FLAT GLOBE

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also “wobbles,” in a complex combination of patterns known as, “planetary nutation,” the “Chandler wobble,” and “axial precession” which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense.

Common sense, however, says that if the heat of the Sun travels 93,000,000 miles to reach us, a small axial tilt and wobble, the difference of a few thousand miles, should be completely negligible. If the ball-Earth actually spun around 93,000,000 miles from the Sun, regardless of any tilt or wobble, temperature and climate the whole world over should be almost completely uniform. If the heat of the Sun truly travelled ninety-three million miles to reach Earth’s equator, the extra few thousand miles to the poles, regardless of any supposed “tilt” or “wobble,” no matter how extreme, would surely be negligible in negating such intense heat!

Seashore wrote:

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

From page 71:

In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also “wobbles,” in a complex combination of patterns known as, “planetary nutation,” the “Chandler wobble,” and “axial precession” which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense.

It's interesting to me that there was a real debate about flat earth theory in the 19th century and that the 23.5 degrees tilt and wobble of the official story have their origin from it.

Page 72:

Common sense, however, says that if the heat of the Sun travels 93,000,000 miles to reach us, a small axial tilt and wobble, the difference of a few thousand miles, should be completely negligible. If the ball-Earth actually spun around 93,000,000 miles from the Sun, regardless of any tilt or wobble, temperature and climate the whole world over should be almost completely uniform. If the heat of the Sun truly travelled ninety-three million miles to reach Earth’s equator, the extra few thousand miles to the poles, regardless of any supposed “tilt” or “wobble,” no matter how extreme, would surely be negligible in negating such intense heat!

Vidya Moksha wrote:

B.B.Baghor wrote:
Please, Seashore and Vidya Moksha, to the latter: please don't behave like a flat Earth devotee?  
Am I allowed time to get used to being on a saucer, maybe? It's a bit of a shock, if that's truly the case, Vidya.
I'm not laughing at you or debunking this thread and the theory of Flat Earth. I'm simply good humoured
and feeling good about it. It's highly humorous to me, to ponder the Earth being flat. But to me it's not
important to argue, finding out who's right or wrong. Round or flat Earth. Am I allowed my experience,
being different than yours, feeling my feet on a round ball? Threads here are open to everyone, for comments
and views. For me there's no doubt about the Earth being round, at the same time it doesn't really matter to me,
if its round or flat. I'm really enjoying myself, in good humoured vibes, please continue with the show

Did you read my posts? Did you read anything that Seashore posted? Did you read ANY of the source material. Do you read anything before you post? It doesnt read like it.
l
l
l
Does reading something mean you have to agree, Why on earth ( ) would you now consider you are living on a saucer without doing some reading with a discerning eye? There are threads where you can be frivolous, please enjoy yourself in the mists, you dont need my permission or blessing to post where you will, but I cannot take you seriously in this thread, "its not important if the earth is round or flat" really? wow. If thats your view why post anything in this thread at all?
l
l
l
Typed messages are poor at conveying mood. I promise I am not angry or upset. I just cant take your posts in here seriously. Try the humour thread?

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

If the globe-Earth was really spinning West-East 1,000 mph, orbiting the Sun counter-clockwise at 67,000 mph, spiraling around the outer-arms of the Milky Way at 500,000 mph, while shooting through the Universe at 670,000,000 mph, how is it even conceptually possible that Polaris, 2 quadrillion miles away, day after day, year after year, always maintains its alignment straight above the North Pole!? That would mean from 2 quadrillion miles away, Polaris would have to be perfectly mirroring Earth’s several simultaneous wobbling, spinning, spiraling, and shooting motions. Polaris would have to be shooting the same direction through the Universe at exactly 670,000,000 mph; it would have to be following the same 500,000 mph, 225 million year spiral around the Milky Way, and mirroring the same 67,000 mph, 365 day orbit around our Sun! Or, the Earth is stationary - as common sense and everyday experience testifies.

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

. . . With haughty arrogance the nearest hypnotized heliocentrist will then inform you that the Sun is 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon is 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth, and those just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size! So, you see, silly Flat-Earther, it is all an illusion and the apparent equanimity of our day and night luminaries in the sky results from mere coincidental parallax perspective! The Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears; rather the Earth spins 1,038 mph under your feet and revolves 67,108 mph around the Sun! The Moon does indeed revolve around the Earth, but not as it appears! Though it seems to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth’s 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun coincidentally results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its “dark side.”

mudra wrote:

Raven wrote:

mudra wrote:
In truth I believe we all have our own model , our own visions of the universe and as we begin to unravel it's building blocks
we are then able to see how we made it come to life in the first place.

