^^^ Are you asking me if scientists are paid to do what they're told?

The Ptolemaic model,




is not the Biblical model.

^^^ You kan't science.




"... Galileo, for example, relied on rhetoric, propaganda and epistemological tricks to support his doctrine of heliocentrism ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism | paraphrase from Paul Karl Feyerabend (1924–1994)

^^^ You're like a fish flopping around on dry land.

The Copernican revolution was the birth of modern science and the death of the scientific method.

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions" -- David Hume

The Bible is a Flat Earth book from from Genesis to Revelation.

The Defeat of Satan

"And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." -- Revelation 20:7-10 ESV

The computer knows it's flat.

YouTube now has zero recommended Flat Earth videos, my front page only displays propaganda videos where they claim fisheye lens images are proof of a globe. We live in a gay clown world run by clowns.

What's funny is that YouTube still recommends videos by flat earthers or "globe skeptics" like Owen Benjamin but, only his videos on other subjects like the holocaust hoax, or how all the Jews should be gassed for real this time, or what a great leader Hitler was etc. Not a single one of his videos where he questions the Moon landing or the shape of the Earth shows up in the recommended feed. Owen was de-monitized and they took $50,000 from his account shortly after producing flat earth related content.

The atmosphere forming layers with unique properties is really some hilarious nonsense isn't it?

---

---

The Jig is up, Google should release the AE map for Google Maps/Earth. The underwater images are fantastic BTW, the antediluvian world and the undeniably engineered sea floor comes to life! When you zoom below the clouds it looks flat enough but it would be nice to see the world as it is.

Why I'm a Flat Earther 37 Must See Experiments -- https://youtu.be/4ZIZYx0oN6I (1:59:13)

Top Comment:
   "There are two kinds of people who still support the asinine globe paradigm : 1/The pathetically naïve , and 2/ The criminally disingenuous. ..."

---

---

[Ultimate Flat Earth Proof] Stationary Flat Earth – The Gyroscope Doesn't Lie  -- https://youtu.be/RF829QNKtT8 (14:19)

Two questions are answered in the above video experiments:
   1. Is this precision gyroscope capable of registering the alleged, slow spin of Earth? - Yes
   2. Can this gyroscope tell if the Earth is stationary? - Yes



   For those that want to claim modern optical and MEMs gyroscopes are measuring the earth's rotation because the readings are non-zero, they're "tilting at windmills". Quoted from Albert A. Michelson who, using the same class of optical device (a Michelson 1881 interferometer) said in regards to confirming the motion of the earth that, the results are "decidedly negative".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_%22failed%22_experiment <-- Read the quote from Michelson, don't be swayed by the disingenuous and biased spin the wiki author puts on it, he's "moving the goalposts". The experiment was to measure the earth's motion through the aether, the axiom of there being aether was never in question. Replications (Dufour & Prunier 1939) of the Sagnac Experiment (1911) have put the question of whether aether is light's medium to rest and, falsified relativity's attempt to explain the absence of any measurable motion.

"tilting at windmills" and "moving the goalposts" are not valid rebuttals to the established (Michelson & Morley 1887), replicated (Silvertooth 1986) and, empirically proven physical fact that the earth is stationary.

   

---

---

COMPRESSION: Debunking UPWARD refraction over the curve 31.63 miles flat -- https://youtu.be/Dt6mjnUdrxs (6:24)

   Comparison of upward vs downward refraction used try and to claim images refracting up and over the curvature of the Earth.
  
   See also: Full Day Time Lapse Superior Mirage 9/7/12 -- https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og (4:01)







The Chicago Skyline Expanded Edition - Part 1: Refraction, Magnification or Curvature? -- https://youtu.be/D3QGuBBHS3g (1:10:05)

"glass dome theory"? It must be coincidence you asked! Here are my latest findings:



One tenant that the pre-copernican model (flat stationary earth) held was that there are multiple "crystal domes" covering the earth, seven of them to be exact.



There is some science to back this model, there is also an answer as to what is stopping model rockets when they reach extremely high altitudes. The atmosphere is in layers, some denser than others and due to variable temperature, pressure and the electric field it's not the simple case of a linear gradient. In the case of the upper layers, the gases are dense and in a state or phase of matter that can be described as a gaseous crystal (analogous to a liquid crystal). This advanced state can be exhibited by gases such as sulfur hexafluoride.

Speak Like Darth Vader with Sulfur Hexafluoride -- https://youtu.be/A7XdOyZIkko

There are layers of these super-dense gases with properties like a solid that form the so-called "crystal domes" of the pre-copernican model, this is what the model rockets are hitting.

