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
“The best explanation for the Moon is observational error—the Moon does not exist.” — Irwin Shapiro (Former Director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics).
“The isotopic similarities between the Earth and the Moon have thrown the giant impact hypothesis into a crisis... The standard giant impact model cannot easily explain this isotopic likeness.” — H. Jay Melosh (Distinguished Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, 2014 Royal Society publication)
Shapiro was making a famous, cynical joke among astrophysicists, but it highlights the poverty of the propaganda.
The mathematical and dynamic parameters required for the Moon to exist where it does, at the size it is, necessary for life on this planet, are statistically so improbable that it is mathematically easier to assume the Lunar node does not exist, than to try to explain how it was formed from the standard gravitational model.
You remember Newton’s God called ‘Gravity’. It assembles, it forms, it attracts, it repels, it explodes, it implodes, it organises, it disorganises, it aggregates, it destroys, it manufactures life but also scary singularities like Black Holes; and it keeps the lid on our atmosphere even as you use a $50 Walmart air pump (‘vacuum cleaner’) and clean your carpets overcoming this holy spirit of a force. Just the mere thought of this divine being brings you to your knees in supplication and mumbling. Don’t forget to transmute iron into gold.
The second quote above describes a very specific disproof of astrophysics’ explanation of Moon formation. They can’t avoid the obvious. Chemical fingerprints do not lie. But the ‘Standard Model’ does lie and if can’t outwardly lie, it will tie you up in layers of mathematical knots that can never be unravelled. Easier and more fun to chew off your right arm.
Here is the issue:
The Standard Model (SM) cannot explain the ‘Moon’. The SM cannot explain the Moon’s existence, creation, materiality, its precise distance from this planet, its lack of rotation, why it is pinned to the Earth, and the SM will never discuss its impact on the aetheric flows of energy and pressure within space, which impact this planet (see Allais). Other than that, the SM is ‘expert’ on all things Lunar - especially ‘landings’.
We discussed previously why the Moon has almost no impact on tidal flows and why the SM (as usual) is completely wrong on ascribing the complicated ‘heaving’ and ‘lifting’ of 370.000 Gigatonnes of water globally every day within large basins in patterns which have nothing to do with the Moon’s precession, to an orb 1/81 the mass of this planet. More here
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.