Sirius 17: Tony, please answer mrs honeybunny Mudra
Sirius 17:and explain to her that without precise definitions like DNA for example and things called cells with boundries, she would have no lala land in which to contemplate her nebulous nature
Sirius 17: this question of hers is beyond ridiculous

Shiloh Za-Rah: The great nabs fallacy of everyone making their own reality
Shiloh Za-Rah: opinionated bs
Sirius 17: yes and if she were honest with herself she would easily see that this is not how the universe functions, it is not a matter of 'dreaming' about it
Sirius 17: each to his own bs

[3:58:54 PM] Shiloh Za-Rah:

So what ARE those building blocks mudra?

They are NOT whimsicalities of human imaginations

The world is held in Consciousness. The physical universe is a product of Consciousness. We are Consciousness.
Experience the awareness of your true nature which is Consciousness and this will become clear.


Love from me
mudra

Thank you, mudra, your words here, in greenblue, are wonderfully clear, well put and very beautiful.
The following text, written by Ian Lungold, is copied from your post 51 in the Mayan Prophecies thread here:  

"By the Tun calendar, each level of Conscious Evolution is divided by 13 equal sections. Each sequential consciousness cycle
is accelerated by a factor of 20. That is, the creation of all effects in each cycle is multiplied by a factor of 20. We all have
been told by the highest priests of our society, the Quantum Physicists, that the universe is expanding. 20X just could be
the factor by which it is doing so.

What has come to me is; Consciousness, Divides by the factor of 13 and Creation, Multiplies by a factor of 20.

It is consciousness that divides creation into its separate parts. It is only when you are conscious of something(s) that you
can appreciate that part of creation by and with your discernment.

Your life is peppered with moments when you noticed some details of your environment or situation. Like, seeing the
“Veins in the leaf” or the beauty of color and pattern in a butterfly’s wings. Of course you have your own examples but
each of them were the exercise of your consciousness noticing the differences of stimuli available in that moment.
The more conscious you are, the more you can take in effortlessly".

As I'm practicing my dance on the same page with you, mudra, regarding consciousness as the ruler
of form-creation. The full content of Ian Lungolds letter speaks  to me, particularily this part, copied in this post.
The weaving of the 13:20 is profoundly wrapped in life's mystery. In the description of the 20 Solar Seals being
the "20 faces of creation" and the 13 Galactic Tones being the "13 melodies of creation" the weaving is present,
as I perceive it.

During pregnancy of human babies, the child grows in the womb during 260 days, a full Tzolkin cycle. In that way,
the child has "seen" the 20 faces of creation in 13 different melodies (and vice versa) in order to create its body,
to begin the journey into an incarnation on planet Earth. Later, when the physical form begins to withdraw a bit
and less dominant present, consciousness expands. At least, that's the idea of life evolving



It's in essence non-linear: when moving away from the center of the Galaxy, in spiraling motion, imagine radial
spokes moving from that center in straight lines, all around that center, merging with the spiraling form in a geo-
metrical order, measure and motion. The destination of those spokes and spirals are, let's say the Sun, planet Earth,
Venus, Mars... etc.  

Imagine traveling on that spiral, like a spark of light, following its form, always in a new position, when touching the
radial spoke, itself present in a linear position and motion. Imagine the center of the Galaxy, which is called Hunab
K'u by the Mayans (meaning center of measure and motion) radiating data through this sacred geometry, using the
Sun of our Solar System as a lense, that furnace transforming the data into different color vibrations, one of them
the rainbow in the sky, blessing us with warmth and light by its rays. As I see it, we're mediators between the
center of planet Earth and Hunab K'u, if we choose for that role.

Imagine all data, intelligence and expressions as life force energy, also that which travels along the spiral. For the
benefit of understanding, we need to let it have physical form, as point of view. This spiraling and linear motion is
another weaving, a coming to life in consciousness.

