Flat Earth & Alternative Space Models

[Andro]

Does that model allow for the Black Sun to be out side of our universe of Duality?

Can't speak for the model, I didn't come up with it. But it's not out-rulable.

But I find it interesting (in this model) that the "prime" luminaries are the "black sun" and its projection on the "firmament" (Polaris/North Star), whereas the "regular" sun and moon are "secondary" luminaries, essentially plasma foci generated via interference patterns by the "primary" luminaries.

imagine if its actually flat

According to abstract & theoretical "scientific" modelling, it's a "globe".

According to countless actual measurements, it's more towards "flat".

Either way, more than Heliocentric or Geocentric, it's Mind-Centric. And Ex-Centric, too!

Highly unlikely as I saw the curvature of the horizon myself on a flight from Guam to Japan.

I never saw any curvature from any plane. Neither did very high altitude balloons record ANY curvature (except if they're from NASA or other state/corporate agencies).

However, multiple times during OOB, I saw our current realm as definitely NOT a "globe planet", but not exactly a "flat plane", either.

More like a multilayered realm composed of various "dream-scape" levels and sub-realms.

But my personal experience doesn't "prove" anything.

As for the propaganda from the corporate machine masquerading as "science", it's all make-believe and theoretical/abstract modelling, and has been so for a long time.

Since Kindergarten we're all being indoctrinated with globes in the classrooms.

It's very difficult to even consider different models (without going into CogDis or resorting to trolling with no actual arguments based in reason) after being programmed from such an early age.

 

[Lakshmana]

 

[Andro]

Metaphysically speaking, I find this to be quite representative.

Dormant brain -> believes it's round

Lit up brain -> sees it's flat

Universal/Liberated mind -> knows it's (metaphysically) a cube / prison / eternal recurrence

Vibes of Cosmos

Yep, that's the YT channel. Quite intriguing. One big Clockwork Orange

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Can't speak for the model, I didn't come up with it. But it's not out-rulable.

But I find it interesting (in this model) that the "prime" luminaries are the "black sun" and its projection on the "firmament" (Polaris/North Star), whereas the "regular" sun and moon are "secondary" luminaries, essentially plasma foci generated via interference patterns by the "primary" luminaries.



According to abstract & theoretical "scientific" modelling, it's a "globe".

According to countless actual measurements, it's more towards "flat".

Either way, more than Heliocentric or Geocentric, it's Mind-Centric. And Ex-Centric, too!





I never saw any curvature from any plane. Neither did very high altitude balloons record ANY curvature (except if they're from NASA or other state/corporate agencies).

Well, I did, as did many others - and we are not all bribed by NASA/NSA/the Illuminati to state this! But I understand it takes excellent viewing conditions, including a cloudless sky and a sufficient altitude of the plane.

However, multiple times during OOB, I saw our current realm as definitely NOT a "globe planet", but not exactly a "flat plane", either.

More like a multilayered realm composed of various "dream-scape" levels and sub-realms.

It's conceivable that our planet presents herself differently when looked at from various multi-dimensionally oriented, altered states of consciousness.

But to assume that, in terms of our physical reality, she is literally a disk is quite a flat assumption IMO. There's just too much that doesn't add up.

For one thing, how do Flat-Earth theorists account for the fact that the Sun (along with other celestial bodies, of course) is high up in the sky as seen from one location, while from another (thousands of kilometers away), he is simultaneously just rising? If Earth's surface were a flat plane, at any given time, the Sun's altitude ought to be the same regardless of the observer's location.

But my personal experience doesn't "prove" anything.

As for the propaganda from the corporate machine masquerading as "science", it's all make-believe and theoretical/abstract modelling, and has been so for a long time.

Since Kindergarten we're all being indoctrinated with globes in the classrooms.

It's very difficult to even consider different models (without going into CogDis or resorting to trolling with no actual arguments based in reason) after being programmed from such an early age.

I agree that we should try to remain open to alternative perspectives. But talking about the shape of the Earth, there are just so many simple observations that can easily be explained by her being a ball, not a disk.

 

[Andro]

Well, I did, as did many others - and we are not all bribed by NASA/NSA/the Illuminati to state this!

