We Never Went To The Moon

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,361
Likes
981
Buzz Aldrin is over on Twitter celebrating the coming 50 university. Its a hard one to call but the Chinese photographs have confirmed my suspicions.
 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,361
Likes
981
Did you like the Chinese and Israeli images? Do you accept them as truth and fact?
I didn't know the Israelis got there. I thought they were only swinging round the Earth. I accept the Chinese because they have no reason to lie. It was their images that confirmed my skepticism. All Apollo photographs showed a dark grey dust. The Chinese showed a red/brown speckled grey which makes a lot more sense if iron it present.

The excuse being put about is that they sent back the photos in the 3 primary colours, red yellow and blue. and they got it mixed up. don't buy that. To claim the Chinese can't take a colour photo is mad.
 

patrick jane

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,861
Likes
246
Location
USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #304
Flat Earth AWAKENINGS - People Need to Discover On Their Own

11 minutes

 

Dan Óg

Ui Máine
Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
15,630
Likes
9,205
The Israeli craft is not expected to get to the moon for another couple of weeks.
 

patrick jane

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,861
Likes
246
Location
USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #307
Galileo Was Wrong - The Heliocentric Lie


26 minutes



1. In 1905, Einstein added time dilation to length contraction because it was required to fit his theory, not because he “discovered” it. It has since been applied to everything under the sun so that the Einstein advocates can claim that everything works by SRT. So let’s assume that the GPS satellites are in an inertial frame.


The fact is, the light beams traveling east-to-west are faster by 50ns than the beams traveling west-to-east. But according to SRT, there should beno difference of the two beams since both are in an inertial frame. (And if they are not in an inertial frame, then SRT cannot be applied). So, in order to hide this discrepancy to save SRT, the GPS computers are preprogrammed with a Sagnac correction so that it appears that the east bound beam is going the same speed as the westbound beam, and voila! SRT is “proved.”


2. EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong. (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years. In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results *"the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced consistently positive results.


The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting".


It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much. Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate.


3. Not only has General Relativity failed to provide adequate answers for stellar aberration, rotation, and action-at-a-distance (that is, without resorting to Mach’s “distant rotating masses”), Van Flandern reminds us that… “…it is not widely appreciated that this [General Relativity] is a purely mathematical model, lacking a physical mechanism to initiate motion. For example, if a “space-time manifold” (like the rubber sheet) exists near a source of mass, why would a small particle placed at rest in that manifold (on the rubber sheet) begin to move toward the source mass?


Indeed, why would curvature of the manifold even have a sense of “down” unless some force such as gravity already existed. Logically, the small particle at rest on a curved manifold would have no reason to end its rest unless a force acted on it.” “…all existing experimental evidence requires the action of fields to be conveyed much faster than lightspeed.


This situation is ironic because the reason why the geometric interpretation gained ascendancy over the field interpretation is that the implied faster-than-light action of fields appeared to allow causality violations [e.g., moving backwards in time, according to the principles of Special Relativity]….Yet the field interpretation of General Relativity requires faster than light propagation. So if Special Relativity were a correct model of reality, the field interpretation would violate the causality principle, which is why it fell from popularity.”


4. It is rather interesting that Relativists, on the one hand, claim that light is limited to 186,000 mps in Special Relativity, but admit that Special Relativity does not incorporate gravity or inertial forces. On the other hand, they claim gravity is limited to the speed of light because Special Relativity says nothing can go faster than light. But if Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity, then how can Special Relativity claim that gravity’s speed is limited to light speed?


Moreover, in General Relativity, light, and we presume gravity, is not limited to 186,000 mps, and that is because General Relativity deals with frames that include gravity and inertial forces. But if gravity itself is a non-inertial frame, then how can it be limited to 186,000 mps by Special Relativity which only deals with inertial frames? This shows that the two theories of Relativity contradict themselves.


5. Einstein and Infield wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938) : “…the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate storeys (sic), the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation.”


On this Dr. Kelly comments : “So, if the special theory loses its basis, the general theory is also without foundation.” The only original big idea in “Einstein's” so-called theory of general relativity was curved space. Yet through the 1980s and 1990s, and today with the Hubble space telescope, astronomers have methodically and painstakingly developed three-dimensional atlases of the universe.


However, they have detected no curvature of space. Theoretical physicist Paul LaViolette observes : “If space were curved by even the slightest amount, evidence of this would have shown up in astronomical surveys. When the data are checked, however, no evidence of curvature is found. Observations of the density of galaxies found at distant locations of the universe indicate that space is Euclidian out to the farthest limits of observation.”
 

patrick jane

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,861
Likes
246
Location
USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #309
MORE REAL PICTURES OF EARTH FROM DEEP SPACE?

As we have learned from watching many hours of fake space footage, it's difficult to perfect the art of deceit without getting caught in the act. It seems that some countries are better than others at deceiving the world, but. Israel just isn't one of those. I really thought China was on the top of the list for fake moon missions, but Israel has already surpassed them. I do believe near the end, I said they were set to land there April 12th and then corrected by saying April 11th. Most of what I've seen says the 11th. Not sure why I said 12th, but it could depend on your timezone. I'll update this as I find newer info.

7 minutes

 

patrick jane

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
1,861
Likes
246
Location
USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #310
I don't buy it but I notice that every few weeks or about once a month there are big announcements in the realm of Space and Space Travel etc. It just perpetuates the already solidified indoctrination of the world population. I'm afraid though that no scientists will question this in any way shape or form. There is absolutely NO resistance or adverse academic reaction. NASA is untouchable.



Black Hole Insanity - It's FAKE But You Believe It!!!
6 minutes

 

jon 1000's of irish f

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
5,010
Likes
3,456
 
Top Bottom