Theories...whatcha got?


You are welcome, lol. And I think you mean vocalise, not vulgarize, too very different things, lol.


Vulgarize in the meaning of popular langage :wink::innocent:


Ahh, you mean as in literally making it “less refined or less complex”, lol, not showing us your naughty parts, ha ha ha.

I never thought of it that way, I didn’t realize I could be so good at being vulgar, lol.


Lmao :joy::sweat_smile::wink::innocent: You do have a talent in doing it :wink::innocent:


Thank you for your input!
-best wishes!


You are welcome, and I did give you a few experiments even you could test literally yourself.

It is true, you, or anything for that matter, would weigh slightly less at the equator due to cetrifugal force.

best wishes as well,

Bob MacG

lol, people do say I have an awfully large head as well as that big forehead, ha ha, although my skin isn’t very grey, and I don’t think I came from a potted plant :wink:


you may be a hybrid! @MacGyverStoner


Also, quite simply, if we were on a flat circle, the stars near this supposed “ice wall” of antarctica would not appear to rotate in a clockwise fashion as opposed to in the northern hemisphere they appear to rotate anticlockwise, as I am sure many of our friends here in the forum from Australia can confirm.


but I never claimed it wasn’t a circle. (just quote )

Most notorious scholar in ancient hebrew and greek scripture agree to translate circle by sphere or globe in fact most of the recent traduction of this verse is now rendering by this definition :wink::innocent::v:



You know my grandfather, my father and his girlfriend at the time, he was only about 16 at the time, they all actually saw a flying saucer on a trip east from California, lol. And they weren’t the only ones, a family in a station wagon and a semi truck driver all pulled off to the side of the road at the site of the thing!

They say it moved at an amazing speed near the horizon, and made no sound, in a north to south direction. And as it neared where the freeway seemed to disappear near the horizon, it seemed to notice it was noticed and stopped for a moment right above the freeway, then came from the horizon to much closer to the observers, still making no sound.

It seemed to stay for a moment watching my dad, his girlfriend and all the others watching it, and then in an instant, shot off again towards the south and disappeared beyond the southern horizon, still never making any sound…


So I’ve never been " into a thread before but guess this included me?

First I apologize if I seemed short with anyone coming late to the parade but I’ve not been absent or quiet on this topic and I feel I’ve made my points and don’t feel theres any benefit from continually restating them ad nauseam

MacGyver, my opinion on applied science is that it’s largely self-serving and arbitrary.

Not exactly sure what you meant by “even I could try” some experiments but not likely I would try them anyway, as this issue is a non-starter. I am well aware of both sides of this issue and also some other related, spinoff topics

I prefer, as I have posted and presented above the Natural Sciences which are far less open to manipulation (e.g. The properties and behavior of H2O), however I certainly respect everyone’s opinion and only ask the same in return

I’ve not been short or absent on this thread, neither have I changed one bit of my belief, quite the opposite, but for me personally I’m having difficulty continuing without citing various religious &/or creation text and I’m not comfortable doing that here, and I don’t feel they add anything to my main point

  • best wishes

Edit: …on a different subject, I would ask @MacGyverStoner this about the ufo that he observed acting possibly beyond or outside of the laws of physics:

If you see something that violates the laws of physics, do the laws of physics still apply?

Or are they arbitrary and self-serving?


Well I didn’t see it myself, but there is nothing necessarily about about the UFO that violated any law of physics.

I’ve not been absent, nor necessarily late to this party either, I’ve been reading and watching this thread, as I do all threads on ILGM from the very beginning.

I am talking about plain regular “natural” science anyone can do and observe.

I’m not sure what this above quoted part means?

As far as trying the experiments, as I said it is quite simple, you or anything would weigh less at the equator, due to the centrifugal force your videos mention so many times above.

As far as buoyancy is concerned, as I said, if your points on this subject were true, things would weigh more in a vacuum and they do not.

Also as I said, the weight of things would not change when the atmospheric pressure is the same at different parts of the world where the earth has more or less mass and it does change in certain areas around the globe due to this mass despite the atmospheric pressure being the same in those areas. This up/down thing based on buoyancy just doesn’t hold up under closer scrutiny.

Gravity is simply a real force testable by anyone that has nothing to do with buoyancy or “density”.

And in fact, the most easily tested problem with a flat earth, is as I said, quite simply, the stars would not appear to rotate in the opposite direction around the poles, as they really do, and anyone from Australia here, can attest that they do indeed seem to rotate in the opposite direction around a “southern pole” in the southern hemisphere, than they do in the northern hemisphere. This is undeniable "naturally observable science.

Also the coriolis force is easily testable by anyone, as I mentioned above(e.g. The properties and behavior of H2O draining in opposite directions on opposite sides of the equator), and this also would not exists at all unless the earth is spinning, and it would not work in opposite direction on opposite sides of the equator unless the earth is a spinning sphere. Again, the most basic of physics and science, testable naturally by anyone.

And as I also said, if the earth were a flat plain, and the stars rotate around us above, and the north star is in the middle of it all, the north star would be visible from the southern most areas of the world, but it is not, a thing anyone can see with their own eyes.

It is all naturally observable science.

best wishes,



Gravity is simply a real force testable by anyone that has nothing to do with buoyancy or “density”.(quote)

In fact Gravity is closely related whith Mass and Density, the more massive and dense an object is, the more gravititional effects it will produce in the fabric of space -time as Einstein general theory of relativity postulate and that’s included here on earth…:wink: @MacGyverStoner

An exemple of the Gravity affecting space and time was made several time by compare a clock here on earth and a nother one send in a plane (and in orbit), those clock as the specification of been really accurate, they only lost 1 second every billions of years, and the experience comfirm the Einstein theory, the two different clock shows differences between them even if at the start they were perfectly match…:wink::innocent:

The coriolis effects can also be seen from satellite observations, the typhoon or hurricane do not swirl in the same direction in the Northern hemisphere than in does in the Southern hemisphere. @FloridaSon


I’d never heard that before, but it begs for another question, not an actual answer.

How would it be possible, even on a globe, to have this effect? The rotation of the Earth would be the same no matter which hemisphere you are in. Am I misunderstanding what you said?

I don’t know how to quote your other post with this one on my phone, but you mentioned the constellations changing with the seasons. Yes, part of the reason they were arranged to track the time of the year.

What I meant was that the shape of, let’s say Orion, would change from the time it first appears in the night sky until the last time you can see it.

We’re told that the stars making up what we see as Orion are actually at varying distances. If that was true, the shape of Orion would change throughout it’s seasonal cycles.

It doesn’t. Year after year, the shape of Orion never changes. It never has. This is impossible in a heliocentric model.

I’m not trying to convince anyone. I know science is often wrong and changes “truth” all the time. I can’t rely on their “facts” anymore.

Being a teacher, I truly hope you don’t take offense to my point of view. It’s all I have. I’m still interested in an answer about the irrational numbers. As I said, I didn’t make it to higher math, so the thought doesn’t make sense to me.

I Wikipedia irrational numbers and I still don’t get how you can find truth using that math. If the number used is irrational, the answer can only be theoretical at best. Not fact, which is truth.

Again, please don’t take offense…


How would it be possible, even on a globe, to have this effect? The rotation of the Earth would be the same no matter which hemisphere you are in(quote)

Here’s a link that explain the coriolis effects and why the spinning is different in both hemisphere and the principle also apply when you look up through the stars :wink::innocent:


What I meant was that the shape of, let’s say Orion, would change from the time it first appears in the night sky until the last time you can see it.(quote)

The Orion constatation is situate ~ 1340 lights years away , it’s roughly 7,877 × 10e15 miles , we see it as it appears ~1340 years ago ,the distance between the stars of Orion is enormous too and that’s why they seems to be stationnary and keep it shape, but eventualy, in millions of years it will look very different because the stars and stellar objects that appear to be in it move on different direction, very very slowly by an observer in on earth. Betelgeuse and Rigel will probably even not be there anymore in a billion of years, but you and me would not be physicly here to see it :wink::innocent:

In fact, the Orion constalation looks a little bit different in chinese ancient stellar maps :wink::innocent:


Well, if it wasn’t a sphere, there would be no southern star to see the rest of the stars rotate around in the opposite direction, and you are looking in the opposite direction, down if south is down as opposed to up. if the north and north star are considered up. So yes, with the earth rotating, or even if it was true the stars are the ones moving and not the earth, the earth still has to be a globe for this to work as it does. Quite simply if the earth were a flat circle, there would be no way for a southern star to be seen or to see the opposite type rotation around it. The only way this would work the way it does, as I stated above in the longer above response, is if the earth were a sphere or maybe a cylinder, or some other sphere like, or cylinder similar type like shape.