No need to be bribed. Just conditioned from a very early age. We often see what we are programmed/conditioned/hypnotized to see. Many experiments have demonstrated this.

Think of Santa Klaus. Impossible he's not real. Too many people would have to be "in" on this

There's just too much that doesn't add up.

And much, much more that's doesn't add up with the theoretical globe model.

Do you know why Geocentrism was rejected by certain well known men of science? On grounds of "philosophy" (Hubble) or "modesty/humility" (Hawking). Just two examples.

Do you know that "Gravity" is and always has been a THEORY? Nowadays they are rephrasing it to "Law of Gravity". Hilarious.

Did you know that during the life of Wilhelm Reich, a US court ruled that "Orgone energy does not exist"?
That's how Natural Philosophy (meanwhile rebranded as "science" and "physics") is kept hidden and suppressed.
Researchers who reach the "wrong" conclusions either stop receiving grants or are completely removed and de-legitimized.
That's how and why we're all indoctrinated with "globes" since Kindergarten, to the point that we defend the corporate party line even if it defies all reason or direct observation.
And speaking of direct observation: With enough conditioning, you will also see the earth's curvature from ground level and even declare under oath that 2+2=5.

For one thing, how do Flat-Earth theorists account for the fact that the Sun (along with other celestial bodies, of course) is high up in the sky as seen from one location, while from another (thousands of kilometers away), he is simultaneously just rising? If Earth's surface were a flat plane, at any given time, the Sun's altitude ought to be the same regardless of the observer's location.

Perspective. Get yourself a Nikon Coolpix P1000 lens (x125) and see for yourself. Also, the sun is not stationary relative to the earth PLANEt.

But talking about the shape of the Earth, there are just so many simple observations that can easily be explained by her being a ball, not a disk.

It's not about "explaining". It's about direct observation. In theoretical/abstract modelling, everything can be "explained", mostly by manipulating the observed reality (or by hiding it) to fit the theory. Or by literally inventing theoretical forces and phenomena that have never been measured or demonstrated except on a blackboard or in computer modelling or in "thought experiments". Doesn't make them correct.

Go watch the sun set. Or a ship "disappearing below the curvature". Then grab a Nikon P1000, and see them magically reappear in your field of vision.

 

[Jimmy Rig]

I will just say that yesterday while blowing bubbles with the children in the backyard I remarked on how the surface tension of the water when not forced against a rigid surface (in the air) will want to form a ball. The same concept could apply to planets, stars etc in a non-dense environment (space)

However based on my own observations I can see the flat earth everywhere.
I have not been "up" there to see so I am content with not arguing it either way.

Has anybody seen the documentary/movie mandela effect? It gets at the "cube", simulation idea and was a pretty neat movie for me to watch as I also have experienced these "mandela effects".

Why are many of our structures and civilization squared?
Why not use the golden ratios found in nature? (I guess the rectangle counts too... HA)
Listen to this song:

If your on the square, does this mean that you have surrendered your circle of life existence to live in the squared up space?

"Are you on the square"

Interesting how in FM the "squaring the circle" square and compass.
Even the symbol for philosophical mercury could be viewed as a grid (square) 4 cardinal points surrounding the circle.

 

[Lakshmana]

To me its just something funny to think about I don't really mind what shape or shapelessness I'm in

 

[Andro]

I don't really mind what shape or shapelessness I'm in.

As an Alchemist working with Natural Philosophy, maybe you should

 

[Lakshmana]

I was picking pine pollen and had the taught to build a pyramid shaped shed-lab aligned to north star, that sounds really cool to me

Here's more moon/earth shape ideas

 

[Andro]

aligned to north star, that sounds really cool to me

If the model I posted earlier has any validity (presenting the North/Pole Star as a projection from a "Black Sun"), and given the significance given in some Alchemical texts to the North/Pole Star, this sounds like an interesting endeavor.

 

[Lakshmana]

I would imagine that it would make crystallizations cleaner water more workable growing things faster etc etc

I've seen the northern lights flicker over my head its the weirdest most magical thing a holy energy

 

[Kibric]

Why are many of our structures and civilization squared?

a grid (square) 4 cardinal points surrounding the circle.

