How to logically prove a round Earth

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
592
1. One has a belief in the Creator.
2. One uses other means, typically Science, to explain the mechanics of the universe.

1. One would have to conclude the Creator to be deceitful. The most apparent celestial object within view is the Moon with obvious round shape and obvious shadows created by other round celestial objects. With the advent of telescopes, man has noticed all other celestial objects as round. The Creator represents Truth and Order, not Chaos. There is no Order when one celestial object is flat and all others are not. Thus a rational conclusion that Order does not exist if the earth has a shape inconsistent with other celestial objects.

2. The rules that govern our world must be uniform throughout the Universe. This is the first tenant of Physics. If ice reduces friction today it must also reduce friction tomorrow. The rules cannot change from day to day nor from location to location. There are no flat celestial objects. The rules must apply to every celestial object. Furthermore there are no apparent objects on Earth that are naturally flat. There are no flat animals, plants, mountains, rocks, elevations... A patch of ground might be flat in appearance , but the matter it consists of is not.

There is no Magic. Magic is slight of hand. It is deception.. It is a lie.
Neither the tenants of Order (God) nor the tenants of Rationality and Logic rely on deception.

Deception hits those opposed to Order the most....
Respectfully I have to also disagree. Your notion on space balls is like looking at the round balls of a pool table and concluding the table is a sphere, it's like looking at the floodlights of a football field and supposing the field is also too a sphere.

It's a logical fallacy, supposing the shape of terra firma with your eyes only.

How can you or anyone for that fact pre-suppose the sun or moon are a sphere when we have only ever seen one side of said celestial bodies?


1566909888978.png


You are using inductive thesis to conclude the premise of your points – complete fallacious reasoning. It’s like saying the sky is blue because we have a large ocean above us. Neither my sky full of water, nor your premises on comparing the earth shape to blurry lights can be proven or disproven with demonstrable, empirical science.

Lights in the sky, or planets as you like to call them are observed through a telescope as "lights in the sky" that’s it. Have you ever observed the aforementioned celestial bodies through a telescope? Look absolutely nothing like a sphere.

1566910554109.png


Something like that ...

Absolueltey nothing like a sphere.

You and the rest of the psudosientific community are pre-supposing so much inductive theory it's quite ridiculous!

A patch of ground might be flat in appearance , but the matter it consists of is not.
Please can you provide actual science to back up your claims? To my knowledge, even astrophysicists admit that a curve can't be observed from any height humans are capable of reaching (other than astronaughties of course).

The ground is always observed as completely flat, even their Pythagorean mathemagic of 7.9 inches per mile-squared fails dramatically when actually applied to any landmass.

NO OBSERVABLE CURVE.

I have provided numerous proofs on this matter in previous posts. If you can take anything from the whole entirety of this forum it’s that the mainstream narrative is NEVER correct and none of their theory can actually be proven.

If you take the time to read the blow posts instead of appealing to the general primary school consensus of space balls, hopefully you will gain more of an understanding of their utter BS.

Geometry: Proof of the Plane.
Geometry: Proof of the Plane.


Geocentricism - We are the Centre of the Universe

The earth is objectivley level, how can you debate something that is objectivley true?

TH
 
Last edited:
OP
Onijunbei

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
222
Reactions
691
Respectfully I have to also disagree. Your notion on space balls is like looking at the round balls of a pool table and concluding the table is a sphere, it's like looking at the floodlights of a football field and supposing the field is also too a sphere.

It's a logical fallacy, supposing the shape of terra firma with your eyes only.

How can you or anyone for that fact pre-suppose the sun or moon are a sphere when we have only ever seen one side of said celestial bodies?


View attachment 28053

You are using inductive thesis to conclude the premise of your points – complete fallacious reasoning. It’s like saying the sky is blue because we have a large ocean above us. Neither my sky full of water, nor your premises on comparing the earth shape to blurry lights can be proven or disproven with demonstrable, empirical science.

Lights in the sky, or planets as you like to call them are observed through a telescope as "lights in the sky" that’s it. Have you ever observed the aforementioned celestial bodies through a telescope? Look absolutely nothing like a sphere.

View attachment 28054

Something like that ...

Absolueltey nothing like a sphere.

You and the rest of the psudosientific community are pre-supposing so much inductive theory it's quite ridiculous!



Please can you provide actual science to back up your claims? To my knowledge, even astrophysicists admit that a curve can't be observed from any height humans are capable of reaching (other than astronaughties of course).

The ground is always observed as completely flat, even their Pythagorean mathemagic of 7.9 inches per mile-squared fails dramatically when actually applied to any landmass.

