All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:56:00
The Raw Deal - The Flat Earth Special - (19 July 2023) with Joe Olson
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I don't know.
Help me if you can, I'm feeling down.
And I do appreciate you being around.
Help me get my feet back on the ground.
Won't you please, please help me?
Well, Today we have an unusual show.
I've invited Joel Senn to join me to discuss scientific reasoning.
Could Earth be flat now?
There are quite a few slides we have here, but I've created a PDF that each of you can download to your own desktop.
There's a tiny URL, meaning a short URL, that reads as follows.
tinyurl.com slash two s f k m y u z i repeat tinyurl.com slash two the numeral two and all letters in lowercase s f k m y u z
Now Joe will be carrying the burden of the discussion, but I want to remind you about the background for scientific reasoning.
Something doesn't fit in with your background knowledge.
Maybe it's because you don't perceive the curvature of Earth, that it seems to you Earth is a flat surface rather than a sphere.
Consider the complete range of alternative explanations.
One might be that for large spherical objects, local regions display a very close approximation to flat surfaces, that Earth is actually a globe, technically an oblate spheroid, slightly thicker at the equator than from north to south, and that what you're witnessing is simply an aspect of the mathematical properties of spherical objects.
Which hypothesis, then, we must ask, if it were true, would confer the higher probability upon the available relevant evidence?
With special concern to sorting out authentic from the fabricated.
Well, what would be some of the available relevant evidence?
The causal theory of time defines time as regulated by periodic or recurring processes that have a certain regularity to them, such as day and night.
How are we going to explain the difference between day and night?
Or the months of the year determined by the moon in relation to Earth?
Or the season, summer, fall, winter, spring?
Are those explicable because in the winter Earth is further away from the sun and in the summer closer to the sun?
Explanation!
When the evidence is settled down you accept as truth a hypothesis that has a higher likelihood, that confers a higher probability on the evidence in the tentative infallible fashion of science.
Now, There are criteria that I employ, for example, in discussing conspiracy theories that are derived from the evaluation of scientific theories.
These were advanced by the philosopher of science Carl G. Hempel at Princeton, where I did my undergraduate thesis for Hempel, enormously influential.
Those he articulated are as follows.
The clarity and precision of the language in which they are expressed, their scope of application for the purpose of explanation and prediction, their respective degrees of empirical support on the available evidence, and the economy elegance or simplicity with which they satisfy those first three criteria.
Now, in the case of what we're discussing here, that fourth criterion, the economy, elegance, or simplicity with which they satisfy those conditions, are especially important.
Scientific explanations, by the way, involve subsuming events by means of laws—laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth.
Whereby you derive a conclusion by putting together initial conditions with those laws.
A potentially illuminating comparison of Himmel's theory of covering laws derives from Aristotle's theory of the four causes.
Laws are the material cause, the antecedent condition the efficient cause, the logical relation between the explanands and the explanandum, the formal cause, and the explanandum, the final cause.
The explanandum in this case would be all the celestial phenomena, all survey data, all the weather condition, day versus night, stars, navigation, ships disappearing over the horizon when they set out to sea.
Those are collectively The explanandum, or that which we want to explain.
And we want to do so using a theory that, together with an appropriate specification of initial conditions, explains them.
I'm gonna give a thumbnail sketch before I turn this over to Joe.
Well, I mentioned two books that are especially accessible, I. B. Cohen, The Birth of a New Physics, featuring the work, for example, of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, in terms of the development of the history of astronomy and physics, from the concept of a flat, immobile Earth at the center of the universe, to where we stand today, The Birth of a New Physics, and
The Copernican Revolution by Thomas Ascuna celebrated historian of science, planetary astronomy, and the development of Western thought.
Roughly, I'd say, The Birth of a New Physics is a high school-level text at Copernican Revolution College.
I mention this view of Earth being, you know, immobile.
We can go all the way back to the Pre-Socratic philosophers, known as the nature philosophers, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, where Thales is widely regarded as the first philosopher because he was seeking to explain observable phenomena, Thales suggested everything is made of water.
Now that might sound far-fetched, but actually there's a whole lot of reason why that's an interesting proposition, including that water occurs in three different states.
As a gas, in mist or steam, in a liquid form, in rain, water, lakes, rivers, and as a solid, ice or snow.
Thales also believed Earth was a flat disk floating in water.
Anaximander rejected Dale's basic stuff as water and speculated the ultimate reality could not be identified with any one particular element, came up with stuff he called the boundless or the infinite or the unlimited.
Some would suggest that he might be talking about, in a kind of a very crude way, the idea that all matter is made up out of atoms.
Anaximenes hypothesized it was not water but air.
That was a fundamental stop.
This is a pretty fascinating stop when you go back and take a look at it in historical perspective.
Now we even get a decent summary of the Copernican Revolution from sources like Wikipedia.
During the Renaissance, astronomy began to undergo a revolution of thought known as the Copernican Revolution, derived from the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who proved a heliocentric system in which the planets revolved around the Sun rather than around the Earth.
His De Revolucionaria Odibus Celestium was published in 1543.
Well, in the long term, this was a controversial claim in the beginning.
It only brought about minor controversy.
The theory became the dominant view because many figures, notably Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton, championed and improved upon the works.
Other figures also added to the new model, despite not believing in the overall theory, like Tycho Brahe, who is the best-known naked eye astronomer in history.
He was an essential astronomer for the period, coming onto the astronomical scene with the publication of De Nova Stella, in which he disproved conventional wisdom on the supernovae.
As bright as Venus at its peak, the supernovae 1572 later became invisible to the naked eye, disproving the Aristotelian doctrine of the immutability of the heavens.
He also created the technonic system where the sun and moon and stars revolve around the earth, but the other five planets revolve around the sun.
The system blended the mathematical benefits of the Copernican system with the physical benefits of the Ptolemaic.
is one of the system people believed in when they did not accept heliocentrism but could no longer accept the Ptolemaic system.
He's most known for his highly accurate observations of the stars and the solar system.
After the death of Brahe, Kepler was deemed a successor and given the job of completing Brahe's uncompleted work.
It was the Rudolphine Tables, which he completed in 1624.
This is an inventory of the stars in relative position to one another.
Like many other figures of his era, he was subject to religious and political troubles, like the Thirty Years' War, which led to chaos that almost destroyed some of his work.
Kepler was, however, the first to attempt to derive mathematical predictions of celestial motions from assumed physical causes.
He discovered the three Keplerian laws of planetary motion, which carry his name as follows.
First, The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with a sun at one of the two foci.
Second, a line segment joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
Third, the square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
With these laws, he managed to improve upon the existing heliocentric, meaning sun-centered model.
The first two were published in 1609.
Kepler's contribution improved upon the overall system, giving it more credibility because it adequately explained events and could provide more reliable predictions.
Before this, the Copernican model was just as unreliable as the Ptolemaic, This improvement came because Kepler realized the orbits were not perfect circles, but ellipses.
Galileo was among the first to use a telescope to observe the sky, and after constructing a 20-time reflector telescope, he discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter in 1610, which are now collectively known as the Galilean moons, in his honor.
The discovery was the first known observation of satellites orbiting another planet.
He also found that the moon had craters and observed incorrectly explained sunspots, and that Venus exhibited a full set of phases resuming lunar phases.
He argued these facts demonstrated incompatibility with the Ptolemaic model, which could not explain the phenomena and would even contradict them.
Meanwhile, I want you to bear in mind there are three kinds of impossibilities, things that cannot be true.
Logical impossibilities can't be true because their description is contradictory.
This is why there can't be any round squares, because to be round you have to have properties that are inconsistent with being square.
Humorously, why there can't be any honest politicians.
Physical cannot be the case because they violate the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, melting points, freezing point, causal relations, laws of material science.
Technical could not happen because the technology had yet to be developed.
Airborne flight before the Wright Brothers.
Electric light before Edison Autos before Ford.
Technical turns out to be important in relation to the moon landing because we did not have the technical ability to go there.
We didn't have the propulsion capacity to escape low Earth orbit.
We didn't have the navigational capacity to manage the flight.
We didn't have the ability to protect astronauts from the radiation that was surrounding Earth.
We just could not have done it because technically we weren't capable of doing it, thus it had to be faked.
Meanwhile, let me introduce Joe Olson, who has a whole lot more to say about all these things.