Answered your own question.

The 1st dwellings that werent caves used the understanding of the 4 elements to create infrastructure.
The stick and the rope, the origin of the square and compass, was used to create grids of squares over land. Each point of the square representing one of the 4 elements.
The circle you can trace by using these points on a square was seen as the 5th element. That which comes from all 4 together. This geometrically is true.
Houses then towns then cities were built using grids of squares. We still use this method today.

The orgin of Squareing the circle is the 4 points within a circle that can be traced into a square. This square contains another circle you can trace.
This was all learnt from using a stick and a rope in dirt to make grids.

The groups of people who learnt this from sumerians eventually became the proto Masons, Dionision? Articfirers?.

Now all the masons build the cities.

 

[Jimmy Rig]

Answered your own question.

The 1st dwellings that werent caves used the understanding of the 4 elements to create infrastructure.
The stick and the rope, the origin of the square and compass, was used to create grids of squares over land. Each point of the square representing one of the 4 elements.
The circle you can trace by using these points on a square was seen as the 5th element. That which comes from all 4 together. This geometrically is true.
Houses then towns then cities were built using grids of squares. We still use this method today.

The orgin of Squareing the circle is the 4 points within a circle that can be traced into a square. This square contains another circle you can trace.
This was all learnt from using a stick and a rope in dirt to make grids.

The groups of people who learnt this from sumerians eventually became the proto Masons, Dionision? Articfirers?.

Now all the masons build the cities.

Very cool and it seems so obvious now.
Thanks for your direct and candid answer!

 

[Andro]

Also, we don't see any planets that are flat as a pancake out there in space.

the surface tension of the water when not forced against a rigid surface (in the air) will want to form a ball. The same concept could apply to planets, stars etc in a non-dense environment (space).
However based on my own observations I can see the flat earth everywhere.

In a way, it's both. The "Construct" seems to be a globe/torus shaped "bubble universe", while the surfaces we inhabit seem more akin to level planes. With some wrinkles.

Take another look at the model I've posted. There's also a masonic Square & Compass in there

 

[Andro]

Here's some reading material for researchers who want to dig a bit deeper.

Those two texts are from the late 19th century and are written for the experimental & empirically minded (as opposed to abstract theoreticians).

Not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just think it may be useful to explore views that are different from the ones we've been programmed/conditioned with.

Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Is Not A Globe - by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

One Hundred Proofs That The Earth Is Not A Globe - by William Carpenter

 

[Andro]

Does that model allow for the Black Sun to be out side of our universe of Duality?

I did some explorations over the last two nights, and my observation is that ALL the Luminaries are an integral part of the Earth Reality System:

The primary Black Sun/Polaris pair and the interference pattern derived Sun/Moon pair.

The Black Sun "below" is akin to the "Motor" of the System. The Pole Star is its "above" correspondent/projection.

Both of those respectively emanate & reflect the "energy" or "Spiritus", either directly or via the secondary luminaries (Sun & Moon). It's a design/engineering thing.

There is no need for any "Black Suns" "outside" of "dualistic" Reality Systems such as ours.

This being said, there is no "inside" and "outside", ultimately. The focus of presence/attention can shift, but we're not talking about different "locales".

 

[Bellsprout]

Also, we don't see any planets that are flat as a pancake out there in space.

True, it would be hard to tell with most of them. But Jupiter, for instance, clearly has features on it that go around it as it rotates relative to the Earth. The Great Red Spot moves from one side to the other and out of sight. You don't at any time see the "edge of Jupiter".

 

[Alkasior]

Hi,

I see a lot of people belive in this flat earth stuff. Im not one of them. I also dont have enough evidence to support either of the flat or the non flat part, so i cant tell with 100% what is the truth. Untill such 100% evidence is found, i will remain open minded to either of the posibilities. I will be jist as happy to find out if its flat or non flat.( i love creation, whatever that may be).

But...

I have my own arguments to support the non flat, maybe someone can debunk these, but i think one has to have his own oppinions and questions about reality, not just what you see on the media or youtube. I will post some of my ideas, just food for thougth.

