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.
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.