Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby hoi.polloi on Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:46 pm

nonhocapito wrote:What you do is saying "because NASA lies, then the Earth cannot be round or be spinning", rushing to prove it with some hours of "research".


Not once. Please read what I post more carefully. I have not deliberately made such a statement, nor would I. If I ever did, it would not be reflective of how I really feel, and it was only rhetorical. You must have confused me for someone else, or thought that when I was encouraging someone who thought that, I was somehow endorsing their entire world view.

Hopefully you can accept my position easier knowing this about me.

As for telling you my friends' names, I just have to flat-out refuse. Sorry. I think you understand. They don't post here. I simply show them the forum and point out the topics discussed and summarize how they can research the topics for themselves. Of course I regret that few make the time and have the interest enough, that I have, to join or contribute. You don't have to believe me that this is the case. You only need to know that the point of my telling you this is that in my personal experiences, you are wrong that this discussion scares away good folks. I have only ever felt encouraged by talking about various theories, and testing them against different people's naturally logical intuitions. I have discovered many brilliant ways of thinking outside the mainstream this way, and I suggest you open yourself up to the same. It's not always "mainstream garbage" vs. "iconoclasts" only. Though I understand that when you encounter enough hipster "iconoclasts" you get as tired of them as you do of the mainstream. That's understandable. It's just not a realistic picture of the holistic discussion.

I also agree with Simon that to say we will find an expert in science that boggles our minds and challenges us in a way we cannot understand is unlikely. If they can understand it, it has been explained to them through the patient building up various thoughts and ideas. If they have any of those worth thinking about longer than their single lifetime, they will be able to explain them to others.

If they can't explain what they think, so that you or I or anyone understands it, don't you think the onus is on them to improve their communications? We challenge ourselves on this forum, in this very manner, all the time. We are all trying to figure out how being honest and reasonable and patient can be combined with other skills to lead others to the fountains of critical thinking skills we have discovered. For example, I am very thankful with your patience and skills in setting up our PHP forum. When you were absent and I had to learn more about it, I became more skilled in PHP. This isn't to say I am as much an expert as you (and from what I understand all three of us are far below the true experts) but this just goes to show that patience and time and ability are all that are required.

So, despite what you say, my mathematical and geometric statements still stand. They have not been explained away, they cannot be explained away without introducing new concepts, and there is no brain genius yet that has done so, even though there have been attempts that are primarily faith based.

"Well, your calculations are wrong because I know they must be," is not a very scientific response, yet that is all I have gotten so far.

The horizon rises to eye level and appears to remain as flat as it is on ground level. This is an undisputed fact.

The light of the Sun cannot be observed to move in a straight line toward the Moon. This indicates the active and twisting nature of light. This is an undisputed fact. Refraction is not an explanation, nor has any true geometry been presented here to combat this simple observation anyone can make when the Sun and Moon are in the sky together.

There is no centripetal effect on objects consistent with the spinning of the Earth assumed based on observations of the light of stars, the Sun, Moon and 'planets'. There are a number of ways this fact can be presented to twist it or bend it toward one theory or argument or another. I choose to take my own "default" view (as biased as it may seem to others of a different world view) that we are simply observing something we don't understand because empirically, not one person has ever touched or felt the sky or gotten close to leaving the planet. Excuse me for remaining grounded while I am.

I am sorry if these points upset you, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. Because when the scientists you keep mentioning that we need get involved and make studies, you have to start to pick which scientists you agree with. They do not all agree. On the contrary, there are few who do, and when they do you end up with hoaxes like Global Warming, 9/11, etc. etc. So please don't tell me what we need are agreeing scientists.

Some will tell you that objects can be observed beyond the horizon, and not due to refraction. Some will say gravity is a pushing down force rather than pulling away. All of these things help to break up the mainstream illusion that "consensus science" is anything but what they say it is.

This is to distinguish distinctly between what you already have tried to distinguish, nonhocapito:

1. Observations the average person may make easily
~and~
2. Observations the average person would have to put a lot of time and effort into observing

The difference between these is crucial, and part of the multiple PsyOps out to confuse us.

You don't have to believe me or my motivations, but I assert and attest that they are true to the best of my knowledge. Not that that may mean anything to you.

Moving on, I patiently await Simon's Tycho Brahe honor piece, because my intuition tells me Simon is onto something very worthwhile for everyone to look at.
Last edited by hoi.polloi on Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: naming Simon's Tycho Brahe piece, not 'honorarium' as much as honoring planetarium model
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby nonhocapito on Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:21 pm

Ok, I have stated my piece and have nothing to add. I think all of this is doing a disservice to the forum and it might even be happening on the wave of a big counter propaganda operation, with flat earth at its core. This doesn't imply that you, Simon, are willingly pushing in that direction, but I cannot help but thinking that somewhere someone is rather happy of your astronomical interests. I certainly don't know enough to judge, but I care enough to be bothered by all this. Not slamming the door or anything.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby hoi.polloi on Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:30 pm

nonhocapito, I agree with you that there are people with bad intentions taking delight in the 'alienation' you say that these topics breed. That will not change. They will always take advantage of that attitude in people.