Joe, I'm delighted to have you here today.
Yes, well, I'm going to say that there's two conspiracy theories that are absolutely ridiculous that I refuse to debate anybody over.
One of them is that nuclear weapons do not exist.
If you want to maintain that philosophy, you can do that in the comfort of your own home because that's something I will never engage anybody with.
Because just like Mark Twain said, never argue with a fool because soon nobody will be able to tell you apart.
And the other one is flat earth.
And I've come across these flat earth people and they're just like ridiculous arguments.
So it's like, I'm not going to debate any of them.
But what we're going to do in today's program is that I'm going to give you enough information that you can confront them.
On an individual basis, and that way you can have fun with the Flat Earth people without me having to be involved in any more than we are today.
Let me add just 1 point, Joe.
I distinguish between logical, physical, and technical impossibility to make the point that Flat Earth Theory is not logically impossible.
It's not inconsistent.
Indeed, even Aristotle, whom I regard among the three greatest philosophers of all time, Aristotle, Kant, and Peirce, Believe that Earth was the mobile center of the universe and that the sun and stars revolved around it.
So, I would say those who adhere to flat Earth theory are at least in good company, insofar as Aristotle himself was a proponent of the view.
It's not logically impossible, but It leads to a vastly more complicated understanding of everything else that's going on.
It's like if you're on a moving train and you want to presume you're actually not in motion, then you have the earth, all the things outside going on at a rapid pace while you're patiently not moving.
In other words, You can adopt such an assumption.
It's logically possible as long as you're willing to make sufficiently drastic alterations in your other beliefs.
That, I submit, is a situation with flat Earth.
It's not logically impossible, but at least there's such a complicated, convoluted theory of everything else going on in the universe that it becomes untenable in comparison to the simpler alternative of a Sun-centered solar system rather than Earth.
I'd also add, and I don't know if Joe is picking up on this, but I raised the question when Paul called in about planet Earth as to the dimensions of the Earth, its length, its width, its depth, what's on the other side.
Paul didn't like that question, but interestingly, David Weiss, whom virtually every planet-earther cites as a leading authority on planet Earth theory, called me the other day And we had a cordial conversation.
He was volunteering to come on the show to discuss it, and when I put that question to him, he said those were very fair and appropriate questions.
And how could they not be?
I mean, if Earth were flat, then it's got to have a breadth, a depth, and a thickness, and it's an important question what goes on on the other side.
With those caveats, Joe, I return to you, my friend.
Okay.
Well, first of all, we have to put things in context.
Supposedly, the first person to articulate the flat Earth was Aristotle, and we don't know exactly when he came up with the geocentric model, but he was born in 384 B.C.
and died in 322 B.C., so it had to be sometime in that period.
So, let's just say roughly 350 B.C.
And at that particular time, the Greeks had a religion that was based on the Zodiac.
As the Earth is rotating around its annual orbit around the Sun, there's a band of stars that are at the equator, visible everywhere on Earth, that change depending on where you're located in your circle going around the Earth.
So those are the 12 zodiac signs, and they made constellations out of them.
And then there was five planets that were visible without having a telescope.
And because the Greeks were invested in the astronomy, astrology, they wanted to be able to chart where these other stars appeared.
And so they did not know at that time that Mercury and Venus were inside Earth's orbit.
What they saw was the stars that came up above the horizon and then went down horizon, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the evening.
And so they thought it was two different stars.
So there was a very complicated computer, which we'll get to in just a second, but what the Greeks did is that they named Mercury, the morning star was Apollo, the evening star was Hermes, Venus, the morning star was Phosphorus, and the evening star was Hesperides, which is the goddess of love.
Mars, which is visible because its rotation is outside the Earth, is visible for longer periods of time as the Earth is circling the Sun and Mars is circling outside of us.
So Mars is Ares, the god of war.
Jupiter is also visible, and that's Zeus in the Greeks.
And then Saturn is Kronos, which is the god of harvest.
So you had all these gods, and the Greeks wanted to have some way of predicting where these stars were going to show up in these constellations.
So it's assumed that Archimedes is the one who developed a calculator which is the most sophisticated machine produced by any human being until about 1850.
I mean this thing is just unbelievable and this is the Antikythera which is a mechanical calculator and we've got a video on that if we could show about five minutes of it.
It has Five planets.
It shows the eclipses in an 18-year cycle.
It has four extra gears in order to be able to show the elliptical orbit of the moon correctly.
It has a zodiac dial.
It has over 70 gears, and it has text that's as small as 1.5 millimeters.
So bottom line is it's an extremely complicated device and if we could just start the video and then we'll put a link in so people can watch it.
It's an hour-long video.
It's really important that you see this.
You have fallen into Event Horizon with John Michael Gaudio.
You have fallen into the sea.
In today's episode, John is joined by Dr. Tony Freeth.
Dr. Tony Freeth is a founding member of the Antikythera Mechanism Research Project and an Honorary Senior Research Associate at University College London.
He holds degrees in mathematics from Cambridge University and Bristol University.
His work on the Antikythera Mechanism has been published in the journal Nature, as well as other prominent journals.
Dr. Tony Freeth, welcome back to the program, actually.
Now, Doctor, you have worked extensively with the Antikythera Mechanism, one of the most compelling and interesting archaeological finds we've ever made in the history of archaeology.
And this object puzzled people for many years.
It was found, what, about 123 years ago now?
And we now have a fairly good idea, through your work, of what this object really did and how it worked.
What were the circumstances of the finding of this object in, I believe, 1900?
Well it was the original wreck site was found in 1900 by a party of Greek sponge divers who came from a small island in the eastern Mediterranean called Simi and sponge diving in the Mediterranean is pretty much fished out by then and they were actually traveling to sponge fishing grounds in North Africa and when they reached this
On a tiny island called Antikythera between Crete and mainland Greece, they encountered a very severe storm and had to take shelter from the storm.
Then the captain, Captain Kondos of the expedition, sent down the youngest diver called Elias Stadiatis to see if there might possibly be some sponges in the local waters.
And he came up a few minutes later and apparently he was shaking in fear.
And he said he'd seen a heap of dead naked people underwater.
So the captain donned their diving suit.
In those days they were using these suits with big brass and copper helmets and canvas suits with pumped air.
Very cumbersome.
He put on the suit and he went down And he found that the dead naked people were marble and bronze sculptures lying on the seafloor, scattered on the seafloor.
And he recovered a bronze arm, which he brought up on board the ship.
Then apparently they went on to their North African sponge diving grounds and went back to see me.
And there was much debate between them as to whether they should tell the authorities about this find of this wreck.
Or should maybe just go back and make their own discoveries later on.
But it did come to the attention of the authorities.
And they quickly realized that it was very important.
Bronze sculptures are very rare and valuable.
And the Greek government set up an expedition.
They commissioned the original sponge divers to do the diving.
And they started in the autumn of 1900, but they encountered a lot of bad weather and didn't bring up much through the rest of 1900.
But when they resumed, when the weather got better in 1901, they started to bring up a huge array of stuff.
It was a very big vessel by ancient Greek standards.
It was stuffed full of Greek treasure.
It had wonderful bronze sculptures.
It had these huge marble sculptures on board, many of them rather badly corroded.
It had this superb glassware, some of it brought up completely intact through the skill of the sponge divers.
It had a lot of pottery, it had some jewellery, it had some furniture fitments and a bronze lyre and many wonderful objects which are all in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens to this day.
And they also brought up this sort of completely rather nondescript lump.
There's some debate about this but I believe it was almost certainly in one piece at this stage and they recovered it because it was partly green and green ...indicated bronze corrosion so that it might have something bronze inside.
And everything from the wreck was taken to the National Archaeological Museum in Athens and put in various places, some in an outside cage, in heaps to be examined later, you know.
And they identified the obviously valuable objects and started to examine those.
And it wasn't until months later that a visiting MP called Spyridon Stice chanced on this lump, and it had split apart.
And inside he noticed these tiny gear wheels.
They were really small, about the size of coins.
Tiny teeth, about a millimetre long.
And it was a shocking discovery, because such gear wheels simply should not have existed in ancient Greece.
They knew about gears from water mills and windmills, but these are precision gears, mathematical gears for making calculations, and that was a huge shock.
And of course, there begins the cultural story of this, because everybody at that point started speculating, well, what are these gears?
Yes, Joe, I know you want to pick it up from there.
Your thoughts, my friend.
Yes, well, the hypothesis is that the greatest Greek mathematician, Archimedes, is the one that decided how to do all that.
But they had taken celestial measurements, and they knew how the various orbits of the morning and evening stars, and then the outer planet stars, and then the moon operated.
And so they wanted to be able to do something that had a prediction with it.
And when you look at the, this video is an hour long, and he's got very detailed descriptions of these gears.
These gears had hundreds of teeth on them, and they were, like he said, millimeter-long teeth.
How in the world did they get the files and be able to do that with with the precision that this thing is built.
So it's absolutely a fabulous device, number one.
Number two, it shows how complicated from a mechanical standpoint it would be to have the observable orbits of all these different celestial bodies if the Earth was flat.
And you can't escape that.
And what was the real problem for all that was when Galileo discovered the Jupiter moons, they had hypothesized since the time of Archimedes that What we were dealing with was celestial spheres that God was so infinitely wise that he created these nested shells and that's what was rotating around and they actually claimed you could hear the gears moving and that this is what God designed and we are a flat
a piece of real estate with the sun and the moon and all the stars orbiting around us.
So that was the hypothesis until 1610 when Galileo made his own discovery of the moons on Jupiter and that added such an extra level of complication to a mechanical device that it was like no longer supportable.
So that's where we ended up with that particular Advancement.
And sailors had been using measurements between the horizon and the North Star, or the horizon and the sun, in order to determine latitude, which is the distance north and south from the equator.
And you could do that very accurately and tell exactly where you were, but the problem was you couldn't tell on a spinning globe where you were east and west of any particular point, which is longitude.
So, we stumbled along with that for several centuries.
A lady in Alexandria in 400 A.D.
named Hypatia was credited with developing a blade Which is one means of measuring the angle between the horizon and the sun or the North Star, and the other one would be a sextant.
So those were the original navigational aids, and the British Empire realized that they were at a tremendous disadvantage trying to figure out how to manage their empire if they didn't have any way of being able to navigate and know where you were and where you were going.
So they awarded a prize of I think it's like £25,000-£30,000 to anyone who could come up with a system that would be able to tell where you were relative to a known point on the planet, which is what latitude actually is.
And the man who solved that particular problem for him was a guy named John Harrison, who won the Copley Medal in 1749 for inventing the chronometer.
And there's a clip we've got right there.
Yes, planetary motion history, the idea that wants a scientific revolution.
This is at the Royal Museum Greenwich, which I've been to.
I've actually seen the original clock and I've also seen the telescope where A contemporary of Newton, John Flamstead, was a royal astronomer, and he went in nightly and made measurements between all of the different stars, and he kept meticulous, accurate measurements between the angles and the times and everything else that was available to him for 30 years.
And Newton used his raw data In developing his theories, and then also he had a mathematician named Roger Coates who reviewed his work, and when Newton published his work, he never gave credit to the people that he had basically plagiarized some of his material from.
And he got in a big fight with John Hooks, the actual creator of Boyle's Law, and then also Hook's Law and Springs, named Robert Hook, who was the secretary and founding member of the Royal Society, but he was secretary for 30 years.
And Newton so hated him because Hooke said that he had proposed elliptical orbits to Newton, and Newton said, no, I developed that completely on my own.
Well, his book was written, Principia in Mathematica, was written in 1666 when Newton was 20 years old.
But there was another guy named Jeremiah Forex in England who proved the elliptical orbits of the planets in 1639.
So bottom line is there's a lot of static and it's an interesting thing, I think, to try to figure out what the truth is.
But bottom line is there's a whole lot of proof that there's no way that the Earth could be flat, and we'll get into a little bit more of that.
Now, in 1569, there was a guy whose last name was Macator, who developed a cylindrical map.
So, instead of having a globe, you would put the map of the Earth on a cylinder, and that made it a lot easier to do compass headings When you're going from one point on the map to another.
And so that's the Makator projection.
I'm not sure.
I think we, yeah, there we go.
The Makator projection.
We're going to put the links to this down in the comment sections.
So that you can actually pull up these articles and go into them in more depth than we're going to do just in this overview.
And then we also had in.
February 17th of 1600, we had Gordano Bruno, who was a supporter of Galileo.
Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the last 30 years of his life, and his teenage daughter was ordered by the Inquisition to be a nun so that she could never reproduce.
It is only speculated that she sent him letters on a regular basis, but in the 30 years that he was under house arrest, he only got to read two of her letters.
So that's the heartbreak that that man endured for his position against the celestial spheres and the geocentric orbit.
So moving along, Other evidence that proves that the world is not flat and that the world is rotating is that there's no other celestial body that is flat.
And so that's a little bit of a clue.
The next one, like you mentioned about the horizon, anytime you're flying in an airplane, you use what's called VOR, which is VHF, Omnidirectional Rangefinder for radio navigation.
And you also have radio communication.
The radio frequencies that they use don't bounce off the ionosphere like shortwave does.
And so basically, they're line of sight.
And you can tell when you're approaching based on your altitude, you can tell with the eight inches per mile of drop because of the curvature of the earth when you pick up a VOR station or when you pick up a radio frequency station from an airport.
And so you can see those things.
And you can predict when they are, and so basically you can use that as an additional means of navigation.
I soloed in 1976.
I have about 40 hours in log time, but I also have about 150 hours in friends' planes where they were instrument-rated pilots, and so I've had plenty of exposure to that particular navigation.
And then we also had low-ran navigation, Which was done in World War II and lasted up until 2010 when it was replaced by a GPS.
So, there's no excuse from a navigational standpoint.
And then we also have an article that was posted at Principia Scientific that says, no surveyors believe in the flat Earth.
And in the 80s, I was working with In the 80s, I was working with the Texas Surveyors Association, and they were trying to do a state plane coordinate where they had used triangulation stations, why there are no flat earthers among surveyors.
It's got a video, but it explains how they Incorporate curvature whenever they're doing long distance surveying, like if you're doing a really long bridge or you're digging a tunnel under the English Channel or you're doing any number of things, you have to have the correct Curvature of the Earth in order to change your elevations.
So, in the late 70s, Texas was forcing all subdivision flats to be on the state plane coordinate system, which involved backsiding to one triangular station and then doing a distance and bearing off of that to establish subdivision corners.
And at about the same time, the first GPS satellites were being put in orbit.
And the Surveyors Association were really excited because they were working with the folks that were putting those GPS satellites up, and they said, it won't be long, we'll be able to pinpoint accuracy anywhere on the planet just based on triangulation between a dozen satellites.
Well, when they got to the point where they could do perfect horizontal control, Within a couple of millimeters, which is, you know, first degree magnitude as far as a survey, But they had a vertical anomaly that they couldn't understand.
It was like 18 inches every day, the vertical axis would move up and down.
And so they said, well, it's probably just because we don't have enough satellites to triangulate.
And when they doubled the number of satellites, that same anomaly appeared.
And that anomaly is called Earth Tide.
You can look it up in Wiki, Earth Underline Tide.
And it turns out that because the planet is sitting on molten plastic rock that the gravity of the moon lifts up the thin, cool crust of the Earth the same way it lifts up waters in the ocean, and then it drops it down.
So basically, when we think of Tierra firma, the surface of the Earth is moving up and down on average about 18 inches every day.
And so that was something that also pretty much, if you use GPS, you're not using flat Earth GPS.
So we can go ahead and move on from there.
How are we doing on time, Professor?
We got tons of time.
You got 11.42, and you got the rest of the show.
Go right ahead, Joe.
Okay.
Yeah, so bottom line is... Hello again, everyone!
Yes, that's an interesting little thing on the survey, and we covered state... Why don't we play that, Joe?
I think that would be good.
Okay, go ahead.
Hello again everyone, hope you're doing well and thanks for joining us for another video.
Now, regardless of which side of the fence you're on about what shape the Earth is, one thing we all seem to be able to agree on is that surveying works.
I don't mean the people who stand in the street with a clipboard asking you 95 different questions about your latest bowel movement.
I'm talking about surveying using equipment such as theodolites to survey an area of land and get accurate measurements, which can then be used in things like engineering projects.
Now, if engineering surveying wasn't accurate, then big engineering projects would quickly go very wrong.
And in a recent video I'd shown an excerpt from a surveying training website called LearnCST, which was run by the National Society of Professional Surveyors in America.
The webpage in question was called Curvature Definitions for Land Surveyors and the last definition on that page was explaining how land surveyors include six centimeters of correction per one kilometer of measured distance to account for the curvature of the earth.
Obviously that is something they wouldn't have to do if the Earth was flat.
And in the video I also included a demonstration that someone had done using a theodolite across a lake to show that the lake itself follows the curve of Earth.
I even had a professional surveyor comment on that video to confirm that they do correct for Earth curvature.
Despite all of that though, there are still Flat Earthers that say surveyors don't correct for earth curvature, and that water is flat and level, etc, etc.
Now after that video, I actually had the head of a large surveying firm reach out to me privately to show me some more surveying material that they had that related to debunking Flat Earth.
And it comes from a book called Surveying for Engineers.
So I went and bought myself a copy.
Nearly 600 pages long, and it is almost as brilliant for learning as Brilliant.org.
Brilliant has hundreds of classes covering topics across maths, science and computing.
I've been using it now for months.
In fact, at the time of me recording this, I'm currently up to a 98-day continuous streak.
Each class teaches you the principles of a topic with interactive animations that I personally find makes it a lot easier to understand concepts.
It's very relaxed as well.
If you get a question wrong, it's not a problem.
It breaks it down step by step on how to tackle a question so you know for next time.
But for the more competitive amongst you, they've recently introduced leagues.
You earn experience points for correctly solving problems, and the 15 people in each league who earn the most experience points for a given week will advance on to the next league.
I'm currently on track to advance out of the Titanium League.
So if you want to come and join me, then head on over to brilliant.org forward slash Dave McKeegan to pick up a 30 day free trial.
And be quick, because the first 200 people to do so can have 20% off an annual subscription.
Like I said, this is Surveying for Engineering, which is about 600 pages that looks at...
Well, I'll just quote the back of the book.
The text covers engineering surveying up to the end of most second year degree courses in civil engineering, building and construction, and is suitable for BTEC courses from Level 3.
It's written by John Urin and Bill Price.
John Urin is a Senior Lecturer and currently Deputy Head in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Leeds, where he also obtained his PhD in Civil Engineering.
Bill Price is a Principal Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Brighton.
He obtained his MSc in Land Surveying from University College London.
Both authors have written several books and contribute frequently to journals associated with land and engineering surveying.
There's been five editions of Surveying for Engineering.
It was first published back in 1978, with a second edition then following in 1985.
This is the third edition that was published in 1994.
It was followed by the fourth edition in 2006, and then lastly a fifth edition in 2010.
Each new edition is intended as an update to keep up with new equipment and new practices, and it covers everything from understanding how to set up the equipment, how to use it, how to interpret the data, and so much more.
Essentially this is a book written by surveyors for the purpose of training new surveyors.
It's not called How to Lie About the Shape of the Earth, and it contains several sections that are rather damning to flat earthers, and it's been in circulation for 45 years.
So let's jump straight into Chapter 2, Leveling.
Section 2.1, Level and Horizontal Lines.
Now flat earthers will say that level means flat and that water finds its own level, so therefore water and subsequently the earth is flat.
Now quote, the term level line and horizontal line are used frequently in leveling and need to be carefully defined.
A level line or surface is defined as a line along which all points are the same height.
Because the earth is curved, level lines are also curved as shown in figure 2.1.
A horizontal line is one which is normal to the direction of gravity at a particular point, such as P in Figure 2.2.
Horizontal lines or surfaces are therefore tangential to level lines at individual points.
So, what this means is that a horizontal line is a line that is perpendicular to the vertical line at any given point, and because the Earth is curved, then the vertical lines of two different locations won't be perfectly parallel to each other.
And so the horizontal lines won't perfectly align with each other either.
This is the basis of the Theodolite demonstration, which I'd included in my other video.
Put a theodolite and a target on either side of a lake and set them to the same height above the waterline.
If the lake is flat, then the horizontal measurement of the theodolite would mean it was pointing straight at the target.
If the lake is curved, the target would sit below horizontal, which is what happens.
A level line, by comparison, is judged as a line of which is equal height above mean sea level.
And because the earth isn't flat, then a level line doesn't match a horizontal line.
The book then does expand on this further and highlights that, quote, For most survey work the difference between a horizontal line and level line, called curvature, is small enough to be ignored and can be assumed that level and horizontal lines are the same.
Now before Flat Earthers rejoice and think then that they must be the same, let's get into section 2.17 which it highlights.
This is errors in leveling, specifically the effects of curvature and refraction on leveling.
So it talks about the calculations for correcting for curvature, and then highlights that the deviation between horizontal and level is very small at distances under 120 meters, which is usually the sort of maximum distance that they would have between points used for leveling.
But that curvature and refraction can't be ignored when calculating heights using theodolites as per section 3.11, which is height measurements by the theodolites, also known as trigonometrical heighting.
This goes into explaining how you can measure the elevation angle above a horizontal line with a theodolite, and then work out the height of an object.
A process similar to a demonstration I'd done in response to a certain flat earther, who has subsequently since then tried twisting it and repeatedly claiming that I've proven the earth is flat, because apparently you can't measure angles from a curved surface.
Well these two pages completely debunk that notion.
Showing how surveyors measure angles based off a horizontal line from their position, but then correct for the fact that their horizontal position is not the same as the horizontal position for the target's location.
By including some fancy looking maths to correct for the amount of earth curve between the two locations.
As stated here, FG equals D squared divided by 2R, where R is the average radius of the earth between points A and B. Confirming that we can measure angles on a curved surface, because if you know the radius of that curved surface, you can correct for it.
And before any flat earthers claim that they're presupposing the R value, The very fact that using that particular R-value produces consistently accurate results in any application it's used in, validates that that value is correct.
If we tried using an R-value of 3,000 or 10,000 kilometers instead, the results that we got would become more and more inaccurate as distances increased.
They apply more corrections based on Earth's radius as well.
Section 5.23 looks at scale factor.
This actually ties in rather nicely to another video I did recently about flat maps not being accurate.
It states, as outlined in section 1.5, all ordnance survey maps and plans in Great Britain are based on a rectangular coordinate system known as the National Grid.
For anyone unfamiliar, Ordnance Survey is the national mapping agency of the UK.
First founded back in 1791 and through the 1800s it began surveying the entire United Kingdom in detail to produce Ordnance Survey maps.
Even having Parliament in 1841 introduced the Ordnance Survey Act to allow surveyors the right to enter properties for the purpose of surveying the land within them.
Nowadays they sell these maps that cover the entirety of the United Kingdom in various scales right the way down to one to two and a half thousandth.
And they've divided the UK into two lettered grid squares that are 500 kilometers by 500 kilometers to give area codes for their maps, which they call the National Grid.
And surveying for engineers states that the national grid is derived from a map projection which is a transverse Makator projection with an origin of 2 degrees west and 49 degrees north.
A map projection provides a means of representing the curved surfaces of the earth on a plane surface that coordinate grids that can then be defined and maps drawn.
So what this means is that because the regular Maketa map of the world centers around the equator, the UK is quite high up and so rather stretched out top to bottom.
As the National Grid is only focusing on the UK, they've used the Maketa view of the UK but based it around a much higher latitude to reduce the amount of distortion.
Quote, "...in forming the National Grid, the relative positions of points on the grid are altered slightly from their ground positions as a result of using the transverse Makita projection to account for the curvature of the Earth.
Therefore, distances calculated from the National Grid coordinates will not, in some cases, agree with the equivalent measured on site.
This means, despite them using a Makita focused on the UK to reduce the distortion, It doesn't completely remove the distortion, which can then be a problem for things like surveying, where accuracy is paramount.
To convert measured distances to projection distances, the measured distance is converted to its equivalent at mean sea level, and the scale factor used as follows.
Grid distance equals measured distance times scale factor.
Now that formula is pretty basic.
If you have a scaled-down version of something, like a model, you can measure the size of the model, multiply it by the scale of the model, and work out how big the original thing actually is.
However, crucially, the book states, quote, the value of the scale factor varies across the country.
Now, if the Earth were flat, and the map is flat, then the whole map would be a uniform scale.
The fact that the flat map has a varying scale across it proves that that map is distorted because it's trying to use a flat plane to display a different shape.