And which constellations are visible does absolutely change with the seasons, and the relative position in the observable sky does change that are visible all year long. And as the earth is a sphere, when the earth rotates towards the direction of where the constellations that are still visible, why would they change?

As for the constellations themselves, again you are underestimating the scale. Actually the shape and distance between stars in the constellations has changed over the millennia, it is just the distances are so vast, no one will notice the change in ones lifetime, but there are star charts from many thousands of years ago that do record enough of a noticeable difference compared to today’s star charts.

And now with our better telescopes and better measuring devices we can measure the much more subtle changes in distance in real time.

Even if the individual stars are rotating or moving around their individual own central point somewhere out there, again the distances are so vast that the size of their circular orbit would still be too small for us to see with the naked eye. And in general they are still staying relatively the same distance to one another as the distance between them is so vast.

And again, about the north star, if we are on a flat plain, you should absolutely still be able to see this central north star at the center top of this supposed dome, even if you are at the edge of this circle. And quite simply you can’t.

As far as irrational numbers is concerned, the definition of irrational is not the same for normal use as to the definition in math. All it it means in math is the fact that when you divide the fraction that works, say to determine pi, the numbers don’t seem to easily have a stopping place. If you leave the fraction alone, you don’t need to worry about the never ending decimal places. And how can it be theoretical, if even when using the decimal, rounded to only a few decimal places, do we actually get real results, this is not irrational at all, it is real working results.

The experiment with the fruit and pi show that real rational results are achieved all the time. this is not theory.

Science isn’t often wrong, actually it has changed very little from even the time of the ancients in most respects.

Sure, some things we get wrong, say for example, sweet n low, they used to believe that it caused bladder cancer. And now they don’t. But that is only things more on the small individual scale, and because, yes, absolutely the individual scientists may be biased and trying to find the result they want or expect, i.e self serving. And in fact the problems with the original idea that sweet n low causes bladder cancer were found to be incorrect as the original testing conditions were flawed. Rats were used, and most lab rats get bladder cancer often, no matter what you feed them.

As it is often said or taught in science classes to warn about personal biases or expectations, if a scientist spends his entire career, say 40-60 years of his life, studying ravens, and finally after all that work and study, he determines that not including the rare albino, all raven are black. And on the day he is going to go public with his results, a yellow raven lands in front of him. What do you think most people would do? Yeah, he probably kills the thing and buries it before anyone could see it. This is certainly something all scientists are aware of and strive to avoid as not to be that guy.

And again, the Coriolis Force is observable by almost anyone with the above stated experiments in my first response above, with plain natural water.

These things aren’t rocket science and anyone can observe them for themselves with little effort.



Density and mass are very different things definition-ally in science and physics. Just as mass and weight are different by definition in science and physics. I did say the more mass it has it does have more gravity. But I am also trying to keep things vulgar :wink: and did not want to go into detail how physics considers them different, precisely, as that would be much much more complex and refined.



The devil is in the details and some times the lack of it brings misunderstanding and confusion, however you’re absoletly right by how complex it is to vulgarize the intimate relations between Mass, Density and Gravity, these are completly different thing and that’s why I was struggeling to simplify it​:wink::innocent: @MacGyverStoner


I watched the fruit video again and understand what she is saying, but the same shadowing is also consistent with a flat Earth model. In this model, the Sun and Moon are much smaller and closer.

Current acceptable measurements suggest the Sun is approximately 300mi across and around 3000mi above.

With the dome model, and according to ancient text, the entire space is an enclosed self contained environment for us. Wind patterns can be manipulated, as we all know first hand, in an enclosed system.

The humidity contained within that environment would be the same thing as the Coriolis effect as described.

Dinosaurs used to be called dragons. Scientists used to be called Magicians and Sorcerers. I will trust my Father instead. He hasn’t changed at all…