DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Flat Earth (click here)
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: September 21, 2018, 10:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FAKING SPACE THEN VS NOW (ONLY THE BEST FAILS INCLUDED!)
There are many people who believe NASA stopped faking space
after the moon missions, but this simply isn’t true. You need to
share this with all those that have no clue this is still going
on or why the elites have to alter our reality in the first
place. Watching the world be deceived isn't easy, but the
deception must be exposed so that people can see the kind of
deceptive powers we are dealing with. The powers of darkness
that have put us on a cartoon ball don't plan on stopping with
this deception. There is more to come and we need to spread
truth while we still can.
Share this with everyone you know to spread awareness of the
lies and hidden truth.
9 minutes - Watch This
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7B_zumflgw
[glow=red,2,300]Theology Forums :[/glow]
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
[glow=red,2,300]Youtube :
[/glow]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
[glow=red,2,300][color=white][glow=red,2,300][glow=red,2,300][co
lor=beige]Pinterest
:[/glow][/glow][/color][/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google :
HTML https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
[color=limegreen]Linkedin :[/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter :
HTML https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook :
HTML https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+
[glow=red,2,300]Flat Earth Forums :[/glow]
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php
[color=limegreen][color=purple]Bitchute :[/color][/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus
Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection, the
gospel of our salvation, seals us with that Holy Spirit of
Promise. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter
3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV -
Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7
KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -
#Post#: 1147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: September 26, 2018, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=38.msg243#msg243
date=1533941261]
HTML https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/agency/images/afspc-worldmap.jpg
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Air_Force_Space_Command_Logo.svg/220px-Air_Force_Space_Command_Logo.svg.png
Air Force Space Command shield. This command aims to provide
space capabilities for the Air Force and the nation.
Credit: AFSPC/PA
Trump Wants a Space Force — But We Have an Air Force Space
Command
HTML https://www.space.com/41452-space-force-air-force-space-command.html
President Donald Trump's administration is pushing to form a
U.S. Space Force, a new military branch, but how would that
agency differ from the Air Force Space Command, which already
oversees much of the country's defense assets in space?
In a speech at the Pentagon Thursday (Aug. 9), Vice President
Mike Pence revealed a detailed plan to create the Space Force,
which Trump proposed earlier this yearn. The Space Force swill
meet "the rising security threats our nation faces in space
today and in the future," Pence said. If approved by Congress,
the Space Force could be ready by 2020, he added.
But the proposed Space Force is not the United States' first
foray into militarizing space. [Space Force Logos by the Trump
Campaign]
The first U.S. rockets were launched by the U.S. military, and
NASA's first astronauts were military officers, Pence said. And
in 1982, the U.S. Air Force established the Air Force Space
Command (AFSPC) to provide "space capabilities" for spaceflight
missions, navigation, satellite communications, missile warning
and space control, according to AFSPC's website.)
The AFSPC has units at Air Force bases all over the United
States. These units provide space capabilities including
"services, facilities and range safety control for the conduct
of DOD [Department of Defense], NASA and commercial launches" of
satellties, according to AFSPC's website.
But if the AFSPC is already dedicated to space, why do we need a
Space Force?
In an interview with Space.com, Michael Dodge, an assistant
professor in the Department of Space Studies at the University
of North Dakota, likened the creation of a Space Force with the
birth of the Air Force in the 20th century.
The early version of the U.S. Air Force existed as the U.S. Army
Air Corps, an aerial warfare sector of the U.S. Army. But as
planes continued to advance technologically and find their way
into mainstream travel, "Congress decided they needed to have a
new branch of the military," Dodge said. The country needed a
branch that could "address issues unique to this domain." The
Air Force became the fifth branch of the U.S. armed forces in
1947.
The Space Force would essentially serve the same purpose, but
for space. Dodge said it would "free up the Air Force to focus
on what it does best," as the new branch addressed issues unique
to space.
Dodge noted that this space-oriented, sixth military branch
makes the most sense now. " [O]ur assets are so critical in
outer space and everything that we do is so dependent on outer
space that we need a new force capable of focusing on that
domain by itself," he said."
However, Dodge added, one driving force to create a Space Force
now instead of sometime in the future is political.
Pence called out the military activities of Russia and China in
his speech at the Pentagon today. Both countries have tested
anti-satellite technology in the past and are actively pursuing
hypersonic weapons that surpass current missile-defense
capabilities, Pence said.
Dodge noted that creating a Space Force now, instead of waiting
for the future, would allow the U.S. to "Keep pace with and [go]
beyond the abilities of potential adversaries to the United
States." In other words, instead of waiting until there is a
need for a U.S. military presence in space, the Space Force
would beat other countries to the punch, paving the way.
In June, President Trump said that it wasn't enough for the U.S.
to have a presence in space. "We must have American dominance in
space."
But Trump's Space Force would add more than just a competitive
presence in space or an additional focus on protection of U.S.
space assets. Aside from being a new military branch, a Space
Force at the Pentagon today would have a few features that would
set it apart from previous U.S. military space efforts, like
AFSPC, Pence said.
The vice president mentioned four major, fundamental steps that
the U.S. government will take to create a Space Force. These
include a new U.S. Space Command to unify leadership and ensure
a smooth, military integration; a Space Development Agency to
focus on research and advancing space technologies and
"war-fighting capabilities"; new government structures to
solidify the branch's futuree; and "war fighters."
This fourth addition could be what most differentiates the Space
Force from the AFSPC. The Space Force will have, as Pence
described, "an elite group of joint war fighters specializing in
the domain of space." This could be a military astronaut corps,
though the specific roles of these war fighters have yet to be
defined.
Email Chelsea Gohd at cgohd@space.com or follow her
@chelsea_gohd. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+.
Original article on Space.com.
[/quote]The Occult Extraterrestrial War - America's Secret Space
Fleet
America"s Secret Space Fleet - is it protection against alien
invasion or a creation itself of malevolent aliens? Since 2015
NAVY engineer William Tompkins has made astounding claims that
he personally participated in designing kilometers-long battle
cruisers for the clandestine "Military Industrial Complex." But
even more astounding is his revelation that our planet has been
a battleground for warring extraterrestrial cultures for
thousands of years. The result has been wars, destruction and
attempts to hinder our progress. Has hidden knowledge of this
galactic war and alien exploitation of Earth been the greatest
occult secret of all time?
40 minutes - Better than a movie
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rc-H-Fg1go&index=115&t=0s&list=WL
[glow=red,2,300]Theology Forums :[/glow]
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
[glow=red,2,300]Youtube :
[/glow]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
[glow=red,2,300][color=white][glow=red,2,300][glow=red,2,300][co
lor=beige]Pinterest
:[/glow][/glow][/color][/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google :
HTML https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
[color=limegreen]Linkedin :[/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter :
HTML https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook :
HTML https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+
[glow=red,2,300]Flat Earth Forums :[/glow]
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php
[color=limegreen][color=purple]Bitchute :[/color][/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus
Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection, the
gospel of our salvation, seals us with that Holy Spirit of
Promise. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter
3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV -
Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7
KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -
#Post#: 1216--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: September 29, 2018, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
FAKE SPACE - An International Conspiracy
In this video we show clear evidence that "FAKE SPACE" is not
something confined to the US or NASA, but is indeed an
international conspiracy involving many nations for many
decades. Many "Globees" believe that NASA couldn't "FAKE SPACE"
without Russia or China knowing about it... The simple truth is
Russia, China (and many other nations) are professional SPACE
FAKERS as well. Enjoy : )
40 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwr0UwcNAwo&t=0s&index=95&list=WL
[glow=red,2,300]Theology Forums :[/glow]
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
[glow=red,2,300]Youtube :
[/glow]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
[glow=red,2,300][color=white][glow=red,2,300][glow=red,2,300][co
lor=beige]Pinterest
:[/glow][/glow][/color][/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google :
HTML https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
[color=limegreen]Linkedin :[/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter :
HTML https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook :
HTML https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+
[glow=red,2,300]Flat Earth Forums :[/glow]
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php
[color=limegreen][color=purple]Bitchute :[/color][/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus
Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection, the
gospel of our salvation, seals us with that Holy Spirit of
Promise. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter
3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV -
Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7
KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -
#Post#: 2347--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: November 19, 2018, 8:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Samadhi in Fake Space" (NDE's, Flat Earth & New Age
Deception...)
26 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z1YgroiygU&list=WL&index=29&t=94s
[shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
[shadow=red,left]Patreon :[/shadow]
HTML https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
[glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google :
HTML https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
[glow=red,2,300]Linkedin :[/glow]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter :
HTML https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook :
HTML https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+
#Post#: 2348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: November 19, 2018, 9:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If Star Wars fans learned Space is Fake...
Recently I stumbled across this "Star Wars the Last Jedi - Rant
Compilation
11 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl-teDgQneo&index=26&list=WL&t=0s
[shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
[shadow=red,left]Patreon :[/shadow]
HTML https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
[glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google :
HTML https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
[glow=red,2,300]Linkedin :[/glow]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter :
HTML https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook :
HTML https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+
#Post#: 2658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: December 5, 2018, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Landing On A Transparent Moon? ✅
Fascinating Lunar Eclipse From Norway 2018 - Proof The Moon Is
Not Solid - Must See !!!
16 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG1VZbF3xoQ
[shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
[shadow=red,left]Patreon :[/shadow]
HTML https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
[glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google :
HTML https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
[glow=red,2,300]Linkedin :[/glow]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter :
HTML https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook :
HTML https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+
#Post#: 4593--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: March 25, 2019, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Galileo Was Wrong - The Heliocentric Lie
1. In 1905, Einstein added time dilation to length contraction
because it was required to fit his theory, not because he
“discovered” it. It has since been applied to everything under
the sun so that the Einstein advocates can claim that
everything works by SRT. So let’s assume that the GPS satellites
are in an inertial frame. The fact is, the light beams traveling
east-to-west are faster by 50ns than the beams traveling
west-to-east. But according to SRT, there should beno difference
of the two beams since both are in an inertial frame. (And if
they are not in an inertial frame, then SRT cannot be applied).
So, in order to hide this discrepancy to save SRT, the GPS
computers are preprogrammed with a Sagnac correction so that it
appears that the east bound beam is going the same speed as the
westbound beam, and voila! SRT is “proved.”
2. EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS
THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : If Michelson-Morley is wrong,
then Relativity is wrong. (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p.
107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift
of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically
speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of
interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.
In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller
experiments" produced positive results *"the whole relativity
theory collapses like a house of cards."
Miller's experiments produced consistently positive results.
The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely
mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a
reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan
Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or
Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general
physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of
Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a
stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is
indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments.
They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those
who know about them would rather not say too much.
Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about
them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special
Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students,
and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate.
3. Not only has General Relativity failed to provide adequate
answers for stellar aberration, rotation, and
action-at-a-distance (that is, without resorting to Mach’s
“distant rotating masses”), Van Flandern
reminds us that…
“…it is not widely appreciated that this [General Relativity] is
a purely mathematical model,
lacking a physical mechanism to initiate motion. For example, if
a “space-time manifold” (like
the rubber sheet) exists near a source of mass, why would a
small particle placed at rest in that
manifold (on the rubber sheet) begin to move toward the
source mass? Indeed, why would
curvature of the manifold even have a sense of “down” unless
some force such as gravity
already existed. Logically, the small particle at rest on a
curved manifold would have no reason
to end its rest unless a force acted on it.”
“…all existing experimental evidence requires the action of
fields to be conveyed much faster
than lightspeed. This situation is ironic because the reason why
the geometric interpretation
gained ascendancy over the field interpretation is that the
implied faster-than-light action of
fields appeared to allow causality violations [e.g., moving
backwards in time, according to the
principles of Special Relativity]….Yet the field interpretation
of General Relativity requires
faster than light propagation. So if Special Relativity were a
correct model of reality, the field
interpretation would violate the causality principle, which is
why it fell from popularity.”
4. It is rather interesting that Relativists, on the one hand,
claim that light is limited to 186,000 mps in Special
Relativity, but admit that Special Relativity does not
incorporate gravity or inertial forces.
On the other hand, they claim gravity is limited to the speed of
light because Special Relativity says nothing can go faster
than light. But if Special Relativity has nothing to do with
gravity, then how can Special Relativity claim that gravity’s
speed
is limited to light speed?
Moreover, in General Relativity, light, and we presume gravity,
is not limited to 186,000 mps, and that is
because General Relativity deals with frames that include
gravity and inertial forces. But if gravity itself
is a non-inertial frame, then how can it be limited to 186,000
mps by Special Relativity which only deals
with inertial frames? This shows that the two theories of
Relativity contradict themselves.
5. Einstein and Infield wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938)
:
“…the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of
two separate storeys (sic), the special theory and the general
theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests,
applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of
gravitation.”
On this Dr. Kelly comments :
“So, if the special theory loses its basis, the general theory
is also without foundation.”
The only original big idea in “Einstein's” so-called theory of
general relativity was curved space. Yet through the 1980s and
1990s, and today with the Hubble space telescope, astronomers
have methodically and painstakingly developed three-dimensional
atlases of the universe. However, they have detected no
curvature of space. Theoretical physicist Paul LaViolette
observes :
“If space were curved by even the slightest amount, evidence of
this would have shown up in astronomical surveys. When the data
are checked, however, no evidence of curvature is found.
Observations of the density of galaxies found at distant
locations of the universe indicate that space is Euclidian out
to the farthest limits of observation.”
26 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugka2mM0Dsc
Please Subscribe! Join my Free Forums for discussion, debate and
fellowship
[shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
[color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
[glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
[glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
#Post#: 4906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: April 13, 2019, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tycho Brahe's Arguments (see the comment section)
Comment :
What we have in the history of western science is a fully formed
highly detailed geocentric cosmology and mathematical astronomy
in the form of the Syntaxis Mathematiké from Ptolemaeus from the
middle of the second century CE. This lays out in great detail
all of the arguments for and against both the geocentric and
heliocentric cosmologies known to the Greek astronomers and
cosmologist over a period of about six hundred years. Not
exactly fragments of ideas!
These arguments are logically argued scientific hypotheses based
on solid empirical observation made by Babylonian and Greek
astronomers over a period of approximately nine hundred years.
Thanks to Ptolemaeus we know exactly why geocentrism was the
standard. A standard that was accepted and defended in the works
of Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers and
mathematical commentators. This standard was also maintained and
defended by many, many Islamic philosophers and astronomers from
about 800 CE into the Early Modern Period.
The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and
astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid
empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers
and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a
significant role in their work.
However the three main players in the introduction of
heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus,
Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only
played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the
religious views of two of them did play a highly significant
role in their scientific thought.
Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained
for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly
religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God
through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a
religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen
by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.
10 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEKOyGNLL58&t=384s
#Post#: 4944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: guest8 Date: April 14, 2019, 9:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=38.msg4906#msg4906
date=1555168095]
Tycho Brahe's Arguments (see the comment section)
Comment :
What we have in the history of western science is a fully formed
highly detailed geocentric cosmology and mathematical astronomy
in the form of the Syntaxis Mathematiké from Ptolemaeus from the
middle of the second century CE. This lays out in great detail
all of the arguments for and against both the geocentric and
heliocentric cosmologies known to the Greek astronomers and
cosmologist over a period of about six hundred years. Not
exactly fragments of ideas!
These arguments are logically argued scientific hypotheses based
on solid empirical observation made by Babylonian and Greek
astronomers over a period of approximately nine hundred years.
Thanks to Ptolemaeus we know exactly why geocentrism was the
standard. A standard that was accepted and defended in the works
of Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers and
mathematical commentators. This standard was also maintained and
defended by many, many Islamic philosophers and astronomers from
about 800 CE into the Early Modern Period.
The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and
astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid
empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers
and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a
significant role in their work.
However the three main players in the introduction of
heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus,
Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only
played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the
religious views of two of them did play a highly significant
role in their scientific thought.
Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained
for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly
religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God
through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a
religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen
by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.
10 minutes
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEKOyGNLL58&t=384s
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]Fake, Fake, Fake... like the news media...we
have been force feed all our lives.
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 5528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space
By: patrick jane Date: May 9, 2019, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
[img]
HTML https://static.scientificamerican.com/blogs/cache/file/7DAF801B-9AED-4B63-B7EAD43F5E9B1B2D_source.jpg?w=590&h=800&D658BB8D-B20A-45F9-ACB0EB79FD66CAAB[/img]
HTML https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/
What do we really know about our universe?
Born out of a cosmic explosion 13.8 billion years ago, the
universe rapidly inflated and then cooled, it is still expanding
at an increasing rate and mostly made up of unknown dark matter
and dark energy ... right?
This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident
scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical
evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with
observations of the distant universe.
In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the
rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between
two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the
expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation
but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at
the extreme scales of the cosmos.
Another recent probe found galaxies inconsistent with the theory
of dark matter, which posits this hypothetical substance to be
everywhere. But according to the latest measurements, it is not,
suggesting the theory needs to be reexamined.
It's perhaps worth stopping to ask why astrophysicists
hypothesize dark matter to be everywhere in the universe? The
answer lies in a peculiar feature of cosmological physics that
is not often remarked. For a crucial function of theories such
as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own
way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known
empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical
coherence of the framework itself while accounting for
discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for
something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to
be universally valid.
Each new discrepancy between observation and theory can of
course in and of itself be considered an exciting promise of
more research, a progressive refinement toward the truth. But
when it adds up, it could also suggest a more confounding
problem that is not resolved by tweaking parameters or adding
new variables.
