Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Now let’s discuss tidal flows, another Fanboy ‘proof’ of the ‘rotating’ Earth and of the magical-druidic properties of that most famous of amen words - ‘gravity’.
We head back to the chapels of Apostle Newton and Messiah Al of the Einstein, the Lord, the giver of sentience. In summary, the standard Newtonian-heliocentric model, explicated through its divine professors, relies on a magical, invisible tether to explain the movement of our oceans. Canonical dogma demands that:
One part of the Standard Model states that the Moon, resting in a dead ‘vacuum’ 238,000 miles away, 1/81 the mass of this planet, uses the amen-word ‘gravity’ (now bow your heads and pray), to reach through the vast void and drag giga-tonnes of water around the Earth every single day. A second explanation, based on the prophecies of the Messiah A-Stone (Ein Stein); the Moon through its very limited mass ‘displaces’ space-time and drags the oceans on this planet.
The volumes involved are unimaginable and the movement, violent. Does the above pass the farmer’s common-sense test?
The gospel of the Standard Model does not make sense if we have a look at the physical mechanics of the oceans or the incredible volume of water being lifted and pushed (a tide is water being lifted and heaved, they are not ‘flows’ like a river current). If we consider the real nature of tidal flows, we will see the massive anomalies the establishment tries to hide with their arcane maths.
In the simplest terms, according to oceanographic science, tidal flows are the cyclical rising and falling of the Earth’s oceanic baseline. There are many reasons why water will oscillate against its natural baseline within a container but as usual ‘The Science’ will only allow one answer, one model interpretation.
“Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the aether, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge.” — James Clerk Maxwell (a practical man who confirmed classical electromagnetism and that space is not a vacuum, but a fluid plenum).
“There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment... All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena.” — Nikola Tesla (affirming that the environment, the aether and external thermal/kinetic forces drive all physical phenomena, perfectly aligning with the thermal pressure gradient model of wind. Tesla is one of the greatest - and most ignored - engineers in history).
You remember your high school or equivalent science teacher. Before ‘teaching science’ he taught Phys-Ed and was your track coach. Before that German. Before that English. Before that he dabbled in maths for a few years. He was trained in ‘science’ for a few weeks in the summer. When you arrived in class chewing gum and telling silly jokes, you were surprised. What is the Phys Ed guy doing here? Too early for track practice. Am I in trouble again?
As your track coach hurdled through the ‘science’ and ‘physics’ curriculum he went through the Standard Model and undoubtedly alighted on the ‘Wind’ concept. He related this to sports of course. Wind was now equated with competition, opposition, movement, spinning, ‘survival of the fittest’, ‘evolution’, things-happen and various sports phenomena. Truly inspiring. But then your common-sense-critical-thinking module was turned on. Does this guy actually know what he is on about?
Wind is an issue for the Standard Model (below), but the issues are never discussed because they are not in the standard state-narrative-textbooks. This is called propaganda.
Let’s run a quick audit on the science curriculum to understand exactly what is being taught and why. The claim that a rotation is necessary to create wind is physically inaccurate. To be fair this is not precisely what is taught in the ‘school’ systems but it is certainly implied and it is wrong.
The claim is that there is a middle-age-overweight-bulge, nicely sited around the Earth’s waist. You would think the spinning ballerina of the standard model would be in finer fettle. Scientism and its Fanboys always use the ‘bulge’ as a ‘proof’ of heliocentricity and their model. This is of course more than tendentious; it is tedious and wrong. The 2 quotes above indicate why. The post below elucidates. A bulge, if it even exists, does not need to be generated by rotational movement.
The modern scientific establishment expects you to believe the Earth is a spinning water balloon flying through a dead, empty vacuum. Descartes, Hook, Leibniz, Faraday, Maxwell, Lodge and the founding naturalists of classical physics knew better. They understood that the universe is a highly pressurized fluid machine.
In fluid dynamics, a non-rigid body (the Earth) subjected to the immense, rotating pressure gradients of Descartes and Lodge’s aether would settle into an oblate shape, more expansive at the equator, ever so slightly flattened at the poles. This fact can be replicated in a lab and in the classroom.
The heliocentric argument for the bulge and the oblate shape of the Earth, dates back to Saint Newton of Gravity and the Light Corpuscle. Both theories are wrong.
Using centrifugal dynamics Newton calculated that if the Earth were rotating (and he assumed, orbiting the Sun), the centrifugal force would push the mass outward at the equator. His ratio was 1:230 (the poles are 1 slice out of 230 flatter than at the equator), or a 17 miles bulge at the equator. There is nothing wrong with this idea. You can take a non rigid ball and confirm this for yourself as you spin it at a high speed.
To prove Newton right, the French Academy of Sciences launched two large surveying missions in the 1730s (Terrall, 2002). One team went to Lapland near the North Pole and another to the equator in South America in the appropriately named Ecuador. They physically measured the ground of one degree of latitude. There are issues with their work and calculations (I list a few problems at the end, in sum their measurements were fraudulent, contain your shock).
Maupertius, a devoted Newtonian who led the effort, claimed a large bulge with a 1:179 ratio, or 22.1 miles. This is what the cult of Newton wanted. Given these ‘proofs’, Newton’s idea of a centrifugal force, forcing an oblate shape onto the Earth seemed sensible. Game on for the Copernicans.