Let us try to understand that there is also the positive side. There are people with good intentions who accomplish good things taking delight in the inspiration and mind-empowering abilities that these topics breed.

Let us also understand that people with bad intentions, sometimes, in their zeal to deceive, end up shooting themselves in the foot time and time again.

The buffoons who think they are in charge of this world delight over many meaningless things that end up costing them their power instead of giving them more power. Do not give them too much credit, I beg you.

Now, I choose to live in the optimistic frame of mind. I also happen to think the optimistic frame of mind is not always realistic, but it has been realistic when coupled with the skills and information we have gathered here. And thank you for contributing. Let's focus back on media fakery as often as possible. I agree it can be the most powerful tool we have.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby fbenario on Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:26 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Moving on, I patiently await Simon's Tycho Brahe honorarium, because my intuition tells me Simon is onto something very worthwhile for everyone to look at.

An honorarium is a payment given for professional services that are rendered nominally without charge.

I don't think you meant to imply that someone is paying Simon for his theory or work. 'Honors thesis' might be more accurate?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby hoi.polloi on Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:41 am

Thank you, that's just what I meant not to do! Though in my mind it was a way of saying Simon is paying overdue honors to someone who's too dead to ask for it, as well as a funny mix of "honorable mention" and "planetarium", apparently there wasn't room for the re-invention since it ends up spelling out some kind of financial implication in legalese. Whoopsie. I've now corrected my post. :(
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby nonhocapito on Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:36 am

hoi.polloi wrote:And thank you for contributing. Let's focus back on media fakery as often as possible. I agree it can be the most powerful tool we have.


"Thank you for contributing." That's very funny.
I said I had stated my piece but as always I let myself get sucked in, so just a few extra lines, and one picture:

Image

Again. Sunset. Where does the sun go? And the stars, where do they go? If they just all faded away back in the distance, because of perspective, shouldn't the horizon being cluttered with fading lights, including the ones of the sun and the moon? How can there even be a sea horizon against which objects "sink", on a flat earth? How can the sun be back from the opposite side the next day?
And this flat earth. Where does it sit?

Nah, sorry: flat earth is disinfo. And someone is stirring the pot here.

Hoi, I asked the nicknames of your friends as in the nicknames on the forum. But if they don't contribute here, I have no use of them, and they are not what I am talking about when I say that these topic kill the political, informational potential of this forum. Good for these friends of yours if they wanna know about the flat earth, this doesn't change anything. You go on saying this forum is very successful as it is. I don't believe you. I think it would be a lot more successful if it continued the job it was started for.

As to denying having reasoned along the lines of "nasa lies, hence the earth can't be round": this is exactly what you did just one page back when I finally decided to again, alas, state here how I disagree with all of this.

hoi.polloi wrote:
ShaneG wrote:NASA pictures of a round Earth from space are fake, everyone on this site is in agreement on this; therefore I have no idea why people think that the Earth is a giant ball. (...)

Thank you. And I think that roundly sums it up.


Is this what you call rhetorical? To me it is a clear way of saying, yes this is our position, NASA lies hence the earth cannot be round.

BTW: someone asked why we have no pictures of earth from space. Aren't we in agreement that space travel out of the higher atmosphere is most likely basically impossible? How could there be pictures of earth then?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby smj on Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:43 am

nonhocapito wrote:"I don't know what's the way around it but, I'm sorry, until I see mathematical expressions discussed by people who understand them, I'll know that all the "logic" in the world will not suffice to produce any reasonable/usable/demonstrable model of anything. This is not elitism on my part, but just the way this complex world of ours works. Or else, we could all sit around a surgeon who preps for open heart surgery and mock and "debunk" his decisions one by one, without ever taking one day of medical university."


I confess I seriously doubt that I'm standing on a sphere. Perhaps if you told me which expertly discussed mathematical expressions convinced you that you are standing on a sphere my doubts could be laid to rest.

Unfortunately, I don't have any mathematical expressions that explain why the sun appears higher when it is close to your eyes and it appears lower when it is far from your eyes. Nor do I have any that explain the very same effect for a row of trees or telephone poles going towards the horizon. I will admit that it is difficult to make sense of the motion of the sun and the effects of its light when you are told to assume that it is 93,000,000 miles away. The narrative slaughtered my sacred cows long ago so I don't have the luxury of assuming anything anymore. It was tough at first but now I'm glad I don't have to drag the burdensome beasts around with me anymore.

As for what a flat plane could be sitting on- I have no idea. What's your sphere sitting on? The cozy, warped space-time nest that Einstein made for it?

Freud, an expert Ψcho-analyst, apparently believed that standing on a plane promoted "naive self-love" and not "suffocation"...