NO OBSERVABLE CURVE.

I have provided numerous proofs on this matter in previous posts. If you can take anything from the whole entirety of this forum it’s that the mainstream narrative is NEVER correct and none of their theory can actually be proven.

If you take the time to read the blow posts instead of appealing to the general primary school consensus of space balls, hopefully you will gain more of an understanding of their utter BS.

Geometry: Proof of the Plane.
Geometry: Proof of the Plane.


Geocentricism - We are the Centre of the Universe

The earth is objectivley level, how can you debate something that is objectivley true?

TH
Sight is not a logical fallacy. Every astronomer in the world can look at any planet on any given day as they travel and turn through the solar system and see that they are round. Always round. Always. Every day.
 

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
592
Sight is not a logical fallacy. Every astronomer in the world can look at any planet on any given day as they travel and turn through the solar system and see that they are round. Always round. Always. Every day.
Every living thing can look out at the world and observe it as flat and motionless. Always flat, always montionless. Always. Every day.

TH
Every living thing can look out at the world and observe it as flat and motionless. Always flat, always montionless. Always. Every day.

TH
Sorry for the sarcasm but your point has no validity what so ever. I feel like I'm talking to Niel deGrasse Tyson.

(That's not a complement)
I appreciate your perspective and much of it resonates metaphysically with me, or at least I do enjoy entertaining the idea that it does (that such a creator invariably represents truth and order, for example). I also enjoy sharing perspectives as much as I enjoy healthy discussion that involves critical processing of evidence.

It seems that our differences merely lie in what constitutes a logical and rational argument, in the formal sense - which to me is the crux of what we call the scientific method, whose roots lie (I assume you'd agree) in the philosophy of both metaphysics and epistomology. I would argue that although I seek to protect the sacredness of this as much as I can see that you do, we just each respectively favor one approach more than then other at times.

With that said, when making a logical or rational argument, I find most success in removing subjectivity as much as possible. And, to be sure, subjectivitiy is not used as a pejorative here as I do find just as much purpose in the exploration of the metaphysical as a means to discern truth, which could put me at odds with Popper, also.

edit: I made a few edits to clarify and/or illustrate my thoughts better.
An absolute pleasure to see you still active on here. Hope you are well!

TH
 
Last edited:

Tool18

Member
Messages
25
Reactions
44
Every living thing can look out at the world and observe it as flat and motionless. Always flat, always montionless. Always. Every day.

TH

Sorry for the sarcasm but your point has no validity what so ever. I feel like I'm talking to Niel deGrasse Tyson.

(That's not a complement)

An absolute pleasure to see you still active on here. Hope you are well!

TH
You talk as though its obvious and as if you are 100% correct and everyone else is blind. When in fact its impossible for you to be so sure because you simply have not been in outer space, or been high enough to see the curve. I can't say the earth is round either because like everyone else I haven't been high enough to see a curve, BUT I have seen all the planets of our solar system, supernova's, star clusters and the odd galaxy even, all with a telescope you can buy a national geographic stores for a decent amount of money.

Straight away, even with your observable evidence of flat earth, I have directly observed the shape of our planets and that is more evidence then what I have when observed and studied the shape of our planet.

Then you have the data and correlation between the sun spots and weather, coronal holes and earthquakes. Like those provable things do NOT work in the flat earth theory.

That's my problem with this flat earth theory, Yes the observable evidence should make anyone with a brain have a serious think and look into it, you soon begin to realise though that there so many provable facts in a LOT of areas that directly related to the shape of the earth. In fact the evidence and the amount of things that rely on the curvature model starts to become overwhelming and soon realise that the Flat Earth Theory is a very clever psyop of some kind. And the other proof is in the result. "to get everyone confused". Certainly did the trick. I will also continue to keep an open mind and look into new evidence as it comes because i haven't personally been in outer space to see the round earth and I don't trust a thing NASA says.

I will mention though, It seems like every person that believes or follows the Flat Earth Theory are the smartest people on the planet and no one can tell them otherwise or convince them otherwise. In fact I could almost guarantee if you took one of them to outer space, still wouldn't be enough evidence for them, or they would have some theory as to why or how they are seeing that.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,738
Reactions
19,365
Just out of curiosity here:
  • The railgun works by using extremely high electrical currents to generate magnetic fields capable of accelerating a projectile to speeds of up to Mach 6, more than twice as fast as existing projectiles. The railgun has a range of more than 100 miles. It fires projectiles that destroy targets not with high explosive, but by smashing into them at hypersonic speeds.
  • The Navy's Railgun Is About to Get Faster and More Powerful
100 miles away is pretty far. How do they adjust for the curvature at the speeds like Mach 7.5, for it’s not an indirect weapon any longer.