What if somebody has a agenda and is pushing this theory of flat earth to the masses? (Plenty of reasons why, one can be just to keep us busy and fight amongst each other, while in the background somebody has something to gain).

I try to follow nature. I look for example at air bubles formed in the water...why they are manifested as a sphere?

Have a gel, shake it or let some air be formed inside of the gel....the air bubles again, will be formed as a sphere.

Look at rain drops, if they were not falling, they will not have their tails...and be also spheres.

Make a water-soup baloon filled with air(a small one), let it fly in the air, it will be a sphere.

Look at the formation of a tornado in the ocean(becouse it not influenced by land masses to change its course or to destroy it). Follow its movements, it has a specific pattern of moving, if you dont know this yet, look it up before postulating 100% earth is flat.

Do we have hemispheres? How are they influencing the weather. One way to know they are real, just travel from n hemisphere to s hemishere. The stars will change their altitude(look up also right ascension).

Ever heard of corriolis effect?

Ask yourself, why does the rivers have bends? Why they have that specific bend, turning left or right? Some of them becouse of specific geographic position, but moust of them follow a specific pattern, that indictes a spinning object(the earth).

If this flat earth scenario, how is it spinning to form the corriolis effect? I dont imagine a square(our flat earth) in the middle of space just spining. Where is all the water going in this flar earth spinning model, and how its new water generated if its all falling down the edges?

Look at hail, also they form moustly as tiny spheres(so if somebody if making artificially our nature....why do they choose to make them look like sphere? Why do we have supposedly this artificial hail in the middle of the ocean also, where no human are and cannot convince them that nature is artificial).

Look at meteors, how are they entering our atmosphere. Is a cabal that powerfull to send meteors in the middle of the ocean also? From where are they bringing this meteors?

Lets say that iss is not real and they are fake. So i look at water(a similar medium compared to imponderability). The air bubles again, i already touch on this.

I have plenty more such questions, that supports the idea of a sphere shaped body and not a flat one.

Make a experiment. Take a steel object and drop it from 2m high measure the distance from the drom point untill the landing point(flat on the earth). Now take the same object, go to a high point, maybe some 100m high and drop it. Measure the distance from the drop point to the landing point. Are they the same? In a flat earth model, it should be. In a spinning sphere model, no.

If you are in a ocean, in good visibility, no atmosferic refraction(influenced by water vapors due to too much heat from the sun, just normal temperatures). Have a object high as 60m at a distance of 30miles. Do you see it? Bring it closer to 25miles. Do you see it? Brig it to 20miles...it will start to show, but only the top part of the object. When its getting more close, you will see more of the mid body, when its more close you can see its full heigth(top, middle and bottom). Why is that? In a flat earth model, at the distance where you can furst see the object, it should appear full, but small. In a sphere model, it will show top first, middle and when closer and closer the bottom part(becouse of the earth curvature).

Ok, i will stop here. I have many more such questions.

Just look at nature, she will tell you the answer, whatever that may be. Every one has a mind of his own and draw his own conclusins. But also be prepared for unexpected results(nature is funny that way). Whatever you think you know 100%, may be more like 50% haha.( i will not go into more details here, plenty learned men out there, more than me).

Has any one heard of Galileo Galilei and his theories? (Hes just one to claim such theories).

This post is only about questions, i dont know 100% if its flat or not.

Bu my current thinking is, as above so below.

Sorry for any grammar mistakes, the idees behind them are the important part.

Cheers.

 

[Andro]

If this flat earth scenario, how is it spinning to form the corriolis effect? I dont imagine a square(our flat earth) in the middle of space just spining. Where is all the water going in this flar earth spinning model, and how its new water generated if its all falling down the edges?

The inhabited plane is stationary. Celestial bodies are indeed moving/revolving.

If you are in a ocean, in good visibility, no atmosferic refraction(influenced by water vapors due to too much heat from the sun, just normal temperatures). Have a object high as 60m at a distance of 30miles. Do you see it? Bring it closer to 25miles. Do you see it? Brig it to 20miles...it will start to show, but only the top part of the object. When its getting more close, you will see more of the mid body, when its more close you can see its full heigth(top, middle and bottom). Why is that? In a flat earth model, at the distance where you can furst see the object, it should appear full, but small. In a sphere model, it will show top first, middle and when closer and closer the bottom part (becouse of the earth curvature).