“Humanity has in the course of time had to endure from the hands of science two great outrages upon its naive self-love. The first was when it realized that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a tiny speck in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable; this is associated in our minds with the name of Copernicus, although Alexandrian doctrines taught something very similar. The second was when biological research robbed man of his peculiar privilege of having been specially created, and relegated him to a descent from the animal world, implying an ineradicable animal nature in him: this transvaluation has been accomplished in our own time upon the instigation of Charles Darwin, Wallace, and their predecessors, and not without the most violent opposition from their contemporaries. But man's craving for grandiosity is now suffering the third and most bitter blow from present-day psychological research which is endeavoring to prove to the ego of each one of us that he is not even master in his own house, but that he must remain content with the veriest scraps of information about what is going on unconsciously in his own mind. We psycho-analysts were neither the first nor the only ones to propose to mankind that they should look inward; but it appears to be our lot to advocate it most insistently and to support it by empirical evidence which touches every man closely.”

... not that Freud isn't completely full of shit of course.

Eratothenes, the chief librarian/pagan priest at the Alexandrian Institute of the Muses, successfully assumed the curvature of the earth; and Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-spinner of the evolution yarn and the renowned spritualist, played his role in the Bedford Level dialectic we are told.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musaeum
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonab ... challenge/

Here's Sagan demonstrating Eratothenes' masterful proof of the curvature of the earth...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G8cbIWMv0rI

We are also told that Alexandria had the grandest lighthouse in the world; which is just so perfectly ironic...

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharos-of-Alexandria

Wallace even set himself up in a nice little intelligent design/natural selection dialectic with his buddy Darwin...

http://publicdomainreview.org/2013/10/3 ... s-heretic/

What are the mathematical expressions that got proper intellectuals to believe in Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection anyway?
smj
Member
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby pov603 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:36 pm

The Eratosthenes story as told by Sagan pre-supposes that the Sun is very far away and very large which may not have been so 'evident' at the time in question.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby hoi.polloi on Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:51 pm

nonhocapito wrote: You go on saying this forum is very successful as it is. I don't believe you. I think it would be a lot more successful if it continued the job it was started for.


Well, I love that you are passionate about our forum's success. I am too. We have different ideas of what the evidence of "success" looks like. I personally would just like to ban the stupid "Flat Earth" YouTube videos that waste so much of everyone's time. I would like this topic to stick to in-depth posts using text, math, explanatory images and clear writing on just what exactly are the unsolved scientific questions — just what exactly are the arguments telling us to look in this or that direction. I think we might agree on that. If we do, then let's agree to moderate it that way. This is my attempt to get us back on that track.

nonhocapito wrote:As to denying having reasoned along the lines of "nasa lies, hence the earth can't be round": this is exactly what you did just one page back when I finally decided to again, alas, state here how I disagree with all of this.

hoi.polloi wrote:
ShaneG wrote:NASA pictures of a round Earth from space are fake, everyone on this site is in agreement on this; therefore I have no idea why people think that the Earth is a giant ball. (...)

Thank you. And I think that roundly sums it up.


Is this what you call rhetorical? To me it is a clear way of saying, yes this is our position, NASA lies hence the earth cannot be round.


Yes, I think it's pretty rhetorical. No, I don't speak for anyone else. ShaneG used the cliche "I have no idea" and I was making a "round" pun. If I wanted to say the Earth cannot be round, I would have said that. I would have written it out literally. That is all. Sorry about the misconception. Let me state unequivocally I agree with you that the rhetorical statement "I have no idea ... " is too general for someone reading our two statements, taken together, literally. Fakery isn't the sum total of the Earth argument. However, I think ShaneG is permitted to doubt. And I am permitted to encourage it.

Especially if you take apart the statement. It's true that saying "The Earth is a giant ball" is easily confused (at this level of discussion) with over-simplification. So I read ShaneG's comment to mean, "I don't think it's prudent to over-simplify, as NASA has done, when discussing this complex and nuanced subject."

You interpreted it to read, "The Earth is not a convex object!" and you interpreted my response as, "Yeah!"

I get confused when we are a forum exposing media fakery but we are then encouraged to believe things rather than openly explore them. I am sorry my sense of humor was not careful enough to make all of the above more plain. I beg you to not let us get caught up in semantics when possible. So far, I think we have done well, barring my miscommunication, which I apologize for.

---

So let's get to the real meat of your complaint. You are making some arguments (great arguments!) here (that you are allowing to be discussed, I assume?) and here they are:

nonhocapito wrote:Sunset. Where does the sun go? And the stars, where do they go?


