Your assumption that the earth is moving cannot be proved by any physical experiment or demonstration as evidenced by Airy’s failure, Michelson Morley, gyroscopes, pendulums, no Coriolis corrections by pilots, etc. etc.
It's not an assumption Nathan, Rotation is Real, this argument was settled long ago. We can see the stars rotating from our frame of reference, but are they really rotating around us? Or are we rotating, thus producing the impression the stars rotate in the opposite direction? Well, sensitive gyroscopes and Focault pendulums show that we are the ones rotating. In fact Rotation is key to understanding the shape of the earth.
@@jtolanmedia1 Gravity works becouse of electrostatic acceleration in the Aether. The Aether moves 15° in one hour. The Earth dosent move but the Aether.
@@jtolanmedia1 I learned of the charge of the earth and of the air above the earth's surface years ago and since that moment I cannot believe in the Foucault pendulum experiment any more, because it doesn't account for the charges and the materials having to be non-conducting. Also I found that Eratosthenes inserted the assumption that sun rays come in parallel, a 'fact' that he could not have known or assumed without 'space travel'. So a knowledge based on an assumption is not valid i.m.o.
@@nathanyamaha465 According to the heliocentric modern model we even move in various directions with incredible speeds at the same time. I wonder how the gyroscope is capable of only measuring one of the speeds at a time, how that selection is done exactly.
@@jtolanmedia1 The people that wrote your books and invented the globe have you all very confused, the Roman empire that never stopped and never left. I have decoded what our ancestors depicted, they werent worshipping anything, they were glorifying it, religion is designed to hide it all by personifying that glory.
He’s evolving. Slowly, painfully evolving. And he’s trying to slowly take the flat Earth morons subscribed to this channel with him. Someday, they’ll evolve into functioning adults.
🤨Did anyone notice that since March 2024 JTolan suddenly did a ‘U’ turn, he started pretending to be Globe-Earth-Believer! 🧐 Notice how his videos shifted from real footages to a CGI imagery and endless mathematical calculations which very boring…..😏😒😵💫🤢 Men in black visited him and I’m sure they offered him very nice chunk of money❗️ This will make his following fall into shock & despair🔻. We know their tactics! At the end of the day, he has been working for governmrnt company since the beginning. They bought him! Otherwise, he would be dead for going against multi-billion dollar scam-industry. I perfectly undestand his situation. I know for a fact that once you become Flat-earther, there is no going back to globe. In his heart, he knows and we know he is a flat earth guy👏👏👏👏👏
So you are under the impression the moon is involved with lunar eclipse? I drove to Wyoming for the 2017 one and I had a telescope, couldn't see the moon before or hours after. It appeared to me to be something invisible in our realm passed by it. You think that's actually the moon?
@@4730301 No. The side facing you blends with the rest of the night sky, especially if there is a lot of light pollution. On a dark sky, with a good camera, a long exposure shot will show it. There are probably other methods of photographing it. There are apps, like SkyGuide, that can track it as it moves through the sky. Of course, I am referring to the new moon sans an eclipse. The moon is between the sun and the Earth during an eclipse, and only the sun’s corona is visible when the moon completely covers it. Those within the path of totality are in conjunction with the moon and the sun.
the edges of the moon should have been illuminated on its approach and afterwards when it's moving away - all we seen was a mysterious black orb once it was in front of the sun. That was no physical moon, for sure. ruclips.net/video/M6WpAeSfTrw/видео.html
You were all part of a years long social experiment to see if you’d blindly believe obviously erroneous information without question. Every single video of infrared photography was making erroneous assertions of where he was looking, easily verifiable by simply looking at a map and comparing the direction and topography, and very few of you bothered to actually question it. Now you’re wondering why you’re being slowly transitioned out of the absurdity of thinking the Earth is flat and motionless? Kids, the word for today is brainwashed.
That shouldn't be something that saddens you. When someone believes what you believe, and then changes their mind; if that upsets you then you are ideologically tied to that idea. Flat earth started with proving that people didn't know anything about the world, but they believed it in a religious way without any comprehension. But flat earthers became that way about it being flat, too. I know, because I was one. Today I'll admit to you that I don't know for sure. Jtolan seems to have changed his mind, but I can't tell that for sure either.
he said gyroscopes account for it or some nonsense in the comments. they dont. earth moving under a gyroscope that is also moving , on the earths surface. I mean. how gullible you gotta be, to believe that. plus mainstream science doesn't even claim that drift is earth rotation. they invented the Lorentz contraction on the spot, out of nowhere, and said the apparatus measuring the light, changed size, because, the earth has to be in motion. they're psychopaths.
It has been empirically proven that the Earth is stationary and it is the sky that is moving. Interferometry measurements correlate to altitude, periodicity of the sun and moon, and cardinal direction. MMX, MGP, Airy’s Success, etc.. MMX has been replicated with immensely more precise instrumentation than at the time of the original measurement. The fact the small interference measured correlates directly with altitude directly refutes the claim it is the Earth that is moving. There is no way around it. Not to mention, of course, the earth could not just be rotating and explain what is observed. You would have to invoke orbit 😂 .. which spoiler alert has also been directly and empirically refuted. Baselessly theorizing and refuting concepts via calculative presupposition is not science.
Wow, Witless to the rescue, not.😂 Only you could come in here and make matters worse with meaningless jargon. You wouldn’t know science if it slapped you. The Michelson-Morley experiment was meant to show whether light moved through a medium(Aether), and it failed. It had nothing to do with whether the Earth rotated, and it actually help prove relativity. Michelson-Gale-Peterson likewise measured the angular velocity of the Earth. Neither experiment doubted Earth’s rotation, and in fact both failed to prove the Aether was present and ended up supporting Special Relativity. Airy’s experiment was looking for Aether drag, and it failed to detect it. From his paper: “The subject to which attention is particularly called is the effect that will be produced on the apparent amount of that angular displacement of a star or planet which is caused by the Earth’s motion of translation, and is known as the Aberration of Light.” Regular stellar aberrations prove the Earth is not stationary. You have no idea what you’re talking about, which judging by your debates, is nothing new. You never actually read the papers on these experiments because you’re misrepresenting their intent and their results.
@@KarnakActuali think he does know what he is talking about because he does the research. he just turns and twists it all into total BS and tries to make it fit into the BS FE narrative for his naïve audience.
Thought experiment for Globeheads: An airplane takes off from a huge flatbed truck moving 50mph up North somewhere near the center of rotation. The airplane then accelerates to 500mph, so the total speed and real momentum of the airplane is 550mph having left the surface of a runway moving 50mph before take off. How will this Airplane ever land on a different huge flatbed truck South of that location, that is moving at over 1,000mph?? Trying to land on a moving runway that is traveling at over 1,000mph. When the runway from which the airplane took off from was only moving at 50mph. By what force or mechanism of Science will the Airplane speed up from moving at a total of 550mph After leaving the surface of the runway moving at only 50mph....then speed up to over 1,000mph in hopes to now land on a runway that is moving at over 1,000mph several hours away at a different location on the surface of a Ball??
Well, first of all, a plane isn’t going to take off from a flat bed truck. If the plane is going at a speed of 500mph, the speed of the truck from which it took off makes no difference. The plane is still going 500mph. You don’t stack speed and momentum in that way. The truck, the plane and the atmosphere have already attained the momentum of a rotating Earth, so there is no change in velocity relative to the plane or the truck that would cause it to play “catch up” to another truck or worry about Earth’s rotation. The plane and truck are moving within the same inertial frame of reference as the Earth’s rotation. You may as well say that if a fly, which cannot move at 80mph(avg. 5mph, to bursts of 15mph), sits at the back of a car when it starts to move, and then attains a speed of 80 mph, is able to move to the front of the car. How can it fly around in a car moving so far beyond its ability to fly? Well, it has attained the same velocity and momentum as the car, and is moving within its inertial frame of reference. That will only change with abrupt changes in velocity, or you open the window, allowing the fly to move outside the car’s inertial frame of reference and be caught in the atmosphere moving slower in relation to the car. This isn’t a thought experiment for anyone who accepts the Earth is a globe. It’s nonsense to anyone who understands grade school physics.
@@KarnakActual The inertial frame of reference is only present if the contained air in which the object or person resides is not moving. Do you think that the earh's air is contained and hardly or not moving? I like to read more thoughts of you on that.
