Connect with us

Planet Earth

The Physics of a Flat Earth Wouldn’t Be Pleasant

How would gravity work? Would we still have time zones? Change of seasons? Would the conditions for life here on Earth exist at all? Most early theories on the shape of the Earth were based on religious interpretations. But what about modern day believers in a non-round Earth?

Modern Day Flat Earthers

Some belief in a hypothetical Flat Earth continues to the modern day. Samuel Shenton established the Flat Earth Society in 1956, right around the beginning of the Space Race. While this iteration was less religious than previous or succeeding flat earth groups, Shenton did believe that Earth appeared round in photographs because of wide-lens cameras.

Today’s Flat Earth Society theorizes that the Earth is shaped like a disk, with the North Pole being located at the center and Antarctica being located around its edges. This theory is primarily based on interpretations of the Christian Bible. The first to popularize these theories was the 1865 book “Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe,” by a man named Samuel Rowbotham.

Is this what the edge of a flat Earth looks like?

Modern day flat earth theorists believe that Earth’s gravity is actually an illusion driven by dark energy. They believe that day-night cycles are driven by the Sun and Moon, which they believe are 32-kilometer long spheres, rotating in circles and illuminating different parts of the planet. Flat earth theories also often overlap with other, shall we say, fringe theories, such as the theory that the moon landing was fake.

To this day, flat earthers believe that people who believe in a round Earth are the ones who are misinterpreting facts. After the solar eclipse of 2017, many flat earth adherents made videos using footage of the event to prove that the earth is flat.

Additionally, many modern day Flat Earthers believe that they have been lied to by the media on many topics, and the Earth actually being flat, rather than round, is simply a symbol of a larger issue. Flat Earthers often believe that others believe on a round Earth simply because they have not been shown the facts proving that the Earth is, in fact, flat.

The Science of a Flat Earth:

First of all, forget about walking to its edge. Gravity would simply not let you. Wait, would gravity even be possible on a flat Earth? The answer is yes, of course. The force of gravity is what keeps our planet, or any other planet, together. It’s what forms a planet in the first place.

In the case of a pancake-shaped Earth, the force of gravity would pull you to the center, and would become stronger as you tried to walk away from it, pulling the top of your body backwards. It would feel as if you were climbing a hill that was getting steeper, and steeper, and steeper… By the time you reached the edge, ‘down’ and ‘behind you’ would become the same direction. Sound weird?

Gravity would pull everything to the center of the disk.

How about water being sucked to the center of the Earth? Or diagonal trees, growing in the opposite direction of gravity’s pull? And then there’s the sun. How would a flat Earth behave in space? One flat Earth theory is that the Sun revolves around the Earth… Not the other way around.

What if the Sun orbited the Earth just like the moon does? In that case, you would never suffer jet lag, as there would be no such thing as time zones. The sun would light up both the top and bottom of the planet. This would mean constant light, no day-and-night cycle. Also no seasons. Or solar eclipses.

The sun itself would have to be much smaller. Otherwise it would burn the Earth to a crisp. It would probably fry the planet anyway, as there would be no geomagnetic field to protect the Earth from its radiation. The geomagnetic field is generated in the solid core of the Earth, and keeps our atmosphere from escaping. Without it, cosmic rays would bombard our bodies, causing everything from cancer to DNA damage.

The oceans would escape into space, and so would the air, and all our oxygen. But let’s assume that a flat Earth had an alternative to our magnetic field. This way you’d still be alive to notice some strange flat Earth-effects. Like your shadow.

Say you had a friend just as tall as you, and they lived a thousand miles away. On a sunny day, your shadows would be the very same length. Because, unlike here on a spherical Earth, the sun’s rays would hit both of you at the same angle. And if you two were to meet up, traveling would turn out very different.

A “flat-Earth” map drawn by Orlando Ferguson in 1893.

Let’s take a map introduced by the Flat Earth Society. Yes, the one that shows the Arctic at the center, and Antarctica as an “ice wall” around the edges. In such a world, it would take you 32 hours to fly from Australia to some parts of South America.

Did we mention there’d be no GPS? Satellites wouldn’t be able to orbit a flat Earth, leaving humanity with no navigation, and no synchronized time. This means no ATMs, no credit cards, and no high-speed market transactions.

On the bright side, with a good pair of binoculars you could see Dubai’s Burj Khalifa from any part of the flat world. But let’s be honest: you don’t need to build your own rocket to see the Earth is not flat.

The evidence is all around us.


Planet Earth

New Research Adds Another Branch to the Evolutionary Tree of Life

Tree House

The Tree of Life is a metaphor established by Charles Darwin to give some perspective to evolution. Every living organism on Earth has a home somewhere on the Tree, and by looking at it, we can see how species relate to one another.

While we’ve known about a type of microbe called hemimastigotes since the 1800s, it turns out we were totally wrong about where they fit on the Tree of Life — because they didn’t fit on any of the existing branches.

Home of Its Own

In a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, researchers from Dalhousie University detail their discovery that hemimastigotes are so unlike anything else in the Tree of Life, they require the creation of a brand-new branch.

“It was clear from our analyses that hemimastigotes didn’t belong to any known kingdom-level group, or even to a known ‘super-group’ of several kingdoms together, like the one that includes both animals and fungi,” researcher Alastair Simpson said in a news release.

“This one little collection of organisms is a whole new group at that level, all on its own,” she continued. “It’s a branch of the Tree of Life that has been separate for a very long time, perhaps more than a billion years, and we had no information on it whatsoever.”

Evolution of Tech

The Dalhousie team was only able to reach this conclusion thanks to an advanced genetic analysis technique that wasn’t available when scientists first discovered hemimastigotes.

“That such a distinct form of life could be hiding literally under our feet,” Simpson said in the press release, “is a sharp reminder about how little we still know about the diversity of life on Earth.”

And as our technologies advance even further, there’s no telling what else we might discover — or how many other branches we might add to the Tree of Life.

Source link

Continue Reading

Planet Earth

Hidden Crater Under Greenland May Explain Sudden Climate Change

Those looking to bolster their argument that not all climate change is manmade may have received an early Christmas gift – researchers have found a massive hidden asteroid impact crate under Greenland whose age coincides with the beginning of a previously unexplained cooling period about 12.000 years ago. Does this change everything?

“The crater is exceptionally well-preserved, and that is surprising, because glacier ice is an incredibly efficient erosive agent that would have quickly removed traces of the impact. But that means the crater must be rather young from a geological perspective.”

In a press release announcing the study “A large impact crater beneath Hiawatha Glacier in northwest Greenland” published in the current edition of Science Advances, co-author Professor Kurt H. Kjær from the Center for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark describes how researchers first found signs pointing to the existence of the crater under Greenland’s ice sheet in July 2015. It was not far from where a 20-ton iron meteorite had been discovered, but that wasn’t enough to connect the dots.

Is any part of Greenland not covered by glaciers?

A German research plane from the Alfred Wegener Institute flew over the Hiawatha Glacier and, using a new ice radar system, was able to better image the depression and added to the evidence, exciting NASA glaciologist Joseph MacGregor. (Pictures here.)

“A distinctly circular rim, central uplift, disturbed and undisturbed ice layering, and basal debris. It’s all there.”

Surface expeditions in 2016 and 2017 collected samples of sediment washed out from under the depression and found the missing link.

“Some of the quartz sand washed from the crater had planar deformation features indicative of a violent impact, and this is conclusive evidence that the depression beneath the Hiawatha Glacier is a meteorite crater.”

The crater measures more than 31 km (19.25 miles) in diameter, which puts the size of the iron meteorite at 1 km (.6 miles) wide and puts the impact in the top 25 of Earth impact craters, making it a good candidate for causing ecological disasters. Ice layers show it’s at least 12000 years old and rock erosion samples say it’s no more than 3 million years old.