This is a question we should bravely face. Your theory and belief are "common sense" — but I don't necessarily trust that. I don't know. But the Sun and stars "come back" as well, and the Sun's path and the stars' paths can be followed around the Earth into each of the roughly 24 roughly hour-long "time zones" (using rather layman terminology) so clearly the effect we see is as if the light coming to Earth were looping. One explanation is that light moves steadily in straight lines directly from us to all other objects, even celestial objects, and therefore vice versa, and that this celestial straight-moving light cascades on the body of the Earth as the Earth itself physically rotates (despite no other proof) and so it's a "ball" — but actually, that is a pretty moronic statement because the Earth is barely a ball by anyone's theory, except children who use such language. The proper language may be that it is a convex, textured shape. It makes more sense that the Earth, if it's just a simplistically understood "ball" — a convex, free-floating world (regardless of what it is or isn't "nestled" in), it is an oblong spheroid ellipsoid shape that moves and behaves on some volition given to it by some long ago cosmic event that hasn't been effected since.

nonhocapito wrote:If [the stars, etc.] just all faded away back in the distance, because of perspective, shouldn't the horizon being cluttered with fading lights, including the ones of the sun and the moon?


I would like to understand this argument better, because I cannot visualize what you are suggesting, and the question is far from intuitive in my mind. You may be onto something but I have not heard this before.

nonhocapito wrote: How can there even be a sea horizon against which objects "sink", on a flat earth? How can the sun be back from the opposite side the next day?


Now you have specifically begun asking questions of the "Flat Earth" model rather than any other cosmological model (geocentric, for example) unless you have been doing this the whole time. If you have, first of all, I would ask you to please separate the various Flat Earth models and ideas from all other models and, in addition, please give each theory its own space in your mind. I don't believe you will "fill up", I believe you can pretty much expand infinitely to contain these ideas.

So let's talk about the Flat Earth questions, now that we are focused specifically on challenging those. The question about the horizon is a huge problem for Flat Earth theory, as far as I understand it. There are various attempts to explain it and I suggest you read them, if you want to. If they appear here, I think you and Simon and I would agree that they had better be pretty damn good.

I don't find the Flat Earth models convincing at all. I think they are desperate and grasping. I have changed my mind before, but right now, that's how I feel because of the horizon issue.

nonhocapito wrote:And this flat earth. Where does it sit?


I am not sure if that's possible to answer; nor does it seem necessary to me, given all observable phenomena are accounted for. It would simply always exist as the new unanswerable question for that theory. But I don't think having a number of different questions in a theory necessarily makes it superior or inferior to another.

Just as death is the ultimate border to us all, so is the limitation of answerable questions in each world view.

nonhocapito wrote:Nah, sorry: flat earth is disinfo. And someone is stirring the pot here.


I agree with you, there. But you and I disagree on whether it's actually an effective disinfo. Personally, the only aspects I find effective at distraction are: 1. The most distracting Flat Earth, Concave Earth and Pacman Moon videos and 2. People getting upset about them and writing about how we all need to stay away from them instead of just banning the videos and moving on.

nonhocapito wrote:BTW: someone asked why we have no pictures of earth from space. Aren't we in agreement that space travel out of the higher atmosphere is most likely basically impossible? How could there be pictures of earth then?


This would be the new unanswerable question of the "globe" people. I don't think it takes away from "convex round-ish Earth" theory but I don't see how people can't recognize there is something extremely suspicious about this either. So let people doubt the global Earth! It doesn't mean a perfect theory must necessarily fill the "vacuum", so to speak. At least, not for me.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ShaneG on Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:47 am

Regarding nonho's points about preserving the media fakery prestige within the forum, while avoiding the 'out there' science topics: it seems to be more about residing in a place of comfort (zone) rather than touch on subjects of the unknown where the general consensus is undecided. The fake pictures and videos in the media are a great expose, and it's even better when fleshed out to the point where people can be pinned down and named. 9/11; for example, was a goldmine in this respect. Shills were outed, videos/pictures were proven as fake, and the stories were dissected in-depth.

After all the hard work -- and countless hours on the forum -- where has it gotten cluesforum?

None of the named shills have been held accountable for their lies; from what we gather, they are just the bottom rung of perpetrators. If any one of us had the scope to follow the money trail, then there's no doubt that higher up the ladder there would be decision makers seen working in such a convoluted way that it would boggle the mind.

The point being: if after all that's been learned on the fake news front; there's still little progress when trying to shine a light on the perp's and make the greater public aware -- then why not broaden the horizons and look at the grand deception from a different vantage point?
ShaneG
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby fbenario on Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:18 am

ShaneG wrote:there's still little progress when trying to [...] make the greater public aware

Given that the forum has had 11,000,000 total page views, don't you think we have helped quite a few people to think more for themselves, and believe less of what they are spoonfed?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ShaneG on Fri Jun 19, 2015 2:46 am

11 million views is impressive; I'd be curious to know exactly how many of them are unique hits. Of course I think that this place has helped many to open their eyes to the 'real truth'. This is the only conspiracy related forum I read: if I had never found this place, then I might still be living in a state of fear and confusion while dwelling in the dark midst of the David Icke forum (*shudders*). I've actually just tried to click on DIF out of curiosity, and seen that the site is down due to reconstruction. Perhaps now is the time to strike while the iron is hot: give CF a push on social networking sites and try to get some of the more receptive members of that forum across here.

What I was saying in my previous post can be boiled down as: we don't know who's pulling the strings at the top; all we know is that the media is controlled and in cahoots with many other elitist organisations who have a vested interest in pulling the wool over our eyes. So, regardless of whether or not it's deemed acceptable to look at Earth model theories which deviate from the main-line -- because some will say that it can never be proven -- we're still in the dark when it comes to the fake media side of things.

An analogy to sum it up would be: CF members have been knocking on the doors of the CIA/MI6/Mossad for many years now, but nobody ever answers. A note is then left under the door saying "we know what you're up to", along with a copy of all the fakery findings, but still no direct answer. Instead, they send out their henchmen (shills) who don't correspond directly (unless they're hired as double-agents who are sent to infiltrate the forum); their strategy is to create smear campaigns and discredit CF as a deranged and dangerous sect as they project and associate us with the controlled opposition crowd, while they carry on with their usual work of fabricating as many disinformation narratives/theories as possible so as to make the 'real truth' (CF) like finding a needle in a filthy haystack.
ShaneG
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby anonjedi2 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:18 am

What's with the countless cliches? :wacko:
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby ShaneG on Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:01 am

They're a figure of speech (idioms, cliches, w/e you wanna call them). I can 'tone it down' B), but to imply that I'm 'wacko' is absurd. Considering I've at least tried to make an overall original input, wheras your contribution has been limited - to say the least.

Why don't you post more links anonjedi; referencing your idol Eric Dubay, because he seems real 'legit'!
ShaneG
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn

Postby hoi.polloi on Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:32 pm

After I last visited Simon, he found a document on his computer desktop that he must have meant to investigate, while researching Earth models, and it was called proofs.doc. Simon asked me if I left it there for him, and I truthfully answered that I did not, and I don't know where it came from. I still don't. However, it did look familiar to me, and it was written in an old style, as if copied from an old text or manuscript. Its title was:

A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe


And I have found that this writing is credited to the Flat Earth personality Samuel Rowbotham, and was (ostensibly) published in 1885. After he sent it to me, and I took a look, I decided that I would go through it point by point and respond to each individual “proof” but I was disappointed by some of its sad logic and decided to postpone that in favor of a different activity.

The activity I would like to conduct is to alleviate a potential rift that is appearing in a population of people waking up to the amount of coordinated fakery, lies and self-deception that has been occurring on/in/at Earth. This rift is something that I think (as some have suggested) may be partially deliberate, and which might be somewhat 'military intelligence' in nature. Many people seem to think it is somehow vital to the questions of what has been falsified in our history and science — which certainly isn't everything of those subjects, even though it is a great deal (if not a majority depending on our sources) and what isn't invented is influenced by our ignorant beliefs that come from that which has been creatively invented.

As such, I would like to try to prevent the rift that is developing by addressing a protest people seem to be getting excited about, in my most level-headed and reasoned way that I can muster. The protest is that CluesForum has not addressed Earth/Universe models at all (which I find to be an intellectually dishonest notion when not made by people who simply have not read this very thread in its entirety). My motivation for addressing it again, in a way that "catches up" to what I consider recent hype about it, is trifold:

  • 1. I would like to address these points with people in my personal life and the exercise will help me articulate myself for future discussions.
  • 2. I have selfish interests in keeping our forum relevant to people who are interested in interesting subjects — whom I consider the majority of amateur “Flat Earth” investigators to be. That is to say, even if I disagree with the enthusiasm and lack of research with which some promote the poor arguments of “Flat Earth” I believe it indicates a hunger for a collective reconsideration and reexamination of our world, even at the expense of belief in the old priesthood — i.e.; NASA, ESA, Jet Propulsion Labs, Lockheed Martin, GE, BAE Systems, and so on — and that is the inevitable result of realizing we have been chewing on loads of bullshit so-called “facts” for centuries, if not time immemorial. Therefore, realizing this and collectively celebrating our cathartic victory over the deception is something we should proudly take part in. We should also not fail to learn from past encounters with highly suspicious entities that attempt to steer discussions into limited hangouts, even while being careful not to fall for new traps (which, admittedly, this post may be doing by even addressing the topic, but I am prepared to take that risk since I feel capable of discussing it at an actual amateur level rather than an artificially dumbed-down level).
  • 3. I greatly desire to appeal to our highest intellect and compassion for one another, and to remark that we really ought not to fight about things that can be reasoned out as logically as subjects like these — subjects that we as a species are clearly so collectively brilliant about (and conversely, ignorant about) while also quite enthusiastic about (even as it remains roughly harmless and unimportant to our daily lives, except as a litmus test of the beliefs promoted by our sisters and brothers and cousins that make up our philosophical kind).