@@hongry-life *”The inertial frame of reference is only present if the contained air in which the object or person resides is not moving.”* No. The inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference not undergoing any acceleration. The velocity is constant. I’ll get to the relationship to cover the next response. *”Do you think that the earh's air is contained and hardly or not moving? I like to read more thoughts of you on that.”* The Earth is rotating and has a gravitational field. It rotates at a constant velocity, and any point from the center of mass to the end of the influence of the gravitational field rotates at the same velocity. So, as the Earth rotates, the atmosphere at any point rotates with it, within the same frame of reference. It is “contained” by gravity. Every object on the planet, within its gravitational field, has attained that momentum. It can move within that frame of reference, creating a microcosm. As in, it can be its own inertial frame of reference, like a car, or an airplane. When an airplane or car is accelerating, you can feel it. When it has reached a cruising speed, or a constant velocity, you have attained that velocity as well, and can move around within it. You don’t “sense” the velocity, and only notice it by observing the environment _outside_ the frame of reference, such as the ground below, or clouds, or the roadway and objects along it in the case of the car. The only time you feel it is due to abrupt changes in velocity. If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, the surface of the planet would be scoured by the atmosphere and objects which still have that momentum. The microcosm extends out beyond the Solar System. The Sun has a gravitational field, and affects the bodies within it, and the Black Hole at the center of the galaxy has a immense gravitational field, and affects the celestial bodies within the galaxy, rotating the space, including our solar system, within its gravitational field. This is high school physics. You never learned this?
@@KarnakActual Gravity is an assumption, a theory. In fact multiple things you say are based on it, so they are also theories and assumptions then so far. Back to basics and prove 'gravity' to exist (as a separate force). Also look into little g and big G explaining eachother while being 2 variables in 1 formula. Gravity is not a containment either (the winds blow) and it varies everywhere on earth (as is said).
@@hongry-life *”Gravity is an assumption, a theory. In fact multiple things you say are based on it, so they are also theories and assumptions then so far.”* Scientific theories and assumptions are in no way analogous. A scientific theory is a framework of evidence and data upon which an explanation is formulated to define the how and why for a phenomenon observed in the natural world. Gravity is also defined by scientific laws, which is where Conservation of Momentum originates. *”Back to basics and prove 'gravity' to exist (as a separate force).”* Basics, indeed. More like an entire introductory course to physics. When you jump up, you land back down in the same spot, gravity is therefore proven. The laws of gravity, along with the theory of general relativity, _explains_ the how and why you landed down. Theories are never “proven.” They’re not a rung on a ladder of hierarchy leading to law or fact. They remain explanations that are able to predict the behavior of the phenomenon observed, and their ability to remain viable is based on the strength of the evidence that informs those explanations and their predictive power. When new evidence comes to light, then the theory is either modified or scrapped if the new evidence warrants it and works better in improving the explanation and predictions. They are rigorously tested. Theories are not assumptions, and anyone who says anything is “only a theory” is scientifically illiterate. *”Also look into little g and big G explaining eachother while being 2 variables in 1 formula.”* So formulas dealing with gravity confuses you? The little g is the acceleration due to gravity or the Force, while the big G is the Universal Gravitational Constant. You’re solving for the little g, the big G is the same number no matter what equation it’s placed within. It is a fixed value at 6.67 × 10^-11 Nm²/kg². The little g is dependent upon variables such as location and altitude. If you want to know how the UGC is derived, then I would crack open a physics book. It’s too long an explanation for RUclips comments. *”Gravity is not a containment either (the winds blow) and it varies everywhere on earth (as is said).”* Wind blowing isn’t _just_ defined by gravity, but rather differences in air pressure and temperature. Gravity varies by about 0.5% from the poles to the equator. That is due to the blazingly fast .000694 rpms of rotation. Needless to say, you don’t notice it. Gravity has no problem “containing” the mass of objects on Earth including the mass of the atmosphere. If you would like, here is a Christian University explaining the dynamics of wind on Earth: *Union University-How does gravity affect the wind? October 2001.* Just search for it, the page should come up. Please don’t waste my time. I have heard these comments time and time again from people who literally make themselves look ignorant due to repeated misunderstandings of fairly simple concepts in order to uphold a dogmatic view. When you get corrected on misunderstandings, acknowledge it and be smarter than you were before you knew it. Everything you have said is a misunderstanding. It shouldn’t be any longer.
Very interesting!!! I like how you really question everything and actually carry out thorough calculations. The more I learn the more I realise I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going on. Yes we could well be spinning. I mean we wouldn’t feel it. Our momentum goes with the object we are travelling with. If you jump on a train the train doesn’t move under your feet! Simple! That’s one of the few points I never agree with people who believe in flat earth. I do believe in flat earth but I also want to look at it all critically and keep options open. There’s just so much we don’t know yet! Thank you JTolan!
Does anyone notice how the object that blocks the sun does not move uniformly across? like it should if it were the moon, if it were in either a geocentric or the laughable heliocentric model. That's no moon. Love your work brother Jay!
thanks, the wobble is partly atmospheric, and partly my alignment accuracy of the many photos I took every 2 minutes or so, just holding up the camera in my hands, I aligned by that center sun spot, that looks like an ant. Note: when the moon shrinks slightly, it was cause I twisted the zoom lens accidentally and didn't catch it when aligning. I think it went from 205mm to 203mm, just by slightly turning the lens. oops.
@@jtolanmedia1 Your footage was great as always brother! I'm talking about something I have noticed with solar eclipses in general. How the path of the object will change directions halfway through its eclipse. For instance moving in from the right and then moving downward towards the bottom of the frame. The path was rather straight in your footage, but prior I have seen different many times. Either way, as always brother, your work is amazing and revolutionary and respectfully they should give you the award for longest distance photograph ever taken. But ya know lol
I observed this as well while watching totality in Ohio. A definite shift in direction of movement appeared to occur in the final 1/3 of the eclipse after totality. I was with 3 heliocentric families and none of us had an explanation. It would seem incorrect to ascribe it to refraction or “atmospheric conditions.”
@@Shazam450 I have to absolutely agree with you on this. Atmospheric distortion does not explain some drastic direction changes and changes to the angle of the path. All I can say is that historically, solar eclipses were never really contributed to the moon anyways. And I have to agree with the ancients. There is something else up there.
Definitely, the moon is not passing through. There should be some light shinning on the side when its passing by. It seems like our ancient ancestors knew more about what is going on.
J.Tolan, I didn't catch that, how you got the altitude of the apparent(?) moon to be "just 5 miles" (14:12). I could not see the numbers anywhere. What did I miss? And how high up is the "real moon"?
Joshua's Long Day Joshua 10:12-14 "Then spake Joshua to YHWH in the day when YHWH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that YHWH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for YHWH fought for Israel." Notice Joshua never told the earth to not rotate but JTolan at 6:33 says the observing is moving (rotating) and the the surface of the earth is rotating.
and of course if you are flying over the surface of a Globe, all of the stars will have to rise up in the windshield of airplane....because the airplane would physically be tilting over relative to where it took off from, therefore FORCING the stars seen thru the windshield to RISE UP as you fly over the Ball. Have you ever seen this happen?? (It has to happen no matter which direction you fly). ALL of the stars have to rise up in the windshield as the plane tilts over from where it took off from on the BALL.
@@jtolanmedia1 ruclips.net/video/KFz4ZZd1zj4/видео.html Had to type it in. How a pilot ended the globe - part 1 There is also a part 2 Did you correct for the Revolution of the stars in the aether in the calculation. If you do not then I would guess, haven’t calculated, that the earth must move.
@@llvn11 yes, you can. I literally typed the channel name in google and this page was the very first result. Go buy some more tin foil to make hats bozo
Also you mentioned that the moon rotates actually it doesn't, it only appears tilted on each Horizon in opposite ways, this is due to perspective if you notice the moon when it's at its highest 12:00 position in the sky the Terminator line will always be vertical, which means the sun and the moon are relatively at the same height, a simple comparison is a jet contrail from Horizon to Horizon looks like a big ark in the sky but we know it's perfectly parallel to the flat plane earth. The curvature angle of the contrail matches the moon's Terminator line tilt angle comparatively, so the moon actually does not move at all only travels in a straight line. Cheers
This is very interesting for those of us interested in the Electric Universe theory of the proposed polar configuration. the shot of the moon at 3:08 gives a tantalizing hint of what The Ship of Heaven/Horns of the bull might have looked like to ancient observers as found in so many ancient Babylonian reliefs.
