We already know what the terrestrial magnetic field is, and it has poles like all fields of its kind. No different configuration needed (and your diagram had nothing to do with magnetism).
This was a crummy video. The image was not clear and the supposed critical evidence was hard to distinguish. I've seen better, but the better versions show water droplets going away in a straight line, like it was filmed in outer space. I've seen the pool exercises. Lots of bubbles and murk in the way.
Planes set their direction per a spherical Earth, obtaining coordinates from the GPS system (orbiting around a spherical Earth) and inertial navigation. And the distances across the southern hemisphere are shorter than they would be on a disk map. There is no way a flat Earth works for navigation. Or for cartography---a point you keep ducking.
The Bible called it whatever it was translated it into, according to the understanding at the time. In the days of the Egyptians (of which Moses was educated as one), they supposed the existence of a firmament. It was a mistaken conception. There is no "firmament." There is outer space. It is also translated "heaven," which is closer to the truth. You have to decide in favor of truth over translation. God does not fool us with His creation. If you deny His creation, you are also denying Him.
If you have a crucial point of evidence, it can be stated in a sentence or two. It should not take an hour of wasted time to digest. I don't ask you to go study videos; I give you the information straight up because I understand it. The fact that you can't do this is a "tell" that you don't understand your own point of view.
P.S. I took a look at that hour-long video and it opened with absolute drivel based on total ignorance. I pity you that you could find it persuasive.
Yes, except you can't have a molten magnet (the globe model), you CAN have a disk magnet where the interior is north and the outer rim is south. Generates the same magnetic Flux.
Like I said about the spacewalk, not the best example, but there are numerous examples, the best videos get buried by the algorithms. Once you spot the bubble you see it rise like a bubble floating to the surface of a pool. (They happen to train for spacewalks in a pool)
You can't have watched past the first or second points, which comes off a little cringey. The 8 inches square per mile distance is accurate up to about 3000 miles distance, meanwhile there are photos showing mountains hundreds of miles away that should be hidden completely by the geometric horizon, covers refraction, and more.
The fact is that there isn't any 1-2 pieces of evidence that can Wipeout decades of indoctrination.
The Bible describes the firmament as what was created to separate the "waters above from the waters below", and always references the "face" of the Earth. Once again, Von Braun chose a specific verse that referenced the firmament to be added on his tombstone.
There are poles and the Earth is round. As I mentioned (but you didn't catch it), the Earth could be generating the field as a homopolar generator (rotating charged sphere)
There are environmental control system condensation droplets. They go in straight paths, not like bubbles.
When argument number one is a complete ignorance of the effect of perspective, I don't bother any farther. They blew it. Refraction can greatly extend the ability to see things close to the Earth limb (fata morgana). This is commonplace with air defense radar systems, which use a 4/3 Earth radius technique to estimate horizon range for radar. This effect dwindles with altitude.
No, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. That is always the way it is in theories---but you are proposing a fantasy at odds with observed experience, so you will not succeed.
Regardless, the earth is round, either a round sphere or a round disk with a spherical dome. The implication of a homopolar generator is that the magnetic field is a toroid which would lend itself to a hollow earth (one I could also accept), and also requires an outer shell containing the atmosphere.
It's too bad that article didn't include the shot that had the moon and the earth, where the light hitting the moon was at a divergent angle from the angle of light hitting the earth. That bible quote is explicitly about the firmament.
Are you also familiar with operation fishbowl? The admiral in charge of that set up the "research" station on antarctica, and shortly after discussing the planes that were crashing into nothing, he assumed it was Nazis that were shooting down the planes, he dies shortly after and 6 months later NASA is formed.
In terms of evidence, the strongest piece I've shown already is the electrostatic gradient of 100V/m, that ONLY occurs within a capacitor, a capacitor is 2 pieces of material with a gap (can be an air gap) where the charge on one end creates an opposite charge on the other material.
That the only counter to the water being a levelling device is because of "gravity" (which in context is relativity G) where the mass of the earth is bending space-time such that the water collects on all sides of a ball, but unnecessary for a flat topographical map where water would just fill all the oceans and maintain "sea level".
Then there's the fact that a plane going against the rotating earth would never reach it's goal because the earth spins at 1100mph and max plane speed is ~500 mph. There's the highest sky jump, went up for 3 hours and jumped down and landed down wind, not the ~4000 miles east that the earth should have rotated. There are large scale construction projects, like the panama canal dug a trench that was at level something like 20 meters below sea level and makes no adjustment for any curvature, even though the curvature over that distance would be significant, and require the water go "uphill".
The issue is that we are all taught the globe model, and that goes back to Copernicus and the origins of modern science which was ultimately a means to explain the universe without appeals to God. Even when quantum theory showed up, the interpretations of the observations acceptable are the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation or String theory, any model that would appear as an "appeal to God" is rejected outright, even if those provide the more elegant interpretations in many ways.
BTW, even in the current model, the Big Bang has been debunked as an origin, even accepting NASA's data.
Airplanes are carried along with the atmosphere. The rotating Earth has only a tiny acceleration, You really ought to compute it instead of pontificating about it. There is no need to invoke relativity to explain gravity---and I rather think you don't know much about it.
You seem to think I uphold the Big Bang. I do not. The observations of Halton Arp indicate that cosmological creation is an ongoing process. The Big Bang was proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest.
We already know what the terrestrial magnetic field is, and it has poles like all fields of its kind. No different configuration needed (and your diagram had nothing to do with magnetism).
