change? And how does this effect both models?

First of all, for every question we answer there will always be two new questions. We are all in the search for truth. With the exception of the enemies of truth of course. The question you need to ask yourself is, what model has a greater margin of error? A flat earth or a round one? In the game of pool, the longer the shot the more difficult it is to make. If you are going to claim the sun is 93 million miles away, even the slightest change in angle of elevation will debunk your model.

Let me introduce you to the absolute beauty of refraction. In this video, you can see how light bends in water. In our experiment the angle was straight. But what is happening here? Why is light bending? Well, the best part is, you can repeat this experiment at home! You just need a pale of water, some sugar and a laser pointer. In our last video we discussed buoyancy. Well, the sugar dissolves in the water and then goes to the bottom of the pale. To make the experiment even more fun, try adding different dyes or even try adding oil. You can see in each medium the lights angle will do something completely different.

This is what is called a “density gradient”. Our atmosphere is a giant density gradient. It is filled with many different chemicals. The troposphere contains a lot of water. Humidity can be 30% or it can be 70%. The lower atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen, it also includes Argon, Helium, Hydrogen, Methane and many other chemicals. There is other levels of atmosphere unfortunately off limits to citizens. The highest unmanned balloon a citizen has launched into the sky was 53 kilometers. Because of buoyancy helium and hydrogen rise. Therefore there is tremendous amounts of those elements in the Stratosphere. There is also the ozone layer filled with O3 Oxygen and there is the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere can ionize the air and obviously a magnet can have profound effects on light. This effect is called the “Faraday effect”. Its where the polarization of the light is rotated while it travels through transparent materials. There are many lab experiments to show electromagnetic effects on light. Although this is a field that requires even more study. Some scientists say that magnets don’t effect light but consider that light is moving at extreme speeds. So a single magnet may not be too noticeable. However a giant magnetic field such as the earths field can certainly effect light. As you can see, buoyancy absolutely MUST separate the elements of greater densities. This means, that NASA is clearly not telling us the truth about the elements contained in the Stratosphere and they are probably not telling the truth about the air pressure there either. When hydrogen and helium rise, they obviously do not disappear. No they settle at the top, they stay there. It is almost a unbelievable that they say Nitrogen is the most common element in the sky when its clear that Helium and Hydrogen rise. Not to mention other combinations thereof. Take a look at our buoyancy diagram. This is what we call a density gradient. The cut off lines are actually pretty clear. Lets take a look at a density gradient in a laboratory. Here we can see that light is bent downwards and then it is bent upwards. In fact, they even split the beam of light to recombine it later. Pretty amazing right?

Still not convinced? Take a look at this clip of the North Pole sun mirage!! They see the sun during a time of year where it should be impossible. It may be due to the magnetic pole or some other refractive phenomenon. There have been experiments to show how light can bend up or down in our atmosphere. Over the water, it would be more probable that light bends downwards very slightly near the ocean line as light descends. This is because as you get closer to the water, the amount of water particles increases. This increase in density causes light to go from a refractive medium to an even more refractive medium. This is called Snells Law. This could add to the list of possible causes for cities to get cut off at the bottom over the water line. What is cool about Snells law is when you send light back angled up from the water, the light can bend upwards. This has been seen in different Flat Earth laser tests. The experimenter has to be extremely careful to keep the laser as straight as possible and over several miles this becomes almost impossible. Imagine shooting a pool ball into a hole 10 miles away. Snells law is basically an equation that is used for calculating the change in the angle of light as it passes from one medium to another. So we can mathematically compute and guess how much light might bend in each medium. Lets take a look at a refraction simulator online. First you can calculate light going from air into water like in the case of a city. Remember the city is on land so the water density is lower there. As you can see the lower the altitude of the light projection, the more the light falls when it hits the water. This works in favor of Flat Earth in any case because a city Skyline would have more trouble curving over the horizon when moving from air to water because it refracts light downward slightly. However if you are in the ocean and you shine light upwards, the reverse happens. Lets take a look at what happens when we go from water to air. Amazing right? The closer you are to the light source the less it refracts. Although in our atmosphere these changes are subtle they are significant over many miles.

Lets take a look at this site here: http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/

They sort some elements by their refractive index. Notice there are still tons of materials not on this list. But this is a great reference. So we can see that Hydrogen is 4 times more refractive than Helium. And lucky for us, Hydrogen is more buoyant. So for the 300 or more miles of atmosphere depending on how high you guess the sun to be, light will travel significant distances bent upwards towards the observer. Extreme heat or Cold from the sun can certainly forge elements such as Helium Hydride or even stranger elements. Its fair to say unless parts of Space reach -300 degrees, we will probably not see liquid Hydrogen. However on the internet people seem to say in some cases the atmosphere is extremely cold. It creates an inversion layer supposedly. Maybe it just depends on where the sun is. It has been estimated that there is Helium Hydride in Stratosphere. Now if we consider that Hydrogen is above Helium, this element will form a nice little lens compounding the amount of refraction that the light experiences. Even a thin layer would be significant. Imagine light passing through hundreds of tiny little lenses. In order for it to exist, it must be in an excited state and I think the tremendous heat of the stratosphere would be a catalyst for this. I would like to see some experiments done with refractivity of materials like these. I expect it to be significant. You see., an element on its own is not even close to the refractive index of a combined element and the direction of refractivity may indeed change depending on the combination. For example, water is significantly more refractive than Hydrogen or Oxygen on their own. Why the dramatic change? Because the elements form a little lens. Lets take a look at the periodic table sorted by density.

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic-chart-elements/density.htm

Using this, we can know how some of the elements will be ordered in the atmosphere and what direction light will bend for each layer. But don’t let that dominate your calculations because what matters is the amount of miles light will travel at that angle before crossing into the next medium. Also, it matters greatly the different materials in the atmosphere, do not limit your bias to elements only. Refraction increases dramatically when you combine elements. For example, how does O-Zone effect and refract light and how thick is the layer? Don’t count on NASA for honest statistics here. For example, when light goes from Helium to Lithium, Lithium is only 0.23 refractivity and Helium is more than 4 times more refractive. So again light refracts upwards and quite significantly. Lithium passes to Argon and light will refract downwards. And it will go down again from Argon to Nitrogen and then again slightly from Nitrogen to Oxygen. However a big change will happen when light passes through water in the upper atmosphere to air which will refract light upwards again. There doesn’t seem to be much Argon or Lithium in the atmosphere. Ionized particles need to be considered too and particles such as Dihydrogen, Dioxygen and so forth. It’s no surprise that people see Sun Dogs and other anomalies in the sky. If you consider that Dihydrogen may exist in the Hydrogen layer of the atmosphere, then when moving into Helium the refraction angle will be very significant. Light will bend for potentially hundreds of miles up towards the observer.

One quick note before we proceed. Explaining our world is not easy. We realize that there will be some debate over how much light is refracted, at what point light refracts up or down, whether or not there is a dome and so forth. We are not trying to add to the list of theories. We are simply pointing out a scientific fact that absolutely 100% MUST be discussed. I’m going to assume that because of how many factors there are involved, that being able to calculate this mathematically is impossible.

However lucky for us we already have evidence that works in the favor of flat earth! Its called advanced Sunrise and delayed Sunset. This is where the sun sets later than it should. Sometimes the sun rises earlier than it should. This is evidence that the suns light bends upwards towards you. In fact, even according to Wikipedia, which is usually very anti-conspiracy, the Sun has been seen to set, and the rise again only to set again within the same hour. This can be found under the entry for Atmospheric Refraction. Although I don’t really like using Wwikipedia since news articles have been published showing the majority of Wikipedia edits in some categories come from CIA datacenters, lets use it anyways to get some ideas.

First of all, their image for the sun is totally bizarre, why do they have the suns ray pointing upwards and bending downwards. Don’t the majority of the suns rays come in straight? In fact, if the atmosphere bends light towards us, why does it ever get dark? Isn’t the sun in their opinion millions of miles in diameter?

Anyways, the actual diagram should look something more like this. Here the light comes in straight and bends up. Just like we calculated.

First off it says they will never shoot a star 20 degrees below the horizon because of refraction. Then it says that refraction is caused by the temperature gradient, the temperature, pressure, and humidity. This is extremely interesting! Did they forget the refractive index? We just got finished looking at refractive index and they ignore it. But they added some useful information. Temperature. This is a huge factor in refraction. You see the atmosphere gets extremely cold in some places and extremely hot in others. You will see how much this matters in a moment. Here they say something else. They say, when the bottom of the sun touches the horizon its true altitude is negative!! Did you see that? This means it shouldn’t be there. And since they are assuming a curved earth, imagine they assumed at flat earth. That would really change their calculations.

It then talks about how the sun set only to rise again an hour later. That’s right an hour later. And then it set an hour after that. And then rose and set again within the next 20 minutes.

A classic example of advanced Sunrise and Sunset. Then they give some formulas. Although these formulas are pretty useless because they would have to know the exact elements contained in the atmosphere and the exact changes in temperature especially in the Thermosphere that only NASA and a handful of governments claim to have access to. And even then, a calculation so complex would never be reduced to such a trivial equation. However this formula is interesting… here it says the amount of refraction increases 1% for every 3 degrees decrease in temperature and increases 1% for every 3 degrees increase in temperature. How these were arrived at is not really clear. It looks like they base this off the previous equations… and more assumptions, the numbers seem way too linear. But if this is true, then the extreme cold or heat will dramatically change refraction.

Is there an experiment we can do home to prove this equation? Probably not, and I’m sure it wouldn’t really give us any help on how the extreme heat of the sun effects things. After all, on a hot day over a road, light stars bending all over the place. We can probably just relate this to pressure and density. Cold air is more compact with more molecules and hot air disperses with less density. So that effects the density gradient. This is why hot air balloons rise.

They say you can see certain dispersed wavelengths with a refraction corrector, which is a rotating prism but I doubt this would work over long distances because that light could easily be blocked and reflected.

Also, the refraction of light makes calculation of Stellar Parralax completely impossible. Especially on the ground. In fact, refraction pretty much debunks the idea that stars are traveling up to a billion light years to reach us. The probability that the light would be refracted, curved and generally moved all over the place after anywhere from quintillions to septillions of miles may as well be 100%. Even a change in a quadrillionth of a degree would cause the light to miss the earth completely. At the very least you would see stars disappear for a little while to reappear again or you would see them move around. Have you ever watched a light in moving water? Noticed how it bounces all over the place? Convenient for NASA that they tell you that Space is just infinite miles of Vacuum, even though they never have been there. This is probably another reason they tell you the Galaxy and Solar System are Flat to avoid the amount of protests they would get otherwise. Also if astronomers avoid filming stars 20 degrees above horizon because of refraction, that alone is enough to prove to you that their calculations of parallax are not scientific.

If you triangulate a 10,000 kilometer Sunset at 300 miles to the end of the Stratosphere, we get a 2-3 degree angle of Sunset. This certainly makes the Sun easier to block with air. In fact, anything up to 10 degrees is optimal.

Another reason this subject is so important is because it can potentially explain why the moon only shows one face. Flat Earthers tend to ignore this problem. The moon, no matter where you stand shows the same side. What type of magic holography is this? Well if you consider the atmosphere is potentially bending light towards the observer, then it makes sense that a flat light would change its angle towards us in the atmosphere. Lets take a look at some different types of holography while we are on the subject. Here you can see a coin appears on top of a cylindrical base. No matter what perspective you view the mirror, it looks like the coin is sitting on top of the base. Try to grab it, its not there. The trick is in the mirrors on the inside. A brilliant little design, like a cylindrical peppers ghost. Of course, there are almost endless ways to design a system like this. Now lets take a look at Lumographic lenses. These things are completely awesome. Depending on the angle that you view the lens you see a different image. This type of lens is an art form. And here is Cast-AR Augmented reality glasses. They use two projectors and reflect them off a retro-reflective surface back to your eyes. Everyone sees a unique image. Anyone can make a pyramid hologram at home. Here I filmed a Holographic moon myself using a simple pyramid made from one of my transparent sheets. For those people who theorize that there is a dome or firmament above us whether it is made of ICE or any other material, that could definitely reflect light back to the observer at any angle. In addition to reflected light there is projected light. Light from a projector expands as it moves away from you. However, this also depends on the shape of the lens! A flat light source like a television screen would cause almost no increase in size. Perhaps this is why the moon and sun have a slight round appearance. It would also be another possible reason to explain why the sun does not shrink as much as people anticipate. The further you are from the sun or moon, the sharper the angle to them and the greater the refraction. Also the more miles light must travel through the Thermosphere to reach you and the more profound a small change in angle will be. Have you ever seen a moon set? Have you noticed that it almost seems to move faster in the sky in the last few moments as it descends? The sun seems to do the same thing. Right before sunset it quickly drops a few degrees. Why?

Finally on this subject, we can see hundreds of examples of Sun Dogs, double suns, double moons and other things like this in the sky. Its hard to make sense of these sightings and decide which ones are valid. However, the multiple suns is a pretty common occurrence. Also interesting is the alleged sighting of “Rahu” which is a semi-translucent disc said to be the cause of eclipses. Something similar could cause the moons phases, or considering that the sun and moon are constantly refracted, this introduces a wide range of new possible reasons for the moons phases.

So start check out a website called Suncalc.org Many Flat Earthers come to this site to attempt to measure the suns height in the sky by triangulating elevation angles.

First of all, HOW does suncalc know the elevation angles?? It doesn’t. They guess them based on what they believe the curvature of the earth to be. Although the angles have just been completely disproven, lets make some observations. If we use this site, we can find out that sunset almost always happens at 10,000 km away from the sun or 6200 miles. This means roughly, the elevation angles the site gives you will go down 9 degrees for every 1000 kilometers from 90 degrees dead center. You can test this yourself. There may be some variations.

Let me show you how to calculate the suns height in the sky. Its easy when you know how.

I chose a city that was on the equator with a 90 degree elevation at sea level to make this very easy. Then I chose multiple cities at random, I will link my choices and results in the description.

We measure the distance of our cities longitude and latitude. I’m going to use Google Maps. One thing you must know and never forget. Google thinks the earth is round so this will cause the distances of cities, especially at long distances to be wrong. Google also uses the Mercator map one of the most blatantly inaccurate maps ever drawn. Greenland on that map appears 13 times larger than its square mileage. The equator is moved downwards a lot and the Northern Hemisphere is drawn almost twice as large as its actual size. Countries that are anywhere from 10%-50% the size of other countries are drawn larger. The excuse given was, its hard to turn a ball into a flat map. But that doesn’t explain why the Northern Hemisphere was so exaggerated. Nor does it explain why Mercator chose to shrink some countries while he greatly exaggerated the size of his European employers. At a very minimum the map is racialist. There is other map options too, Google could be using the Peters projection which is far more accurate because at least Peters tried to draw the countries more true to their size. Why in 2016 does Google still use this ridiculous map? So is there a map that accurately shows the size of countries? Of course there is. This map is called the Azimuth Equidistant map. This map, projects the countries on a circle each one being the correct distance in relation to the center point, the North Pole. The Egyptians used this for stellar maps. It matched the stars. They will try and tell you that the Southern Hemisphere is exaggerated. But is this true? No. If you look at the size of Africa and South America they seem to be almost precisely drawn the same size as their square footage. Also if it is accurate then why do many modern star chart Planispheres use the polar azimuthal equidistant projection? In the case of radio, this projection allows for directional antenna aiming, especially in the case of HF communications. So the answer here is, it is used because it is the most accurate map we have. That is why it is the UN Flag logo and that is why Flat Earthers use it.

Round Earthers will argue that Australia is not in the right position. But it is. This is why you can calculate sunsets 10,000 km away from Australia and this is why the sun almost never appears South of Australia and why the Azimuthal equidistant map works for all telecommunications and projections.

Another point here is you get 24 hour sunlight near the north pole. But you never get this in the South pole. You can prove this on Suncalc which will never show the sun to be South of the tips of South America and Australia. Also there is only one piece of footage and that was debunked as a fake.

As for flights in the Southern Hemisphere such as Qantas, Chile to Sydney, you can see video of that flight and the video shows it traveling over ice. It also shows the passenger speaking in Spanish very frustrated that the GPS disappeared and stopped moving over the Pacific Ocean. Well if you head due West on a Globe a straight line from Chile to Sydney, you would never detour South. So there is no chance you will see Ice unless you travel over the North Pole or nearby it. Which is exactly what they did. There is almost no direct flights on the Southern Hemisphere, the ones that claim it are constantly delayed, or you have to phone in where they end up giving you a flight with a stop, they are extremely expensive and the sites usually list clearly incorrect flight times and hours. There is already many videos on this subject.

All flights mapped on Azimuthal Equidistant are almost straight lines. Because why would the pilot waste gas? On a round earth Mercator map, impossible nonsensical detours are made.

Okay so when we have our distance, we then can find the height of the sun. So far, two or three major assumptions have been made. First that the distance we have is 100% accurate and second that the elevation angle given by Suncalc matches the ACTUAL elevation angle at the day and time you are trying to measure it for BOTH cities. The first city, must be exactly 90 degrees below and the second city must be the exact distance and the elevation of both cities must be the same and the UTC time must match. For now, lets just use Suncalcs numbers so you can see how its done after all, this is only to show you how to triangulate.

We now have all the variables required to calculate height! We then go a 90 degree triangle calculator. We enter the ground distance to the city below the sun, and we enter the angle of elevation… also called altitude. And voila! We got our height of the sun.

Now, this same method was used by the infamous Eratosthenes thousands of years ago using stick and shadow. By the way isn’t it ironic that round earth believers will mock flat earthers saying we believe in old theories yet they constantly use a guy who has been dead for 2000 years as their go to argument for sun angles? Even when for those 2000 years, the leading theory was Flat Earth? Round Earth was only popular in European ruled countries and even there it was unproven and constantly debated. Only when NASA went to the moon did the world change it’s mind.

Anyways, Eratosthenes used a stick and shadow method for measuring the height of the sun. However, he was unable to determine the height so he assumed we were on a curve. You see, if the earth is curved, you only need to know the angle of elevation and not the suns distance. Very convenient! We don’t have to care anymore. You see in a curved model the sun can be anywhere along the same tangent as long as the diameter of the sun matches our perspective because in this model the sun is not moving, relative to the earth even though they say it zips along the universe at a zillion miles per hour. However, the problem it avoids solving, it creates 100s more. For example, if you try to calculate this suns distance using known distance of cities with the assumption of a curve, you get some pretty ridiculous results ranging from 1 million to 100 million miles. Sometimes the stick will be pointing away from the sun and you won’t be able to calculate it. Imagine trying to shoot a pool ball into a hole that is 100 million miles away. Could you do it? You can see how many times the suns estimated distance has changed for the round earth model over the years with margins of error of 100 fold. This obviously is not the scientific method. You have literally zero margin of error and it absolutely does not match what we measure with stick and shadow when we are strictly trying to know the suns distance.

So why would people who believe in round earth force flat earthers to follow strict measurements that they themselves don’t follow? How can a citizen determine the suns distance on a round earth? They can’t, only space agencies claim to do this. Here’s why!

You see calculations of the suns distance have been made by looking at the alleged parallax of Venus over the Sun. They don’t share the intimate details of this test. And I doubt it could produce the same results twice. This number cannot be calculated without assuming the distance, trajectory, and speed of Venus. Assumption built on top of another assumption.

They say they determine Venus’s distance by transferring radar signals to other planets, something based falsely on the speed of light which we will discuss later, and of course results that can only be confirmed or denied by government space agencies. Because you know, you and I aren’t going to be able to fly to Venus anytime soon. (show footage of Venus) … the Flat Earth model does not believe that planets are Terra Firma, they just think they are lights, which makes sense because they appear to emit light. The flat Earth doesn’t make assumptions, instead they constantly research and perform scientific experiments that anyone can perform. Although in this video we have speculated on different theories for the moon and the chemical make-up of the atmosphere, however this is done to hopefully inspire more research into the subject. The stars and heavens remain mysterious until we know otherwise. This follows the scientific method. Until the problem is solved we remain agnostic. However, there is no reason to believe Space Agencies. There is a lot of videos on the subject of CGI showing how preposterous NASAs images of planets are. Its like they don’t even try.

Okay so the results of my experiment were as follows. As you can see the sun appears lower the further away it is from the center point. Why is that? Because they are assuming a curve so that would cause the predicted elevation angle to not have our distance in a straight line. Causing a steeper angle up until sunset!

Using suncalc, the closer you are to the sun, the higher the result. Keep this in mind because the higher the sun, the higher the elevation angle needs to be if the sun sets 10,000 kilometers away. This means the more air that it needs to block the sun or the lower it must appear due to converging lines of perspective and of course, refraction.

So we are going to not use Suncalc, we are going to use real measurements from real people. Guess what, it’s extremely hard to find anyone on YouTube who filmed themselves using the stick method and gave their time and GPS location. But there was one video from Poland made in 2013! Lets take a look at their results.

http://www.suncalc.org/#/50.3202,19.1309,13/2013.04.08/02:57/1

Here is the link of Suncalc for you to calculate the angles from the results of the Poland experiment. Now at this location, Suncalc says the elevation angle is 45.73 degrees! Suncalc is usually set for UTC-7 which is 3AM UTC (10-7), which is exactly 12 PM the time they listed in the video.

The Polish kids measured 43 degrees. That’s off by almost 3 degrees. But of course, these angles will never be accurate because of refraction.

So if the earth is round, then why do the results of these kids not match Suncalcs predictions? If we were to triangulate that Shadow to calculate the sun based on a curve we would never make it to our 93 million mile sun!

But in a flat earth, its okay the sun is close and we actually care about knowing its nature and distance. So now, I’m going to choose a city on the equator, I chose this location:

http://www.suncalc.org/#/7.2613,31.4143,6/2013.04.08/02:57/1

Okay so that is apparently 4880 km away from our Polish kids. This makes the sun 2830 miles high. Great. So now we know why Flat Earthers thought the sun was anywhere from 1-4 thousand miles high. So lets now find out the angle at which the sun should set. Remember, 4880 kilometers is extremely far, that effects our results. So lets go back to our triangle calculator, and plug in these numbers. We assume the sun will set at 6213 miles away or 10,000 kilometers. Now we get 24.5 degrees. For the sunset.

For the time being lets ignore refraction because now I want to talk about air a little bit more. If we use our triangle calculator, we can start to find out how far and high our wall of air needs to be to block the sun at this extreme and clearly inaccurate angle. This is being done just to prove a point.

At 50 miles away, with 20 miles of atmosphere there is 54 miles on the hypotenuse of low middle and high atmosphere blocking the sun. That’s 54.7 miles of dense atmosphere, clouds, water and other things constantly refracting the light. That is an elevation of 21.8 degrees. However, its below our target. But why stop there? The atmosphere extends 300 miles upwards at least… according to Google.

First some other possibilities. If we assume that after 80 miles distance and 50 miles of atmosphere, we get 32 degrees far beyond our target. This makes 92 miles of atmosphere on the hypotenuse. We can obviously play with these numbers to look at different angles and distances. We can even calculate a 24.5 degree angle to 6200 miles and determine how much air is included on the hypotenuse with each mile of elevation.

Now why was a 50 mile high wall given as an example? Well because the atmosphere doesn’t stop at 20 miles that’s why. Beyond 50 miles is the Thermosphere and they consider that outer space. In fact, even at 50 miles, you can still have clouds called Noctilucent clouds! If you check online you can even see different air density estimates for different elevations. But who actually goes higher than 20 miles to measure those numbers? Oh yeah that’s right, NASA. So we are back to trusting them again. But wait, if air pressure is so low, then how the hell do we get clouds above 50 miles? Well they say those are rare. But here is the thing, those clouds can’t form without some sort of density and molecules to form them, so just because there isn’t clouds doesn’t mean there isn’t molecules. That’s why the sky lights up for the sun and changes color when the Earths magnetic field causes the Aurora and ionizes the different chemicals in the air causing beautiful colors. And even where it appears dark, there is still very much something there. The two most buoyant chemicals on the periodic table also happen to be ordered first. Our old friends. Helium and Hydrogen. The world record for altitude in a balloon was 32 miles. That should tell you something. That the air in the balloon was not enough to blow up the container. Then it popped of course. So okay apparently, there is enough hydrogen up there to form clouds. Remember, things that are less buoyant are not necessarily less refractive. Everything depends on the element. With that, consider that we can see 50 miles ahead but then we can’t see through a less dense cloud right above us. This means, that the high altitude air can be even more effective in blocking the sun. It depends entirely on the elements. Such as the makeup of a cloud.

If you think the atmosphere stretches 300 miles up and that is significant, at only 30 degrees you must cross 600 miles of air on the hypotenuse.

Look at this company Air Swimmers for example. They make these balloons that look like flying fish. How do they do it? Well you find the perfect buoyant balance to the fish by adding and removing putty and you can get it to suspend in mid-air like a cloud and then propel it with it’s fin. Any balloon can be made to hover in mid-air if the correct balance is found. This is most likely one method on how Air Ships can find balance. By having an air intake that can increase or decrease altitude. It would make sense to have a carbon shell since that is also very buoyant and strong. I should mention that heat also plays a role and causes air to expand changing the volume. And thus heat is another method used to increase elevation. It may also explain why the Thermosphere is less dense to begin with. Its hot near the sun. But when things cool, they contract so consider all of this.

There are even more elements at play when we are seeing the sun set. First there is perspective, can we see the sun? And second there is whether or not the light is lighting us. The two are not related. For example, even when the sun is blocked by clouds it still lights us. The reverse is also possible and I will give you an example. Lets take the example of the moon. The light is extremely powerful, but it doesn’t light the atmosphere. If there is too much in the way, it blocks the light, and it is entirely dependent on the power of the light. The moons light doesn’t have same the kind of power that the sun has. However it is still visible. Another example, a small light in your house only illuminates locally, but it won’t light the whole room. In fact, the rest of the room appears dark. Lastly, if we go into the ocean the light is always blocked. It never travels far. At the ocean depths light won’t even go more than a few feet.

This is important because Flat Earthers have said diverging perspective lines can cause the sun to not be seen, however they probably didn’t consider the light could illuminate things near you. However when you add refraction, then the light might not reach you. This is why air density is important.

Okay, but lets not rely on diverging lines, lets try to explain perspective with converging lines. Now if the sun is at a higher angle. Why would it appear on the horizon?

Well first of all, the horizon we see is not the true horizon, it must be higher as proved in the air density video. Second as things move to the horizon they appear lower, and the altitude of things make them appear angled. This is why it’s so extremely hard to determine how far stars are. To us they are lights in the sky, with no apparent parallax. Without parallax the only way to know a stars position is triangulation but for that we need to know the angles to the star. But you can’t know the angle of something based on its visual appearance alone. You can see where it starts getting difficult. Our eyes triangulate things but the further something is, the harder it is to determine it’s distance because of perspective. This is also true for multiple cameras and 3d triangulation of points. It’s a common problem in computer science. That’s why 3d reconstruction is so much easier with parallax and distortion of known patterns like in the infrared projector on a kinect camera, or by using multiple photos. If you enjoy the subject of perspective and high level math, I’m going to recommend you watch videos about projective geometry by Norman Wildberger who gives amazing PhD level lectures on the subject. This subject used to be taught in all schools before the 20th century but stopped being taught. Something that Norman laments, he seems to think our math has gotten less rigorous. Perhaps that’s why there was so many good artists in the renaissance period.

So lets test this out, lets look at a video by Phuketworld. This video is actually pretty brilliant. He shows how not only the size of things get smaller as they approach the horizon, but how they also seem to be effected by the angle of approach. In this example, the vehicles converge to the center point of his measurement. Despite going straight, they all seem to converge to the center point at 23.5 degrees. This is a funny coincidence that his observation matched the round earth proposed axial tilt. It’s also a coincidence that this was one degree from the angle of our sun at sunset. What he also shows is, that over and over again, things dip below the cameras perspective despite being on a flat road, mostly because perspective and extremely small bumps in the road.

Also our eyes lens is curved and so is the lens of a camera. Now we already know that wide angle lenses cause things that are far away to curve. This is why Fish Eye lenses are totally ridiculous choices for filming a horizon. But at what point does the lens in our eye effect the angle of elevation and at what point does it cause things in the horizon to converge?! You know, like all lenses eventually do. You can try a pinhole camera but The pinhole camera model does not include, for example, geometric distortions or blurring of unfocused objects caused by lenses and finite sized apertures. It also does not take into account that most practical cameras have only discrete image coordinates. Its validity depends on the quality of the camera and, in general, decreases from the center of the image to the edges as lens distortion effects increase. So can we know with 100% certainty that our visual angle to the sun is not effected by any of these things? And can we know that the light from the sun can reach beyond 6000 miles away? Especially when light doesn’t travel more than a few feet in the depths of the ocean. After all, when an eclipse happens, it gets dark but we can still see the sun. So what gets illuminated and what can be seen are separate issues.

If the vanishing point is slightly angled and the objects that approach the horizon appear lower, it is also unclear that you would be able to visually prove that the sun cannot be flush with the horizon or even diverge below it due to optics. It’s fair to say it never sets at zero degrees anyway, and always sets before that.

So what does this mean? Well, if the sun turns out to be 1000 miles high or less then we only need to account for a 9 degree or less elevation angle at sunset. This is ideal. The sun may even be less than 500 miles high. When you start to seriously study chemistry, our atmosphere, electromagnetism and refraction, an unlimited amount of doors will open for you.

So the different ideas work together perfectly, and you can see how important it will be for people to continue research.

They say things about the thermosphere like that it reaches 2700 degrees but then they make excuses about why that won’t melt the ISS. Brian Mullin had a good video on the subject.

If they claim to not be melted at that height then how did they measure the temperature to begin with? One possible explanation for the temperature increase in Space is simple. They are closer to the sun. We might see it go from extreme heat to extreme cold. All kinds of elements could be generated up there. Maybe highly refractive elements, further layering our atmosphere. After all. If the earth is flat, why should we assume the Sun and Moon are flying through a vacuum? Especially if we know that NASA is feeding everyone false information. It is much more believable that the Sun and Moon are something so unbelievably awesome that it would humble and amaze us all.

Also, light changes speed in water and gas. This is very important. And when you realize this, you will be amazed at how much modern religious scientism falls apart. Light can slow down to anywhere from 3/4 to 1/3 of its speed through water and glass. And using a crystal you can even trap light. By use of a Bose-Einstein condensate, Danish physicist Lene Vestergaard Hau (Harvard University) succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 meters per second. Okay so why does this matter? Well there are many things you can do with light. You can refract it, changing its direction or you can diffract it, separating the wave and in some cases isolating a color frequency (like Royal Raymond Rife did to analyze bacteria without harming it with the worlds most powerful microscope that he made). Or you can reflect it.

Next, and this is the most important problem, modern scientists base all of their measurements on C, the speed of light which they calculate in air. But remember, air is filled with at least 30% humidity and tons of other chemicals. It is not even close to being transparent. There is so much air pressure that it can cause planes to rip apart if they fly too fast at a low altitude. They never measure this speed on earth in a vacuum chamber. Their official number for C is based on experiments done in our lower atmosphere which we can prove because people actually measure this and post those videos to YouTube.

They use an oscilloscope and a mirror. Lets also consider the margin of error in their measurements.

Now if you are not measuring C in a vacuum then how can you know its true speed?

It clearly moves slower in air. So the speed of light must be wrong. By how much is debatable. However if you suck the air out of a train it will crush like a tin can.

Sending lasers from earth to be reflected back wont work, because it still needs to travel through the atmosphere. So who can measure light in a vacuum? Its possible that it is almost infinitely faster.

So why does this matter?

Because it debunks the speed of light and brings relativity into serious question. But don’t take my word for it. Lets look at this video of Norman Wildberger again. He does an absolutely brilliant job showing you mathematically why GPS could not possibly work without relativity. The math is absolutely beautiful. He also brings up the Michelson Morley experiment which proves the earth wasn’t spinning because no matter what direction you measure light the result is the same even in the direction of alleged spin. The globe earth was basically screwed by the experiment. Norman starts talking about relativity in GPS at around 20 minutes. So the problem with the satellites is, they have to use atomic clocks and measure time extremely accurately. They say many satellites are 23,000 miles away or more in some cases. So right off the bat you know that anyone who thinks they have seen one, has obviously confused it with a weather balloon or something else. Nobody is going to be seeing anything 23,000 miles away. Second, satellites somehow had to get past the blazing hot thermosphere and third, why the hell would anyone send satellites 23,000 miles away when they can just use weather balloons, or sky wave or fiber optic cables and ground based towers? Which is what they actually do. And of course we have no videos of earth spinning and no photos that aren’t CGI composites. If those satellites were real, there would be thousands of videos of earth spinning. Well one thing that is certain is light can move longer distances vertically since there are less obstructions. So Skywave is used to reflect waves off the Ionosphere. A similar effect can be achieved with balloons. Now Norman is a genius mathematician. And he explains that the results of GPS and it’s ability to triangulate would be off by milliseconds. Then he uses relativity in his math to fix the problem.