You can calculate the required corrections for 100 miles here.

 

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
592
You talk as though its obvious and as if you are 100% correct and everyone else is blind. When in fact its impossible for you to be so sure because you simply have not been in outer space, or been high enough to see the curve. I can't say the earth is round either because like everyone else I haven't been high enough to see a curve, BUT I have seen all the planets of our solar system, supernova's, star clusters and the odd galaxy even, all with a telescope you can buy a national geographic stores for a decent amount of money.

Straight away, even with your observable evidence of flat earth, I have directly observed the shape of our planets and that is more evidence then what I have when observed and studied the shape of our planet.

Then you have the data and correlation between the sun spots and weather, coronal holes and earthquakes. Like those provable things do NOT work in the flat earth theory.

That's my problem with this flat earth theory, Yes the observable evidence should make anyone with a brain have a serious think and look into it, you soon begin to realise though that there so many provable facts in a LOT of areas that directly related to the shape of the earth. In fact the evidence and the amount of things that rely on the curvature model starts to become overwhelming and soon realise that the Flat Earth Theory is a very clever psyop of some kind. And the other proof is in the result. "to get everyone confused". Certainly did the trick. I will also continue to keep an open mind and look into new evidence as it comes because i haven't personally been in outer space to see the round earth and I don't trust a thing NASA says.

I will mention though, It seems like every person that believes or follows the Flat Earth Theory are the smartest people on the planet and no one can tell them otherwise or convince them otherwise. In fact I could almost guarantee if you took one of them to outer space, still wouldn't be enough evidence for them, or they would have some theory as to why or how they are seeing that.
Please provide me with your demonstrable proofs, you have just wrote a couple of paragraphs of nothingness.

You say the amount of evidence that available us remarkable? PLEASE PROVIDE THE PROOF.

Why do sun spots have anything to do with the dimensions of earth?

Why do earthquakes or weather prove the dimensions of earth?

THEY DON'T.

If you would take the time to read through the aforementioned posts you will soon come to realise that the world is built using plum and datum lines. Non of these lines work with any supposed curvature at all. Every architect, engineer, ship navigator has ever had to take the curvature of the earth in to consideration, ever!

Every architect / engineer has always used ucleadian plane geometry, working on the assumption of a flat stationary plane.

One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”

“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance. The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a Stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.”

David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”

This is a fraction a mere fraction, of undeniable proof we don't live on a spinning ball.

I will paraphrase a few more below.

1. If space is a vacuum, how can we live in pressure without any form of solid separation?

2. Water will always seek it's level, the world is 70% water (or so they say) it's irrelevant anyway, water doesn't stick to the exterior of a spinning ball.

Again I'll reaffirm the key point I'm trying to make, your statement isn't proof of anything.

Please provide me with evidence to support your waffle.
Just out of curiosity here:
  • The railgun works by using extremely high electrical currents to generate magnetic fields capable of accelerating a projectile to speeds of up to Mach 6, more than twice as fast as existing projectiles. The railgun has a range of more than 100 miles. It fires projectiles that destroy targets not with high explosive, but by smashing into them at hypersonic speeds.
  • The Navy's Railgun Is About to Get Faster and More Powerful
100 miles away is pretty far. How do they adjust for the curvature at those speeds, for it’s not an indirect weapon any longer.

You can calculate the required corrections for 100 miles here.
The bullets refract silly!

TH
 
Last edited:

Tool18

Member
Messages
25
Reactions
44
falt earth.jpg

round earth.jpg

Please provide me with your demonstrable proofs, you have just wrote a couple of paragraphs of nothingness.

You say the amount of evidence that available us remarkable? PLEASE PROVIDE THE PROOF.

Why do sun spots have anything to do with the dimensions of earth?

Why do earthquakes or weather prove the dimensions of earth?

THEY DON'T.

If you would take the time to read through the aforementioned posts you will soon come to realise that the world is built using plum and datum lines. Non of these lines work with any supposed curvature at all. Every architect, engineer, ship navigator has ever had to take the curvature of the earth in to consideration, ever!

Every architect / engineer has always used ucleadian plane geometry, working on the assumption of a flat stationary plane.

One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In leveling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”

“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance. The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a Stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.”

David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”

This is a fraction a mere fraction, of undeniable proof we don't live on a spinning ball.

I will paraphrase a few more below.

1. If space is a vacuum, how can we live in pressure without any form of solid separation?

2. Water will always seek it's level, the world is 70% water (or so they say) it's irrelevant anyway, water doesn't stick to the exterior of a spinning ball.

Again I'll reaffirm the key point I'm trying to make, your statement isn't proof of anything.

Please provide me with evidence to support your waffle.


The bullets refract silly!

TH
I am guessing you have no clue on how magnets work? haha

Rail guns are still subject to "gravity" or i call just acceleration and electrical in nature as gravity is not a force its a field modality, with this in mind, rail guns use electromagnetic energy to propel the object, I would assume that there would be a connection between electromagnetism used to propel the object and the magnetic field of the earth or even something to do with the high amount of kinetic energy would have a role in it.

There is also the fact that it says "capable", Meaning they never said once that they fire them at those distances. They will be firing them at, and if you research you will find they never fire them at those distances.
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,738
Reactions
19,365
There is also the fact that it says "capable", Meaning they never said once that they fire them at those distances. They will be firing them at, and if you research you will find they never fire them at those distances.
US Navy achieves '100 mile' hypersonic railgun test shot
  • This latest trial firing pushed muzzle energy to a blistering 33 megajoules (MJ). The muzzle velocity, as in the previous 10 MJ test in 2008, was still approximately Mach 7.5, but the heavier projectile used this time carried much more kinetic energy: approximately enough to strike targets 100 miles away in an operational weapon, according to the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The ONR wants to achieve lab trials at 64 MJ, potentially offering 200 mile range with projectiles striking at Mach 5, before trying to build an actual weapon.
Sounds like our science is based on theory, and not on fact.

There are different ways to deliver various points across. I wanted to take this opportunity to remind everyone just that. Let us stay civil please. This pertains to multiple participants. Let's keep our forum in a state conducive for having discussions.
 

Mabzynn

Well-known member
Messages
174
Reactions
738


I am guessing you have no clue on how magnets work? haha

Rail guns are still subject to "gravity" or i call just acceleration and electrical in nature as gravity is not a force its a field modality, with this in mind, rail guns use electromagnetic energy to propel the object, I would assume that there would be a connection between electromagnetism used to propel the object and the magnetic field of the earth or even something to do with the high amount of kinetic energy would have a role in it.

There is also the fact that it says "capable", Meaning they never said once that they fire them at those distances. They will be firing them at, and if you research you will find they never fire them at those distances.
How do magnets work?
 

Feralimal

Active member
Messages
95
Reactions
195
Interesting discussion. I'll throw in my 2 pennies worth too and add to the melee...

Surely just because planets appear to be round doesn't mean they literally are round. If I see something that appears spherical on my tv I don't literally have to believe that there is a sphere in my tv, right? That would be ludicrous. I can accept that when I see a round light on tv, it's just a projection. I can also conceive that the projection might be faithful to some objective truth - or not.

Wrt to the model we have of planetary movements and even our own planet, I accept that the best model works most accurately if we assume the lights we see at night really are spheres. But it's just a model! I don't really know the 'truth' of it - all I can verify is that the lights look like spheres. (I'm not an astronaut, so haven't personally experienced 'space' or 'tv studio' to make a claim either way.)

Mind you, the moon is a mighty odd sphere, always facing us, rotating in perfect symmetry with the earth, and appearing to be the exact same size as the sun at eclipses. The usfeasability of these 2 moon factors alone are enough for me to say that the commonly held consensus is not objectively plausible.

As all our institutions for truth (scientific, educational) have proven themselves to be lying/misleading us, we can't take things on trust. Unfortunately this means I don't think we can ever have enough information/data to reach another general consensus, one based in objective, logical, scientific-methodology derived truth. Oh well. I guess I'll have to be ok with not knowing the 'space truth' and will have to accept living with a level of ambiguity around this, sticking only with what I can personally verify.
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,303
Did I miss the post where somebody explained why the formula(s) for earth curvature don’t seem to work (or be used) in the real world? I have found nowhere where this is explained besides STUPID.
I’m really interested.

That, the lack of real video and images, the supposed van allen belt, vacuum or not, and the clincher...’we lost the information’ pretty much solidified my unbelief in the mainstream science. Whatever the earth and space are.
The math works- if it is a sphere, and that is all.
All this without even going into the problems with geocentricity. I’ve noticed how this is not brought up often by round earthers, to make a group.


Also, I personally like the feistiness of flat earthers in the face of condescension. Max Igan says ‘you’re hurting the cause! Falling into their trap!’ 😏 But did not explain why the formula doesn’t work.
 
Last edited:

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
592
Did I miss the post where somebody explained why the formula(s) for earth curvature don’t seem to work (or be used) in the real world? I have found nowhere where this is explained besides STUPID.
I’m really interested.
Example
The world's longest bridge is the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge in China, part of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway. The bridge, which opened in June 2011, spans 102.4 miles (165 kilometres)

16355

Lets look at what the architects and engineers have simply dismissed when building the bridge.

16357

16358

16359

Theres an example, just one. I will let you go and hunt for the rest. Literally everywhere, all over the world!

@Onijunbei

Now I have had time to sit down at my laptop and write a reply, I’m sorry for the heightened levels of sarcasm and the butting of heads. I am not professing to know anything other than what we are not. No model, no shape or form, we do not understand what we are living on as it is physically impossible to prove what the shape or form of earth actually looks like. I only know what we are not, it’s easy to pull holes in the heliocentric model or “space” if you like, it contains more inconsistencies than the back to the future franchise.

The idea of Earth being some sort of living organism resonates with me. If all living things grow from the earth, it has to be “alive” in some sort of way. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST AN IDEA!

To see how incredibly assumptive your claims are let’s break things down a little further.


Imagine a tree in a garden, a beautiful old apple tree. Every year it produces apples, it’s called an apple tree because the tree “apples”. Now earth, similarly with its array of peculiarities “peoples”. So in just the same way the tree “apples” the earth “peoples”.

We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," this world "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself. Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence. – Alan Watts

Now, we come here—right at the start—to an extremely important principle, which is the different points of view you get when you change your level of magnification. That is to say, you can look at something with a microscope and see it a certain way, you can look at it with a naked eye and see it in a certain way, you look at it with a telescope and you see it in another way.

Now, which level of magnification is the correct one? My telescope or yours?

When using a telescope things fall in and out of form depending on how far you zoom, you will find orderly things become disordered when looked at through a telescope, then, zoom in a little further and the chaos becomes order again, zoom in again and you will find order in an entirely different way. I’m proposing that this cycle doesn’t ever end, its infinite.

We are only as advanced as the instruments and technologies we have, now when you don’t trust government alphabet agencies and have a general understanding of this exact principle, you soon come to the realisation that no one has a clue about what is going on, at all!

How do we know that the best telescope we have (as a human race) is nowhere near powerful enough to make out the true nature or form of lights in the sky? Or the true form of anything for that matter.

You are trying to tell me you know exactly what these things are, it’s a form of hubris. You or no one else for that matter has an adequate image of anything in their heads, just other people’s ideas concepts or notions, I’m sorry but this doesn’t prove anything. Following concepts pushed from the hierarches with no solid grounds for any of it. All inductive pseudoscience, proved through mathematics and numbers on chalkboards. Neither of which are credible, demonstrable evidence.

Mathematics is a language, it’s used to describe, it’s a language! It’s not proof of anything, you can be lied to in English, Spanish, Italian and mathematics, exactly the same premise.

We are talking about different points of view here, just different points of view. You can, for example, look at a newspaper photograph under a magnifying glass and where, with the naked eye, you will see a human face, with a magnifying glass you will just see a profusion of dots rather meaninglessly scattered. However, as you stand away from that collection of dots, which all seem to be separate and apart from each other, they suddenly arrange themselves into a pattern. In addition, you see that these individual dots add up to some kind of sense.

Even our thoughts have, at some point been inserted in our heads, for we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent. So, you can now see the sheer impossibilities we face as humans.

Isn’t it beautiful? To actually not know anything other than what you are experiencing in this instant moment, everything else is an idea.

Nothing can be adequately described, in fact I would go as far to say there is nothing at all that can be talked about adequately, even the way you move your fingertips or the way you breath can’t be fully explained. For example you know that you can breath, it’s a conscious and sub-conscious action we perform but you have no idea how your nervous system makes sure you are still breathing when consciously tuned in to something else. You have no idea how you hair grows, how the blood pumps around the body in some sort of pendulum vacuum, you had no idea you are wearing an item of clothing until someone brings your conscious attention to it. You have no idea how your nervous systems turns vibrations from the air into complex sounds and install memories and feelings from said vibrations.

Can you open and close your fist?

You know how to do it? Of course you can, you know how to do it. However, you can’t put it into words and explain to someone how to do it can you?

No one can.

So you can see the highly inadequate image of ourselves we hold.

So if this is the case with the human constitution can you please tell me how your knowledge on the luminaries in the sky is adequate enough information to conclude we are living on a spinning ball?

It is not is it? It’s simply Information that has been passed on to you. No way of confirming any of it yourself.

You get the picture ...

TH
 
Last edited:

Tool18

Member
Messages
25
Reactions
44
Magnets work because they are made of metal and metal always contains pieces of gravity in them.
May I suggest a few videos that could give you some knowledge on magnetism and its importance in our universe, Something that Tesla also knew and discussed about along with many other scientist that Know one has ever heard of. Its quite fascinating, But I had to read a lot to understand it myself but once I did it was hard to stop and has been very interesting.

This guy has a lot of seriously useful information, though I don't like his constant putting down and calling everyone else other then himself stupid, and pointing out how smart he is, but I have to say he isn't wrong about most of the things he talks about. has proven a few "impossible in mainstream" things with experiments and teaching about a broad range of serious subjects. His work on the Ether, magnetism,





Some to get you started if you or anyone else is interested, I also believe someone more capable of understanding quicker could gain some seriously important knowledge, and i don't say that lightly. With some of the stuff he is talking about, especially in the areas of magnetism, gravity and secrets of the universe, and I hope I am not being over optimistic with his findings and research, but the implications are honestly quite staggering if I what I have learned is correct. Anyway there is months of stuff to get into here I have only given you a sample so feel free to quote this post anyone that has seen the videos and has an opinion, as I really value ALL opinions and theory's.

Edit: These are a handful of subjects that I am so fascinated about but can take me twice as long to completely understand some of the harder things he gets into. So I value everyone's opinions a lot, unfortunately I don't have a genius brain to retain and understand a lot of the things I am so fascinated about. I am by no means stupid but man I am sure people can relate, I just want to be able to a rain man and read a page every 5 seconds or something , all the while understanding it all completely. Man that would be awesome. So opinions are like gold, its easy to fall to emotional thinking or just simply not understanding something no matter how I dissect it. And I am also sure that this is one place that other people love being proved wrong on something as much as I do. Seeing something in a new light, almost for the first time after studying it for stupid amounts of time is exciting.

also wanted to mention above, I am sorry if i ever comes across as being aggressive or anything like that, Its partly due to online being the worst to convey emotions, but I always mean well and love everyone and sometimes its just due to my passion for whatever I am taking about. And in no way do I ever mean to come off as a know-it-all in anyway either. Just felt I needed to mention it as sometimes when I go through later on and read my comments, sometimes I can seem I am coming off like that. And I'll mention again, there is nothing better then some proper investigations and to be proven wrong or find your on the right track :)
 
Last edited:

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
592
May I suggest a few videos that could give you some knowledge on magnetism and its importance in our universe, Something that Tesla also knew and discussed about along with many other scientist that Know one has ever heard of. Its quite fascinating, But I had to read a lot to understand it myself but once I did it was hard to stop and has been very interesting.

This guy has a lot of seriously useful information, though I don't like his constant putting down and calling everyone else other then himself stupid, and pointing out how smart he is, but I have to say he isn't wrong about most of the things he talks about. has proven a few "impossible in mainstream" things with experiments and teaching about a broad range of serious subjects. His work on the Ether, magnetism,





Some to get you started if you or anyone else is interested, I also believe someone more capable of understanding quicker could gain some seriously important knowledge, and i don't say that lightly. With some of the stuff he is talking about, especially in the areas of magnetism, gravity and secrets of the universe, there is months of stuff to get into here I have only given you a sample so feel free to quote this post anyone that has seen the videos and has an opinion.
I whole heartedly agree with you for the most part, only magnetism isn't proof of the shape of our playing field but could prove the luminiferous aether (light-bearing).

The luminiferous aether is a medium that propagates light. The carrier for electromagnetism is the virtual photon. A virtual photon is a photon that only exists for a short time because it doesn't have enough energy. If you add energy, then virtual photons become real photons.

The luminiferous aether is a field that carries light and quite possibly the celestial bodies around the sky.

Georges Sagnac - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Proof_of_the_Reality_of_the_Luminiferous_Aether

Numerous scientists over the years including Tesla belived and experimented with the aether.

An Einstien Postulate (lies)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.

But nobody can explain how nature accomplishes this? They only say that they observe it.

Nobody questions it?

Hmmm ...


TH
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
514
Reactions
1,303
Example
The world's longest bridge is the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge in China, part of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway. The bridge, which opened in June 2011, spans 102.4 miles (165 kilometres)

16355

Lets look at what the architects and engineers have simply dismissed when building the bridge.

16357

16358

16359

Theres an example, just one. I will let you go and hunt for the rest. Literally everywhere, all over the world!