This was a crummy video. The image was not clear and the supposed critical evidence was hard to distinguish. I've seen better, but the better versions show water droplets going away in a straight line, like it was filmed in outer space. I've seen the pool exercises. Lots of bubbles and murk in the way.
Planes set their direction per a spherical Earth, obtaining coordinates from the GPS system (orbiting around a spherical Earth) and inertial navigation. And the distances across the southern hemisphere are shorter than they would be on a disk map. There is no way a flat Earth works for navigation. Or for cartography---a point you keep ducking.
The Bible called it whatever it was translated it into, according to the understanding at the time. In the days of the Egyptians (of which Moses was educated as one), they supposed the existence of a firmament. It was a mistaken conception. There is no "firmament." There is outer space. It is also translated "heaven," which is closer to the truth. You have to decide in favor of truth over translation. God does not fool us with His creation. If you deny His creation, you are also denying Him.
If you have a crucial point of evidence, it can be stated in a sentence or two. It should not take an hour of wasted time to digest. I don't ask you to go study videos; I give you the information straight up because I understand it. The fact that you can't do this is a "tell" that you don't understand your own point of view.
P.S. I took a look at that hour-long video and it opened with absolute drivel based on total ignorance. I pity you that you could find it persuasive.
Yes, except you can't have a molten magnet (the globe model), you CAN have a disk magnet where the interior is north and the outer rim is south. Generates the same magnetic Flux.
Like I said about the spacewalk, not the best example, but there are numerous examples, the best videos get buried by the algorithms. Once you spot the bubble you see it rise like a bubble floating to the surface of a pool. (They happen to train for spacewalks in a pool)
You can't have watched past the first or second points, which comes off a little cringey. The 8 inches square per mile distance is accurate up to about 3000 miles distance, meanwhile there are photos showing mountains hundreds of miles away that should be hidden completely by the geometric horizon, covers refraction, and more.
The fact is that there isn't any 1-2 pieces of evidence that can Wipeout decades of indoctrination.
The Bible describes the firmament as what was created to separate the "waters above from the waters below", and always references the "face" of the Earth. Once again, Von Braun chose a specific verse that referenced the firmament to be added on his tombstone.
There are poles and the Earth is round. As I mentioned (but you didn't catch it), the Earth could be generating the field as a homopolar generator (rotating charged sphere)
There are environmental control system condensation droplets. They go in straight paths, not like bubbles.
When argument number one is a complete ignorance of the effect of perspective, I don't bother any farther. They blew it. Refraction can greatly extend the ability to see things close to the Earth limb (fata morgana). This is commonplace with air defense radar systems, which use a 4/3 Earth radius technique to estimate horizon range for radar. This effect dwindles with altitude.
No, all it takes is one good piece of evidence. That is always the way it is in theories---but you are proposing a fantasy at odds with observed experience, so you will not succeed.
The "waters above" could well be plasma, which is pervasive in space. Von Braun liked the quotation in its reference to the heavens. He knew the Earth was round, having launched our first satellite, and our first astronaut with vehicles he designed. Here's a photo from the Orion spacecraft returning to Earth. https://www.tellerreport.com/tech/2022-12-11-mission-artemis-1--the-orion-spacecraft-returns-to-earth.r10-c5Xdo.html.
Regardless, the earth is round, either a round sphere or a round disk with a spherical dome. The implication of a homopolar generator is that the magnetic field is a toroid which would lend itself to a hollow earth (one I could also accept), and also requires an outer shell containing the atmosphere.
It's too bad that article didn't include the shot that had the moon and the earth, where the light hitting the moon was at a divergent angle from the angle of light hitting the earth. That bible quote is explicitly about the firmament.
Are you also familiar with operation fishbowl? The admiral in charge of that set up the "research" station on antarctica, and shortly after discussing the planes that were crashing into nothing, he assumed it was Nazis that were shooting down the planes, he dies shortly after and 6 months later NASA is formed.
In terms of evidence, the strongest piece I've shown already is the electrostatic gradient of 100V/m, that ONLY occurs within a capacitor, a capacitor is 2 pieces of material with a gap (can be an air gap) where the charge on one end creates an opposite charge on the other material.
That the only counter to the water being a levelling device is because of "gravity" (which in context is relativity G) where the mass of the earth is bending space-time such that the water collects on all sides of a ball, but unnecessary for a flat topographical map where water would just fill all the oceans and maintain "sea level".
Then there's the fact that a plane going against the rotating earth would never reach it's goal because the earth spins at 1100mph and max plane speed is ~500 mph. There's the highest sky jump, went up for 3 hours and jumped down and landed down wind, not the ~4000 miles east that the earth should have rotated. There are large scale construction projects, like the panama canal dug a trench that was at level something like 20 meters below sea level and makes no adjustment for any curvature, even though the curvature over that distance would be significant, and require the water go "uphill".
The issue is that we are all taught the globe model, and that goes back to Copernicus and the origins of modern science which was ultimately a means to explain the universe without appeals to God. Even when quantum theory showed up, the interpretations of the observations acceptable are the Copenhagen interpretation, the many worlds interpretation or String theory, any model that would appear as an "appeal to God" is rejected outright, even if those provide the more elegant interpretations in many ways.
BTW, even in the current model, the Big Bang has been debunked as an origin, even accepting NASA's data.
Airplanes are carried along with the atmosphere. The rotating Earth has only a tiny acceleration, You really ought to compute it instead of pontificating about it. There is no need to invoke relativity to explain gravity---and I rather think you don't know much about it.
You seem to think I uphold the Big Bang. I do not. The observations of Halton Arp indicate that cosmological creation is an ongoing process. The Big Bang was proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest.