1-25
1. The Shadow Moon is transparent.
Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.
During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).
"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.
That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."
The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:
That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:
"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."
In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,
"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."
Sir John Herschel admits that:
"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."
Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.
Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."
The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:
One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.
Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks; in fact read this extraordinary work:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp
In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.
As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.
This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.
"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".
The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.
We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
2. The resultant orbital lag between the sun and the moon causes the phases of the moon; here is the book of the luminaries (one of the oldest textbook on astronomy) explaining the phases of the moon on a flat earth:
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_72
3. Asteroids are located outside of the dome. However, the dome has openings (called windows in the Book of Enoch); sometimes asteroids can pass through these windows.
4. All satellites/ISS use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit above the surface of the Earth.
5. You better not touch this one.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786 (four consecutive messages)
The orbital SAGNAC EFFECT is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.
6. The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.
The auroral displays are caused by the celestial object that orbits above the North Pole region.
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.ro/2007/09/earth-weaves-its-own-invisible-cloak.html
NASA Scientists Agree — Polar Ion Fountains Fill the Earth's Magnetosphere
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf
"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.
To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."
Aurora is the sister of Luna and Sol. Also called Eos: sister of Helios (the sun) and Selene (the moon).
It only orbits above the North Pole, and the must be a counterpart orbiting the South Pole, which causes the Aurora Australis.
Greenland and parts of northern Canada and Russia experience light from the sun via Earth’s Aurora.
The hollow earth hypothesis suffers from the same problems as does the spherical earth theory: the curvature and the static gravitational field.
Aurora is documented in the various legends around the world: it is the "inner sun" of the hollow earth theory.
It also provides light in the northern and southern pole regions during some periods of the year.
Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon:
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Eos.html
7. You should never mention this one also, since then you'll have to explain the Tunguska explosion:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026 (two consecutive messages)
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
8. see #6
9. The Sun activates the quarks in the telluric waves. That is how you get light and heat near the surface of the Earth.
10. The color of Ketu, the Shadow Moon is red, the color of the Black Sun (the heavenly body which causes the solar eclipse) is a very deep red.
11. You should better leave this one untouched as well.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (two consecutive messages)
Even if this "Shadow Moon" was transparent, like glass, you should still be able to see it, if it is completely invisible, then it couldn't block out light in the first place. The rest of your claims about #1 are baseless and present no calculations and simply quote stuff with no sources, the blaze lab is a source for the "EM waves" argument, but there are still other places where you claim that it is official science, and thus you need to provide sources. I looked up dextrorotation, which is related to polarized light, but you presented it as a "subquark", with zero evidence for their existence. Even if I accept their existence, that doesn't explain why the "Shadow Moon" doesn't block out the Sun too, if the Sun is opposite the Moon and the Shadow Moon goes under the Moon, then the Lunar eclipse would occur when the Moon would only be half lit from below, which doesn't match observations. If the Shadow Moon was between the Sun and the Moon when they're opposite eachother, then, if through some effect, the Shadow Moon made the Moon turn red, then it would still only be half lit from below, since the light still comes from the Sun, its not refraction either since no straight line drawn from the Shadow Moon could ever connect it with any point on the half side of the Moon thats facing away from the Shadow Moon, and the observer from below would be in the night, meaning that he should see a Full Red Moon, but he'd only see a Half Moon.
You're then mentioning quotes from the 1850s with no evidence that they're real, even if they were, 150 years ago we believed in wrong stuff, for example, that light needed a medium to travel through, ether, which was proven to not exist in 1887, the next thing about the subquarks and the cosmic waves have nothing to do with lunar eclipses, you mention dextrorotatory subquarks making up the shadow moon, even if lunar eclipses are caused by a "Shadow Moon", where does that Shadow Moon go when there is no lunar eclipse, what is its orbit around Earth in your FE model? Is your "Shadow Moon" transparent like you said in the beginning, or is it black? Too many inconsistencies.
What is this so called "orbital lag", you did not explain what that is, what it is caused by, nothing. Your "Book of Enoch" reference isn't going to do, you can't quote things from ancient people who knew nothing about science compared to us today, not just astrophysics, but also medicine, biology, and every other science and then expect these quotes to be true. Most of that is probably religious.
Ion propulsion (using the Biefeld-Brown effect) only provides tiny amounts of acceleration,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft, which is why we don't use it, you also provided no evidence to support your claim so we're moving on.
Im not gonna respond to your answer to number 5, since its not that big of a question, more of a stretch to push the number to 25, it just doesn't matter that much for Flat Earth Debunking purposes.
6. I didn't mention the Aurora Borealis, also why are you trusting NASA only when what they say fits your world view? :/ You didn't answer how Antarctica gets 24 hour sunlight, you did make some points on The North Pole, but not the actual question, im gonna leave you with the word "Strawman"
7. This is another strawman, im not claiming that light couldn't reach London from the Sun due to curvature or "reflection", Im going to assume that you are right, and that it was night for London at the time of the Tunguska explosion, but either way you still don't have evidence that it was seen from London, and thus your conclusion is meaningless.
8. Nope, #6 explains the Aurora Borealis which is caused by different particles than the cosmic rays, you'll have to explain the "Oh My God Particle", because as far as I know, auroras dont cause explosions, even if I give you this point, your explanation was for the North Pole, not for Antarctica, besides, your #6 claims about it being in "legends" around the world, doesn't mean anything, those were made by ancient people who didn't know astrophysics, and thus, that claim doesn't help you at all.
9. And what are those? quarks are subatomic particles that make up neutrons and protons, what are the "telluric waves", and why doesn't this same phenomenon happen at a greater altitude? And where's your evidence of all this? You didn't present any yet.
10. Where's your evidence? Where does this "Shadow Moon" go when its not a lunar eclipse? What's its orbit around Earth? Why doesn't the "Shadow Moon" also block out the stars during a lunar eclipse?
11. Also a strawman, i didn't mention the ISS transit, i only mentioned Mercury's and Venus's.
You're constantly bringing up terms like "quarks" and "Shadow Moon", when these things don't mean anything unless you build a physical model that can explain the astronomical phenomena with the same precision as the globe model, afterall, our model has a lot of predictive capability backing it up. Where's your evidence that "negative energy waves" exist?