Dels experiments concerning the directional vector

Shmack_1 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iogVVja1MYY
I havent tried this myself, but if it is legit then it is quite interesting..

Interesting how?

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:

Shmack_1 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iogVVja1MYY
I havent tried this myself, but if it is legit then it is quite interesting..

Interesting how?

It doesn't confirm or deny anything relating to this discussion, but for me I would of picked the straight 45deg decline, it's a shorter route. I find it interesting in regards to the "gravity" phenomenon.

Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary. Eric should just have a direct discussion with Del. Bring your practical demonstrations Eric and your reasoning

Earth is provably shown to be a level stationary plane, and it is what every single one of us experiences every single day of our lives. Claiming Earth is constantly rising is the unevidenced assumption:  https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/earth-does-not-move/

https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/GeocentricityisScientific-HeliocentricityisaLie:9

I made no claim Earth is constantly rising

I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

How did you verify this?
And since you have verified this, where is this plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Take any object like a round ball and place it on a flat level surface. If the earth was moving then the ball would also move due to the law of acceleration. There is no movement hence the earth isn't moving. If the Earth was moving at a uniform speed (upwards for example) then objects falling would all fall at the exact same speed regardless of their density. As they wouldn't be "falling" but the earth would be accelerating into them at a set, uniform speed. We know that this doesn't match reality.

In reality the Earth is a stationary plane.

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Take any object like a round ball and place it on a flat level surface. If the earth was moving then the ball would also move due to the law of acceleration. There is no movement hence the earth isn't moving. If the Earth was moving at a uniform speed (upwards for example) then objects falling would all fall at the exact same speed regardless of their density. As they wouldn't be "falling" but the earth would be accelerating into them at a set, uniform speed. We know that this doesn't match reality.

In reality the Earth is a stationary plane.

I've made no claims that the earth is moving.

I've said "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary"

I've asked:
How have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Take any object like a round ball and place it on a flat level surface. If the earth was moving then the ball would also move due to the law of acceleration. There is no movement hence the earth isn't moving. If the Earth was moving at a uniform speed (upwards for example) then objects falling would all fall at the exact same speed regardless of their density. As they wouldn't be "falling" but the earth would be accelerating into them at a set, uniform speed. We know that this doesn't match reality.

In reality the Earth is a stationary plane.

I've made no claims that the earth is moving.

I've said "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary"

I've asked:
How have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

We are at the center of our universe as all of the illuminaries above us circle around us with the north pole star situated in the middle.

We may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something until we can explore past Antarctica and even then we may not get the answer.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't get how Del posits an upwards acceleration when he runs into the exact same "God of the gaps" issue with that notion.

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Take any object like a round ball and place it on a flat level surface. If the earth was moving then the ball would also move due to the law of acceleration. There is no movement hence the earth isn't moving. If the Earth was moving at a uniform speed (upwards for example) then objects falling would all fall at the exact same speed regardless of their density. As they wouldn't be "falling" but the earth would be accelerating into them at a set, uniform speed. We know that this doesn't match reality.

In reality the Earth is a stationary plane.

I've made no claims that the earth is moving.

I've said "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary"

I've asked:
How have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

We are at the center of our universe as all of the illuminaries above us circle around us with the north pole star situated in the middle.

We may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something until we can explore past Antarctica and even then we may not get the answer.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't get how Del posits an upwards acceleration when he runs into the exact same "God of the gaps" issue with that notion.

What do you mean by universe and how have you verified we are at the centre of it?

If we may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something, then how have you verified that earth is stationary?

Let's leave Del's upwards acceleration out of our discussion, because it is not something I have claimed or even mentioned.

Let's try to establish some 1st principles before we continue shall we? Would you agree that whatever we live on is calabrated to a level plane and that we have a downward vector, things appear to fall down and a pressure gradiant where more dense things move down and less dense things move up?

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Take any object like a round ball and place it on a flat level surface. If the earth was moving then the ball would also move due to the law of acceleration. There is no movement hence the earth isn't moving. If the Earth was moving at a uniform speed (upwards for example) then objects falling would all fall at the exact same speed regardless of their density. As they wouldn't be "falling" but the earth would be accelerating into them at a set, uniform speed. We know that this doesn't match reality.