I must apologize for past behavior and for this post in case I have offended or I will offend in writing this. It is partially my fault for having any passion about unanswerable questions at all, but I hope that you will not hold it against me. I don't need to go into the various dramas beginning to pent up within different circles, nor review the nasty names and accusations we have thrown at each other when we were caught up in the difficulty of this awakening. But let us now be relieved in the amazing recognition that we are in an awakening, and that the difficulty is a collective struggle rather than one we have to suffer alone, and it is not one we have to rely on mainstream or "alternative" media channels to catch up on. Nor is it necessary to buy any book or media, since it seems everything (that isn't from dodgy groups like NASA) is available for public scrutiny for the time being. And even those buffoons proudly present their hypocrisy and contradiction for any and all to accept or reject.

Let us bear with the loneliness and uniqueness of various experiments we are scrutinizing, which have contradicted one another over the years (Airy, Michelson-Morley, etc.), let us rationally and calmly try to discuss our beliefs with one another (even if we also allow ourselves to politely show our passion and our interest in our own perspective without ringing each other's throats), and let us unite in a new era of responsible listening to each other's investigations of this beautiful and marvelous mystery we inhabit and are a part of — while not tolerating time wasters and fools with nothing to say on the matter except conspiratorial "Alex Jones" type reasoning.

Let us also not ignore Simon's warning point that there is indeed a discrediting and derailing effort taking place, as we have always seen since we first pried into the world of investigation. We have learned, through at least 8 years of experience, that the agenda of some is truly not genuine, that some aim to make a profit out of pure hype, without actual discussion of science that will get us anywhere. Some may even be hired, as per military contracts, to steer all discussions back to a divisive, personality-centric, celebrity-worshiping, consumerist zombie, profit model based on derailing serious questions and pretending to be interested in them. This often results in interviews on “Coast to Coast AM” or “The History Channel”, and it does not rock the boat of the financial backers and their fanatical devotees in charge of writing an unfair balance of our world's stories about itself. It also brings attention back on attention-getters rather than inspiring people with information. Sometimes it takes the form of disinformation campaigns, and sometimes it takes the form of pumping up useless information. Sometimes it is just a simple mistake or poor logic and poor thinking.

For the sake of keeping this awakening ball rolling, let those of us interested in useful information focus our attention on that. I haven't any interest in the personality discussions, but I do choose to respond to my intuition (and my responsibility to a functional forum) by associating rarely with people I trust and not at all with people I feel are betraying my trust or trying to turn people against people I trust with sympathy (or sim-pathy) ploys. I hope you can find your own way of managing your affairs and building your own system of information gathering for yourself and your loved ones and your community.

I would like to begin by addressing the first point in Rowbotham's document, which stopped me immediately (after formerly attempting to address the points in reverse order from Point 100 to Point 80 before realizing I was looking for better points). It reads like this:

1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.



Flat Earth

This should be the end of the discussion flat out, if we were to strictly take our assumptions based on the pattern of non-celestial objects with which we are familiar. Yet, each time we try to rationalize what we see into a single system, we encounter issues that must be explained in a way that is unfamiliar to our normal lives.

Let us look at observations we all might make, and by doing so, dismiss the most absurd claims of each theory in order to humble us into recognizing we do not yet know, and we do not yet have a perfect model.

Take the idea of the perfectly flat plane. First, we may justify this in a familiar Earthly way by saying the following: something rising to eye level no matter how high we rise, with no sign of lowering when expected nor when calculated to be expected based on the given diameter of the Earth, tells us based on our Earthly education that the surface averages out to a perfect 0 degrees across its entirety, despite valleys and mountains.


The length of each latitude before it loops, taken together, as a system of latitudes, collectively resembles a quasi-sphere.

The problem with the concept of a Flat Earth is that the distances of land forms, markers and constructs in what we call the Northern hemisphere match up, and they do so as well as the distances between land forms, markers and constructs in what we call the Southern hemisphere do. There is a greater belt of land and sea to travel between around the so-called equator and this is the longest latitude as well. The other latitudes become exponentially smaller as we travel North or South from the equator (or along any longitude), in a formula roughly equivalent to an oblong sphere. And even better than that in favor of a quasi-sphere, the observable stars, taken as another series of latitudes is consistent with the shape of a quasi-sphere seen at an indeterminate distance from the one we inhabit and whose surface we walk upon and conduct our affairs. We can either take for granted that these stars are all related to one another positionally as the points on the Earth are related to one another, or we can choose to find another way of thinking about it. However, it's true that the Earth actually loops as you travel about it, the speed and distance of all locomotion of all automobiles, airplanes, trains, bicycles and people on foot as they traverse the surface of Earth is consistent with a pseudo-ball shaped map, or at least a map that loops consistently.

We could account for this problem with the Flat Earth model by saying the furthest you get from the equator of the Flat Earth, the more the former dimensions we were in (closest to the equator) seem to compress to a point in the North (or South, if you find the idea of a South pole more favorable than a North). We could keep to the notion of a planar Earth in this way. It would require a mathematical model that accounts for an invisible East-West curvature and Southern compression of space (since bullets and lasers seemingly do not appear to take right hand turns when fired West, nor speed up when fired North and slow down when fired South) but since — in a ball Earth model — we must also assume an invisible curvature of spatial physics, albeit an invisible convexity (since bullets and lasers seemingly do not rise into the air when fired straight in any direction), Flat Earth is at least intellectually equal to Ball Earth thusfar in our reasoning.


Flat Earth Infinite Iterations — or Round Earth with Flat POVs

We could also account for this problem, while keeping the planar surface as a model from any given point, by presuming that each individual person (or point of view) contains and localizes one perfect version of the universe that expands in every direction from the point of the individual to a vanishing horizon that represents all that person's body and perspective cannot be in at the moment. This may seem like a rather spiritual point of view that places too much responsibility on each individual to experience the universe they are in, but it behooves the selfsame view to point out that people who are physically closer can also give life to similar view points. People near each other witness and experience similar things. They can point out the same mountains and valleys. They can experience the same clouds and shadows and cosmic sky activities. However, when they part, those people take with them the “flat” perspective as they walk the Earth's surface — no matter its true spatial shape.

This would mean that there is no easy way to picture an objective reality, as we are taught by science and some other belief systems to believe, since the Earth's surface would loop in sections according to the distance the individual has traveled from their starting point (more or less the distance of what we would call the circumference of the Earth — roughly 40,000 kilometers). In essence, this would mean that the objectively physical “shape” of the Earth is an overlapping iteration of waveforms about 40,000 kilometers in amplitude quantified by counting the innumerable observation points that collectively make up the Earth, rather than merely the physical concept of a ball or plane that exists independently of observers. This is a hard concept to wrap our minds around, and requires a warping of the language that we presently use to discuss the concept of Earth's so-called shape. However, why do we expect shapes as enormous as our entire world to take on the same physics as toys in a child's playroom? Surely, if physics of miniscule things must be talked about in terms of waves and particles and vague locations with multiple possibilities, so too may macro objects.

For a contemporary traditional thinker, it might be easier to remove the question of consciousness, which contemporary traditional thinkers always seem to find problematic. Such a way to account for a Flat Earth may be to dispense with the idea of our participation and to say there is simply a mathematically sound relationship between the looping~40,000 km pattern and the actual physics of our world. It would mean that between any two points on the surface of the Flat Earth, physics actually warps to the so-called “perspective” of the point in question, regardless of the existence or non-existence of an observer at that point. This may be an easier way for our computer programs to create an artificial map of this model; whereby physics always maintains an “uprightness” despite being a finite map.


Ball Earth with Flat Physics

Another way to account for the observation of a Flat Earth, while keeping with a ball model with Newtonian gravity, is to say that light curves in the pattern determined from the model above. In other words, rather than presuming physics is a series of dimensionally “flat” or “planar” behavior sets mappable to an infinitely looping warp of roughly the same 510 million square kilometers, one could assume that the Earth is a real quasi-sphere in a set of physical properties but flat in all properties having to do with light. You might even be able to say that the light properties are not technically “flat” but that they bend around curves in such a way that evens them out to the eye of the observer.

A problem with this is that there are physical indicators that tell us the Earth has physically planar properties that override the idea of a globe with even gravity pulling to a center. These include:

1. the measurement of the Earth's surface from an airplane's height, which indicates a planar, non-convex (and perhaps non-concave) surface, consistent with the behaviors of physics.

2. the measured flatness of water on a level surface.

Another problem with this would be if experiments suggesting physical concavity of the Earth's surface (such as Tamarack Mine and Rectilineator experiments) indicates that the world is, in fact, concave rather than convex or flat. However, the same “bending” or “warping” of potential physics models in this case applies; the Earth may be one shape in some dimensions but another shape in other dimensions. This also makes sense from the perspective of our discoveries that leaving the Earth is a physically impossible feat. It may be that attempting to do so somehow tears physical objects apart if they can even stand the other extreme conditions of so-called “space”. In other words, the physics of our world is perfectly “honed” by nature to support our existence here, but not in miniature, not swollen out of synch with the frequencies of Earth, and not elsewhere.


Larger Ball Earth or Semi-Flat Plane

A sort of simplistic guess I once had to explain the possibility of our observations of flatness is to guess that the lower hemisphere of the Earth is what we are told is the Antarctic continent. I estimated this would mean Earth is about twice as wide as it is said to be, which would explain why going into the sky with an extremely high altitude craft does not reveal curvature.

The problem with this notion is that we would have to dispense with the stars, Sun and planets being a consistent spherical observation, since the Southern hemisphere's cosmic orbs and points match the prediction of a Southern perspective that does not warp. Instead, the motions of the stars would be limited to the plane or the Northern hemisphere in some way. That would be a serious challenge to any concept of an Earth of a different circumference than the 40,000 km figure measured by geological surveys.


Concave Earth

Another possibility, to preserve the quasi-spherical model, is that light (and physics) curves in a different way than what we expect and this gives us our observation of an apparently flat plane. The problems with a concave Earth are not as distressing to the intellect if we eliminate the notion of the Earth's physical rotation along a single axis (which would cause enormous problems of tilting and gravitational “biases”).

Gravity could be a “pushing” force from the center of a concave Earth as the Tamarack Mine experiment seemed to suggest, and Cy Teed's measurement of the Earth plane as being concave (using the thusfar non-debunked Rectilineator process) would be consistent with this.

When discussing all of these possibilities, we must bear in mind that Gravity is extremely problematic from the perspective of Newton's idea that mass itself carries with it a gravity, unless other factors are at work. For such a discussion, please see our “What is Gravity?” topic: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641


Limited Star Field

Provided we are choosing a Flat Earth or Dome Earth and have a limited star field that behaves like it would be consistent on a smaller globe, we could also suggest that positions on the far South of the Earth such as in Australia would give us a very unique model for the heavens we observe to “spin”. If the Earth is concave, we do not have the same issue, as the entire cosmos (that we know) would be contained within the Earth itself and we may preserve (albeit “inverted”) the pseudo-spherical appearing star field. The point against this is almost purely aesthetic. Some would say Earth is different from the orbs we observe, and some would say it must be the same. However, math can create a model for either case, and it doesn't seem to make a lick of difference.

One solution to make Flat or (Convex) Dome Earth work with our observations of the stars is to treat the map of the star field as something that behaves with similar physics as the “observation points” we might propose in a flat infinite plane. I personally find this solution rather problematic, having actually been to Australia and having observed the constellations behaving as expected on a Ball Earth with Flat POVs or Flat Earth Infinite Iterations or something akin to the “ball star field”. However, I don't think Ball Earth can be spinning or is spinning while preserving traditional spinning mechanics, since we do not observe any spinning effects except the visual turn of the star field — suggesting the appearance of the star field alone is what moves rather than the physical field.


Still Earth

The problem with the combination of Newtonian gravity combined with the concept of a spin to the Earth is that extremely heavy objects would become lighter, everything would lean towards the outside of the spin (i.e.; the equator) and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

One possibility is that gravity functions differently than we expect. That would have to be explored in its own way. (Again, please discuss cogent Gravity arguments here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641)

Another possibility is that the Earth does not spin, in which case the stars and heavenly bodies' motions would have to be explained. I am comfortable with a proposal I don't think I've heard before but which I have suggested as an explanation. It goes like this:


Still Cosmos — Spiraling Light

Since we observe many things spinning and warping both around the world we inhabit and in the observable heavens which we cannot physically reach, we may also wonder if light and electromagnetism doesn't also have a helixical, spiral or wave pattern of some kind that is exaggerated or which grows depending on conditions. As we witness magnetism and electromagnetism having spin, direction and amplitude, we might suggest that larger versions warp the further away it is. It's possible that while the cosmos are only moving as much as we observe them to move from the standpoint of someone racing across the 40,000 km at 1667 km/h (or roughly transiting the “globe” in 24 hours) — that is to say not moving — the light from a still or semi-still or even orbiting Sun (as per the Tycho-Shack model, which I am a fan of because of its elegance) in such a case takes a certain time to “spiral in”, while the stars take a different time, and so forth. This would mean the star positions and the Milky Way are more than illusions — they would be shifted from their actual place based on their distance from us and the additional time it takes for the light to come in doing its thing.

However, the stars and cosmos seem to move so perfectly with each other, as if it were merely our perspective that's changing, and so such an idea would have to take this into account. Could it be that, like distant objects that appear to merge together, distant electromagnetic qualities become less distinguishable as well? Could “star twinkle” not purely be from “space dust/debris” but from some pulsing and measurable electromagnetic pattern?

We must return again to the beginning with the problem of a seemingly Flat Earth with globe-like heavens, a special as-yet-undescribed definition of Gravity, and an unknown system of relationships between these observations such that you could stretch and warp the model to fit the subjects you are interested in while relegating subjects that do not interest you to the land of mystery and obscurity. Thus, our studies of various sciences having to do with our world have the potential to be extremely divisive.

In conclusion, all models have their easy solutions and their difficult problems and none of them seems to be exactly easy to nail down as the final model we should step away with as a perfect world view or perfect TOE (Theory Of Everything). I am comfortable with this, and I really don't see the need to have a single model if multiple models work for various functions of … well, our complex world, with a multiplicity of view points and ideas — many of which are useful for the functions that they specialize in without a direct necessity for cohesive unity.

However, if we were to approach such an ambitious model, I believe the interesting behaviors of electromagnetism, vibration (cymatics) and ontology or consciousness will reap the best results.


Here is a brief and overly simplistic table that I made for my own self, but of course, feel free to view this as a useless distraction and failure to unify the divergent models — each of which is equally compelling to me.

world_type_chart.GIF

Sorry for any potential offense to believers and adherents to any system or theory. If you read this thread, you will see I was one before I began looking into this, but now I can much more safely declare, "I really don't know," even while adding, "but I am somewhat comfortable with that, even as it does not diminish my curiosity and wonder." Thank you for reading.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests