Wow! With an open mind watch these videos. Landed on the moon or a huge fake and no country has ever landed on the moon?

[Trailrider]

I've heard of it and I don't believe in the "theory" of gravity so what Newton says is just him saying something.
I don't think space is a vacuum.

The moon sun and salt water are a battery. The sun is the positive charge and the earth is the negative charge.
There is no gravity from spinning backwards at over 1k.
The moon is a luminary that you can see through at times. It is not something you can land on.

2 year college drop out and thankfully so because I retired at 50 and I'm not like some of the idiots in this thread. Works both ways

Where are you getting your info from all this? I've never even heard of this theory or any type of evidence to back it up. Those are some wild beliefs.

You don't believe in gravity.
The Earth/Moon/Sun/Salt water are part of some battery charge?
You don't think the moon is a physical mass, that it's see through?

That's the wildest **** I've ever read in one paragraph, until I saw this.

Mr Technical. We would be falling backwards towards the sun. Ya see, the sun rises in the east so....
Your fundamental science can't be proven because we never went to the moon. Gravity is a theory and hasn't been proven. Who was Newton and who was he realated to, have you ever checked on that dude?

I like the Duracell idea because it makes sense. The moon gets charged monthly as it goes across the sky and emits its own light. The earth is the negative charge and is why stuff is attracted to it. The sun is obviously the positive charge. Why have you never considered this?

Yikes man. Reading a flat earther argument makes more sense than what I just read here.

He's probably never considered that because literally nobody has ever concluded that's how it works

 

[rbstern]

Mr Technical. We would be falling backwards towards the sun. Ya see, the sun rises in the east so....
Your fundamental science can't be proven because we never went to the moon. Gravity is a theory and hasn't been proven. Who was Newton and who was he realated to, have you ever checked on that dude?

I like the Duracell idea because it makes sense. The moon gets charged monthly as it goes across the sky and emits its own light. The earth is the negative charge and is why stuff is attracted to it. The sun is obviously the positive charge. Why have you never considered this?

Retirement was achieved without the false idea of schooling equals intelligence. I know what main stream science says and I can spew it out like you but I don't agree.

So, this mass thing is just sitting around and therefore we have gravity?

Some of the most successful people in the world never went to college. Nowadays, you go to college, you may very well come out dumber than you went in. This discussion is not about that.

Hopefully, we can agree on basic terms:

Hypothesis - a question or line of scientific inquiry yet to be proven or disproven. Still a matter of debate.

Theory - a hypothesis that has been proven by repeated observation and measurement, and has not been falsified. Can be disproven by future discovery, but until disproven is considered a durable scientific reality. Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which is actually two theories) is an example.

Physical law - An understood, repeatable, scientific principle that is demonstrably unassailable, and 100% consistent with the entirety of scientific knowledge. Endured the objections of popes, swamis, endless tests to disprove in the lab; repeats with boring regularity in every situation it is tested, over long periods of time.

Newton's law of universal gravitation is an example of the a physical law. Irrefutable within the current bounds of human knowledge.

As far as why I haven't considered the electrical charge state of the earth and the sun: I have no doubt the earth has a variable electrical potential. That's why lightning generated by friction in the atmosphere routinely hits the earth in random, unpredictable places.

Those electrical forces are tiny in comparison to the gravitational mass of the earth (and far more so, the sun).

Everything I've stated above is canonized in pretty much every basic science text book, untold number of papers, studies, public statements by scientists, educators, dating back 100 years or more, in just about every language humans speak.

I'll read any counter reference you care to provide.

 

[rbstern]

Come on man, you know the earth is flat and the moon glows. What is wrong with you?

My high school chemistry and physics teacher went to Georgia Tech.

We all have pasts we can't change.

 

[GodBlessTheUSA]

without the false idea of schooling equals intelligence.

IIRC, when “they” tested the Stanford-Binet test (the “modern” or standard IQ test) one of the highest scoring fellas was a coal miner from West Virginia or Pennsylvania. He had a photographic memory and seemed to recall everything he’d ever read, heard, or seen.

This shows the fallacy of “school = smarts”.

However, despite your hypothesis, and that there may seem to be plausible, albeit far-fetched, explanations for said hypothesis, and while acknowledging modern “science “ cannot always be trusted, I do not fathom the notion that the moon emits its own “cold” light. Next to the luciferian light of lightning bugs, some anaerobic fungi, and the strange luminosity of of deep sea fish, almost all light generates heat.

For moon light to be cold, it would be endothermic. It would suck heat into it. For this to happen over 1/4 of a million miles, or whatever reasonable distance you believe the moon to be from the earth, would require some ethereal properties that have never been observed or documented.

On days when the moon is visible during the day, do moon beams negate any of the sun’s heat?

Laws of physics are not absolute. But how does the moon “recharge” as if orbits? What makes it orbit? Why doesn’t it fly off at a tangent when full charged or having negligible charge. If the sun is positive and the earth is negative, does the moon have a charge? If that charge wanes as it circles / orbits the earth why doesn’t the moon’s orbit become more elliptical?

 

[GodBlessTheUSA]

FYI: if you can believe forensic or archaeologic science, the poles have actually flipped in ancient history.

“geomagnetic reversal is a change in a planet's magnetic fieldsuch that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged“

This is if you can also accept the theory that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[AmbiEncE]

IIRC, when “they” tested the Stanford-Binet test (the “modern” or standard IQ test) one of the highest scoring fellas was a coal miner from West Virginia or Pennsylvania. He had a photographic memory and seemed to recall everything he’d ever read, heard, or seen.

This shows the fallacy of “school = smarts”.

However, despite your hypothesis, and that there may seem to be plausible, albeit far-fetched, explanations for said hypothesis, and while acknowledging modern “science “ cannot always be trusted, I do not fathom the notion that the moon emits its own “cold” light. Next to the luciferian light of lightning bugs, some anaerobic fungi, and the strange luminosity of of deep sea fish, almost all light generates heat.

For moon light to be cold, it would be endothermic. It would suck heat into it. For this to happen over 1/4 of a million miles, or whatever reasonable distance you believe the moon to be from the earth, would require some ethereal properties that have never been observed or documented.

On days when the moon is visible during the day, do moon beams negate any of the sun’s heat?

Laws of physics are not absolute. But how does the moon “recharege” as if orbits? What makes it orbit? Why doesn’t it fly off at a tangent when full charged or having negligible charge. If the sun is positive and the earth is negative, does the moon have a charge? If that charge wanes as it circles / orbits the earth why doesn’t the moon’s orbit become more elliptical?

Look up the cold light from moon beams.
I don't know how any of it works,
The battery is more plausible than the sun lighting the moon because what they say is visibly wrong. There's some research on it but I havent looked in years.
I can see the sun in the sky with the moon on some days. Viewing from the ground they're in close proximity yet the moon will be half lit with a shadow. The sun is millions of miles away so if any sunlight is hitting the moon it would only be an outside halo from the rim.
I've also looked through the moon on a few occasions and could see stars where the rock should be.
Stars are also not far away are not what the scholars say.

 

[AmbiEncE]

Where are you getting your info from all this? I've never even heard of this theory or any type of evidence to back it up. Those are some wild beliefs.

You don't believe in gravity.
The Earth/Moon/Sun/Salt water are part of some battery charge?
You don't think the moon is a physical mass, that it's see through?

That's the wildest **** I've ever read in one paragraph, until I saw this.



Yikes man. Reading a flat earther argument makes more sense than what I just read here.

He's probably never considered that because literally nobody has ever concluded that's how it works

I'm just countering what could be happening instead of the narrative. Its okay, some question and some follow without questioning.

 

[Tylerls1]

 

[lostchild]

Gravity does not come from spinning. It comes from mass.

Unsure how a Catholic religious service produces gravity. Perhaps you meant gravitas?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

The moon is an alien space station you stupid ****ing normies