@Onijunbei

Now I have had time to sit down at my laptop and write a reply, I’m sorry for the heightened levels of sarcasm and the butting of heads. I am not professing to know anything other than what we are not. No model, no shape or form, we do not understand what we are living on as it is physically impossible to prove what the shape or form of earth actually looks like. I only know what we are not, it’s easy to pull holes in the heliocentric model or “space” if you like, it contains more inconsistencies than the back to the future franchise.

The idea of Earth being some sort of living organism resonates with me. If all living things grow from the earth, it has to be “alive” in some sort of way. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST AN IDEA!

To see how incredibly assumptive your claims are let’s break things down a little further.


Imagine a tree in a garden, a beautiful old apple tree. Every year it produces apples, it’s called an apple tree because the tree “apples”. Now earth, similarly with its array of peculiarities “peoples”. So in just the same way the tree “apples” the earth “peoples”.

We do not "come into" this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," this world "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself. Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence. – Alan Watts

Now, we come here—right at the start—to an extremely important principle, which is the different points of view you get when you change your level of magnification. That is to say, you can look at something with a microscope and see it a certain way, you can look at it with a naked eye and see it in a certain way, you look at it with a telescope and you see it in another way.

Now, which level of magnification is the correct one? My telescope or yours?

When using a telescope things fall in and out of form depending on how far you zoom, you will find orderly things become disordered when looked at through a telescope, then, zoom in a little further and the chaos becomes order again, zoom in again and you will find order in an entirely different way. I’m proposing that this cycle doesn’t ever end, its infinite.

We are only as advanced as the instruments and technologies we have, now when you don’t trust government alphabet agencies and have a general understanding of this exact principle, you soon come to the realisation that no one has a clue about what is going on, at all!

How do we know that the best telescope we have (as a human race) is nowhere near powerful enough to make out the true nature or form of lights in the sky? Or the true form of anything for that matter.

You are trying to tell me you know exactly what these things are, it’s a form of hubris. You or no one else for that matter has an adequate image of anything in their heads, just other people’s ideas concepts or notions, I’m sorry but this doesn’t prove anything. Following concepts pushed from the hierarches with no solid grounds for any of it. All inductive pseudoscience, proved through mathematics and numbers on chalkboards. Neither of which are credible, demonstrable evidence.

Mathematics is a language, it’s used to describe, it’s a language! It’s not proof of anything, you can be lied to in English, Spanish, Italian and mathematics, exactly the same premise.

We are talking about different points of view here, just different points of view. You can, for example, look at a newspaper photograph under a magnifying glass and where, with the naked eye, you will see a human face, with a magnifying glass you will just see a profusion of dots rather meaninglessly scattered. However, as you stand away from that collection of dots, which all seem to be separate and apart from each other, they suddenly arrange themselves into a pattern. In addition, you see that these individual dots add up to some kind of sense.

Even our thoughts have, at some point been inserted in our heads, for we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent. So, you can now see the sheer impossibilities we face as humans.

Isn’t it beautiful? To actually not know anything other than what you are experiencing in this instant moment, everything else is an idea.

Nothing can be adequately described, in fact I would go as far to say there is nothing at all that can be talked about adequately, even the way you move your fingertips or the way you breath can’t be fully explained. For example you know that you can breath, it’s a conscious and sub-conscious action we perform but you have no idea how your nervous system makes sure you are still breathing when consciously tuned in to something else. You have no idea how you hair grows, how the blood pumps around the body in some sort of pendulum vacuum, you had no idea you are wearing an item of clothing until someone brings your conscious attention to it. You have no idea how your nervous systems turns vibrations from the air into complex sounds and install memories and feelings from said vibrations.

Can you open and close your fist?

You know how to do it? Of course you can, you know how to do it. However, you can’t put it into words and explain to someone how to do it can you?

No one can.

So you can see the highly inadequate image of ourselves we hold.

So if this is the case with the human constitution can you please tell me how your knowledge on the luminaries in the sky is adequate enough information to conclude we are living on a spinning ball?

It is not is it? It’s simply Information that has been passed on to you. No way of confirming any of it yourself.

You get the picture ...

TH
I see what you’re saying and agree with a lot (with the addition of the Creator).
However the whole point is what we’ve been told as fact, with proof of math, images, etc.
debunking their facts doesn’t necessarily tell us what the earth and universe are., but does open the doors to further exploration.
As for confirming ourselves, many are engaged in just that and have seemed to falsify the simple formulas we were all taught in school.
Also, seeing the earth as a globe hurtling through space etc. versus being the center of the universe for instance, has profound effects on humanities spiritual outlook. Witness the visceral reaction when people talk about it.
It’s huge.
Edited to add I think all this underground stuff (which screams secrecy), historically and current, has something to do with this too- perhaps not just disaster avoidance.
 
