British Physicist Julian Barbour: "It is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...

and Mach's principle also states that the heliocentric proof can also prove the stationary geocentric

i also thought flat earth absurd until you see there is no measurable curve. gravity is a theory and is needed for helio math. antarctic privacy very strange. dangerous southern waters that would be off navigationally if flat. not a single real picture of earth from 'space'. that supp high level initiates know earth is flat part of upper level. it looks not only probable but that there is a part of earth kept off our maps and hinted of throughout history

Last Edited by Rudolph Embroglio on 10/08/2021 09:26 AM

Would be grateful to see the debunked work on this....pretty please

Sorry to burst ya bubbles...

You debunked yourself mate. Calculations are not anything to do with the scientific method that actually proves things. Do not appeal to authority, and then at the same time assume I have none. Totally falacious reasoning and proves you have no real idea what you're on about. You don't belong amongst the adults that talk here.

You referring to the bubbles in space in your fake nasa videos?

Great joke - Not one for humor are you...

I don't recall any proof.. maybe u could summarise and explain this proof for all to see and understand. Let's finally put this to bed here and now. Go..

Last Edited by Swiss Toni on 10/08/2021 09:38 AM

I'm still waiting for the 100's of dubunks made in your last claim, surely you can give me 1 link out of 100?

I'm still waiting for the 100's of dubunks made in your last claim, surely you can give me 1 link out of 100?

Your link talks about inertial frames of reference. What is that? Is that the moving reference frame called the ground. And the inertial reference frame the unmoving air? So your example that is designed to prove the earth is spinning, assumes it in the first place. This is pure retardation. Please try harder..

the only way to harness that energy would be to not be part if the movement of earth, but instead exist outside of it. Because in relation to us here on the surface there is no movement. The movement of the earth is only in relation to everything outside of our atmosphere.

I never said anything about hundreds of proofs. You clearly cant deal with me one to one with our words alone.

Julian Barbour was very much criticized by the physics community for several of his speculative "theories", including time does not exist. Many of his views have NO grounding in reality what so ever.

If the earth doesn't move, how does he or anyone explain a gyro-compass.

Does he say the principal of procession doesn't exist that can be demonstrated with a child's toy top?



Merriam Webster


Definition of gyrocompass

: a compass consisting of a continuously driven gyroscope whose spinning axis is confined to a horizontal plane so that the earth's rotation causes it to assume a position parallel to the earth's axis and thus point to the true north


[link to www.merriam-webster.com (secure)]

A child's toy does not constitute scientific proof.

A gyrocompass does.

Even a child's toy operates on the same physical principals, except if you live in "Never Never land".

Then explain in your own words how the gyro works and how it proves beyond any doubt that earth is spinning.

That's already been done over and over and over.

[link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)]

[link to www.britannica.com (secure)]

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

You! need to explain how it works if the earth doesn't move.

You! Don't understand how scientific proof works. Or how supporting a positive claim works. Or what a burden of proof reversal is. Or how a bloody debate works. Spamming links and calling me an idiot is not winning. Try harder please..

If Earth is stationary and space rotates around Earth then it means 2 things:

1. Space is experiencing centripetal force as it rotates around the Earth. Earth must be the source of this centripetal force.

2. Space must exert an equal and opposite force as this centripetal force, i.e. a centrifugal force on earth to prevent the entire universe from collapsing towards earth. This centrifugal force on earth results to the oblate spheroid shape of the earth where the equator is wider than locations nearer the poles. This is because centripetal force is greater in the equator than at the poles.

But the BIG question is why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? In fact, why is the universe expanding at all? This means an outside force is exerting a centrifugal force on space!
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

This outside centrifugal force exerted on space must be another universe or space rotating on our known or observable universe. Scientists call this unexplained force, dark energy.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Last Edited by The Opened Scroll on 10/08/2021 11:06 AM

How do we know the universe is expanding?

I can't even figure out if my character in Doom moves!

I know this won’t be popular with you guys but imagine you are dreaming at night and playing with your gyrocompass and arguing that it proves the earth is spinning. How wrong you would be.

There’s no proof either way to say whether matter or consciousness is the fundamental substance of reality.

The velocity at which a distant galaxy recedes from the observer (in this case an earth observer) is continuously increasing with time.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Last Edited by The Opened Scroll on 10/08/2021 10:41 AM

I went to U of D for EE and took multiple semesters of physics.

You have a degree in physics or some other physical science or related engineering?

If so, where? And what sub-division of physics are we debating? (if you don't answer that, it proves you're disingenuous).

I get where you're coming from. But water is demonstrably flat over many many miles. This is not science but basic observation. Science described cause and effect relationships in the natural world. A gyro does not not constitute scientific proof cos it has nothing to do with the scientific method and is just a manmade toy. Red shift cannot prove the universe is expanding cos that was a theory by a man who looked into the sky and came up with a story to fit his observations. Might be right.. but might is not scientific proof. The problem with people who think they already know it's a ball and that flat earthers are crazy and plain wrong. Is that they are so easily satisfied by anything that supports their spinning ball space monkey scientism bs. They're midwits who offer nothing of substance with their own words. They refer to an authority like wiki or some bs astrophysicists site where they have nothing but stories. It's basically a religion for modern man.

Earth is in its own spacetime within the spacetime of the sun..

The moon has its own spacetime within the spacetime of the earth which is also within the spacetime of the sun.


So..what does that mean?

You are on earth...and the bigger you are the more space and time warp around you.


What does that mean..

Light bends around you.....

Time itself moves at a different pace around fat people than thin people.

Earth is in its own spacetime within the spacetime of the sun..

The moon has its own spacetime within the spacetime of the earth which is also within the spacetime of the sun.


So..what does that mean?

You are on earth...and the bigger you are the more space and time warp around you.


What does that mean..

Light bends around you.....

Time itself moves at a different pace around fat people than thin people.

Also...it means that we never went to the moon. That the rocket telemetry required didn't exist at the time.

You must exit earth in line with the warp of space time or you will just fall back down.

I have always suspected that Stephen Hawking presented a threat to the maestros and that he was intentionally silenced by them through exposure to chemicals which left him paralyzed; he was supposed to die. They truly are holding our world hostage.

You really dont get it do you. I want to debate you on the subject matter at hand. I dont believe shit you say about your qualifications, nor do I care. Nor should you care about mine. Nor should you believe me if I tell u my qualifications. Let's stick to the discussion.. I'm assuming you're talking about classical mechanics. Newton's laws of motion etc. But what I'm talking about is the scientific method and I want to know how your gyro constitutes a scientific proof. Where is your iv/dv relationship? What even is your iv for starters. Please enlighten me on this.

"the institution of rotary motion"

SNIP from Latch's works...