FLAT GLOBE

Seashore wrote:

mudra wrote:

Seashore wrote:The following sounds contradictory to me:

Heliocentric theory:

The Earth spins in an anti-clockwise direction (if viewed looking down from the North Pole). . . . The sun is seen to travel in the sky East to West because the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction West to East. . . .

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/

To me, anti-clockwise would be East to West, not West to East.  So it seems first it says the Earth spins East to West, but then it says West to East.  

What is said ...
What is meant :

In the Heliocentric theory  the sun appears to travel from East to West but this is because it is  the Earth that moves around the Sun in a clockwise manner ( West to East ) while spinning at the same time in a anti-clockwise one ( East  to West ).

Love from me
mudra

You're saying that "rotating" is the Earth orbiting the Sun, not spinning on its axis?    

I had read it as another word for spin, not even realizing I did it.  I think a lot of times the words spin and rotate are used for what the Earth is doing on its axis and revolve or orbit for its travel around the Sun.

Thanks, Mudra!!  I can rest now.

Sounds like we agree anti-clockwise (I would say counterclockwise) is equivalent to East to West and clockwise is West to East.

Moving (rotating) around the sun and spinning around are two diferent movements.

Counterclockwise means - when looking from above (sitting on the northpol) and looking straight ahead of you - west to east, relatively in the terms of how we see this movement from the equator.

But to be honest, if one would be sitting on the northpol and be able to watch that movement, you would only be aware of spinning right to left. Up there, there would be no east or west.

Mall...

malletzky wrote:Counterclockwise means - when looking from above (sitting on the northpol) and looking straight ahead of you - west to east, relatively in the terms of how we see this movement from the equator.

But to be honest, if one would be sitting on the northpol and be able to watch that movement, you would only be aware of spinning right to left. Up there, there would be no east or west.

Mall...

Yes, when talking about spin direction, it makes more sense to leave East and West out of it and just talk right to left or left to right/counterclockwise or clockwise.

Seashore.. is there anything in the ebook that explains why the moon appears upside down in the southern 'hemisphere', as opposed to the northern hemisphere?. I cant understand how this would work on a flat earth. Or why you get crescent shaped shadows on the moon? (suggesting a globe and not a flat disk)

Vidya Moksha wrote:Seashore.. is there anything in the ebook that explains why the moon appears upside down in the southern 'hemisphere', as opposed to the northern hemisphere?.

That's part of the official story?  I didn't know that.

I did a search and it brought up nothing.  I also don't remember reading anything about that.

Vidya Moksha wrote: Or why you get crescent shaped shadows on the moon? (suggesting a globe and not a flat disk)

I also can't find anything on that.  He should have covered that.  I searched his website and found a Comment on it.  The reason, I guess, that he didn't cover it, is that he doesn't know.  That's quite a weakness in his theory, isn't it?

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-flat-earth-conspiracy.html

That "dark disk" sounds a lot like dark matter.  

Here's the video he referenced:

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:Seashore.. is there anything in the ebook that explains why the moon appears upside down in the southern 'hemisphere', as opposed to the northern hemisphere?.

That's part of the official story?  I didn't know that.

its not part of any story, but part of nature. One of the first things I noticed when I was living in New Zealand is that the moon was upside down! Its quite remarkable to see something you are so familiar with 'suddenly' looking quite different.

Not sure how this would fit into a flat earth model, as i say

Vidya Moksha wrote:

Seashore wrote:

Vidya Moksha wrote:Seashore.. is there anything in the ebook that explains why the moon appears upside down in the southern 'hemisphere', as opposed to the northern hemisphere?.

That's part of the official story?  I didn't know that.

its not part of any story, but part of nature. One of the first things I noticed when I was living in New Zealand is that the moon was upside down! Its quite remarkable to see something you are so familiar with 'suddenly' looking quite different.

Not sure how this would fit into a flat earth model, as i say

Befriend Eric on FB and ask him that question.

burgundia wrote:
Befriend Eric on FB and ask him that question.

I did that already (ie befriended him, I havent made contact yet) I am compiling a list of questions (over time)... I just thought I would first ask if it was covered in his book.

Despite my unusual activity in here, this subject, whilst interesting, is well down my list of things to do.. so it will be a while before i compile my list.

Vidya Moksha wrote:its not part of any story, but part of nature. One of the first things I noticed when I was living in New Zealand is that the moon was upside down! Its quite remarkable to see something you are so familiar with 'suddenly' looking quite different.