They then show how surveyors can calculate an accurate scale factor for their location, the formula of which, again, uses an Earth radius value.
We know surveying is incredibly accurate, because if it wasn't, then huge engineering projects wouldn't work.
And yet, surveyors are trained to account for curvature of the Earth.
If the Earth were flat, then correcting for curvature that didn't exist would completely screw up their data.
And yet, OS maps are some of the most accurate maps around, even though they say they're not 100% accurate.
I actually managed to find an online PDF version of the latest fifth edition of this book, and being PDF it allows you to search for specific words.
The words curvature or curve appear almost 1,400 times throughout the book.
Three times specifically stating the phrase earth curvature, and once stating earth is curved.
The word flat appears 30 times throughout the entire book.
The words flat earth or earth is flat appear precisely zero.
I mean it states the word globe more times than that.
So, publicly available training material for surveyors shows that they're taught to account for earth curvature, and we all know how incredibly accurate surveying is.
Which either means that the real world that these people are surveying conforms to their processes of correcting for earth curvature, or surveyors are all part of the conspiracy and when you become a surveyor They let you in on the plot and tell you to ignore everything that you've been taught.
Maybe some flat earthers should take a course in surveying and see how that pans out.
Anyway, that is going to wrap it up for today.
I must say thanks to the professional surveyors who reached out to me about this stuff, and thanks again to Brilliant.org for sponsoring this video.
If you've enjoyed...
Joe, I thought that was extremely well done and very important because so many in the Flat Earth community want to claim that surveying data supports them.
We'll be right back after this break.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a Drill, This is a Drill on bullhorns during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs, But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Oh!
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do and we must fight back.
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, you burn with us!
- Good evening. - Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
revolution radio radio radio radio radio radio
it is no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda.
Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
Join Dr. Ot every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
Eastern and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Jim, are we on pause or are we on go? are we on pause or are we on go?
We're on go.
Well, not now, and I'll just go ahead and continue to talk.
There's additional evidence stream that we need to discuss, and that would be the axis, polar axis of 23.44 degrees.
And as the earth rotates around the sun, that means that the sun is hitting the earth at a different angle.
And that's called the azimuth angle off of the horizon.
And the result is that if you're in the North Pole, in the summertime, the sun doesn't rise and set.
The sun comes up and circles around you for several days and then gradually starts disappearing.
In the wintertime, the sun never comes up at all.
Jim, are we on pause?
No, we're good, Joe.
Okay, good, because I went ahead and started talking even though you weren't there.
That was the right thing to do.
You go ahead, Joe.
I thought there was such an important piece we had in the slides that we had to go back to it and review it and then move forward to what you want to say about NASA.
Okay, well what was that on the slides?
Oh, the one about planetary motion, the history of the idea that it's the scientific revolution.
And so the other thing is, you can go to different latitudes at different times of the year.
I've been to Europe eight times, and in England, the sun rises about 9 o'clock, 8.30 in the morning, in the wintertime, and it sets at like 4.30 in the afternoon in the wintertime.
In the summertime, it rises at like 6.30 in the morning and sets at 9.
And that same pattern happens Based on your latitude going north and south, and like I just mentioned, at the poles, you have the case where in the summertime, the sun, they call it the land of the midnight sun, because in the summertime, the sun just comes up and it goes around you because of the axis tilt of the Earth.
Which wouldn't happen with a flat Earth, and you can't explain it any other particular way.
And in the wintertime, the sun doesn't even come over the horizon at all because then it's completely dark because the Earth's axis has it pointed away from the sun, so you don't get any sun for several days in the middle of the winter.
So that's an additional factor that you have to deal with.
And because I was dating a lady that lived in England, I would talk to her frequently on the phone And it was always six hours ahead of our time.
And now, because I'm a host on TNT Radio, we occasionally talk to guests in Australia, and they are six, eight hours ahead of us, and a day ahead of us on the other dateline.
And, you know, there's no ability for a flat Earth to be able to have that divergence of time zones where you can easily prove it just by using conversations.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
So yeah, one of the next things that I want to approach is the Big Bang Hypothesis.
I didn't mention that I had taken surveying as a civil engineer, and I worked three years for a surveyor, and I did pass everything except the legal part, which was a trick question in the state surveying.
And I could have qualified to take it.
I just didn't have the time to go back and retake the test after I'd already gotten my registration.
I said, screw it.
I'll just depend on that.
But it was very heavy and trigonometry.
So I'm very familiar with everything that's being discussed from the surveying standpoint and being in civil engineering.
I've had to work with surveyors repeatedly.
In the United States, they talked about their British coordinate system where they put everything in squares.
In the United States, when they adopted the Louisiana Purchase, they wanted all of the townships to be done on a square mile by square mile grid.
And so they started mapping parts of the United States at that particular time in what's called townships, which is why if you look at a map, everything pretty much west of the Mississippi in the United States is based on a grid pattern, because that's how the particular land was surveyed and then passed out as homesteads.
In Texas, we didn't really adopt that until after the Civil War, And so, in Texas, if you look at a map of Texas, what I call the square part of Texas, the panhandle, all the county lines are all in squares, all the roads run in straight lines, pretty much east and west and north and south, with a few diagonals thrown in.
But bottom line is, we use the same thing in the United States, and it was 640 acres per square mile.
Getting away from that and getting on to the other subject that I wanted to cover, and that's NASA.
And I have absolutely no respect for those people at all.
But go ahead.
Joe, before we turn to NASA, I thought it would be really good to go through this wonderful article on planetary motion and the history of an idea to watch the scientific revolution.
It's so good as an overview.
And then you have the rest of the show to do.
NASA Mitchell has had to attend to someone with a medical appointment.
We cannot take calls.
And I just think you're going to have plenty of time to do your NASA thing.
But I like this so much.
Planetary motion is the history of an idea that launched the scientific revolution.
In the black dome of night, the stars seem fixed in their patterns.
They rotate through the sky over the seasons so unchangingly that most cultures have used the presence of one or another constellation to tell time.
The planets, however, are different, puzzling.
They glide slowly and seemingly erratically across the sky.
Attempts to explain why the planets move as they do led to modern science's understanding of gravity and motion.
Many ancient and medieval cultures believe that stars and planets rotated around a fixed Earth.
The complex motions of the planets, which sometimes moved backwards across the sky retrograde motion shown in the photo, led Renaissance astronomers to question the geocentric theory.
These astronomers discovered the laws of orbital mechanics transforming natural philosophy into the practice of science.
Evolution of an Idea We revolve around the sun like any other planet, Nicolaus Copernicus.
Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have exerted a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus.
The world has scarcely become known as round and complete in itself when it was asked to waive the tremendous privilege of being the center of the universe, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
The ancient Greek philosophers, whose ideas shaped the worldview of Western civilization leading up to the scientific revolution in the 16th century, had conflicting theories about why the planets moved across the sky.
One camp thought that the planets orbited around the Sun, but Aristotle, whose ideas prevailed, believed that the planets in the Sun orbited Earth.
He saw no sign that the Earth was in motion.
No perpetual wind blew over the surface of the Earth, and a ball thrown straight up into the air doesn't land behind the thrower, as Aristotle assumed it would if Earth were moving.
For Aristotle, this meant that the Earth had to be stationary and the planets, the Sun, and the fixed dome of stars rotated around Earth.
For nearly a thousand years, Aristotle's view of the stationary earth as the center of a revolving universe dominated natural philosophy, the name that scholars of the time used for studies of the physical world.
A geocentric worldview became ingrained in Christian theology Making it a doctrine of religion as much as natural philosophy.
Despite that, it was a priest who brought back the idea that the Earth moves around the Sun.
In 1515, a police priest named Nicholas Copernicus proposed that the Earth was a planet like Venus or Saturn, and that all planets circled the Sun.
Afraid of criticism?
Some scholars think Copernicus was more concerned about scientific shortcomings of his theory than he was about the Church's disapproval.
He did not publish his theory until 1543, shortly before his death.
The theory gathered few followers, and for a time, some of those who did give credence to the idea faced charges of heresy.
Italian scientist Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching, among other heretical ideas, Copernicus' heliocentric view of the universe.
But the evidence for a heliocentric solar system gradually mounted.
When Galileo pointed his telescope into the night sky in 1610, he saw for the first time in human history that moons orbited Jupiter.
If Aristotle were right about all things orbiting Earth, then these moons could not exist.