Consider the context of the problem and its history. As a
mathematically driven science, cosmological physics is usually
thought to be extremely precise. But the cosmos is unlike any
scientific subject matter on earth. A theory of the entire
universe, based on our own tiny neighborhood as the only known
sample of it, requires a lot of simplifying assumptions. When
these assumptions are multiplied and stretched across vast
distances, the potential for error increases, and this is
further compounded by our very limited means of testing.
Historically, Newton's physical laws made up a theoretical
framework that worked for our own solar system with remarkable
precision. Both Uranus and Neptune, for example, were discovered
through predictions based on Newton's model. But as the scales
grew larger, its validity proved limited. Einstein's general
relativity framework provided an extended and more precise reach
beyond the furthest reaches of our own galaxy. But just how far
could it go?
The big bang paradigm that emerged in the mid-20th century
effectively stretches the model's validity to a kind of
infinity, defined either as the boundary of the radius of the
universe (calculated at 46 billion light-years) or in terms of
the beginning of time. This giant stretch is based on a few
concrete discoveries, such as Edwin Hubble's observation that
the universe appears to be expanding (in 1929) and the detection
of the microwave background radiation (in 1964). But considering
the scale involved, these limited observations have had an
outsized influence on cosmological theory.
It is of course entirely plausible that the validity of general
relativity breaks down much closer to our own home than at the
edge of the hypothetical end of the universe. And if that were
the case, today's multilayered theoretical edifice of the big
bang paradigm would turn out to be a confusing mix of fictional
beasts invented to uphold the model along with empirically valid
variables, mutually reliant on each other to the point of making
it impossible to sort science from fiction.
Compounding this problem, most observations of the universe
occur experimentally and indirectly. Today's space telescopes
provide no direct view of anything—they produce measurements
through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable
parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the
way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines
where and how to observe. And so, despite the advanced
technologies and methods involved, the profound limitations to
the endeavor also increase the risk of being led astray by the
kind of assumptions that cannot be calculated.
After spending many years researching the foundations of
cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I
have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking
about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in
Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang
paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original
proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific
theory.
Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to
accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical
field is not based on anything with empirical justification.
This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to
bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics
we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient
invention?
A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have
criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated
certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far
fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a
so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign
for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A
skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after
so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one
would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit
inconvenient new observations."
As I discuss in my new book, Metaphysical Experiments, there is
a deeper history behind the current problems. The big bang
hypothesis itself originally emerged as an indirect consequence
of general relativity undergoing remodeling. Einstein had made a
fundamental assumption about the universe, that it was static in
both space and time, and to make his equations add up, he added
a “cosmological constant,” for which he freely admitted there
was no physical justification.
But when Hubble observed that the universe was expanding and
Einstein's solution no longer seemed to make sense, some
mathematical physicists tried to change a fundamental assumption
of the model: that the universe was the same in all spatial
directions but variant in time. Not insignificantly, this theory
came with a very promising upside: a possible merger between
cosmology and nuclear physics. Could the brave new model of the
atom also explain our universe?
From the outset, the theory only spoke to the immediate
aftermath of an explicitly hypothetical event, whose principal
function was as a limit condition, the point at which the theory
breaks down. Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it
is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general
relativity.
On top of this undemonstrable but very productive hypothesis,
floor upon floor has been added intact, with vastly extended
scales and new discrepancies. To explain observations of
galaxies inconsistent with general relativity, the existence of
dark matter was posited as an unknown and invisible form of
matter calculated to make up more than a quarter of all
mass-energy content in the universe—assuming, of course, the
framework is universally valid. In 1998, when a set of supernova
measurements of accelerating galaxies seemed at odds with the
framework, a new theory emerged of a mysterious force called
dark energy, calculated to fill circa 70 percent of the
mass-energy of the universe.
The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to
maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire
universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is
furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we
have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be
confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the
power of mathematical unification.
In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the
framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research.
For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also
notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more
pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the
fundamentals.
Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer
to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term
from technology studies, has become path-dependent:
overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.
This article is based on edited excerpts from the book
Metaphysical Experiments: Physics and the Invention of the
Universe, published by University of Minnesota Press.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not
necessarily those of Scientific American.
Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for discussion,
debate and fellowship - FREE
[shadow=red,left]PayPal Donations :[/shadow]
HTML https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums :
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :
HTML https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
[color=orange]BitChute : [/color]
HTML https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
[glow=red,2,300]Pinterest :[/glow]
HTML https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
[glow=red,2,300][color=blue]Linkedin :[/glow][/color]
HTML https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page