For only when that which is infinite is framed, put in form within boundaries, it can experience itself and all that which
is framed can be defined or find definition of itself through consciousness evolving. By that work, creation evolves.
Lesson learned, mission accomplished, the deed is done. The cross of the 4 directions is encircled. God/Great Spirit,
Source, has encountered him/herself within all those creations of self - definition, all mirror reflections at the same time,
in awareness, not as form in a body. As long as we live in 3D conditions and lower levels of the 4th, in other words, as
long as we're attached to a physical form, that's a discernment useful to keep in mind, I think. Boundarywise.
Of course, in all descriptive attempts here, I'm myself moving and measuring, through truth-levels and by exploring truth.

Welcome home in the presence of infinity, returning to it with the awareness of definition.  Maybe that's what sets the next
"in the beginning there was nothing and than it exploded" in motion? Maybe that's part of a much larger duet of spiraling
and linear motion? As I perceive "as above so below" also true in this, I think that's why we need to be grounded, in our body,
connected to the center of planet Earth, in order to reach for the sky and the awareness of our true nature and embodying
of our soul. To a cosmic explorer, a rainbow is proof of the existence of life: the presence of water and light. I'm painting a
rainbow here.

The spiraling vortexes of energy, traveling through space, are made visible on the body of a foetus in the womb. These
vortexes move along the hairy fur on its body, creating spiraling formations all over it. One of them remains with us through
our lives, as the place on our head, where the hair grows away from one spot, in a spiraling form. When that spot is
located on the left side of the head, the left brain is predominant in general, as a starting position only, not a fixed condition,
although the position is. Mine is in the middle

shiloh wrote:Tom Campbell's University of Calgary Lectures from September 2011 at Alberta, Canada, appear to be a nice background for Thuban OmniScience.

I have not watched all of this yet, but share it here for reference purposes. Thank you Brook for sharing your links about those lectures on your forum on the Mists of Avalon.

Tonyblue

Steven Weinberg in "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today, November 2005, page 31, said:

All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in terms of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from?

Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus.

The problem of thinking in terms of classical measurements of a quantum system becomes particularly acute in the field of quantum cosmology, where the quantum system is the universe.[16]

The state of the observer's perception is considered to be entangled with the state of the cat. The perception state 'I perceive a live cat' accompanies the 'live-cat' state and the perception state 'I perceive a dead cat' accompanies the 'dead-cat' state. [..] It is then assumed that a perceiving being always finds his/her perception state to be in one of these two; accordingly, the cat is, in the perceived world, either alive or dead.[..] I wish to make clear that, as it stands, this is far from a resolution of the cat paradox. For there is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that demands that a state of consciousness cannot involve the simultaneous perception of a live and a dead cat.
- Roger Penrose

Vidya Moksha wrote:Apologies for getting back onto the subject of this thread but I did watch Dubays Flat Earth Conspiracy Documentary also.. again overlong and too much bandwidth for relatively little information, but an altogether better presentation. Its clear that some footage from NASA is fake, and painfully obvious, but this doesnt mean that it is all faked.. However, worth a watch in itself even if it dosnt prove a flat Earth.

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:Apologies for getting back onto the subject of this thread but I did watch Dubays Flat Earth Conspiracy Documentary also.. again overlong and too much bandwidth for relatively little information, but an altogether better presentation. Its clear that some footage from NASA is fake, and painfully obvious, but this doesnt mean that it is all faked.. However, worth a watch in itself even if it dosnt prove a flat Earth.

Thanks for watching.

I was wondering about the point of a lot of the NASA footage.  It didn't really have anything to do with the claim that the earth photos are fake, did it?  It was more about mishaps?  So what?  Nothing to do with flat earth?  

Also, I'm wondering about the photo from Apollo 17 that is said to be the one and only photo that is not a composite.  Well, it still shows the earth as a sphere, so one photo is still one photo.  Or, is the implication that it was Photoshopped into looking like a sphere?

Vidya Moksha wrote:my interest was piqued in here by my notion that the earth aint spinning...

. . . First, let's assume the Earth stopped spinning gradually, as a sudden deceleration would mean disaster. Second, we'll suppose that Earth's ecosystems have survived the transition mostly intact. So what does this new world look like?

For starters, Earth would now take a whole year to do what it pulls off in a day: cycle from night to day and back. Cities would spend half the year in darkness and half the year in full sunlight, just like the North and South Poles do today. And, like the poles, every region would still experience different seasons, but the temperature swings from season to season would be much greater for areas along the equator. An equatorial region would spend infernally hot months very close to the sun, while that area's global counterpart would spend dark, frigid months very far away from it. That's trouble for the plants and animals that have adapted to the climate of a region and, consequently, for the people living there as well.