Thanks bro, for keeping us illuminated. I can't wait to see the next episode. I will stay tuned. Gracias!!!! p.d. the Earth does not rotate (esta quieta).
So with this calculation, we should be able to figure the height of the moon above flat earth, correct? Also, what would the shadow look like with the moon and the sun at that angle? Not sure why you didn't represent that. I would think it would look like a giant oval.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You start off by saying " We already know what the velocity of the sun is". Did you take into account that the Flat Earth cosmology the Sun has to speed up when it goes toward the southern summer solstice/northern winter solstice, then slow down when it travels back to the southern Winter solstice/northern summer solstice? So the sun's velocity changes constantly. Conclusion: On Flat Earth the Sun has to travel faster because it has more distance to cover over 24 hour period.
@@Gr8Believer If Jtolen Media assumes the sun is moving in a circular path above a flat plane, then it doesn’t matter. His conclusions are already wrong.
I know this will sound crazy but assumptions have been made, you have assumed that the moon passes in front of the sun, as the effect would also be the same if the moon passed behind the sun and blocked a projected light source. [just let my mind slip out of the loop, wondering, why is the hour hand the shortest, when the hours are printed furthest from the centre] we dont know what we can not know.
If you like, could you hold your calculation method against the map that Vibes of Cosmos channel presents (maybe by assuming that it is all flat surfaces to start with) and whose theory is that earths surface features/continents are mirrored in the visible moon image?
I find it astonishing that stars can be seen during an eclipse. When one considers where stars are said to be in relation to the Sun (though, of course, we doubt a lot of what we have been told) them being light years away and behind the Sun which is(?) a ball, how could the passage of a smaller ball in front, 92.5 million miles nearer to us in front of the sun make stars so far away and behind it, visible - if those things are true - but that is what I doubt! I think this may be another distances proof.
You _are_ misinterpreting something. The entire purpose of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the results. The purpose of the experiment wasn’t to prove the Earth was in motion, nor do any results from it are to be construed as such. They were measuring the motion of the Aether, not the Earth. They didn’t find any. Video on the experiments and the results: ruclips.net/video/suO5aoI0O5w/видео.html
@@RedScotland Oh, you’re back from deleting your dumb comments. Yes, I understand the difference between orbit and rotation. So anything that _actually_ addresses the comment and content, or are we just going to blow hot air?
@@KarnakActual Lol. They tried to confirm Earth revolving around the Sun thru motion of the ether. In reality they did detect ether motion, but considerably less than expected. In fact this ether motion was corroborated through various follow-up experiments. Aah, got to love noobs like you who speak with such confidence - sans the knowledge.
@@KarnakActual Well, more accurately they had a prediction for how much ether motion they would observe based on the assumed model of a spherical Earth revolving around the Sun. It's not that they tried to confirm it because they were already convinced that it was so. So I misspoke slightly.
Love your work, how do you explain this anomaly, a full lunar eclipse only cast a shadow around 70 mi wide on the Earth, a object that's lit from the rear cannot cast a smaller Shadow only around the same size and bigger depending on the light source distance behind the object, so the Moon by the law of physics cannot be bigger than 70 miles in diameter, what's your thoughts on that? Cheers
There is a dubious first assumption here. The calculation of the sun and moon speed assumes that the stars are stationary. If the stars are stationary then the consequence must be that earth moves. The speed of the sun and the moon must be corrected by the speed of the stars. I hypothesize that this would result in no need to have earth rotate.
J Tolan I was excited to see what you had to say about the solar eclipse since there was people that reported it was not the moon covering the sun, there are 3 objects and one of those covered it.
Hmm...the earth is floating on the sea beneath. I guess it could rotate. The pillars would keep it stable. The same technique is used to stabilize ethanol plants in West Tennessee. The soil is almost 2000 feet deep to bedrock in places and they use concrete pillars to stabilize the facilities, mainly for earthquakes from what I was told. As for the moon, are you SURE it's what is eclipsing the sun? Have you verified it isn't a plasma field?
Well, in this vid was said that the heavens are fixed (9:28 min) but I heard no explanation about that assumption or thought, the calculation was based on that. I myself would assume, also looking at Biblical texts, that the stars and planets are having their orbit and that they are moving or at least projected that way.
JTolan Media1, would you be honest enough to admit that you'll never go up there and watch the ball spin? And that you'll never be able to prove that the ball is spinning, like all the scientists and teachers in the world?
@@RedScotland This channel has always been his personal experience and it's very math heavy, take it for what it is. Personally I believe the entire sky clock is moving, earth spin is ridiculous.
What i really feel is that the most interesting "flat earthers" are creating confusion or becoming ex FE in some kind of way. Tolan is not different. Why?
As always. Thanks for such wonderful information. I have a question for you. What's the name of the tune in the back at the beginning of the video. I've been searching for this melody for years. Please help me. Thank you J
From the last eclipse until this recent one, my life is not the same. found some ancient unknown engravings on stones in the Grand river, Brantford, Ontario. Appreciate your work Jtolan, this is huge
if a camera is placed near the center of rotation on a turnabout, and a second camera is placed near the outer edge of it....will both cameras see and film everything they see above them, to move at the SAME speed? Or will the camera near the Center of rotation physically moving slow WHILE filming, will SEE everything above it moving slowly? And will the camera near the outer edge, physically moving much much faster WHILE filming, will it SEE everything above it moving faster? As for actual Observers on such a Turnabout ----> We already know the answer, or at least most of us had Childhoods with merry go rounds, and we should KNOW the answer. When near the center of the turnabout, physically moving slow...you DO in fact Observe what you see when you look up.....moving SLOW "turning slow" because you yourself are in fact turning slow, duh! When near the outer edge of the turnabout, physically moving much much faster...you DO in fact Observe what you see when you look up....moving FASTER "turning faster" because you yourself are in fact turning faster, duh! And finally to settle arguments about this ----> We have a ceiling with Stars painted all over it's surface above us......while we stand on a turnabout beneath it........the person near the center of the turnabout WILL see the stars on the ceiling turning SLOWER than the person standing on the turnabout near the outer edge of it, when they look up at the ceiling. They WILL see the stars on the ceiling turning much FASTER, because they are physically moving and turning faster when they look up at the ceiling.....duh. So...........can we show this happening on the Earth??? Oh and by the way, if you the Observer are standing on the surface of a turnabout going around in circles, you will not have Balance & Equilibrium, and also the amount of energy/work needed to move across the surface will vary depending on the direction you choose to take off walking in. Northwards towards the center requires the Most energy...........walking South away from the Center you will receive an ASSISTIVE energy/force to HELP you walk that direction. If you actually lived ON the surface of a turnabout. But if the turnabout ALSO goes around a circular track......then every 12hours the forces will decrease and then increase 12hours later ----> You would be spun WITH the same direction the turnabout is going around the circular track, while your friend directly across from you on the other side of the globe would be spun OPPOSITE the direction of forward momentum around the circular track upon which the TURNABOUT moves. Same physics as a spinning T-cup ride. IF the globespell were actually real that is. ALL of the physics and reality of what i just said will have to line up.
You know what's funny. I was thinking about this a few days ago. I'm in new zealand, so more to the outer edge.... So I wonder if the stars move slower over my head than the ones over someone else's head say on the equator?
@@dewetbotma5875 A good question, and sort of the thing that caused me to basically stop posting videos on my YT channel. I only have one solution to this question, which is that time moves at different speeds according to where you are on Earth's plane. So, to your question, there has to be the following question, how would you know that the stars moved slower to you if time, where you were at, went by faster for you according to your location, as far away from the North Pole as you are?