Last edited:

madroona

Member
Messages
41
Reactions
89
...
Also, seeing the earth as a globe hurtling through space etc. versus being the center of the universe for instance, has profound effects on humanities spiritual outlook. Witness the visceral reaction when people talk about it.
It’s huge.
Edited to add I think all this underground stuff (which screams secrecy), historically and current, has something to do with this too- perhaps not just disaster avoidance.
One logical fallacy that emerges from FE energy is the idea that a non-globe existence thusly denotes a centre-of-everything state. It does no such thing, as it also in no way proves or disproves any one of the myriad of religious postures. Further, it does not even truly preclude a reality we generally call space. We could very well be one of many holding zones for biological experiments, we could be an after-thought in something's bigger efforts, we could be any one of vast number of things.
 

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
95
Reactions
382
May I suggest a few videos that could give you some knowledge on magnetism and its importance in our universe, Something that Tesla also knew and discussed about along with many other scientist that Know one has ever heard of. Its quite fascinating, But I had to read a lot to understand it myself but once I did it was hard to stop and has been very interesting.

This guy has a lot of seriously useful information, though I don't like his constant putting down and calling everyone else other then himself stupid, and pointing out how smart he is, but I have to say he isn't wrong about most of the things he talks about. has proven a few "impossible in mainstream" things with experiments and teaching about a broad range of serious subjects. His work on the Ether, magnetism,





Some to get you started if you or anyone else is interested, I also believe someone more capable of understanding quicker could gain some seriously important knowledge, and i don't say that lightly. With some of the stuff he is talking about, especially in the areas of magnetism, gravity and secrets of the universe, there is months of stuff to get into here I have only given you a sample so feel free to quote this post anyone that has seen the videos and has an opinion.
Thank you for sharing this with all of us. His explanations and visuals were powerfully effective in delivering some key knowledge.

I don’t find him condescending in the least, to be sure. In my opinion, he seems to be directing his disdain at institutional post-Newtonian “science” and lamenting those whose minds are the products of it (that would be all of us, one could argue) more than anything else.

Nevertheless, thank you again for sharing this, as I think we all may agree more than we may realize - especially that the institutions of modern science has led us to conclusions about *many* things (and not just the shape of the earth) that are faulty or incomplete at best, and deceptive at worst.

Many of us surely sense, in our own respective fields of interests, that the modern sciences serve as a gatekeeper of truth, leaving us in the dark on things that may only benefit the “powers that be” when kept from the masses - be it seen to the many disparate “truther” groups out there as: the secret of free energy, the secret space program, fake-space, the prison planet theory, HAARP, cryptozoology, Mandela effect theory, CERN, the alien seed theory, the hollow earth theory, expanding earth, hyperborea, Atlantis, flat earth, stolen history...the list goes on and on.

In my opinion, it is a shame to the degree that many have such an indignant reaction to flat earth theory compared to the others I’ve listed above, as I do discount almost all of them myself, truth be told, and could find them equally as “silly” and unnecessary (and view certain social media representatives/voices of some of those theories not so much as “nut jobs”, but rather, at the very least, somewhat under-informed and uncritical in thought, although I wouldn’t feel the need to call them and their followers out publicly).

I get it that the argument against the questioning the nature of our realm may not entirely be about flat earth theory, but rather about **flat earthers** and their terrible attitudes, unscientific minds, or that they consist mainly of government plants conducting psychological operations and gullible followers. I rarely hear another of the other aforementioned theories held to such scrutiny or with such disdain.

But I digress, and, to be sure, I am not at all complaining, as I choose my path and have no reservations about speaking my voice nor feel victim to not being heard, nor feel that I must convert others to my world view. To be sure, I consider myself pro-fake-space and otherwise merely a friend of “flat earthers”, even though some may not be as critically-minded as others, and even when there are some that have very much infiltrated that community with malicious and malignant intentions.

Truth be told, and regardless of what one may think of any of the above, there is an ever-present information war that is and always has been waged on the public at large, and the current battle is taking place online where there still somewhat remains a broad and free exchange of real knowledge. I am sure we can all agree with that and is why we are here on this forum together now, and for that I am grateful for what we all are contributing to that exchange.

So, again, thank you all for sharing your perspective on this thread, I appreciate the civil discussion.
 
Last edited:
Top