Galileo also observed the phases of Venus, which proved that the planets orbit the sun.
While Galileo did not share Bruno's fate, he was tried for heresy under the Roman Inquisition and placed under house arrest for life.
About the same time, German mathematician Johannes Kepler was publishing a series of laws that described the orbits of the planets around the Sun.
Still in use today, the mathematical equation provided accurate predictions of the planets' movement under Copernican theory.
In 1687, Isaac Newton put the final nail in the coffin for the Aristotelian geocentric view of the universe, building on Kepler's laws.
Newton explained why the planet moved as they did around the Sun, and he gave the force that keeps him in check a name—gravity.
The science of orbital mechanics—Kepler's laws.
While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolved around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits.
At the age of 27, Kepler became the assistant of a wealthy astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who asked him to define the orbit of Mars.
Brahe had collected a lifetime of astronomical observations, which on his death passed into Kepler's hands.
Brahe, who had his own Earth-centered model of the universe without the bulk of his observations from Kepler, at least in part, because he did not want Kepler to use them to prove Copernican theory correct.
Using these observations, Kepler found that the orbits of the planets followed three laws.
Like many philosophers of his era, Kepler had a mystical belief that the circle was the universe's perfect shape and that, as a manifestation of divine order, the planet's orbits must be circular.
For many years, he struggled to make Brahe's observations of the motions of Mars match up with a circular orbit.
Eventually, however, Kepler noticed that an imaginary line drawn from a planet to the sun swept out an equal area of space in equal times, regardless of where the planet was in its orbit.
If you draw a triangle out from the Sun to a planet's position at one point in time and its position at a fixed time later, say five hours or two days, the area of that triangle is always the same anywhere in the orbit.
For all these triangles to have the same area, the planet must move more quickly when it's near the Sun, but more slowly when it's farthest from the Sun.
This discovery, which became Kepler's second law of orbital motion, led to the realization of what became Kepler's first law, that the planets move in an ellipse, a squash circle, with the Sun at one focus point, offset from the center.
Kepler's third law shows that there's a precise mathematical relationship between a planet's distance from the sun and the amount of time it takes to revolve around the sun.
This was the law that inspired Newton, who came up with three laws of his own to explain why the planets move as they do—Newton's laws of motion.
If Kepler's laws define the motion of the planet, Newton's laws define motion.
Thinking on Kepler's laws, Newton realized that all motion, whether it was the orbit of the moon around the earth or an apple falling from a tree, followed the same basic principles.
To the same natural effects, he wrote, we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Previous Aristotelian thinking, physicist Stephen Hawking has written, assigned different causes to different types of motion.
By unifying all motion, Newton shifted the scientific perspective to a search for large, unifying patterns in nature.
Newton outlined his laws in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematicus, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, published in 1687, Law 1.
Everybody perseveres in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a right line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.
In essence, a moving object won't change speed or direction, nor will a still object start moving unless some outside force acts on it.
The law is regularly summed up in one word—inertia.
Law 2.
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.
Newton's second law is most recognizable in its mathematical form, the iconic equation F equals m a. The strength of the force F is defined by how much it changes the motion, acceleration a, of an object with some mass m.
Law 3.
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction, or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and directed at contrary parts.
As Newton himself described, if you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone.
Gravity!
Within the pages of Principia, Newton also presented the law of universal gravitation as a case study of his laws of motion.
All matter exerts a force, which he called gravity, that pulls all other matter toward its center.
The strength of the force depends on the mass of the object.
The sun has more gravity than Earth, which in turn has more gravity than an apple.
Also, the force weakens with distance.
Objects far from the sun won't be influenced by its gravity.
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity explained Earth's annual journey around the Sun.
Earth would move straight forward through the universe, but the Sun exerts a constant pull on our planet.
This force bends Earth's path toward the Sun, pulling the planet into an elliptical, almost circular orbit.
His theories also made it possible to explain and predict the tides.
The rise and fall of ocean water levels are created by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits Earth.
Einstein and relativity!
The ideas outlined in Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation stood unchallenged for nearly 220 years until Albert Einstein presented his theory of special relativity in 1905.
Newton's theory depended on the assumption that mass, time, and distance are constant regardless of where you measure them.
The Theory of Relativity treats time, space, and mass as fluid things defined by an observer's frame of reference.
All of us moving through the universe on the Earth are in a single frame of reference, but an astronaut in a fast-moving spaceship would be in a different reference frame.
Within a single frame of reference, the laws of classical physics, including Newton's laws, hold true.
But Newton's laws can't explain the differences in motion, mass, distance, and time that result when objects are observed from two very different frames of reference.
To describe motion in these situations, scientists must rely on Einstein's theory of relativity.
At slow speeds and at large scales, however, the differences in time, length, and mass predicted by relativity are small enough that they appear to be constant, and Newton's laws still work.
In general, few things are moving at speeds fast enough for us to notice relativity.
For large, slow-moving satellites, Newton's laws still define orbits.
We can still use them to launch Earth-observing satellites and predict their motion.
We can use them to reach the Moon, Mars, or other places beyond Earth.
For this reason, many scientists see Einstein's laws of general and special relativity not as a replacement of Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation, but as the full culmination of his idea.
I'd like to say, Jo, that in my opinion, because of the role of gravity, a flat Earth is not even a physical particle.
I would submit that Earth must be a globe, a spherical object, because of the role of that universal force that applies to all things having mass.
Would you agree or not?
Oh yeah, and a little bit of side note on Principia Mathematica.
Newton was a college student at Cambridge, and after his first year they had the Black Plague, and so they ordered all college students to go home and not come back until the plague was gone.
So that was in 1666, the same year that London, the third of London burned down.
So he went to his mother's house.
His father had been wealthy.
His father died when he was a young child.
His mother married a more wealthy man, and the more wealthy man didn't want to have anything to do with His stepchild.
And so Newton grew up basically alone.
And so he kind of had this mother complex, but he went back to his mother's house, went up in the attic, and he devised his own experiments on light and gravity and everything else.
And just the book is absolutely fabulous.
The book is two semesters of college physics, just to be able to wade through the 400 pages.
It was written in Latin, in about 1666 or 7, but he didn't have the courage to publish it because he kind of wanted to get some input and he didn't want to be humiliated by everybody.
So he left several copies at the Royal Society.
One of them was studied extensively by a German guy who claimed to have invented calculus without ever having any proof that he did any of the experiments that Newton did.
in order to develop calculus, in order to solve its physics problems.
So that kind of gives you a little bit of an upgrade on that.
And then I had something else important.
I welcome you to turn to NASA and all you want to say, and you've got the rest of the show over a half an hour to lay it out.
Yes.
Oh, I know what it was.
And you mentioned Gheorghe Bruno, who was roasted at the... Burned at the stake, yes.
Burned at the stake on February 17th, 1600.
Let me see if this showed up in my sent mail from this website, or if it's going to be in my other sent mail.
I just sent it to you.
Vatican Regrets Burning Cosmologist.
Yeah, this is published at science.org.
And on the 400th anniversary, they didn't just burn him, they tied him to a stake and they put piles of twigs at his feet and burned him for hours before he finally died.
And so, On the 400th anniversary, somebody questioned the Catholic Church about it, and Cardinal Angelo Sodano said that it was a sad episode and that the Catholic Church had the desire to serve the freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.
So there's a classic example of a non-apology apology.
So with that, I think we can skip over and do a little bit on NASA.
So some history that most people don't know about NASA.
NASA was created when they brought over Operation Paperclip, German rocket scientists who had developed the V1 and V2 rockets.
And it was initially headquartered in Langley, Virginia.
And then all of their experiments were done out in white sands between 1946 and 1949.
After 1949, they moved their operations, their rocket operations to Huntsville, Alabama.
And I think we've got an article that I sent you on that.
Yes.
We have this on the chronology of events leading to the launch of Explorer One.
Is that what you would like?
That's it, yeah.
And so, bottom line, we're gonna skip through some of this stuff to just give you an idea of what's going on.
So, LBJ had been a mover and shaker in the Senate prior to being put on the ticket with RFK, and when they got elected in 1960, one of the very first things he did was that he moved to get NASA relocated from Langley to Houston area.