What's that? You're relocating to the relatively stable (though still awfully cold) polar regions? Bad move. They're deep underwater. In fact, the boundaries between ocean and land on a spin-free Earth would look nothing like they do today. Because the Earth rotates, centrifugal force causes the planet to bulge along the equator. No rotation, no bulge. Without that bulge, all of the extra water held in place along the equator would go rushing back toward the poles. Esri, a company that develops geography-focused technology, modeled the world's land and oceans after its equatorial bulge subsided and found that the Earth would have a band of land -- one giant supercontinent -- that circles the equator and separates two massive oceans to the north and the south.

As if that weren't enough, Earth's magnetic field might go away, too. While we're not entirely sure how that magnetic field is generated, one leading theory states that it's the result of Earth's inner core rotating slightly faster than outer core (yep, two different rotations on one planet). If both of them stop, the mechanism behind Earth's magnetic field may as well, leaving us exposed to potential harmful solar winds [source: Cain]. . . .

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/what-if/what-if-earth-stopped-spinning.htm

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:my interest was piqued in here by my notion that the earth aint spinning...

Yes I'm interested in that, too.

The official story is that the earth spins, taking the atmosphere with it?

Dubay uses the metaphor of "velcro" to describe an atmosphere supposedly attached to the earth as it spins.  Is that part of the reason you have a gut feeling about the earth not spinning?

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

In the Flat-Earth model, the Sun and Moon luminaries revolve around the Earth once every 24 hours illuminating like spotlights the areas over which they pass. The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters.



The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun. Their flawed current model even places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?

Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .

“If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides.Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep.  In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

“Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet … That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

In the past several decades, NASA has shown video of astronauts, supposedly in low-Earth orbit, experiencing complete weightlessness, or “zero gravity,” how is this weightless effect achieved if gravity doesn’t exist? As it turns out, for the past several decades, NASA together with Boeing have been perfecting so-called “Zero G planes” and “Zero G maneuvers,” which are able to produce weightlessness at any altitude. Aboard modified Boeing 727’s specially trained pilots perform aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas. Planes climb with a pitch angle of 45 degrees using engine thrust and elevator controls, then when maximum height is reached the craft is pointed downward at high speed. The period of weightlessness begins while ascending and lasts all the way up and over the parabola until reaching a downward pitch angle of 30 degrees, at which point the maneuver is repeated. Therefore all NASA’s footage of astronauts aboard “space shuttles,” or “the International Space Station” can be easily hoaxed and simulated in Earth-atmosphere aboard a Zero G plane. In fact, watching footage of Zero G plane flights alongside footage of NASA astronauts supposedly floating around their “space shuttles” and “space stations,” no observable difference can be seen between the two.

Seashore wrote:

Seashore wrote:In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.”[/i]  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (130-131)

Vidya Moksha wrote:The moon definitely affects tides.

By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

Vidya Moksha wrote:The nature of the sea bed and the shore has a tremendous effect on tides, and where funneling of the water occurs tides are greatest in height.

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:The moon definitely affects tides.

What do you think of this part, which, I guess, is saying the moon may indirectly affect tides via. barometric pressure:

By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters.”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (259-260)

Vidya Moksha wrote:The nature of the sea bed and the shore has a tremendous effect on tides, and where funneling of the water occurs tides are greatest in height.

How do you interpret the statement, "Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep"?

What I'm asking you is whether your statement about the sea bed has any relation to "bosom of the mighty deep," or are they two entirely different things?

Vidya Moksha wrote:I have no idea what the 'bosom of the mighty deep' is . . .

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:I have no idea what the 'bosom of the mighty deep' is . . .

When I read that, looking at the image I pictured the tides as being caused by an up and down motion of the layers of the earth cushioned by deep underground waters.

The image shows fire at the bottom.  I remember Mark Sargent talking about temperature being important in flat earth theory.  Also, I guess this image is a side view showing an egg-like structure enclosing the earth.  You mentioned Mark Sargent's glass dome earlier.  Are you sure he literally meant glass?  Could it just be the earth's magnetic field?

Vidya Moksha wrote:As i say, Mark Sargent really is worth avoiding.

Vidya Moksha wrote:I dont remember if it was glass, but his dome is a structure of some material onto which the stars and other planetary bodies are projected!!