^guess i was right, if you use the word religion people don't understand anything else that you've just said ^^
you say yeah like your agreeing but then start talking about something completely different

do you just skim people's responses for key words? guess you have to deal with a lot shit in these topics

idiots who equate FE to youtube video and religion are smoking to many cracked moon rocks.

^maybe but once again has nothing to do with what i just said lol


Why because it looks fake? Once again i think if it actually was fake they would have made a bit more of an effort to make it look real. You seem to view them simultaneously as idiots and diabolical masterminds capable of pulling off the greatest deception in human history.
They released this less than a year ago btw, around the time flat earth was starting to gain momentum again?

This post was edited by dakariii on Jul 4 2016 11:43am

Its just a composite of two images - photoshopped - the idiocy is in people believing this hogwash, like look at how the earth is perfectly lit - how the clouds dont move even a fraction, and the final straw if this is some shot from a supposed satellite beyond the moon, shouldn't the moon be bigger than the Earth, well all seen the photoshopped images of the earth from the moon and it a little tiny from that perspective, here it looks like if you were on the moon - it would encompass the entire sky - whatever - I guess all the moon landing fackery guys retired and they need to train some new monkeys ,lol.

I can do the maths that would tell you how big the moon should look vs the earth at the distance that they supposedly took the photo, but NASA didn't bother?
As for the lighting i'm not really an expert on how things get lit up in space, but you know who is? maybe the people who take all the photos in space!

if it was fake and they didn't know what they were doing, i would think it would be lit up like a full moon on earth
as it isn't either real or maybe they do know what it's supposed to look like

Also you say it's a composite of two images but i didn't think the earth was supposed to look like that according to you, and how could they take a picture of the back of the moon if it even exists

I admit the whole thing looks sketchy as fuck though
But again if fake wouldn't get through nasa quality control
although i know how this argument might seem and the counter argument

This post was edited by dakariii on Jul 4 2016 02:54pm

Doesn't look even remotely real - i mean look at how everything is perfectly lit - if we are in a stationary place between the sun and earth - i guess that would account for the fact that all man made artificial orbits decay at a scientific rate, which ought to give you a huge hint that we actually understand nothing about this so called gravity - so complete synchronous orbit is just another man made fantasy of sci-fi.

I suppose they needed to prove synchronous orbit because supposedly there is a satellite that just monitors the sun but Ill show you that needing that is nothing more than complete BS.
Look for yourself at how close you can get to the photographing the Moon with a Nikon p900 camera, you think the military doesn't have better -

<-------dont watch video if your bothered by the F bomb

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jul 4 2016 03:53pm

Quote

Factoid: O(3) electrodynamics has been verified
to a precision of 10^21 in the Sagnac Effect.

— Dr. Myron Evans
Author of the Evans GUFT

Flaws in Classical EM Theory:
1. Eliminates the Internal EM Inside the
Scalar Potential.

2. No Definition of Electrical Charge or
of Scalar Potential.

3. Equations Still Assume Material Ether
Per Maxwell (Unchanged).

4. Use of Force Fields in Vacuum is False
(and Known to be So).

5. Treats Charge q as Unitary Instead of
Coupled System q=ø(q)m(q).

6. Confuses Massless Potential Gradients
as Forces (See #3, #4).

7. Does Not Utilize Mass as a Component
of Force (See #23).

8. Erroneously Assumes EM Force Field as
Primary Causes.

9. Topology of EM Model Has Been Substantially
Reduced.

10. Does Not Include Quantum Potential or Action
at a Distance.

11. Does Not Include Superluminal Velocity of Inner
EM Components.

12. Does Not Utilize Extended Near-Field Coulomb
Gauge Effects.

13. Does Not Include EM Generatrix Mechanism
For Time Flow.

14. Does Not Unify Photon and Wave Aspects
(Requires 7-D Model).

15. Does Not Include Electron Spin and Precession
(See #19, #24).

16. Treats EM Energy As Existing in "Chunks,"
Instead of as Flow.

17. Confuses Energy and Energy Collection
(See #16).

18. Discards Half of Every EM Wave in Vacuum
(See #22).

19. Erroneously Uses Transverse Vacuum Wave;
It's Quasi-Longitudinal.

20. Arbitrarily Regauges Maxwell's Equations to
Eliminate Overunity Maxwellian Systems.

21. Omits Phase Conjugate Optics Effects
(Which are the Rule in Internal EM).

22. Does Not Include EM Cause of Newtonian
Reaction Force.

23. Erroneously Assumes Separate Force Acting
on Separate Mass.

24. Confuses Detected Electron Precession Waves
as Proving Transverse EM Waves in Vacuum
(Remnant of Old "EM Fluid" Concept).

25. Due to Error in String Wave, Omits the
Ubiquitous Antiwave.

26. Assumes Equilibrium; Not True Unless Include
Vacuum Interactions.

27. Higher Topology Required, to Model
Electromagnetic Reality.

28. Lorentz surface integration discards giant
Heaviside curled energy transport component.

29. Has nothing at all to say about form of
EM entities in massless space.

30. Eliminates the infolded general relativity using
EM-force as curve agent.

31. Does not include longitudinal EM wave phase
conjugate pairs as time domain oscillations.

32. Does not include EM mechanism that generates
time flow and flow rate.

33. Does not include time-excitation charging
and decay.

34. Does not include time-reversal zones.







I think it's worth looking at the bigger picture. For a start the Earth
has a field, so does our Sun. Even according to particle physics magnetic bubbles break off
from the Sun.
There are fields associated with galaxies and also inter- galactic fields.

I think magnetism really wants to do nothing, it is always other things
that the magnet arranges into the lowest possible energy state.
So folks think of a way to see the vortex which the Earth itself must
have. It'll obviously be in everyone's garden!

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jul 4 2016 09:52pm

Magnetism already has a direct impact on the way in which plants grow.
A seed, when placed on the ground, will germinate with outbreaks of shooting up and the roots down independently in the way in which the seed was planted in the ground.
NASA scientists believe that this is due to the geo-magnetic attraction of the Earth in relation to the protoplasm of the seeds.
Proteins in the protoplasm near the cell wall of a plant cell are pulled down, which indicates the plant how to grow.


Hypothesis:
Magnetism imparts force upon proteins in the protoplasm for plants to determine growth factors based on the Polarity of the magnet.


Experiment:
control vs S "pole" of a neodymium magnet
then control vs N "pole" of a neodymium magnet later


2 x 3gallon aquaponic tanks with 1 veil tail male beta and 1 pleco alge eater
arrowhead "100% spring water"
grow bed
grow lid
submersible pump
common gravel and plastic gravel (blue for s towards plants, red for control)
5 plants seeds; 2 radish, 2 wheatgrass, 1 basil
growstones
D-klor water conditioner
zym bac nutrient bacteria
tidy tank cleaner
beta fish food

Expected results:
S pole towards the plants will produce higher quality yield than control
N pole towards the plants will produce lower quality yield than control







Term:
1st harvest 4 weeks @ august 4th
pole flip
2nd harvest at 8 weeks @ september 4th

This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jul 4 2016 10:43pm

Notable others experiments:







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GxtM-PUHiI

I'm very interested in conducting a double slit.
As I have demonstrated basic magnetism to be a culprit in the bent light we see,
it seems likely to me that the double slit conducted on earth is being contaminated by a magnetic field and throwing light "particles" into each other. As the force-carrying "particle" in a magnetic field is the photon and it is recognizable in QM that photons collide AT LEAST they can interact through higher-order processes.




One of the first experiments claiming to demonstrate gravitational time dilation on Earth was a (Sagnac) interferometer,
somewhat similar to the double-slit experiment.


A coherent beam with a very short wavelength was split into two and then recombined.
By rotating the apparatus, it was possible to have the two beams separated vertically, or equidistant from the center of the Earth.
A phase shift was detected between the two positions.


The double-slit experiment should be able to be rotated in the same way,
showing a small shift between the positions of the dark and light bars
(it would not be apparent with visible light, and the apparatus would need to be very rigid or mechanical sagging would affect the result).

Presumably the phase shift would be less if the experiment were done in deep space,
far from a gravitational mass, and greater if done on a neutron star.


Technically, this is could be considered a measure of gravitational gradient (i.e. Flux Magnetic pressure gradients along the golden ratio at 137.5077 degrees common to phyllotaxis),
rather than absolute gravitational strength.


The double slit should be conducted at 4 elevations for a proper demonstration, if magnetism were to be the source of the earth's gravity, and a possible culprit of bending light;
1 sea level
2 suspended over a pit mine
3 at high altitude
4 in or beyond outer orbit





On another note,

I'm very excited about what NASA will find investigating the Aurora!


Let's hope Juno can produce the numbers
xD