In reality the Earth is a stationary plane.

I've made no claims that the earth is moving.

I've said "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary"

I've asked:
How have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

We are at the center of our universe as all of the illuminaries above us circle around us with the north pole star situated in the middle.

We may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something until we can explore past Antarctica and even then we may not get the answer.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't get how Del posits an upwards acceleration when he runs into the exact same "God of the gaps" issue with that notion.

What do you mean by universe and how have you verified we are at the centre of it?

If we may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something, then how have you verified that earth is stationary?

Let's leave Del's upwards acceleration out of our discussion, because it is not something I have claimed or even mentioned.

Let's try to establish some 1st principles before we continue shall we? Would you agree that whatever we live on is calabrated to a level plane and that we have a downward vector, things appear to fall down and a pressure gradiant where more dense things move down and less dense things move up?

The downward vector is because earth is the largest and densest medium. Buoyance force causes objects to rise in the ocean, I would posit that a similar force which I will call "density force" is what pushes objects down towards its relative density. Which would be the ground.

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

chimaira92 wrote:> I said you make assumptions about earth being stationary

It isn't assumption. It is a fact that the earth is level as dictated by the properties of water and that the earth is not moving in any direction. If you weigh an object and then place that object on the ground. That object will stand completely still, unaffected by any supposed force of motion because it has found its density equilibrium. If there was an upwards acceleration acting upon the object placed onto the ground, we would be able to measure for the added weight that this upwards force would create.

In reality though, there is no added weight and the Earth is stationary.

If it's not an assumption can you please tell me how have you verified that the earth is stationary? And since you have verified it where is this level plane you believe to be stationary? Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

I never claimed anything about an upwards acceleration

The questions are as above:
how have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

Take any object like a round ball and place it on a flat level surface. If the earth was moving then the ball would also move due to the law of acceleration. There is no movement hence the earth isn't moving. If the Earth was moving at a uniform speed (upwards for example) then objects falling would all fall at the exact same speed regardless of their density. As they wouldn't be "falling" but the earth would be accelerating into them at a set, uniform speed. We know that this doesn't match reality.

In reality the Earth is a stationary plane.

I've made no claims that the earth is moving.

I've said "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary"

I've asked:
How have you verified that the earth is stationary?
Since you have verified earth to be stationary, where is this level plane you believe to be stationary?
Is it floating in some type of medium or attached to something?

We are at the center of our universe as all of the illuminaries above us circle around us with the north pole star situated in the middle.

We may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something until we can explore past Antarctica and even then we may not get the answer.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't get how Del posits an upwards acceleration when he runs into the exact same "God of the gaps" issue with that notion.

What do you mean by universe and how have you verified we are at the centre of it?

If we may never know if it is floating or in some medium attached to something, then how have you verified that earth is stationary?

Let's leave Del's upwards acceleration out of our discussion, because it is not something I have claimed or even mentioned.

Let's try to establish some 1st principles before we continue shall we? Would you agree that whatever we live on is calabrated to a level plane and that we have a downward vector, things appear to fall down and a pressure gradiant where more dense things move down and less dense things move up?

The downward vector is because earth is the largest and densest medium. Buoyance force causes objects to rise in the ocean, I would posit that a similar force which I will call "density force" is what pushes objects down towards its relative density. Which would be the ground.

Would you be able to practically demonstrate a horizontal density gradient based on your belief of a stationary earth?

I would say the stationary earth is self evident , a truism , it is not a belief. It's what we experience every moment of our existence. Science is unable to show by experiment any daily rotation or orbit around another body.

There is no proof of gravity as an attractive force between mass acting by unknown means over distance.

All objects falling to earth are a demonstration of the horizontal density gradient. They are not affected by rotation or planetary orbit or such nonsense. They are affected by the density if the medium through which they fall.

You seem to be using philosophical arguments because you have no scientific proofs for anything.

Can you present any scientific proof of gravity, earth rotation or orbit . Those are assumptions .