And so they got Rice University to give them a 1,620-acre tract, but Thousands of acres of salt flat that surrounded that cattle pasture in southern part of Harris County were owned by Brown and Rue and Humble Oil Company, who had been two big supporters of LBJ.
So, bottom line is...
Bye-bye, Joe.
We'll be right back after this break. *music*
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
Thank you.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomsex.com, the people station.
Even the government admits that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuke on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Thank you.
So, Joe, tell us about NASA, which you observe was created when, under Operation Paperclip, hundreds of Nazi scientists and high-ranking officials were brought into the United States and incorporated in the American intelligence community, including Werner Von Braun.
Go for it, Joe.
Yes, and then the first launch from Cape Canaveral was in July of 1950.
And like I mentioned, the Jet Propulsion Lab had been moved to Huntsville, Alabama.
So a decade later, LBJ decides that we're just going to create this whole new branch so I can make a big government investment that will help my political supporters so that's why we ended up with Johnson Center being forced on us here in Houston which made no sense to me at the time but it's kind of like well you know the government has infinite wisdom so you know I'll just go ahead and ignore that
well in the late 80s I got involved in a rail scam here in Houston put on by Disney and the Houston Metro and I was ended up in divorce court in
In divorce court, there was a whole bunch of crooked judges, and so there was a group at the FBI that was their public integrity unit in 1990, which seems really odd for a federal investigative agency to have a public integrity.
But there was a lot of corruption here in Texas, and so they managed to get enough evidence to felony evidence.
They described it to me as wheelbarrow loads of felony evidence against five family court judges and three probate court judges.
I discussed that in a different video, but then also they managed to get evidence on a kickback scheme involving a hotel.
Convention Center Hotel here in Houston and half dozen city council members, the Port Authority.
And then also they set up a sting with NASA called Operation Lightning Strike.
And they managed to get evidence of bribery and kickbacks with 50 different major suppliers to NASA and contractors and NASA employees.
But in 1993, right after Slick Willy was inaugurated, he appointed Janet Reno and the first thing she did was fire 93 of the 94 U.S.
prosecutors nationwide, all except for Michael Chertoff, who popped up again in 9-1-1, but that's a whole different story.
So, bottom line is, this Operation Lightning Strike, she dismissed all the charges against everybody except one engineer who had gotten a computer that valued at $5,000 and he was going to be the sacrificial lamb.
Well, he made enough noise about it that 60 Minutes actually did two episodes on what this woman did.
And it turns out that she said, well, the FBI had invested $2 million in stinging these contractors.
And so, we need to make the NASA suppliers give that $2 million back.
And so, one of them was Wing Tempo I bought, and the other one was General Electric.
Both of them said, okay, we'll each pay $1 million.
And since we know how Slick Willy and Reptillery operate, we know that they also got an equal amount of donation.
to their campaign contributions or to their foundation.
The same thing they did with the telemetry data that they stole and stole to Chinese from Hughes Satellite.
So bottom line is, that's another little portion of NASA corruption that was never properly investigated.
So then moving along, I have been writing articles about global warming, and one of the ones I mentioned was a National Weather Review article from June 1901.
Newt Angstrom on atmospheric absorption.
And this had been placed in custody of NASA.
So I went ahead and reviewed it, and he proved that Cervantes Arrhenius was wrong in his calculations.
And so I put it in one of my articles and then one of my readers at Canada Free Press, one of my readers said that your URL doesn't work.
So I had just pulled it up the day before, so I pulled it up, sure enough, that's 404.
So I went by title and pulled it up again and for some reason they had changed the the URLR.
And this is in 2010.
That NASA is playing this little trick with us because they're in charge of the monthly weather report archives.
And so I changed, I put down in the comment section, here's the corrected ULR, went back two hours later and they had changed it again.
Now, what is the value of having a space agency that is making it impossible to find 110-year-old articles proving that global warming doesn't work, except that they've lied consistently about global warming?
They're the parent corporation of the NOAA, and they've altered all of the past temperature records to make it cooler in the past so it can show up as being warmer in the present.
Absolute, 100% bullshit.
And then I had gotten tired of writing articles about global warming, green energy, and peak oil, so I decided I'd start writing a few articles about another subject I took in college, which was astronomy.
Because I had an interest growing up in astronomy.
I took a college course in astronomy.
They tried to teach us Big Bang.
I said, this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my whole life.
So I started writing articles at Canada Free Press.
The first one was Big Bang Rebuttal, which I didn't realize until after I printed it.
It was the same title of one of the books written by Stephen Hawkins.
Who I had sitting on my shelf.
I'd read two of his books and realized he was a complete phony.
But anyhow, it was like, pull it up online.
It was more popular than Stephen Hawking's book as far as web searches.
So then I had left a few things out.
So I wrote another article called The Cure for Cosmology's Peptic Ulcer, which I further explained the reasons why we might have a rotating universe as opposed to an expanding universe.
And then I found an article That was published at Time Magazine, Shift on Shift.
This was published Monday, December 14, 1936.
They discussed the possibility of an expanding universe with Edwin Hubble.
Edwin Hubble said, I'm using the Hooker Telescope at Mount Palomar right now.
It's got a 100-inch diameter lens.
If we had one with a 200-inch, that would be a square of the amount of area, which means that we'd be able to see four times further in the past.
Right now, we're seeing back 3 billion years, and the apparent move at the edge of the universe is 25,000 miles per second.
But if we had a 200-inch telescope, then that apparent edge of the universe would be 13 billion light-years away and have an apparent acceleration velocity of over 100,000 miles per second, which is more than half of the speed of light.
And what energy force could possibly do that?
He said it can't possibly be rotated.
So that, I wrote another article based on this called, Mysterious Dr. X Says Universe Is Not Expanding.
And then one of my readers contacted me and said, Olson, you need to check out the Einstein-Godel metric.
And I went, because somebody's already used the rotating model.
And I thought, well, hell, here I am, embarrassing myself in public, because I've written four articles about how the Big Bang couldn't have happened, and somebody's already discussed this.
And the reason I was never taught it in astronomy class, Decades of reading popular science and popular mechanics is because it had already been reviewed and dismissed and now I've embarrassed myself.
So I look up the Einstein-Godel model.
Oh, well, Kurt Godel turned out to be one of the world-renowned mathematicians who happened to be good friends with Einstein, and both of them worked at Princeton, and they got together on a regular basis.
And one day, Godel came over and said, Einstein, I've been looking at your Theory of relativity, and I think that you could solve your field equations if you had a rotating universe, and here are the three variables that you need to have.
You need to have the spin of cosmic dust, And then you need to have the cosmic background radiation.
And then you also need to have a highly complex system of geopositioning and computing.
And if you had all three of those, then you would be able to have a rotating universe.
But in that rotating universe, time travel would be axiomatic.
You would be leaving carbon footprints.
You can't go back and review the past and change it, but you can go back and review the past and approve it, you know, or verify it.
And so I went, Jesus Christ!
So I wrote another article at Canada Free Press called Federally Funded Frankenscience, talking about how time travel was axiomatic in a rotating universe, which is why they don't want you to discuss a rotating universe.
And the rotating universe, the basic The theory behind Doppler shift and redshift is that as you move towards something, you compress sound waves, and as you move away from something, you elongate sound waves, and the same thing happens with light waves.
So as the train is approaching you, you go, "Nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee." Well, the same thing happens with a rotating source, which is what we grew up with, having air raid sirens at all of our elementary schools.
And every Friday, you can hear a siren go, "Nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee, nee." Because that's angular velocity, which is similar in effect to the sound and light waves, as is linear velocity.
So bottom line is I've satisfied myself that that is another complete total hoax and then
I didn't want to subscribe to every possible tinfoil hat that there was, but I met Dr. Fetzer in Dallas in 2018, and he gave me a copy of the book, We Didn't Go to the Moon, either, which is a Moonrock Books book, and so I started doing a little bit of research, and I said, man, I'm not going to write an article on this until I find something
that has not been written because I've watched videos by Bart Simbrell and others and I had read Jim's material and then in 2018 or 2019 there was an article that came up at space.com and this is the exact data involved in the Saturn V rocket and the Saturn V rocket first stage had
512,000 gallons of fuel lifted the second and third stages up to a 42 mile altitude with a speed of 5,330 miles per hour.
lifted the second and third stages up to a 42-mile altitude with a speed of 5,330 miles per hour.