Not sure how this would fit into a flat earth model, as i say

This article agrees with your personal experience.  Here's a question:

I live in the southern hemisphere near Melbourne, Australia (about 35 degrees south latitude). I have some visitors from the USA (Colorado) who say they noticed that the face of the moon looks different in the southern hemisphere than from their vantage point in the northern hemisphere. This view is not from a telescope/binoculars but just unaided eyesight. Would the moons face be noticeably different from northern and southern hemispherical (unaided) view points?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/general-physics/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner

And the answer:

I'm not surprised they noticed a difference in the appearance of the moon. Had they tilted their head and looked at the Moon upside down, it would have looked normal (to them anyway). In short, the moon looks upside down in the southern hemisphere (or in your case the moon would look upside down in the northern hemisphere). I noticed exactly the same thing on my first trip to southern hemisphere.

To understand why this happens, imagine for simplicity that the orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. Now imagine that you are standing on the equator. The Moon would be directly overhead. First face north and look straight up at the Moon. It should look like it does in Australia. Now turn and face south and look at the Moon. You are now looking at the Moon flipped from how it looked when facing north. This is how the moon looks in the northern hemisphere to your American friends.

The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/general-physics/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner

The moon wobbles apparently .


Moon rise



Moon set


 

Does the moon rotate ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGnIuqYKnTE#t=15


Moon phases for 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YXhnQcoyOw#t=270



http://www.universetoday.com/19699/does-the-moon-rotate/

Love from
mudra

I think it is clear that the world is not how we are led to believe. Many of the flat earth theories strike a chord.. but also fall short of perceived reality. Its rather like the old story of blind men examining an elephant, and I am not sure yet that we have pieced together all the parts of the puzzle.

This is fun:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/

snippet here:

Aristotle’s three proofs [of a globe] were:

First. The disappearance of a ship as it sails over the horizon, the hull vanishing first, and the masts and rigging last, and the reappearance of an approaching ship in reverse order.

Second. The curving shape of the earth’s shadow on the moon during an eclipse.

Third. The changing aspect of the heavens in different latitudes, some stars disappearing and others appearing, as the polar star in the northern hemisphere and the southern cross south of the equator.

“There is not a scintilla of truth in any of them,” Voliva retorts, “and yet you will find them in every geography, and every primary teacher repeats them like a parrot. I decline to be a parrot. A parrot is a man who never thinks for himself, but repeats what he hears without any questions as to why or wherefore.”

Zion maintains that the disappearance of a ship over a horizon hull first is an optical illusion of perspective, no different from the apparent merging of the railroad tracks in the distance. A man at the foot of a tree a couple of miles across a plain may be invisible, while the tree itself stands up against the sky and is visible for miles. Earth curvature of eight inches to the mile is not sufficient to explain the invisibility of the man.

As for Aristotle’s second point, Voliva and his followers maintain there is no proof that the curving shadow of an eclipse is the shadow of the earth, and maintain that there have been several eclipses within historical times in which both sun and moon were visible at the same time, so that the eclipse could not have, been due to the earth’s shadow.

As for the third proof, the Zionites and other believers in the Zetetic Astronomy of “Parallax” maintain that the stars are set in a hemispherical dome so low and close to the earth that not all stars can be visible from any one point. Dr. Samuel B. Rowbottom, of England, who, under the name of “Parallax” provided the explanations for all natural phenomena to fit the flat world theory, died in 1884, but his followers have kept his work alive.

Awesome find Vidhya

Love from me
mudra

The Measurable Non-Curvature of the Flat Earth

NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight-forward matter of measurements and calculations.



For example, the distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man’s Douglas Harbor to Great Orm’s Head in North Wales is 60 miles.  If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end!  It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm’s Head is visible from Douglas Harbor.  This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles.  Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/02/flat-earth-curvature.html

It seems that what he's saying there could be verified one way or the other.

Seashore wrote:
It seems that what he's saying there could be verified one way or the other.

I really dont think these sorts of measurements can be disputed, there are just too many of them. So we know the supposed viewing distances are greater than theoretical prediction, sometimes a lot more. I have no doubt at all. It is further evidence that things are not as we believe them to be.

In itself though, it is not proof of a flat earth.

And no, I cant explain what it does it mean

Vidya Moksha wrote:

Seashore wrote:
It seems that what he's saying there could be verified one way or the other.

I really dont think these sorts of measurements can be disputed, there are just too many of them. So we know the supposed viewing distances are greater than theoretical prediction, sometimes a lot more. I have no doubt at all. It is further evidence that things are not as we believe them to be.

In itself though, it is not proof of a flat earth.

And no, I cant explain what it does it mean

Do you think engineers do have to factor curvature for canals?

Seashore wrote:

Do you think engineers do have to factor curvature for canals?

I wouldnt have thought so, water is level, so the canal would have to be level for water to flow through it. Level in this sense is irrespective of surrounding geology, in respect of the surrounding ground level the canal would have to be deeper in some sections and built up in others.

From Walter Russell's book: A New Concept of the Universe
Chapter IX : Polarity Periodicity Is The Basis Of The Constitution Of Matter

....All matter is thus divided into positive solids surrounded by negative space.

As matter begins its formation into spheres its first shape is disk-like, for it begins as the base of a cone . In a series of efforts which constitute the octave wave, the first disc-like effort gradually prolates until the perfect sphere is formed at wave amplitude. This is the process by means of which " matter emerges from space ".

...

Conversely as true spheres oblate , the two balancing poles move away from the pole of rotation and toward the wave axis, until depolarization is completed and magnetic poles disappear in the plane of the wave axis. This is the manner in which " space swallows up matter. "

...

This process takes place in every creating particle of matter or any combination of particles, wheter in man, ant, electron , or nebula.

...

The entire process of polarization and depolarization of every action-reaction of Nature could well be described as a lever reaching out in opposite directions from it's fulcrum until it could reach no farther, then reversing those directions and unwillingly withdrawing into it's fulcrum where motion ceases, to again and again reverse.

Love Always
mudra

Vidya Moksha wrote:

Seashore wrote:

Do you think engineers do have to factor curvature for canals?

I wouldnt have thought so, water is level, so the canal would have to be level for water to flow through it. Level in this sense is irrespective of surrounding geology, in respect of the surrounding ground level the canal would have to be deeper in some sections and built up in others.

Are you saying that surveyors and engineers probably self-correct for the curvature of the earth by making the bottom of the canal level at each mile of the canal taking the terrain at each mile as a separate project?  Or something like that?

Seashore wrote:
Are you saying that surveyors and engineers probably self-correct for the curvature of the earth by making the bottom of the canal level at each mile of the canal taking the terrain at each mile as a separate project?  Or something like that?

yes.

but the so called curvature of the earth does seem to be odds with theoretical predictions.

ive just watched the storm event filmed from the space station... clear round ball evident again from the images.

Vidya Moksha wrote: clear round ball evident again from the images.

Apparently NASA openly admits that their images are computer generated.

Why can't they just take a picture?

B.B.Baghor wrote:From a massive point of view, pun intended, are we now in that part of the creation process, on that plane maybe,
at the level of disappearance of form as well as at the level of appearance of form? The old Earth dissolving and a
new Earth forming? Is that what "flat earth" believers tap into maybe? Explaining planet Earth on that level?
With my mind and sense of body, I can't follow that trail, I can't see evolution present in a 2 dimensional plane,
but I'm enjoying to loosen up in my fixed views and opinions.

If that's true, what's presented in Walter Russel's drawing, I think we need to include the energy in this
creation process. We need to include the motion of that energy, shown in this image. That's similar in how the tiniest
human babylife begins in a womans body. It's been photographed, I can imagine that those flowing motions of energy
are applied to large celestial bodies too. Like the motions of galaxies, although showing a flat plane from a distance,
in reality moving along spiraling paths, swirling. I enjoy this thread very much. This image is a gif image, I can't make
it work to be present in motion, could you do some magic again, mudra?

Well yes BB Earth is a creation process at some stage of creation / decreation . Without the  " zero Light of the universal equilibrium " or  " Creator " ( Russell's terms )  whose mind is her fulcrum  there would be no Earth to view. So we should definitely take this into account. Understanding how Consciousness/ Creator functions and operates is basic to understand the world.

As Eric Dubay mentioned the Ancients spoke of a flat Earth at a time which were no dark ages for civilization. According to Russell's understanding of the universe could it be they were referring to Earth  when she  was in the stage of a disk ? This disk gradually continuing it's journey of manifestion until it reached a sphere ? Once the sphere is completed the process of depolarization would begin and earth return to the disk stage etc..until total decreation and creation again  on and on. And which stage of the process are we witnessing today ?

Here we go BB



Love from me
mudra

Seashore wrote:
Apparently NASA openly admits that their images are computer generated.

Why can't they just take a picture?

The ISS orbits at approximately 220 miles above the Earth .The ISS can be seen with our naked eyes.
(NASA’s Spot the Station program lets you sign up to receive alerts to let you know when the ISS will be visible from your location – anywhere in the world.)
http://earthsky.org/space/how-to-spot-the-international-space-station

One can follow ISS views of Earth life on UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

220 miles ... that's not a far enough distance from Earth to be able  to take a full picture of it Seashore.

Love from me
mudra