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:I would say the stationary earth is self evident , a truism , it is not a belief. It's what we experience every moment of our existence. Science is unable to show by experiment any daily rotation or orbit around another body.

There is no proof of gravity as an attractive force between mass acting by unknown means over distance.

All objects falling to earth are a demonstration of the horizontal density gradient. They are not affected by rotation or planetary orbit or such nonsense. They are affected by the density if the medium through which they fall.

You seem to be using philosophical arguments because you have no scientific proofs for anything.

Can you present any scientific proof of gravity, earth rotation or orbit . Those are assumptions .

Saying something is self evident is not you telling me how you have verified the earth is stationary. Where is the earth stationary? Is it floating in a void or some medium? Or is it attached to something? Please be specific.

I've never mentioned daily rotation or orbit around another body so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I have never mentioned gravity as an attractive force in this discussion so please don't attach that to my questioning.

All objects appearing to fall towards the earth is demonstrable of a vertical density gradient. I have not mentioned rotation or planetary orbit so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I agree they are affected by the density of the medium through which they fall. That's not in dispute.

What proofs do I need? What claims have I made?

I've made no mention of gravity, earth rotation or orbit so wy are you attaching arguments to me that I haven't made?

Alpha wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:I would say the stationary earth is self evident , a truism , it is not a belief. It's what we experience every moment of our existence. Science is unable to show by experiment any daily rotation or orbit around another body.

There is no proof of gravity as an attractive force between mass acting by unknown means over distance.

All objects falling to earth are a demonstration of the horizontal density gradient. They are not affected by rotation or planetary orbit or such nonsense. They are affected by the density if the medium through which they fall.

You seem to be using philosophical arguments because you have no scientific proofs for anything.

Can you present any scientific proof of gravity, earth rotation or orbit . Those are assumptions .

Saying something is self evident is not you telling me how you have verified the earth is stationary. Where is the earth stationary? Is it floating in a void or some medium? Or is it attached to something? Please be specific.

I've never mentioned daily rotation or orbit around another body so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I have never mentioned gravity as an attractive force in this discussion so please don't attach that to my questioning.

All objects appearing to fall towards the earth is demonstrable of a vertical density gradient. I have not mentioned rotation or planetary orbit so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I agree they are affected by the density of the medium through which they fall. That's not in dispute.

What proofs do I need? What claims have I made?

I've made no mention of gravity, earth rotation or orbit so wy are you attaching arguments to me that I haven't made?

Since we can all agree that gravity does not exist. What then would you attribute to the motion of freefall?

As for your question about where the stationary Earth is located. That is impossible for us to know as that would require us to leave Earth and nobody has left the Earth, leaving Earth doesn't appear to be a reality for us. So I would say this falls under a philosophical enquiry rather than a scientific one.

chimaira92 wrote:

Alpha wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:I would say the stationary earth is self evident , a truism , it is not a belief. It's what we experience every moment of our existence. Science is unable to show by experiment any daily rotation or orbit around another body.

There is no proof of gravity as an attractive force between mass acting by unknown means over distance.

All objects falling to earth are a demonstration of the horizontal density gradient. They are not affected by rotation or planetary orbit or such nonsense. They are affected by the density if the medium through which they fall.

You seem to be using philosophical arguments because you have no scientific proofs for anything.

Can you present any scientific proof of gravity, earth rotation or orbit . Those are assumptions .

Saying something is self evident is not you telling me how you have verified the earth is stationary. Where is the earth stationary? Is it floating in a void or some medium? Or is it attached to something? Please be specific.

I've never mentioned daily rotation or orbit around another body so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I have never mentioned gravity as an attractive force in this discussion so please don't attach that to my questioning.

All objects appearing to fall towards the earth is demonstrable of a vertical density gradient. I have not mentioned rotation or planetary orbit so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I agree they are affected by the density of the medium through which they fall. That's not in dispute.

What proofs do I need? What claims have I made?

I've made no mention of gravity, earth rotation or orbit so wy are you attaching arguments to me that I haven't made?

Since we can all agree that gravity does not exist. What then would you attribute to the motion of freefall?