Hi JTolan. I’m looking for a nice setup IR camera or video camera or both also like a Nikon p1000 with a tracking mount to look and film the stars or moon. Any videos on what is best? Do you have a video like that if not I’m sure lots of people would watch and appreciate. Wanted to get Nikon p1000 but they are discontinued
Not even Close to what would whappen in such a model like heliocentrism. Erath is flat and stationary. Dont like the attitude the channel is taking but.. u know truth is smth none can fake. Thnx Tolan as always, i cant stop wonderimg about the fact that wouldve made you take such a drift in your way of thinking and if you would share it. Love from Spain fellow FEs❤
Hi Alice, I don't think I proved absolute motion here, the math works the same if we assume the stars rotate and we are fixed. But I always knew earth rotates, I use to work on intercontinental balistic missiles and they have the utmost sensitive gyros, also focault pendulums show it as well. Some people misinterpret experiments of the past, and some read the bible a bit too literal, when in fact there could be translation issues, or poetic language at work. The word "at rest" could very well mean "at peace", no strife on the earth, etc.. just as an example. But yes the earth appears flat, that's why I call it a "flat earth phenomena" untill we more fully understand what it is, we can't just jump to too many conclusions, even though it is tempting.
It really spoils the moment of awe. I was very blessed to see a total eclipse before that stupid trendo of whopping and hooting began. The silence was TREMENDOUS and it was a moment with God seeming very near. Balm for the soul. That's why they spoiled it.
the sun and moon analema describe a sine (sinusoide)wave. 1° quadrant positive parabola of maximum speed. x axis, average velocity and average acceletarion. 2° quadrant negative, minimum speed sun. 1 year aquals 365,25 day. 1/4 day (6 hs) more per year equal to a leap year (año bisiesto). i still haven´t studied the moon cycle or its movement o times.
I have always known that human ignorance is the worst thing. People claim that the earth moves... and they would even sell their own wife for that claim (I'm only being symbolic, although someone knows what I'm talking about). After a while they realize how ignorant they were and how wrong they were, whether they were drugged or not, the truth always finds a way, but the woman will not return.
calculate velocity sun for analema sun. grade/hour. solstice in cartesian plane. x = speed and y = degrees. ( 1 hour = 14.9.. (15° aprox)). amplitude of a shadow during 1 hour, equal to the length of 1 leg o a right triangle. note: equinox equals average speed of the sun. southern solstice for 3 day still sun. 1° day maximun acceleration sum, 2° day maximum speed and zero acceleration, 3° day minimum deceleration. northern solstice, 2 day still sun: 16 hours maximum acceletarion. 16 hs zero acceleration and maximum speed and, 16 hs minimum deceleration. lunar analemma, has similar movement whit different speeds, accelerations... (and i do not know the duration of the moonstices in day o hours) a hug from south america. i don´t understan english but the traslator help enough.
Excellent calculations, I'm impressed by the math in the video. However, I consider physics to be a science of facts, not fiction, which is told by modern scientists. I have a law degree and for me, fact is reality, and everything else is fiction. What is wrong with the mathematical calculations made in this video? I am not satisfied with everything that cannot be verified, everything that is not a fact, but only assumed. I list the assumptions used for calculations: the size of the Sun, the size of the Moon, the absence of star movement. Therefore, all the results of calculations cannot be considered as real, but only as a fantastic assumption based on the theory of Heliocentrism (which has no real evidence).
I was in ohio near dayton i wish it had gotten as dark as it did in Dallas. Perhaps i need to be closer to the middle of totality 🤔. I went to Nashville during the 2017 eclipse as well. I think I’m hooked at this point so ill be at the next one for sure.
you lost me after you started pretending earth moves. I couldn't even watch the rest of the video. uhhhh. im so confused right now. you're talking about gravity in the comments..... so youre a globe head who just thinks earths really big? umm. uhhh. ummm. what.
That you’re confused about the shape for the planet is interesting in and of itself. Yes, the Earth does, indeed, rotate. Diurnal motion of the poles proves its a sphere as circular paths of star trails at opposite poles cannot occur on a flat Earth. And rotation is indicated with ring laser gyroscopes measuring a 15º drift per hour. This is all empirical evidence.
You are awesome ! Your videos teach truth ! Are you interested in Bible Salvation? Acts 2:38 in the Bible is the teaching of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Not taught by most all religion. 😊
@@jtolanmedia1 The part of Acts 2:38 that many people seem to gloss over, is when it says to repent. In context, it means to repent from sin, to turn 180 degrees from sin. 1John 3:4 explains that sin is the transgression of the law. But mainstream Christianity has this false teaching that the law is obsolete or 'done away with'. Even Paul, who they rely on to support their theory that the law is obsolete, wrote in Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? " It is important to realize that the 'law' that was changed at the cross had to do with the daily sacrifices for the penalty of sin, because the perfect sacrifice had been made that superseded the daily sacrifice. But just because the penalty for my crimes has been paid, it will never make it okay to continue breaking the law. Even though Christ's sacrifice paid the penalty for ALL my sins, even future ones, it doesn't give me the right to ignore the laws of the Father, or to continue in sin, in other words.
Thank you for your excellent presentation I found it very interesting and look forward to the next work that you do.
Your assumption that the earth is moving cannot be proved by any physical experiment or demonstration as evidenced by Airy’s failure, Michelson Morley, gyroscopes, pendulums, no Coriolis corrections by pilots, etc. etc.
It's not an assumption Nathan, Rotation is Real, this argument was settled long ago.
We can see the stars rotating from our frame of reference, but are they really rotating around us? Or are we rotating, thus producing the impression the stars rotate in the opposite direction? Well, sensitive gyroscopes and Focault pendulums show that we are the ones rotating. In fact Rotation is key to understanding the shape of the earth.
@@jtolanmedia1 Gravity works becouse of electrostatic acceleration in the Aether. The Aether moves 15° in one hour. The Earth dosent move but the Aether.
@@jtolanmedia1 I learned of the charge of the earth and of the air above the earth's surface years ago and since that moment I cannot believe in the Foucault pendulum experiment any more, because it doesn't account for the charges and the materials having to be non-conducting. Also I found that Eratosthenes inserted the assumption that sun rays come in parallel, a 'fact' that he could not have known or assumed without 'space travel'. So a knowledge based on an assumption is not valid i.m.o.
@@nathanyamaha465 According to the heliocentric modern model we even move in various directions with incredible speeds at the same time. I wonder how the gyroscope is capable of only measuring one of the speeds at a time, how that selection is done exactly.
@@jtolanmedia1 The people that wrote your books and invented the globe have you all very confused, the Roman empire that never stopped and never left.
I have decoded what our ancestors depicted, they werent worshipping anything, they were glorifying it, religion is designed to hide it all by personifying that glory.
What happened to the original "holographic moon" and "flat earth reality " JTolan character ?
He’s evolving. Slowly, painfully evolving. And he’s trying to slowly take the flat Earth morons subscribed to this channel with him. Someday, they’ll evolve into functioning adults.
🤨Did anyone notice that since March 2024 JTolan suddenly did a ‘U’ turn, he started pretending to be Globe-Earth-Believer! 🧐 Notice how his videos shifted from real footages to a CGI imagery and endless mathematical calculations which very boring…..😏😒😵💫🤢
Men in black visited him and I’m sure they offered him very nice chunk of money❗️ This will make his following fall into shock & despair🔻. We know their tactics! At the end of the day, he has been working for governmrnt company since the beginning. They bought him! Otherwise, he would be dead for going against multi-billion dollar scam-industry. I perfectly undestand his situation. I know for a fact that once you become Flat-earther, there is no going back to globe. In his heart, he knows and we know he is a flat earth guy👏👏👏👏👏
So you are under the impression the moon is involved with lunar eclipse? I drove to Wyoming for the 2017 one and I had a telescope, couldn't see the moon before or hours after. It appeared to me to be something invisible in our realm passed by it. You think that's actually the moon?
It’s called a new moon since the sun is illuminating the other side away from you. Yes, that is actually the moon.
@@KarnakActual Wouldn't the New Moon show a silhouette if it was backlit? Not just the part overlapping the Sun. Notice it cuts off?
@@4730301 No. The side facing you blends with the rest of the night sky, especially if there is a lot of light pollution. On a dark sky, with a good camera, a long exposure shot will show it. There are probably other methods of photographing it. There are apps, like SkyGuide, that can track it as it moves through the sky. Of course, I am referring to the new moon sans an eclipse. The moon is between the sun and the Earth during an eclipse, and only the sun’s corona is visible when the moon completely covers it. Those within the path of totality are in conjunction with the moon and the sun.
Rahu and Ketu
@473030
I noticed that too.
It's very bizarre... 🧐
If the moon was so far away, shouldn't it cast a shadow greater in area than what was observed.
the edges of the moon should have been illuminated on its approach and afterwards when it's moving away - all we seen was a mysterious black orb once it was in front of the sun. That was no physical moon, for sure.
ruclips.net/video/M6WpAeSfTrw/видео.html
Soon we will hear Jtolan talking about globe earth :(
im still trying to figure out what's going on. lol
It looks like the channel has been hacked. It's all very strange!!☝️👀
You were all part of a years long social experiment to see if you’d blindly believe obviously erroneous information without question. Every single video of infrared photography was making erroneous assertions of where he was looking, easily verifiable by simply looking at a map and comparing the direction and topography, and very few of you bothered to actually question it. Now you’re wondering why you’re being slowly transitioned out of the absurdity of thinking the Earth is flat and motionless?
Kids, the word for today is brainwashed.
@@bethechange7985 after so many years ,now hes talking about " moving earth". How come he didnt notice that before?
That shouldn't be something that saddens you.
When someone believes what you believe, and then changes their mind; if that upsets you then you are ideologically tied to that idea. Flat earth started with proving that people didn't know anything about the world, but they believed it in a religious way without any comprehension.
But flat earthers became that way about it being flat, too. I know, because I was one.
Today I'll admit to you that I don't know for sure. Jtolan seems to have changed his mind, but I can't tell that for sure either.
Excellent job just like always my friend! Keep up the great work! I keep turning people on to your channel.
How did you determine a "rotation" of the surface of the earth ????
he said gyroscopes account for it or some nonsense in the comments. they dont. earth moving under a gyroscope that is also moving , on the earths surface. I mean. how gullible you gotta be, to believe that. plus mainstream science doesn't even claim that drift is earth rotation. they invented the Lorentz contraction on the spot, out of nowhere, and said the apparatus measuring the light, changed size, because, the earth has to be in motion. they're psychopaths.
Timelapse sunspots. They move in an arc just like the moon appears to arc across the sky
It has been empirically proven that the Earth is stationary and it is the sky that is moving. Interferometry measurements correlate to altitude, periodicity of the sun and moon, and cardinal direction. MMX, MGP, Airy’s Success, etc.. MMX has been replicated with immensely more precise instrumentation than at the time of the original measurement. The fact the small interference measured correlates directly with altitude directly refutes the claim it is the Earth that is moving. There is no way around it. Not to mention, of course, the earth could not just be rotating and explain what is observed. You would have to invoke orbit 😂 .. which spoiler alert has also been directly and empirically refuted. Baselessly theorizing and refuting concepts via calculative presupposition is not science.
ROMY Gyroscope Array. "Immensely more precise" measurements disagree with you.
Wow, Witless to the rescue, not.😂 Only you could come in here and make matters worse with meaningless jargon. You wouldn’t know science if it slapped you. The Michelson-Morley experiment was meant to show whether light moved through a medium(Aether), and it failed. It had nothing to do with whether the Earth rotated, and it actually help prove relativity. Michelson-Gale-Peterson likewise measured the angular velocity of the Earth. Neither experiment doubted Earth’s rotation, and in fact both failed to prove the Aether was present and ended up supporting Special Relativity. Airy’s experiment was looking for Aether drag, and it failed to detect it. From his paper: “The subject to which attention is particularly called is the effect that will be produced on the apparent amount of that angular displacement of a star or planet which is caused by the Earth’s motion of translation, and is known as the Aberration of Light.” Regular stellar aberrations prove the Earth is not stationary.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, which judging by your debates, is nothing new. You never actually read the papers on these experiments because you’re misrepresenting their intent and their results.
@@KarnakActuali think he does know what he is talking about because he does the research. he just turns and twists it all into total BS and tries to make it fit into the BS FE narrative for his naïve audience.
Did you forget that the Sun changes speed in the flat Earth model?
Thought experiment for Globeheads: An airplane takes off from a huge flatbed truck moving 50mph up North somewhere near the center of rotation. The airplane then accelerates to 500mph, so the total speed and real momentum of the airplane is 550mph having left the surface of a runway moving 50mph before take off.
How will this Airplane ever land on a different huge flatbed truck South of that location, that is moving at over 1,000mph?? Trying to land on a moving runway that is traveling at over 1,000mph. When the runway from which the airplane took off from was only moving at 50mph.
By what force or mechanism of Science will the Airplane speed up from moving at a total of 550mph After leaving the surface of the runway moving at only 50mph....then speed up to over 1,000mph in hopes to now land on a runway that is moving at over 1,000mph several hours away at a different location on the surface of a Ball??
Well, first of all, a plane isn’t going to take off from a flat bed truck. If the plane is going at a speed of 500mph, the speed of the truck from which it took off makes no difference. The plane is still going 500mph. You don’t stack speed and momentum in that way.
The truck, the plane and the atmosphere have already attained the momentum of a rotating Earth, so there is no change in velocity relative to the plane or the truck that would cause it to play “catch up” to another truck or worry about Earth’s rotation. The plane and truck are moving within the same inertial frame of reference as the Earth’s rotation. You may as well say that if a fly, which cannot move at 80mph(avg. 5mph, to bursts of 15mph), sits at the back of a car when it starts to move, and then attains a speed of 80 mph, is able to move to the front of the car. How can it fly around in a car moving so far beyond its ability to fly? Well, it has attained the same velocity and momentum as the car, and is moving within its inertial frame of reference. That will only change with abrupt changes in velocity, or you open the window, allowing the fly to move outside the car’s inertial frame of reference and be caught in the atmosphere moving slower in relation to the car.
This isn’t a thought experiment for anyone who accepts the Earth is a globe. It’s nonsense to anyone who understands grade school physics.
@@KarnakActual The inertial frame of reference is only present if the contained air in which the object or person resides is not moving. Do you think that the earh's air is contained and hardly or not moving? I like to read more thoughts of you on that.
@@hongry-life *”The inertial frame of reference is only present if the contained air in which the object or person resides is not moving.”*
No. The inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference not undergoing any acceleration. The velocity is constant. I’ll get to the relationship to cover the next response.
*”Do you think that the earh's air is contained and hardly or not moving? I like to read more thoughts of you on that.”*
The Earth is rotating and has a gravitational field. It rotates at a constant velocity, and any point from the center of mass to the end of the influence of the gravitational field rotates at the same velocity. So, as the Earth rotates, the atmosphere at any point rotates with it, within the same frame of reference. It is “contained” by gravity. Every object on the planet, within its gravitational field, has attained that momentum. It can move within that frame of reference, creating a microcosm. As in, it can be its own inertial frame of reference, like a car, or an airplane. When an airplane or car is accelerating, you can feel it. When it has reached a cruising speed, or a constant velocity, you have attained that velocity as well, and can move around within it. You don’t “sense” the velocity, and only notice it by observing the environment _outside_ the frame of reference, such as the ground below, or clouds, or the roadway and objects along it in the case of the car. The only time you feel it is due to abrupt changes in velocity. If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, the surface of the planet would be scoured by the atmosphere and objects which still have that momentum.
The microcosm extends out beyond the Solar System. The Sun has a gravitational field, and affects the bodies within it, and the Black Hole at the center of the galaxy has a immense gravitational field, and affects the celestial bodies within the galaxy, rotating the space, including our solar system, within its gravitational field.
This is high school physics. You never learned this?
@@KarnakActual Gravity is an assumption, a theory. In fact multiple things you say are based on it, so they are also theories and assumptions then so far.
Back to basics and prove 'gravity' to exist (as a separate force). Also look into little g and big G explaining eachother while being 2 variables in 1 formula. Gravity is not a containment either (the winds blow) and it varies everywhere on earth (as is said).
@@hongry-life *”Gravity is an assumption, a theory. In fact multiple things you say are based on it, so they are also theories and assumptions then so far.”*
Scientific theories and assumptions are in no way analogous. A scientific theory is a framework of evidence and data upon which an explanation is formulated to define the how and why for a phenomenon observed in the natural world. Gravity is also defined by scientific laws, which is where Conservation of Momentum originates.
*”Back to basics and prove 'gravity' to exist (as a separate force).”*
Basics, indeed. More like an entire introductory course to physics.
When you jump up, you land back down in the same spot, gravity is therefore proven. The laws of gravity, along with the theory of general relativity, _explains_ the how and why you landed down. Theories are never “proven.” They’re not a rung on a ladder of hierarchy leading to law or fact. They remain explanations that are able to predict the behavior of the phenomenon observed, and their ability to remain viable is based on the strength of the evidence that informs those explanations and their predictive power. When new evidence comes to light, then the theory is either modified or scrapped if the new evidence warrants it and works better in improving the explanation and predictions. They are rigorously tested. Theories are not assumptions, and anyone who says anything is “only a theory” is scientifically illiterate.
*”Also look into little g and big G explaining eachother while being 2 variables in 1 formula.”*
So formulas dealing with gravity confuses you? The little g is the acceleration due to gravity or the Force, while the big G is the Universal Gravitational Constant. You’re solving for the little g, the big G is the same number no matter what equation it’s placed within. It is a fixed value at 6.67 × 10^-11 Nm²/kg². The little g is dependent upon variables such as location and altitude. If you want to know how the UGC is derived, then I would crack open a physics book. It’s too long an explanation for RUclips comments.
*”Gravity is not a containment either (the winds blow) and it varies everywhere on earth (as is said).”*
Wind blowing isn’t _just_ defined by gravity, but rather differences in air pressure and temperature. Gravity varies by about 0.5% from the poles to the equator. That is due to the blazingly fast .000694 rpms of rotation. Needless to say, you don’t notice it. Gravity has no problem “containing” the mass of objects on Earth including the mass of the atmosphere. If you would like, here is a Christian University explaining the dynamics of wind on Earth: *Union University-How does gravity affect the wind?
October 2001.* Just search for it, the page should come up.
Please don’t waste my time. I have heard these comments time and time again from people who literally make themselves look ignorant due to repeated misunderstandings of fairly simple concepts in order to uphold a dogmatic view. When you get corrected on misunderstandings, acknowledge it and be smarter than you were before you knew it. Everything you have said is a misunderstanding. It shouldn’t be any longer.
Very interesting!!! I like how you really question everything and actually carry out thorough calculations. The more I learn the more I realise I don’t know. I don’t know what’s going on. Yes we could well be spinning. I mean we wouldn’t feel it. Our momentum goes with the object we are travelling with. If you jump on a train the train doesn’t move under your feet! Simple! That’s one of the few points I never agree with people who believe in flat earth. I do believe in flat earth but I also want to look at it all critically and keep options open. There’s just so much we don’t know yet! Thank you JTolan!
"Et tu, Brute?"
Does anyone notice how the object that blocks the sun does not move uniformly across? like it should if it were the moon, if it were in either a geocentric or the laughable heliocentric model. That's no moon. Love your work brother Jay!
thanks, the wobble is partly atmospheric, and partly my alignment accuracy of the many photos I took every 2 minutes or so, just holding up the camera in my hands, I aligned by that center sun spot, that looks like an ant. Note: when the moon shrinks slightly, it was cause I twisted the zoom lens accidentally and didn't catch it when aligning. I think it went from 205mm to 203mm, just by slightly turning the lens. oops.
@@jtolanmedia1 Your footage was great as always brother! I'm talking about something I have noticed with solar eclipses in general. How the path of the object will change directions halfway through its eclipse. For instance moving in from the right and then moving downward towards the bottom of the frame. The path was rather straight in your footage, but prior I have seen different many times. Either way, as always brother, your work is amazing and revolutionary and respectfully they should give you the award for longest distance photograph ever taken. But ya know lol
I observed this as well while watching totality in Ohio. A definite shift in direction of movement appeared to occur in the final 1/3 of the eclipse after totality. I was with 3 heliocentric families and none of us had an explanation. It would seem incorrect to ascribe it to refraction or “atmospheric conditions.”
@@Shazam450 I have to absolutely agree with you on this. Atmospheric distortion does not explain some drastic direction changes and changes to the angle of the path. All I can say is that historically, solar eclipses were never really contributed to the moon anyways. And I have to agree with the ancients. There is something else up there.
Agree. I would love to hear an explanation of this (other than atmospheric conditions) if anyone has one. I was shocked to see the directional change.
Definitely, the moon is not passing through. There should be some light shinning on the side when its passing by. It seems like our ancient ancestors knew more about what is going on.
J.Tolan, I didn't catch that, how you got the altitude of the apparent(?) moon to be "just 5 miles" (14:12). I could not see the numbers anywhere. What did I miss? And how high up is the "real moon"?
Following this channel for years.
Yeah it wasn't the Moon search videos of people that seen the moon in the north while the solar eclipse was going on in the south
Explain? Sounds interesting
Do you have a link? (Please?)😊😊
I hear about this, but have not seen it.
Also, I think we can all be certain now that video is a medium that can be manipulated.
@@anglokelts6919 seconding
@anglokelts6919 ruclips.net/video/x0Cr_VUtY08/видео.htmlsi=pQtfndTnnCz04-HX
Wonderful work!
Joshua's Long Day Joshua 10:12-14 "Then spake Joshua to YHWH in the day when YHWH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that YHWH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for YHWH fought for Israel." Notice Joshua never told the earth to not rotate but JTolan at 6:33 says the observing is moving (rotating) and the the surface of the earth is rotating.
and of course if you are flying over the surface of a Globe, all of the stars will have to rise up in the windshield of airplane....because the airplane would physically be tilting over relative to where it took off from, therefore FORCING the stars seen thru the windshield to RISE UP as you fly over the Ball.
Have you ever seen this happen?? (It has to happen no matter which direction you fly). ALL of the stars have to rise up in the windshield as the plane tilts over from where it took off from on the BALL.
Taboo conspiracy shows that video
@@tractatusLP can you please post the link here, thanks
@@jtolanmedia1 ruclips.net/video/KFz4ZZd1zj4/видео.html
Had to type it in.
How a pilot ended the globe - part 1
There is also a part 2
Did you correct for the Revolution of the stars in the aether in the calculation. If you do not then I would guess, haven’t calculated, that the earth must move.
They restricted Flights around the eclipse!..
Why?
Because one can see the Angle of the Black shadow….And do some simple Math..
Did they really restrict flights?
No wonder any more why this channel is not removed by YT
You can't even find this channel without going thru hoops. Try searching for it lol
@@llvn11 yes, you can. I literally typed the channel name in google and this page was the very first result. Go buy some more tin foil to make hats bozo
Also you mentioned that the moon rotates actually it doesn't, it only appears tilted on each Horizon in opposite ways, this is due to perspective if you notice the moon when it's at its highest 12:00 position in the sky the Terminator line will always be vertical, which means the sun and the moon are relatively at the same height, a simple comparison is a jet contrail from Horizon to Horizon looks like a big ark in the sky but we know it's perfectly parallel to the flat plane earth. The curvature angle of the contrail matches the moon's Terminator line tilt angle comparatively, so the moon actually does not move at all only travels in a straight line. Cheers
Thanks for your amazing work. I`m enjoying every single video of yours
This is very interesting for those of us interested in the Electric Universe theory of the proposed polar configuration. the shot of the moon at 3:08 gives a tantalizing hint of what The Ship of Heaven/Horns of the bull might have looked like to ancient observers as found in so many ancient Babylonian reliefs.
Thanks bro, for keeping us illuminated. I can't wait to see the next episode. I will stay tuned. Gracias!!!!
p.d. the Earth does not rotate (esta quieta).
So with this calculation, we should be able to figure the height of the moon above flat earth, correct? Also, what would the shadow look like with the moon and the sun at that angle? Not sure why you didn't represent that. I would think it would look like a giant oval.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You start off by saying " We already know what the velocity of the sun is". Did you take into account that the Flat Earth cosmology the Sun has to speed up when it goes toward the southern summer solstice/northern winter solstice, then slow down when it travels back to the southern Winter solstice/northern summer solstice? So the sun's velocity changes constantly.
Conclusion: On Flat Earth the Sun has to travel faster because it has more distance to cover over 24 hour period.
When JTolan said the Sun moves too slow for a year, what you say about the Sun is what I thought...
Which actually makes no sense since you could register the change in velocity and angular size.
@@KarnakActual Yes, it was done with the moon. The video is out there somewhere. for the angular size.
@@KarnakActual If JTolan Media assumes the Sun's velocity is constant then his conclusion will be wrong.
@@Gr8Believer If Jtolen Media assumes the sun is moving in a circular path above a flat plane, then it doesn’t matter. His conclusions are already wrong.
Every night time is just as exciting...
I know this will sound crazy but assumptions have been made, you have assumed that the moon passes in front of the sun, as the effect would also be the same if the moon passed behind the sun and blocked a projected light source. [just let my mind slip out of the loop, wondering, why is the hour hand the shortest, when the hours are printed furthest from the centre] we dont know what we can not know.
Interesting point there.
If you like, could you hold your calculation method against the map that Vibes of Cosmos channel presents (maybe by assuming that it is all flat surfaces to start with) and whose theory is that earths surface features/continents are mirrored in the visible moon image?
Another great lesson from Mr. Tolan. Keep up the great work!
I find it astonishing that stars can be seen during an eclipse. When one considers where stars are said to be in relation to the Sun (though, of course, we doubt a lot of what we have been told) them being light years away and behind the Sun which is(?) a ball, how could the passage of a smaller ball in front, 92.5 million miles nearer to us in front of the sun make stars so far away and behind it, visible - if those things are true - but that is what I doubt! I think this may be another distances proof.
Can you explain how the Michelson-Morley Experiment fits with your claim that the "earth is moving" ? Maybe I am misinterpreting something. Thanks.
You _are_ misinterpreting something. The entire purpose of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the results. The purpose of the experiment wasn’t to prove the Earth was in motion, nor do any results from it are to be construed as such. They were measuring the motion of the Aether, not the Earth. They didn’t find any. Video on the experiments and the results: ruclips.net/video/suO5aoI0O5w/видео.html
@@KarnakActual thank you. Watching the video now.
@@RedScotland Oh, you’re back from deleting your dumb comments. Yes, I understand the difference between orbit and rotation. So anything that _actually_ addresses the comment and content, or are we just going to blow hot air?
@@KarnakActual Lol. They tried to confirm Earth revolving around the Sun thru motion of the ether. In reality they did detect ether motion, but considerably less than expected. In fact this ether motion was corroborated through various follow-up experiments.
Aah, got to love noobs like you who speak with such confidence - sans the knowledge.
@@KarnakActual Well, more accurately they had a prediction for how much ether motion they would observe based on the assumed model of a spherical Earth revolving around the Sun. It's not that they tried to confirm it because they were already convinced that it was so. So I misspoke slightly.
Here is my question:
If the moon is in constant motion across the sun, why didn’t your moon “pause” for four minutes at the time for totality?
Love your work, how do you explain this anomaly, a full lunar eclipse only cast a shadow around 70 mi wide on the Earth, a object that's lit from the rear cannot cast a smaller Shadow only around the same size and bigger depending on the light source distance behind the object, so the Moon by the law of physics cannot be bigger than 70 miles in diameter, what's your thoughts on that? Cheers
There is a dubious first assumption here.
The calculation of the sun and moon speed assumes that the stars are stationary.
If the stars are stationary then the consequence must be that earth moves.
The speed of the sun and the moon must be corrected by the speed of the stars.
I hypothesize that this would result in no need to have earth rotate.
And the umbra penumbra is a problem if the sun is totally closed by a body. There is no larger light source. The corona cannot cause it.
So pedantic work! 👍🏻
so the earth is a lazy susan
More like a sweaty Betty if you look at the size of deserts
J Tolan I was excited to see what you had to say about the solar eclipse since there was people that reported it was not the moon covering the sun, there are 3 objects and one of those covered it.
Hmm...the earth is floating on the sea beneath.
I guess it could rotate.
The pillars would keep it stable.
The same technique is used to stabilize ethanol plants in West Tennessee. The soil is almost 2000 feet deep to bedrock in places and they use concrete pillars to stabilize the facilities, mainly for earthquakes from what I was told.
As for the moon, are you SURE it's what is eclipsing the sun?
Have you verified it isn't a plasma field?
Well, in this vid was said that the heavens are fixed (9:28 min) but I heard no explanation about that assumption or thought, the calculation was based on that. I myself would assume, also looking at Biblical texts, that the stars and planets are having their orbit and that they are moving or at least projected that way.
JTolan Media1, would you be honest enough to admit that you'll never go up there and watch the ball spin?
And that you'll never be able to prove that the ball is spinning, like all the scientists and teachers in the world?
I'll probably never make it out there, since it is beyond the dome, but I know the earth rotates based on sensitive gyros.
@@jtolanmedia1There is no dome, and we all know you know that.
@@RedScotland This channel has always been his personal experience and it's very math heavy, take it for what it is. Personally I believe the entire sky clock is moving, earth spin is ridiculous.
Maybe the tectonic plates move but not the earth
@@hulkgreen6786 A flat Earth isn’t going to support tectonic activity. You need a rotating core to drive the convection currents of molten rock.
So if you have diameter of the moon and his angular size, than it's easy to calculate distance to the moon? How far can it be? 😅
What i really feel is that the most interesting "flat earthers" are creating confusion or becoming ex FE in some kind of way. Tolan is not different.
Why?
As always. Thanks for such wonderful information. I have a question for you. What's the name of the tune in the back at the beginning of the video. I've been searching for this melody for years. Please help me. Thank you J
not sure, I heard it on the NPR radio while I was working on the video, loved it so much.
From the last eclipse until this recent one, my life is not the same. found some ancient unknown engravings on stones in the Grand river, Brantford, Ontario. Appreciate your work Jtolan, this is huge
For what it's worth the earth rotation could be the sky's(cosmos) rotating and the math would work out the same
Anyone else think this is not the moon?
Only if they’re a moron.
only you and other people with single digit IQ
It's not, crrow777 has discussed this.
if a camera is placed near the center of rotation on a turnabout, and a second camera is placed near the outer edge of it....will both cameras see and film everything they see above them, to move at the SAME speed? Or will the camera near the Center of rotation physically moving slow WHILE filming, will SEE everything above it moving slowly? And will the camera near the outer edge, physically moving much much faster WHILE filming, will it SEE everything above it moving faster?
As for actual Observers on such a Turnabout ----> We already know the answer, or at least most of us had Childhoods with merry go rounds, and we should KNOW the answer.
When near the center of the turnabout, physically moving slow...you DO in fact Observe what you see when you look up.....moving SLOW "turning slow" because you yourself are in fact turning slow, duh!
When near the outer edge of the turnabout, physically moving much much faster...you DO in fact Observe what you see when you look up....moving FASTER "turning faster" because you yourself are in fact turning faster, duh!
And finally to settle arguments about this ----> We have a ceiling with Stars painted all over it's surface above us......while we stand on a turnabout beneath it........the person near the center of the turnabout WILL see the stars on the ceiling turning SLOWER than the person standing on the turnabout near the outer edge of it, when they look up at the ceiling. They WILL see the stars on the ceiling turning much FASTER, because they are physically moving and turning faster when they look up at the ceiling.....duh.
So...........can we show this happening on the Earth???
Oh and by the way, if you the Observer are standing on the surface of a turnabout going around in circles, you will not have Balance & Equilibrium, and also the amount of energy/work needed to move across the surface will vary depending on the direction you choose to take off walking in. Northwards towards the center requires the Most energy...........walking South away from the Center you will receive an ASSISTIVE energy/force to HELP you walk that direction.
If you actually lived ON the surface of a turnabout. But if the turnabout ALSO goes around a circular track......then every 12hours the forces will decrease and then increase 12hours later ----> You would be spun WITH the same direction the turnabout is going around the circular track, while your friend directly across from you on the other side of the globe would be spun OPPOSITE the direction of forward momentum around the circular track upon which the TURNABOUT moves. Same physics as a spinning T-cup ride.
IF the globespell were actually real that is. ALL of the physics and reality of what i just said will have to line up.
I love a smart thinking person. Wait and see I've been doing something similar for quite a while now.
You know what's funny. I was thinking about this a few days ago. I'm in new zealand, so more to the outer edge.... So I wonder if the stars move slower over my head than the ones over someone else's head say on the equator?
@@dewetbotma5875 A good question, and sort of the thing that caused me to basically stop posting videos on my YT channel. I only have one solution to this question, which is that time moves at different speeds according to where you are on Earth's plane. So, to your question, there has to be the following question, how would you know that the stars moved slower to you if time, where you were at, went by faster for you according to your location, as far away from the North Pole as you are?
Si la órbita de la tierra fuese elíptica sería imposible que hubiesen eclipses en cualquier estación del año, sin embargo...