It should be noted that the final top layer (the firmament) is a solid nickel-iron damascus type steel with an reflective golden oxide (crystal) coating.



As for "hollow earth" the pre-copernican model describes a place below the earth called "sheol",



I can't say much more at this point in time.






edit:
Perhaps the following video from Fossilien der Götter can help you understand that you're not living where you think you are...

https://youtu.be/5MGRCBkVS8I

Giants are a reality in the pre-copernican model.

---

---

If you're new to Flat Earth a good place to start is the following YouTube channel,

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIovaBdnA4UHdd-TZ-MqRg

lots of great videos and links to get you pointed in right direction.












bonus:



Here's one from the 80's!

^^^








This is what photographs of Earth look like when they're not taken using your tax money:

^^^ Consider the implications of the classical pre-copernican model being the correct one. This means you're living on an animated ball and your entire existence is a Saturday morning cartoon show.

There's a mountain of empirical evidence that the surface of the Earth is a circular (round) and stationary plain. The M&M experiment is just one example of such empirical evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Earth does not move.

You're a joke and fool.

^^^ Still waiting on delivery.

---

---

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PearCurve.html






'my God deGasbag was right, it is pear shaped!

^^^ I've posted images that indicate there's a dome, you're a liar if you claim I haven't. In fact this is at least the second time you've made this accusation you fucking shill. Also it's better to have images that only provide limited evidence of the dome than showing provably fraudulent photographs of a globe earth.

You want to claim the lights in the sky are giant heavy balls billions and billions and billions of miles away, million mile wide thermonuclear bombs that never stop exploding with no proof what-so-ever. You're sharp as a bag full of wet mice if you believe any of that garbage, the Sun and the Moon and the stars are small close projected lights.

Watch the Sun travel across the sky, you're an idiot and a fool if you think it's not moving.

^^^ "By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire." -- Ezekiel 28:16

"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee." -- Ezekiel 28:18

.

.

^^^ Yes aether has mass, this and the question of the rest mass of a photon are one and the same argument; it is non-zero. Zero and infinity are not tangible quantities, you can only approach them and have an equivalence due to their negligible or extreme value, your question is actually non-sequitur. Aether is the medium that propagates EM radiation such as light and radio; it has mass by definition and can be treated as a superfine gaseous substance.

On a large scale this [Knodel's observations of] aether drift [caused by the motion of the stars] has been shown to affect things like the direction of rotation in a hurricane. This and the so-called Coriolis force are one and the same. If the earth were rotating there would be a 24h cycle not the measured 23h 56m and, the effects would be devastating, the shear forces alone would tear the earth apart. It is quite unreasonable to assume the earth is in motion and it has been proven countless times to not move. See the M&M experiment for more information, the list of other corroborating experiments is quite impressive and leaves little to no doubt on the subject.

---

It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. -- Amos 9:6

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? -- Job 37:18

^^^

---

---

Well the first issue is you have a force that pulls.  

The existence of gravity, an unproven hypothesis is unavoidable and central to the globe model. On our flat earth objects fall or sink because they've displaced the atmosphere (aether in the case of an evacuated chamber) and the atmosphere reacts by pushing them down. Up and down is defined by the electric field (see Coulomb's Law) between the dome (+ anode) and the ground (- cathode).

It's kinetic force.

The lighter substance is aether. You can refer to the Sagnac Experiment for more information.


The liquid with more mass is more dense. The less dense liquid will migrate towards the anode and the denser liquid will be pushed towards the cathode. The ground (down) is the cathode (-) and the dome in the sky above us (up) is the anode (+). You can refer to electromigration for more information.

Gravity is an unproven theory needed to explain the motion of the lights in the sky if we foolishly assume they're heavy balls. There's no observable earthly phenomenon that requires gravity.

^^^ What proof or even evidence do you have that a force called gravity pulls all matter into balls?

If you look at the process of fractional distillation it forms layers based on density not balls based on weight. If one substance is more dense than another substance it's mixed with, the denser substance sinks by getting pushed down by the lighter substance moving up. It can be shown that an electric field defines up and down by replicating the process of electromigration, where by an applied electric field will cause the least dense material to migrate towards the positive anode. This process is explained via Coulombs Law and the presence of an electric field at the surface of the earth at ~100V/m has been measured.

Where's the evidence for your bullshit theory that pulls everything into a ball? Why the fuck isn't the universe just one giant ball then? You've got us rocketing through an imaginary cosmos a million miles an hour doing the corkscrew on the surface of a giant rotating space pear. You've got a screw loose with your screwball theories if you think we're in motion.