As for your question about where the stationary Earth is located. That is impossible for us to know as that would require us to leave Earth and nobody has left the Earth, leaving Earth doesn't appear to be a reality for us. So I would say this falls under a philosophical enquiry rather than a scientific one.

What claims did I make about freefall? I didn't mention it, if you want to talk about freefall since you've introduced it I'd be interested.

The claim made was that earth is stationary, if you have verified it is stationary then you would need to know where it is, if it's floating in a void or in some type of medium or if attached to something. Stating that it is impossible for us to know is fine but with knowing you can't verify that earth is stationary, you can only assume.

It is a scientific enquiry, because I am asking you to demonstrate a horizontal directional density gradient whilst stationary

Alpha wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:I would say the stationary earth is self evident , a truism , it is not a belief. It's what we experience every moment of our existence. Science is unable to show by experiment any daily rotation or orbit around another body.

There is no proof of gravity as an attractive force between mass acting by unknown means over distance.

All objects falling to earth are a demonstration of the horizontal density gradient. They are not affected by rotation or planetary orbit or such nonsense. They are affected by the density if the medium through which they fall.

You seem to be using philosophical arguments because you have no scientific proofs for anything.

Can you present any scientific proof of gravity, earth rotation or orbit . Those are assumptions .

Saying something is self evident is not you telling me how you have verified the earth is stationary. Where is the earth stationary? Is it floating in a void or some medium? Or is it attached to something? Please be specific.

I've never mentioned daily rotation or orbit around another body so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I have never mentioned gravity as an attractive force in this discussion so please don't attach that to my questioning.

All objects appearing to fall towards the earth is demonstrable of a vertical density gradient. I have not mentioned rotation or planetary orbit so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I agree they are affected by the density of the medium through which they fall. That's not in dispute.

What proofs do I need? What claims have I made?

I've made no mention of gravity, earth rotation or orbit so wy are you attaching arguments to me that I haven't made?

Stationary earth is self evident . It's what we all experience . A truism. All you have to do disprove that is provide scientific evidence that it is not . If you could do that then it would become a belief.

Force of magnetic repulsion accelerates accelerates objects downwards through the density layers.

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:

Alpha wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:I would say the stationary earth is self evident , a truism , it is not a belief. It's what we experience every moment of our existence. Science is unable to show by experiment any daily rotation or orbit around another body.

There is no proof of gravity as an attractive force between mass acting by unknown means over distance.

All objects falling to earth are a demonstration of the horizontal density gradient. They are not affected by rotation or planetary orbit or such nonsense. They are affected by the density if the medium through which they fall.

You seem to be using philosophical arguments because you have no scientific proofs for anything.

Can you present any scientific proof of gravity, earth rotation or orbit . Those are assumptions .

Saying something is self evident is not you telling me how you have verified the earth is stationary. Where is the earth stationary? Is it floating in a void or some medium? Or is it attached to something? Please be specific.

I've never mentioned daily rotation or orbit around another body so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I have never mentioned gravity as an attractive force in this discussion so please don't attach that to my questioning.

All objects appearing to fall towards the earth is demonstrable of a vertical density gradient. I have not mentioned rotation or planetary orbit so please don't attach that to my questioning.

I agree they are affected by the density of the medium through which they fall. That's not in dispute.

What proofs do I need? What claims have I made?

I've made no mention of gravity, earth rotation or orbit so wy are you attaching arguments to me that I haven't made?

Stationary earth is self evident . It's what we all experience . A truism. All you have to do disprove that is provide scientific evidence that it is not . If you could do that then it would become a belief.

Force of magnetic repulsion accelerates accelerates objects downwards through the density layers.

I haven't made any claims so I don't need to provide any evidence.

You say stationary earth is self evident but I'm only interested in what you can practically demonstrate to be true.

Can you demonstrate how this plane is stationary? Does it go on and on forever? Is it attached to something? Or is it floating in some kind of medium or void? These are things for you to explain as it's your claim that stationary earth is self evident.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion? Because I would be interested in see that.