Hi JTolan. I’m looking for a nice setup IR camera or video camera or both also like a Nikon p1000 with a tracking mount to look and film the stars or moon. Any videos on what is best? Do you have a video like that if not I’m sure lots of people would watch and appreciate. Wanted to get Nikon p1000 but they are discontinued
great work JT
There are between 2 and 5 Solar Eclipses per year, Location will differ
Great presentation! I'm in Vegas too :) Thank you so much for sharing this information with us! God bless you and your family :)
thank you Emily, God Bless
Why can't I react? Am I a threat?
isometric model would be nice
The Earth is flat and stationery , sun and moon move in a circuit over a stationery Earth, your welcome 😊
Not even Close to what would whappen in such a model like heliocentrism. Erath is flat and stationary. Dont like the attitude the channel is taking but.. u know truth is smth none can fake. Thnx Tolan as always, i cant stop wonderimg about the fact that wouldve made you take such a drift in your way of thinking and if you would share it. Love from Spain fellow FEs❤
Is there any actual working flat earth model that we can check out? I’m genuinely serious
If the moon takes 80min to cross the sun. Then how many sun fit in the sky X 80 min = that is not the moon moving that slow🦧
How far is the moon and sun away from the earths surface? I didnt quite hear what you said
the moon should be like 3000 miles, the sun could be a hologram, a reflection off a mirror is a type of hologram and has the same heat output.
So J Tolan, you no longer believe we are on a flat non rotating earth?? So you have proved earth motion.
Hi Alice, I don't think I proved absolute motion here, the math works the same if we assume the stars rotate and we are fixed. But I always knew earth rotates, I use to work on intercontinental balistic missiles and they have the utmost sensitive gyros, also focault pendulums show it as well. Some people misinterpret experiments of the past, and some read the bible a bit too literal, when in fact there could be translation issues, or poetic language at work. The word "at rest" could very well mean "at peace", no strife on the earth, etc.. just as an example. But yes the earth appears flat, that's why I call it a "flat earth phenomena" untill we more fully understand what it is, we can't just jump to too many conclusions, even though it is tempting.
@@jtolanmedia1
Thank you I appreciate that.
Excelent work! please more!
According to Genesis 1:16, the moon, the lesser light, has its own light. So why can't we see that light during an eclipse?
Probably because the moon doesn’t have its own light. The light you see is a reflection from the sun.
@@RedScotland No, you don’t actually.
I live on a flat stationary earth
@TriIIiian sure I do
unfortunately it was cloudy when it happened.
At times I see the moon in the same spot for days at a time ?.
There's no proof earth is moving. Just because you cannot understand the sky doesn't mean earth is moving.
Cant stand that hysteric NASA derived screaming
It really spoils the moment of awe. I was very blessed to see a total eclipse before that stupid trendo of whopping and hooting began. The silence was TREMENDOUS and it was a moment with God seeming very near. Balm for the soul. That's why they spoiled it.
Maybe it will be common in all companies when people do their jobs.
Yes, ridiculous for sure.
Moon Is not a solid and J knows that...Just a deviation from his previous path...
JT this channel has been hacked , or he would be here addressing comments as he always does!
the sun and moon analema describe a sine (sinusoide)wave. 1° quadrant positive parabola of maximum speed. x axis, average velocity and average acceletarion. 2° quadrant negative, minimum speed sun.
1 year aquals 365,25 day. 1/4 day (6 hs) more per year equal to a leap year (año bisiesto). i still haven´t studied the moon cycle or its movement o times.
I have always known that human ignorance is the worst thing. People claim that the earth moves... and they would even sell their own wife for that claim (I'm only being symbolic, although someone knows what I'm talking about). After a while they realize how ignorant they were and how wrong they were, whether they were drugged or not, the truth always finds a way, but the woman will not return.
Thanks for video 🎉
God bless you! Great calculator!
Your new nick name is “Steel Man”! Don’t stop.
TONS OF VIDEOS SHOW, IT'S NOT THE MOON CROSSING THE SUN- AND TONS OF VIDEO SHOW THE MOON AWAY FROM THE ECLIPSE???😮
I thought you were a flat Earth guy if you are how can we be spinning
Tectonic plates cushioned by some buoyant substance beneath anything is possible
Very interesting
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
calculate velocity sun for analema sun. grade/hour.
solstice in cartesian plane. x = speed and y = degrees.
( 1 hour = 14.9.. (15° aprox)). amplitude of a shadow during 1 hour, equal to the length of 1 leg o a right triangle.
note: equinox equals average speed of the sun.
southern solstice for 3 day still sun. 1° day maximun acceleration sum, 2° day maximum speed and zero acceleration, 3° day minimum deceleration.
northern solstice, 2 day still sun: 16 hours maximum acceletarion. 16 hs zero acceleration and maximum speed and, 16 hs minimum deceleration.
lunar analemma, has similar movement whit different speeds, accelerations... (and i do not know the duration of the moonstices in day o hours)
a hug from south america. i don´t understan english but the traslator help enough.
video with English subtitles
Haha 😂nothing is moving under neither your feet 😜
thanks for your work, but you have lost me with the first equation
If the Moon is 5,000 km away, then its diameter should be about 50 km
Congrats J! You are the first flat earther who went back to the globe👍
There have been others on RUclips.
@@RedScotlandNo one is threatening flat Earthers.😂
Please, please ditch the backing moosak!
Excellent calculations, I'm impressed by the math in the video. However, I consider physics to be a science of facts, not fiction, which is told by modern scientists. I have a law degree and for me, fact is reality, and everything else is fiction. What is wrong with the mathematical calculations made in this video? I am not satisfied with everything that cannot be verified, everything that is not a fact, but only assumed. I list the assumptions used for calculations: the size of the Sun, the size of the Moon, the absence of star movement. Therefore, all the results of calculations cannot be considered as real, but only as a fantastic assumption based on the theory of Heliocentrism (which has no real evidence).
😂
Me gustaría en español para entender
Hey, stay healthy and est your ruminate animal meat.
See videos by Dr Anthony Chaffee MD and Dr Robert Kiltz MD
I was in ohio near dayton i wish it had gotten as dark as it did in Dallas. Perhaps i need to be closer to the middle of totality 🤔. I went to Nashville during the 2017 eclipse as well. I think I’m hooked at this point so ill be at the next one for sure.
Dude you have got to stop playing background music and noises over your talking voice
👏👏👏
The earth isn't flat but it is much bigger than we are told. What we call earth is located in a crater on a giant planet.
@@RedScotland the mere existence of the universe is utter nonsense.
270 thousand miles in diameter across earth size it could be more
you lost me after you started pretending earth moves. I couldn't even watch the rest of the video. uhhhh. im so confused right now. you're talking about gravity in the comments..... so youre a globe head who just thinks earths really big? umm. uhhh. ummm. what.
That you’re confused about the shape for the planet is interesting in and of itself. Yes, the Earth does, indeed, rotate. Diurnal motion of the poles proves its a sphere as circular paths of star trails at opposite poles cannot occur on a flat Earth. And rotation is indicated with ring laser gyroscopes measuring a 15º drift per hour. This is all empirical evidence.
@@RedScotland 🤣Then why don’t you prove it “fallaciously”? Show me your understanding of science. Anytime you’re ready, champ.
You are awesome ! Your videos teach truth ! Are you interested in Bible Salvation?
Acts 2:38 in the Bible is the teaching of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Not taught by most all religion. 😊
thanks, I believe in Jesus Christ, and have been baptized. God bless you!
@@jtolanmedia1 The part of Acts 2:38 that many people seem to gloss over, is when it says to repent. In context, it means to repent from sin, to turn 180 degrees from sin. 1John 3:4 explains that sin is the transgression of the law. But mainstream Christianity has this false teaching that the law is obsolete or 'done away with'. Even Paul, who they rely on to support their theory that the law is obsolete, wrote in Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? "
It is important to realize that the 'law' that was changed at the cross had to do with the daily sacrifices for the penalty of sin, because the perfect sacrifice had been made that superseded the daily sacrifice. But just because the penalty for my crimes has been paid, it will never make it okay to continue breaking the law. Even though Christ's sacrifice paid the penalty for ALL my sins, even future ones, it doesn't give me the right to ignore the laws of the Father, or to continue in sin, in other words.
👍👍👍💪💪💪❤️❤️❤️
💪❤️👍
Great!!!! 💪