So he is forced to use relativity. Relativity says time slows down the faster you go to approach light. But only for you, the time traveler.

So because the Mickelson Morley Experiment didn’t fit the globe model and because their fake satellites would have latency, they decided that light travels through time.

First of all, Norman makes some assumptions. First he assumes that the speed of light is correct. But we already know light was measured in the atmosphere and not a vacuum. So his first assumption is based on an incorrect number. Next he assumes the government is telling the truth and that there are satellites 23,000 miles away.

Now you tell me what is more logical? Is it more logical that light travels through time or that the speed of light was simply wrong? Is it more logical that light travels through time or the government lied about satellites? Does light travel through time or does the earth simply not spin? Does light travel through time? Or are satellites actually just balloons, sky wave and ground based technology?

Tesla was one of the greatest minds in history. He discovered alternating current, it’s said he discovered the radio before Marconi. He invented more things than almost anyone of his time. He was literally the father of all our modern technology. He didn’t believe in relativity. He also did not believe in the atom molecule, and he believed electrons were physically impossible. Tesla was also a big believer in Geocentricity. Look at some of these quotes by Tesla, he was obviously a huge fan of Flat Earth. Tesla believed in the scientific method. He did not agree with the idea that you make up a theory to explain a phenomenon. That is the reverse of the scientific method. It borders on religious dogma.

But Einstein didn’t care. He is famous for saying “If the theory does not fit the facts, change the facts.” In other words that is the same as saying “I’m right if you don’t agree I change the laws of your reality”.

We are men of action, lies do not become us.

Relativity is as nonsensical as the idea of gravity bending space. They always show space bending on one plane. But if it was true that space bends, it would have to bend space in 3 dimensions on all planes simultaneously. Which is the same as saying nothing. And they made Einstein the man of the century. A man who invented almost nothing. Where Tesla gave us the modern word, Einstein gave us mathematical excuses.

Also if the speed of light is wrong, then light years are wrong and so is every calculation NASA does. Stellar parallax was in constant dispute in the earth 1900s. If you can’t accurately determine the exact angle of refracted light, then why on earth would you think you can determine the parallax of a star? Well there is no stellar parallax and it is much more logical to assume the stars go around us. Otherwise, the stars move in synchronicity and force the scientists to assume the Galaxy is Flat. They also assume the solar system is flat. How can either the Solar System or Galaxy be Flat? That is a statistical impossibility with no regard 3 dimensions. Believing this is almost a religious belief. Why do people agree with this?? So who is the bigger Flathead. Them or us? I have an idea, don’t assume the galaxy with its alleged zillion stars is a flat plane and instead just assume the earth is flat, exactly as it appears. They never even give a satisfactory reason as to how they think the solar system became flat in 3 dimensions. I doubt you will even find a working computer model of that theory. Although I’m sure someone somewhere made us a pretty animation. Most modern theories are hardly ever questioned. If the subject of stars interest you, I highly recommend you investigate this further.

So what about a Theodolite for measuring angles? Well surveyors use them all the time. They are however, not very useful for extremely long distances. Not to mention as distance increases, so does your margin of error.

So the other question about the sun is, “if you use a solar filter, the sun will not shrink in diameter”. Well first of all, there is very little footage if any of the sun for 24 hours through a solar filter from sunrise to sunset. Also most of the footage zooms in on the sun. This makes a continuous shot a little bit harder.

However, thanks again to Phuketworld who did shoot the sun through a solar filter and posted his results and we do see a diameter change. However round earth believers give their videos showing the size not changing. However most of those videos are very short and thus inconclusive.

So which one is it? Does the diameter increase or not? I would like to see Flat Earth researchers perform a 24 hour time-lapse with a Solar Filter and no zooming so the shot is continuous.

Also, the atmosphere refracts the sun and the atmosphere increases its size. The further the sun, the more likely it will not shrink as much as we expect it to. This was explained in my first video.

By the way, in my first video a few people wanted to know how I can prove that we were walking backwards. Well you can see the diameter of the light shrink and in one shot, you can see the light overhead. The reason it descends so fast is we sped up the footage 300%. In fact, you can tell that a lot of the clips we used were sped up to fit the video within the audio and get it within 10 minutes. We walk backwards from the table in the room to the end which is about 15 feet away.

Plus you can do it yourself. Do it with two cameras if you like, do it with the lights on even. The results will be the same. In order to set it up, just use transparent sheets, cut them into different heights and stack them on top of each other. The more sheets for each layer of air, the denser the air. You can also experiment with different gels to simulate different elements.

Some people ask, why does the sun approach left to right or right to left in different hemispheres? Well, obviously that depends entirely on which way you are facing and if you are north or south of the sun. They try to trick you by showing a stick and Shadow going around a little piece of paper with North marked. But this is clearly wrong because if you are South of the equator, the Sun will approach from the east which will be on your right hand side facing north and cast a Southernly shadow on the stick. As it moves from your right to left, the Shadow will appear to move counter-clockwise. If you performed that Stick and Shadow experiment North of the Sun, the Shadow will move in the other direction. Of course the Sun can’t change from clockwise to counter-clockwise.

The suns path at the equator is never straight up and down, on a flat earth at 90 degrees under the sun the sun should always swing in northerly. Also the equator is not possible in a round earth model.

The equators position in both models, depends entirely on the season. In the flat earth the sun traces different circles spiraling outward for the seasons.

In a round earth you can’t have an equator because of axial tilt. This causes the earth to be on the other side of the sun 6 months later. The side of the earth that was tilted towards is now tilted away. That’s their explanation for seasons. But it doesn’t make any sense. Look what would happen to the South Pole. If the South Pole was ever exposed to the sun like that, it would rise dramatically in temperature. But if you compare North and South Pole temperatures the South Pole is always a lot colder.

So which model better explains seasons? Easy, the flat earth model. The flat earth model has the south pole along a much larger longitude line and further from the sun.

Also equatorial countries keep a very consistent temperature year round. And Northern cities get unbelievable heat like Vegas and Mexicali despite being above the equator.

The flat earth model, the sun would average in the center of the equatorial line giving consistent temperature. But it would move slightly above and below it to account for Seasons and still be distant enough to set. We can measure 10,000 kilometers on average.

Both models explain varying daylight time. But the round earth suffers from the fact that the earth is on the other side 6 months later. Forcing them to prove the impossible. Why isn’t day and night not flipped 6 months later?

The flat earth is modest in daylight times. If the sun is further south, it circuits near the Southern hemisphere countries for much longer. Also the suns speed in the flat earth increases during that time. Then it spirals inward in a smaller circle.

Some people have theorized about a dome and although that’s an interesting idea it is beyond the scope of this video. There are many theories out there, some think there is more land, some think there is a dome. What is absolutely certain is, we are not on a spinning ball.

Next, crepuscular rays prove the flat earth. A great video by P-Brane was done on the subject where he shows how light angles would come in. Now you might say that this is due to perspective but the problem is, crepuscular rays are localized. There are sun hotspots and the crepuscular rays are angled extremely sharp. The sun appears close because it is.

Finally, we come to one of my favorite subjects. That is the subject of Fata Morgana. Fata Morgana is complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon. This optical phenomenon actually dramatically favors a flat earth. In my previous video, I explained how the water line can appear slightly higher due the tremendous amount of water particles near the waters surface which can form an inferior and superior mirage. Fata Morgana is usually layered and usually inverted, or both inverted and straight.

Well when you zoom in on the horizon, you are only looking at this extremely thin line of of the horizon. It becomes obvious that over 40 miles strange things can start to happen with compounded air.

What do you notice about every single superior mirage you see? First of all, they are completely awesome. Second of all, they are more common over water or also common in the hot desert. This mirage here is awesome! Look at how it looks like a flying ice wall. Now one thing they all have in common are, they are wavy, with fractals and sometimes ghostly looking.

Compare to the time lapse of the Chicago Skyline. There is absolutely no way this is a mirage. It looks nothing like the images you just saw. The entire city is intact, there is no wavy lines or inversion layers. Also, things that you can see within 10 miles away at sea level like boats, islands, other shorelines, and so forth should be more than 6 stories below your line of sight. These are daily occurrences, go to the beach and prove it to yourself. And remember it squares with each mile on a curved earth so each mile becomes more and more impossible to explain on a ball and easier to explain on a Flat Plane. We can even see up to 100 miles away on a day with good clarity. So we can obviously tell the difference between what is Fata Morgana.

Look at this insane mirage over the desert road! It looks like the road is a pool of water and the car drives into it and almost gets devoured by the light. Inferior mirage cause the illusion to appear below and Superior mirage cause the illusion to appear above. The superior mirage is considered more stable because cold air stays below. However any air current will cause the heat to mix and this is why they are extremely rare.

Flat Earthers avoid the subjects of mirage and refraction, but this should be their favorite subject! It works in their favor.

Superior mirages are more common in Northern Climates over ice because there the air is cold enough to make the effect more probable.

If inferior mirages are a much greater commonality, with the cold air descending, then we can prove that the majority of mirages are unstable. This type of mirage is commonplace in the desert and over lakes.

Inferior mirages are not stable! They will constantly shift and change forms. Mirages are more common near the horizon line! This is extremely important because if the people who say that the Chicago Skyline is a mirage, then they must give examples of inverted cities and prove that this is a common everyday occurrence.

You can see the Chicago Skyline any day you desire. Rob Skiba was so determined to know the truth he flew there and saw it for himself.

The visibility in the time lapse of Chicago is obviously due to clarity!! When the clouds clear its visible.

Also, the Chicago Skyline is just one of tens of thousands of examples. Any day you can visit the Bolivian Salt Flats or see mountain ranges and cities for miles. You see other islands and boats on a daily basis.

So if inferior mirages are common, would it not be more reasonable to assume that it has an effect on the water line normally causing the water line to appear slightly higher?

Consider the effect our atmosphere has on light. When you study it, you will be amazed and your eyes will open. You will know the truth.

So I hope this has been helpful. I’m going to attach a FAQ to this so researchers can make their own videos based on what they have learned here. For every question I answer two more will appear. This video was meant to be a very high level analysis of the Sun, angles, refraction, optics and other things that were simply missing from the Flat Earth Movement. It is an extremely advanced course in optics and light. We have tried our best to avoid speculation and to explain light in as great a depth as possible. If there was any errors or omissions in this video, please consider the amount of content we covered, the amount of time it takes to make a video like this, and please be kind in the comments. We realize there will be a lot of discussion on this video and the subjects it covers. So try to make logical and scientific arguments that can be reproduced at home and avoid breaking any of the following logical fallacies. You can pause here if you need time to read them.

You have the permission to mirror this video, use it to make smaller videos or borrow ideas from it. You may also borrow ideas from the FAQ. In fact if any Flat Earther wants to make my FAQ into a video they are welcome to. All I ask is you choose really good videos and visuals and links to illustrate the points.

And remember to be happy.

Thanks and have a wonderful day!

Original YouTube Video by  Research Royal Rife

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93PTHLW0FIs

Impossible Moon Phases

The question is: How do we see a nearly full moon during the day, or a crescent moon during the night.

Here’s the problem

kids book better shot of moon during the day Screenshot from 2016-12-11 20:54:12.png

This is what we are told is happening

diagram-moon-earth-sun-model-eclipse-daytime-full-moon-screenshot-from-2016-11-22-171359

I have seen many attempted explanations to this simple question. None seems to adequately tackle the fact that we see these moon phases, gibbous during the day, or crescent moons during the night, all the time.

These are some of the visual attempts to defend the crumbling heliocentric spinning ball model:

nearly-full-moon-during-the-day-baller-explanation-fail-screenshot-from-2016-09-19-192414moon-phases-from-earth-with-viewable-area-in-day-time-screenshot-from-2016-11-10-202656

explain-a-nearly-full-moon-in-the-day-fail

None of which seem to explain the day / night aspect of this problem, ie, when a crescent moon is showing, you should be on the daylight side (facing the sun) When the moon is nearly fully illuminated, then we should be on the dark side of earth (away from the sun).

This is probably the best and most convincing explanation, but bare in mind my photo (below) was taken at 3.30pm

twitter-diagram-3-for-full-moon-during-the-day-from-sciencewaswrong-screenshot-from-2015-08-06-210036

More than half moon visible at 3pm 20-11-2015 compared to the explanation Screenshot from 2015-11-20 15:37:06.png

twitter-diagram-2-for-full-moon-during-the-day-from-sciencewaswrong-screenshot-from-2015-08-06-21_00_02twitter-diagram-for-full-moon-during-the-day-from-sciencewaswrong-screenshot-from-2015-08-06-20_57_21

This should not be visible at night, but we all know it is.

crescent-moon

These are pictures myself and friends have taken:

Ireland

Full moon during the day from twitter hegerty Screenshot from 2015-12-02 12_10_02.png

Sofia (Bulgaria)

Sofia nearly full moon in daytime  8am setting in the west Screenshot from 2016-11-22 18:25:18.png

UKdaytime nearly full moon twitter photo 330pm Screenshot from 2016-11-22 18:22:44.png

UK

More than half moon visible in day 2 22-11-2015IMG_2646.JPG

Here’s how they try to explain it in mainstream heliocentric ‘science’ [Note how a simple diagram of the configuration is not offered, I wonder why]

The comments, as always, have the last laugh…

Four keys to understanding moon phases

So I’m asking for a simple, three circle diagram, to explain how these impossible phases are possible on the spinning ball model

Should be easy….