You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

Alpha wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

i would suggest reading more/thinking for yourself

this repeated notion of a “horizontal density gradient” seems of minimal importance(?) if even a valid concept — curious why it’s worth fixating on so much here — other than distracting from better ideas

parallax is a good, fairly obvious tell that we’re stationary in regards to the turning celestial bodies: if we were doing the sun-through-space orbit trick the constellations would be wonky & hardly “fixed;” same w/ those glorious circular star-trails people capture using exposure techniques: clearly showing patterns that would be baffling-if-impossible to explain using a heliocentric model

"Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

I'm not interested in assumptions."


All in your last post, alpha.

Assumptions are not required in self evident truth. Proof is required to show that the claim of a self evident truth may be false.

My assumptions now are that you don't understand the meaning of the term , or you have evidence which contradicts the claim of a stationary earth which you are reluctant to divulge , or you are a shill having a pop at Eric.

Hope it's not the last but I've come across this word play before , and I'm not interested in semantics.

Get outside and tell us which way the earth moves where you are if you want.

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:"Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

I'm not interested in assumptions."


All in your last post, alpha.

Assumptions are not required in self evident truth. Proof is required to show that the claim of a self evident truth may be false.

My assumptions now are that you don't understand the meaning of the term , or you have evidence which contradicts the claim of a stationary earth which you are reluctant to divulge , or you are a shill having a pop at Eric.

Hope it's not the last but I've come across this word play before , and I'm not interested in semantics.

Get outside and tell us which way the earth moves where you are if you want.

You said Stationary earth is self evident, so I am asking you to demonstrate how the level plane remains stationary.

The claim of stationary earth needs to demonstrate how the level plane remains stationary.

Can you prove I'm a shill? Where did I have a pop at Eric?

I haven't made any claims about earth's movement.

So no demonstrations of a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field or a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion? Looking forward to them.

RileySlowWave wrote:

Alpha wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:You said that "Eric makes his own assumpstions about earth being stationary " .

Stationary earth is self evident until you or "science" can provide proof of movement . It's what mankind has always experienced . It is not an assumption. No one has to provide proof of what is self evident . Oxymoronic that.

You can provide evidence of a rotating or orbiting earth for scrutiny if you wish.

Neither is it an assumption that we are at the centre of what we observe as our universe.

What science says ours is an infinite universe ( an assumption) ,but the celestial dome visibly rotates above our heads never changing . Self evident . We know the celestial coordinates of stars, galaxies ,nebulae etc . Positions of these objects don't change.

The planets and other bodies wander about beneath the dome.

What's outside our universe we don't know , maybe science knows but doesn't like to tell us.

We know we live within an electromagnetic field. My assumption is it is a toroidal field that encompasses all that we observe . North pole at the centre towards the pole star , ice wall at the edges.

No one knows everything - except maybe the creator .

Peace

Yes Eric has to make assumptions on the earth being stationary until he can explain where and how this plane remains stationary and we can all verify it to be true.

Since it's so self evident to you can you explain how you verified where this plane is and how it remains stationary?

How have you verified that we are at the centre and what do you mean by universe?

What does the lights above your head have to do with you verifying where and how this plane remains stationary?

It's interesting you use the word planets and then also promote a dome.

I'm not interested in assumptions.

Would you be able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using an electromagnetic field? Because that would be interesting.

Were you not able to demonstrate a horizontal density gradient using magnetic repulstion?

i would suggest reading more/thinking for yourself

this repeated notion of a “horizontal density gradient” seems of minimal importance(?) if even a valid concept — curious why it’s worth fixating on so much here — other than distracting from better ideas

parallax is a good, fairly obvious tell that we’re stationary in regards to the turning celestial bodies: if we were doing the sun-through-space orbit trick the constellations would be wonky & hardly “fixed;” same w/ those glorious circular star-trails people capture using exposure techniques: clearly showing patterns that would be baffling-if-impossible to explain using a heliocentric model

I haven't made any claims about earth's movement, never said anything about sun-through-space orbit or anything about the heliocentric model.

Could you please demonstrate for me how the level plane remains stationary?

I can come back to density gradients.