It’s the more recent date that has scientists linking the event to the Younger Dryas period – a sudden unexplained cooling during a time of global warming after the last ice age. Occurring about 12,900 to 11,700 years ago, geological records in the Northern Hemisphere indicate a swift drop in temperatures of 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), increases in glacier ice and cold waters in the Atlantic and general drier conditions. While the cooling was widespread, a few areas, southeastern North America for one, had a slight warming. The Younger Dryas coincided with a number of human cultures shifting from hunting and nomadic life to agriculture and settlements. In North America, the Clovis culture declined and a number of animal species went extinct.

All of these things could certainly have been caused by a meteor impact of catastrophic size. Is that the answer to the cause of the Younger Dryas that scientists have been searching for?

“The next step in the investigation will be to confidently date the impact. This will be a challenge, because it will probably require recovering material that melted during the impact from the bottom of the structure, but this is crucial if we are to understand how the Hiawatha impact affected life on Earth.”

Sounds like Kjær is making his plans for next summer. Pack a parka, professor!

SOURCE: Mysterious Universe

Continue Reading

Planet Earth

Serious Errors Found In Widely Cited Global Warming Study


  • The Facts: A study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed, has turned out to be false.
  • Reflect On: Many scientists within the field have been quite outspoken about the politicization of climate science, and how it’s a serious problem. We see it in all fields, like the medical field, for example. Ridicule has been used to suppress discussion.

There is a troubling trend among internet readers, and that’s the fact that billions of people area reading titles of an article and having a bad reaction before reading the actual article and examining the sources. The bad reaction usually comes when evidence is presented which strongly goes against the widely accepted belief held by the majority of people. This type of evidence is often ridiculed by the mainstream media, which is why the majority of people believe what they do in the first place.

We have been subjected to massive amounts of ‘mind-persuasion’ on various topics. Today, when evidence goes against the grain, especially when it threatens many political and financial interests, false evidence is manufactured in order to counter the actual evidence. This has happened in all areas that touch humanity. I refer to it as the politicization of science, in this case, climate science. We’ve seen this everywhere, especially with medical science.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. . . . Science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of The Lancet (source)

Now, just to be clear, this article is NOT debating climate change. Drastic and unexpected climate change and natural disasters are rampant right now on our planet, for multiple reasons. It’s clearly a problem that needs to be fixed and could have been fixed/mitigated decades ago, yet we still seem stuck. Revolutionary technologies have been in existence for a long time, from solar, to wind, to vortex-induced vibrations and over-unity energy technology. Many of them have been subjected to patent suppression and secrecy, for “natural security” purposes. Meanwhile, it’s this national security apparatus that have created a breakaway civilization, one that’s become highly technologically advanced. They use these technologies, not for the benefit of humanity, but it seems more so, for their own purposes and the enslavement of humanity.

All that being said, climate change is, in my opinion, the result of multiple factors that go beyond human beings. These include natural cycles Earth has gone through before in it’s past, the activity of our sun, etc…

Again, I am not denying climate change, I am not even denying anthropomorphic climate change. I’m simply pointing towards the politicization of science. Something fishy is happening.

In fact, approximately more than thirty thousand scientists have all signed a petition regarding the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, is the real scientific consensus. There is no real source for the “97” percent of scientists agreeing, that’s false information.

Warmer Oceans?

Princeton scientist Laure Resplandy (pictured above) and researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography recently published a studyclaiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The reported was beamed out by multiple establishment mouthpieces, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others.

Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher. The post appeared on the website of Judith A. Curry, an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has been one of the many outspoken scientists in the field the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.

Lewis corrected the math area, and found that the paper’s rate of ocean warming “is about average compared with other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993-2016.” Roger Pike Jr., a Professor at the University of Colorado, tweet his work and replicated the data. Key phrase: “It’s a big error at the core of the paper’s findings.”

It seems that the majority of climate scientists all support this type of fraudulent data, and the problem of political interests taking over what the science is actually saying.

Lewis found the study’s authors, led by Princeton University scientist Laure Resplandy, erred in calculating the linear trend of estimated ocean warming between 1991 and 2016. Lewis has also criticized climate model predictions, which generally over-predict warming. Resplandy and her colleagues estimated ocean heat by measuring the volume of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere. The results: the oceans took up 60 percent more heat than previously thought. The study only sent alarm bells ringing, especially in the wake of the United Nations’ latest climate 

Laure Resplandy, the author of the widely distributed and cited study, has recently replied, acknowledging the error. Although the reply comes from an establishment mouthpiece, one that ridicules any questioning of anthropomorphic climate change via carbon output.

Below is a brief interview with Curry.

The Politicization Of Climate Science

Again, we need to be looking at deforestation, the lack of disclosure of new energy technologies, and the lack of implementation of new ones. We need to be looking at the destruction of our Earth and the poisoning of our water and soil, more so than we do our carbon output. But carbon is very heavily focused on.

The politicization of climate science is something that’s vouched for by the majority of actual climate scientists.

It’s hard to talk about because I am a proponent of clean energy technologies, and they are a must. Our industries and our usage of pollution services, like the automobile industry, is a toxic and environmental health hazard. But the global elite are very smart, they are using climate change, and global warming, to basically cause climate hysteria for political and financial gains.

The “97 percent” tagline is often used to demonize those who question anthropogenic induced climate change, and the mainstream media will do their best to make those who question it, no matter their background, credentials, or credibility, look foolish.

Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, compares current climate science to pseudoscience.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, among many others, refers to this type of narrative as hysteria and argues that climate scientists raising this issue have been demonized. He’s one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.

He is a  dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation and pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics interact with each other. He is also the Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A slide from one of his lectures below states:

Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public. The misuse of language extends to the misuse of models. For advocated of policies allegedly addressing global warming, the role of models is not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible. As they understand, proving something to be impossible is itself almost impossible.

I am using him as one of many examples. pointed out how policymakers were heavily involved with the IPCC and their publications. He is one of many to do so. Here’s a video in which he did try to bring awareness to what climate scientists REALLY believe. It’s quite contrary to the climate hysteria we see that’s constantly beamed. Right now it’s happening with forests fires, which have been happening for hundreds of millions of years.

Why No Mention of Climate Engineering?

What about climate engineering? Geoengineering is the manipulation of the atmosphere through artificial means.

The US Air Force has the capability to manipulate climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use.  These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts, and earthquakes.

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence  purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, … and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, . Emphasis added)

We’ve covered this topic in depth in multiple articles, and right now, geoengineering is being proposed as a solution to climate change, or what scientists above mentioned as ‘climate hysteria.’ The weather today is largely manufactured and owned, it’s changed and manipulated for various reasons. It’s hard to tell what’s actually going on. Here’s a clip of Ex-Cia director voicing his support for geoengineering…

Climate hysteria can be created, as much as terrorism can in order to create the war on terrorism…

The Takeaway

You could literally write a book on how the majority of reputable scientists within the field of Climate Science, and the ones actually involved with the IPCC, are all concerned about these things. As many of these scientists have pointed out, at a certain point, the final drafts and publications are taken over and written by politicians and policymakers.

There is a big problem here, and the elite who seem to be behind this type of thing, have been using their tools for years (mass media, education, etc..) to drill this idea in the people’s heads. Climate initiatives are being supported like war was with mass propaganda, our hearts and care for Mother Earth are being taken advantage of and capitalized on. Those who question the official narrative of global climate change are often the ones who care about Earth the most. This is one of the reasons it is so important for the awakening community to strive for the truth, and then to bring out that truth widely. The future of our planet hangs in the balance.

Source link

Continue Reading