A good telescopic lens will put an end to this. Nikon P1000 is recommended for such experiments. Things that "disappear on the horizon" will be miraculously brought back into vision. What we see in action is the vanishing point of perspective.

I have many more such questions.

Read the 2 books I have linked earlier on this thread. They are written for the inquisitive empirical mind and answer many questions.

Otherwise, all you need to prove it to yourself is a Telescopic lens with at least x125 (for bringing back "disappearing" stuff on the horizon) and a high altitude balloon with a non-fish-eye camera lens (to see that there is no visible curvature even from very high altitudes).

Unless the earth is many, many time larger than what the "science" are claiming, those two instruments will say bye-bye to the curvature.

 

[Alkasior]

I will take a look at those books.

The ocean experiment i performed, with a 42x lense(i was thinking this is enough), i was at about 50m high, and the observed object was behaving as for a sphere model. Maybe with a stronger magnification it will be different results.

 

[Andro]

True, it would be hard to tell with most of them. But Jupiter, for instance, clearly has features on it that go around it as it rotates relative to the Earth. The Great Red Spot moves from one side to the other and out of sight. You don't at any time see the "edge of Jupiter".

Celestial "bodies" do in fact move/revolve. But they are not what NASA photo-shopping portrays or illustrates them to be. You can either research independently or just go with the corporate programming. Either way, it's OK

This image is just for fun, no other reason:

 

[Awani]

I’ve looked into it deeply and I ain’t buying it. The simple fact that it doesn’t make a difference really is - to me - the greatest clue as to why this is a non issue. Just as a dead watch tell the correct time twice a day, so does mainstream news and information.

Humans are way too retarded to be in NWO total control.

 

[Alkasior]

Ok, so i read the first 50pages of the first book, and their experiments were with short distances, 6 miles only. At that distance, the curvature cannot be detected.

Regarding the high telescope lense, i dont have such a device, but i have my mind and experience. And maybe by insight we can draw some conclusions.

I was far at sea at some time at night, and sometimes there are fishing boats wih very strong lights, bright as the sun, so to say(fishing for calamary), so dont imagine a flashlight, but very very strong.

They were very far away, so far, that the light was difused in the atmosphere, like a rising sun(below the horison) but the actual lights of this boat were not visible, only the diffusion of them far in the distance. Only after some hours, one we were more close we can start so see coming up the horizon the actual lights of the boat, this was now about 25miles. So by my mind, this means the boat was under the horizon, due to the curvature of the earth. Having a telescope here would not matter i think, i could see the diffused light in the atmosphere, but not the light of the boat itself. Only once we got close to it we could see the actual light, what i had was just a 42x lense and could not see the light of the boat when it was far away, but became visible at about 25miles.

Depending on the atmospheric conditions, one can see becouse of refraction, also under the horizon, so with a strong telescope thats why you can see more far. But with my nightime example, this removes the telescope out of the equation.

Also, we can draw on another resource. Some people can communicate with spirits(i cant), so what are the spirits saying about the earth? Flat or not? Can they help to prove either one of the theories?

Looking at the big picture, does it really matter flat or not?

 

[Andro]

Looking at the big picture, does it really matter flat or not?

What "matters" is independent reasoning, experimentation and clarity of thinking, as opposed to blindly adhering to religions such as scientism.

 

[Andro]

Also, we can draw on another resource. Some people can communicate with spirits (i cant), so what are the spirits saying about the earth? Flat or not? Can they help to prove either one of the theories?

I can't speak for the "spirits". There's so many of them and more than often not that reliable as well as contradictory. But I've seen the earth's surface as a non-globe on multiple occasions during OOB. First time was almost 20 years ago, when I was still fully globetrinated. So I rationalized to myself that I must had inadvertently crossed to a different reality. However, repeated explorations over the years have shown the same. Not that it "proves" anything, though. Note: The Construct of our "Bubble Universe" is (sort of) spherical, though. When I say it's closer to "flat" (or "wrinkled"), I'm referring to the actual surface plane that we inhabit and walk/travel upon.