Find me on Twitter @SwearyG

The Great Moonlight Temperature Experiment

capture-full-moon-22-2-16

When I get challenged to show examples of how popular (so-called) science has misled us or deliberately lied to us, this simple experiment always comes to mind. The idea involves measuring the temperature of moonlight compared to moonshade, and is something anyone can test and draw their own conclusions from.

Our cherished text books and lab coated priests  tells us that Moon light is produced by the face of the Moon reflecting the rays of the sun. They also tell us that Moon light is marginally warm, but by such a minuscule amount that specialised (read: expensive & not available to everyone) equipment would be needed in order to measure this very slight temperature raise.

This is of course rubbish and simply repeating what they themselves were taught by their brainwashed teachers. In reality a couple of thermometers from a corner store with accuracy down to 0.1° Fahrenheit OR Celsius will do the job just fine.

Here are my rough instructions but, as is the beauty of physical science, anyone can improve, simplify, refine or redesign the experiment however they see fit

moon-light-moon-shade-twitter-instructions-method-temperature-difference-experiment-screenshot-from-2016-01-19-20_50_54

I was lucky enough, (11 months ago [wink wink]) to talk to the right person about this hot topic debate  on twitter. He’s a Senior Research Associate at Cardiff University that has much experience in relevant fields dealing with these measurements. After much debate he assured me that as soon as he has the time he will indeed be conducting his version of this potentially paradigm changing experiment

scientist-confirms-moon-temperature-test-is-controlled-and-good-screenshot-from-2015-11-06-18_40_17

cardiff-scientist-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-210629

 

It’s strange that I’m having trouble finding credible sources explaining how moonlight is so degraded by the time it reaches us that the ‘warmth’ is imperceptible. There were many examples when I looked 2 years ago. There’s several “ask a Scientist” forums that seem to deliberately skirt the issue by asking questions like “can someone please define moonshade?” and other nonsense. When pressed they may claim:

“Moon light will actually warm a surface, but in an amount that could not be measured by regular measuring device.”

One answer I found particularly innovative in it’s avoidance, was in response to the question

“Is is possible to start a fire using moonlight?”

I imagine most people would read this in the context of using a magnifying glass or parabolic mirror to concentrate the moonlight, but the reply made me chuckle:

“Moonlight has a spectral peak around 650nm (the sun peaks at around 550nm). Ordinary solar cells will work just fine to convert it into electricity. The power of moonlight is about 500,000 times less than that of sunlight, which for a solar constant of 1000W/m^2 leaves us with about 2mW/m^2. After accounting for optical losses and a typical solar cell efficiency of roughly 20%, we can probably hope to extract approx. 0.1mW with a fairly simple foil mirror of 1 m^2 surface area. Accumulated over the course of a whole night with a full moon, this leaves us with around 6h∗3600s/h∗0.1mW ≈ 2J of energy. That’s plenty of energy to ignite a fire using the right chemicals and a thin filament as a heater.”

Below is the frequently flaunted debunking article at Physics Central, critiquing the use of laser thermometers in moonlight experiments, which have become the weapon of choice for the curious experimenter. His points about the accuracy of laser thermometers may be justified, despite being sanctioned by chefs and ‘elf n’ Safety bods routinely everyday.

What bugs me about this self proclaimed science guru is that he couldn’t actually be bothered to do the experiment himself, much less offer a better scientific way to determine the results. It would seem, they just don’t want us looking at this

Moonshine and Lunacy

Friday, October 02, 2015 – Posted by ‘Positron’ on Physics Central
http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=1590436706491009951

As always the comment are where real ‘peer review’ is done (good and bad)

moonlight-experiment-comment-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221403

moonlight-comment-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221623

moonlight-comment-4-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-222021

moon-light-comment-3-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221825

moonlight-comment-2-screenshot-from-2016-11-25-221648

So, despite debating this with all walks of life and being told by many that they will be doing the experiment themselves, none have ever come back with any results (but I hate to name names [wink wink]).

This is similar to the request I’ve made to draw the configuration of earth, moon and sun, showing a gibbous moon during the day or a crescent moon at night (Impossible moon phases).

So, please feel free to join the many curious minds out there, and design and conduct your own experiment to measure moonlight temperatures and let me know how you get on. The 5 times I have performed this over the years has shown me just how easy it’s been for the Establishment to obfuscate, deceive and out right lie to us about the natural world around us.

This video seems to be one of the most comprehensive test I’ve seen, though many others have now been removed from the net

what does twitter say? Well my oldest follower (that’s time, not age) on twitter tried it out for himself the other day – shame on him for thinking he can ‘do science’

Nice one alien!

alien-moon-light-temperature-test-screenshot-from-2016-11-18-011741

Others are a little more stuck in their ways, maybe because they haven’t/won’t #TESTIT

twitter-albert-moon-1-temp-screenshot-from-2016-05-29-224745

twitter-moon-is-warm-hot-shade-sun-temperature-test-screenshot-from-2016-01-18-00_40_12

twitter-albert-moon-2-temp-screenshot-from-2016-05-29-224457

twitter-albert-no-temp-change-moon-light-screenshot-from-2016-05-29-210000

 

Find me on Twitter @SwearyG

 

Does Gravity affect Gyroscopes

I love this twitter thread

gyroscopes-gravity-mainstream-screenshot-from-2016-11-21-003040

Flat earth proof 2016 – THE EARTH DOESN’T MOVE GYRO PROOF!

Gyroscopes and Gravity

gyroscope-gravity-in-space-screenshot-from-2016-11-22-233835

http://www.our-space.org/materials/states-of-matter/gyroscopes

gyroscope-gravity-screenshot-from-2016-11-22-233731

So, does gravity affect gyroscopes? well as they are claimed to be in the ISS, the Shuttle, Satellites & Probes, then I guess gravity does not affect the humble gyroscope, Though many disciples of the Church of Scientism will defend the pleas of gravity in answer the top graphic.

And finally (Thanks to Nick at Phuket Word for compiling this)

“A practical demonstration of real physics with a gyroscope by physics lecturer Walter Lewin (not a FEer) that proves gyroscopes can only work above a flat, stationary earth; not a spinning globe. Gyroscopes are simply not affected by gravity. FYI. PENDULOUS VANES SERVE TO KEEP THE GYRO IN ORIGINAL POSITION – NOT TO FOLLOW ANY CURVE!” [ED. for more information on pendulous vanes see this blog post here

Link to full lecture: https://youtu.be/XPUuF_dECVI 

To find out if a gyroscope can tell if the earth is a spinning ball & further gyro/gravity talk , click  here