Stage two had 340 gallons of fuel, lifted the upper stage to 115 miles with a speed of 15,300 miles per hour.
The third stage only had 86,000 gallons of fuel, and it hadn't reached escape velocity for Earth, which is 24,500 miles per hour.
Now, when Musk is proposing his Starship, his Starship has 15% more available thrust at ground level than the Saturn V had, and he said in order to make a trip to the Moon and back, he needed to send eight missions to the Lagrange point between the Earth and the moon where the gravity is exactly equal and you can position fuel stocks.
And he was going to send eight of them with 150 tons of fuel because he can't go to the moon, in fact, without having 1,200 tons of fuel.
And you couldn't have done it in 1969 either because that's the actual science, kids.
So bottom line is I don't have a a whole lot of respect for NASA And then the other thing that's absolutely ridiculous about NASA is they've got this Mars...
Lander, and it's got a helicopter that's called Integrity, which has no integrity at all.
Now, Mars has an atmosphere that's 95% CO2, 3% nitrogen, 1.5% argon.
We can discuss that in some future day, but the air pressure on Mars is a thousand times less than Earth.
Uh 6.35 millibars which when you convert to psi is 0.092 psi.
I want NASA to show me the vacuum chamber where this helicopter is able to fly around And Mars-like conditions, because there's also video available of Devon Island off of Canada, where the Mars rocks and the Mars landscape look surprisingly just exactly like what they're showing us as far as their Mars ventures.
We've got that in the slide set, I think, Joe.
Yes, it's only a minute long video.
It was the last one I sent you.
Yeah, yeah.
This is very good, very good.
We want to show it.
Devon Island.
This is Future War.
Within minutes of watching the captured screenshots, start taking notes.
My apologies for the lack of eloquence.
I feel burdened by this information and compelled to get it out.
Here we go.
Welcome ladies and gentlemen.
We're going to bring you a very fanciful rant.
It's going to be a very long presentation actually.
A lot of times we like to start videos and talk about how we just want to talk to you real quick and then it's not quick.
We're just going to tell you straight up right now, this is going to be long.
We like to offer you short things too, but this is not one of them.
This is a 114 page slideshow coming out of NASA.
It's been around on the web and we're going to show you why it's not debunked and why it is very important we talk about it in detail, hence the long video.
Yeah, and we actually talked about this on the first episode of True Stream Media Live on Unbound Radio, but due to technical difficulties that first hour of that first show we did was not able to be archived.
Oh, is that the right one?
No, here it is.
Here it is.
convincing that NASA just bullshitting about Mars and your point about having something that could fly in an atmosphere with that low pressure.
I mean, that is really devastating in my opinion.
Your further thoughts?
Yes.
Well, in my chapter on flying the Sky Dragon, Another great book to read, kids.
I mentioned that pterodactyl had a wingspan of 11 meters, which is 36 feet.
Currently, the condor has a wingspan, the largest flying animal on the planet, has a wingspan of 5 meters, which is 16 feet.
To further amplify that message, The Meganeura dragonfly in the Jurassic period had a half meter, which is a 20-inch wingspan, and the Atlas moth had a wingspan of a quarter of a meter, which is 11 inches.
So, there was an article that came out in Popular Science about 1980.
Some students at San Diego Aeronautical Engineering College You see San Diego did analysis on flying reptiles and they said the only way that reptiles were able to fly is if the air density was four times greater than it is now.
So that kind of explains the process of how you could have cold-blooded animals because if the And it also explains the enormous difference in lung size between the Jurassic reptiles and the later animals that lived on the planet, because if you had four times as much density, you didn't need to suck in as much air, and your lungs worked a lot more efficiently.
But getting back to that Truthstream media, this was a conference that was held in July of 2001, and like they mentioned, it's 414 page of slides at a presentation by NASA, and in that they said that the only way we can have continuation of government is by using trauma-based mind control.
And two months later, 9-1-1 happened.
So you tell me that NASA is not 100% involved in continuation of government and the extermination of everybody on this planet except the elite.
This is an absolutely irredeemably disgusting organization, as bad as the FDA, the CDC, the FBI, the DOJ, every government branch is Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
100% corrupted.
And let's skip back over to the Truthstream Media because Aaron and Melissa Dykes did a wonderful job with this.
And we'll just run it until the end of the program.
Sure enough.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
We're going to bring you a very fanciful rant.
It's going to be a very long presentation, actually.
A lot of times we like to start videos and talk about how we just want to talk to you real quick and then it's not quick.
We're just going to tell you straight up right now this is going to be long.
We like to offer you short things too, but this is not one of them.
This is a 114 page slideshow coming out of NASA.
It's been around on the web and we're going to show you why it's not debunked and why it is very important we talk about it in detail, hence the long video.
Yeah, and we actually talked about this on the first episode of True Stream Media Live on Unbound Radio, but due to technical difficulties that first hour of that first show we did was not able to be archived.
So we've actually learned a lot more about this document since then and about things that complement this document.
Plus it makes it like a pilot for a show where it becomes kind of lost and most people never see it.
Okay so as Aaron said this is not a debunked document this is NASA's future strategic issues future warfare circuit 2025 and we got this off of a website stopthecrime.net I believe they wrote the future is now in here but this document Joe, that's fascinating stuff, but I think in the couple of minutes that remain, I'd rather we sort of review the bidding.
I made the point early on that flat Earth is logically possible if you're willing to make sufficiently drastic alterations in your other belief.
If Earth is flat, then you got the sun, the moon, the stars, everything revolving around the flat Earth.
Extremely complicated.
Think of the parallel of being on a moving train, but assuming it's stationary and all the alterations you have to make in your beliefs about how Earth is just moving past you at an incredible rate and blah blah blah.
A second point is that it does not appear to me about flat Earth is even physically possible because of the role of gravity
Since everything with mass attracts everything else with mass, with a force directly proportional to their distance and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, directly proportional to their mass, their quantity of matter, but inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, I do not believe a flat earth is even physically possible.
And then when we look at technical evidence in relation to proof of flat earth and so forth, I especially Like the surveyor's explanation of how, of necessity, surveyors must take Earth's curvature into account, or there would be all kinds of consequences to pay in terms of physical structures, engineering, and the like.
Now, in my opinion, you've done a wonderful job of surveying a whole host of issues, Joe, and I'd like you to have the opportunity to make some closing remarks from our conversation of today.
Yes, well, the important things I wanted to say was that, you know, the flat Earth is an argument that's not worth having with anybody.
If they want to believe that, that's fine.
You know, gravity is not just a good idea.
Gravity is a law.
And, you know, there's a whole bunch of things where Engineers are required to have intersections, like you'll start a tunnel on both sides of a mountain and they have to be able to intersect.
And you could start a bridge on both sides of a lake and they have to be able to intersect.
Well, you can't do that, just like that surveying thing said, if your intersection points are not set on the arc of the Earth.
And so, you know, from a surveying standpoint, that made sense.
But the other points that I wanted to make today is that cosmology is a cult.
And anybody that believes that the universe is expanding is delusional.
And anybody that believes anything that NASA says is Misinformed because NASA has been repeatedly shown to be a nefarious state actor with callous disregard for truth.
And I challenge any NASA scientist to debate me on global warming because I can prove away from Sunday that the traditional proves that that is absolutely impossible.
Jim and I have done a 10 episode hour-long interviews on this on BitChute.
You can go to joeolsen, climate change and pull up that series and watch those programs and I highly encourage you do that.
They're non-sequential that so that you can just watch individual elements And they're all cover a whole bunch of different factors.
There's very little repetitive material.
And it's instrumental to being able to understand this enormous scam going on.
Go ahead.
The most interesting points you made to me was a conversation between Gödel and Einstein, where Gödel was explaining that you can account for anomalies in Einstein's theory if you assume a rotating universe.
We have two basic models, a steady state model of Hoyle, and then we have the Big Bang theory, You are talking about an alternative to either of those.
I would not suggest that cosmology is somehow deluded.
I would suggest that it's the origins of the universe, a perfectly legitimate area of scientific study, Yeah, three major alternative views that would appear—steady state, rotating universe, and Big Bang.
And if one adhered to one or another, that does not mean you are deluded, but it may mean you're entertaining false beliefs, just as though I would suggest those who endorse false earth to this day are entertaining a false belief.
Joe, thanks for a wonderful conversation, my friend.
▲
Export Selection