tMoA

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~


    FLAT GLOBE

    Share
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:28 pm

    Raven wrote:So, since you are not advocating the flat earth theory what exactly are you doing?

    Basically, I'm reading a book and considering things I've never thought of before.
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:30 pm

    If it is true that the earth is not a spinning sphere, I wonder if it is possible that it is simply floating in the cosmos, and that what holds it in place is simply energy, which permeates the entire cosmos, which I think is probably infinite.
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:11 pm

    Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .
    From page 71:
    In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also “wobbles,” in a complex combination of patterns known as, “planetary nutation,” the “Chandler wobble,” and “axial precession” which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense.


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

    Page 72:



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

    Posts : 513
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Age : 49
    Location : The Emerald City

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Raven on Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:35 pm

    Seashore wrote:
    Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .
    From page 71:
    In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also “wobbles,” in a complex combination of patterns known as, “planetary nutation,” the “Chandler wobble,” and “axial precession” which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense.


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

    Page 72:



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









    Flowers
    avatar
    B.B.Baghor

    Posts : 1851
    Join date : 2014-01-31
    Age : 66
    Location : Druid county UK

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  B.B.Baghor on Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:05 pm

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


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

    Hello Vidya Moksha, we haven't met before, I'm happy that you entered the Mists and join the discussion here.
    I agree with you, it is a bit tricky to convey mood by typed messages. The unusual nature of the theory triggers my
    curiosity and sincere interest. The thought of a flat earth is at the same time humorous too, to me. That doesn't mean
    I'm debunking this theory, or your study of it.

    I have a vivid imagination and I'm enjoying myself as a student of life, the more the merrier. Seashore made clear to me
    that she explores and studies the Flat Earth theory material. And now you too make that clear to me. I respect that.

    I guess you've understood my opinion""its not important if the earth is round or flat" as if I'm indifferent to the theory.
    I guess this is about conveying a mood properly, for I meant to say that I'm totally at ease and okay with the Earth,
    being a round body or a flat body. I'm fine with both forms. The Earth doesn't feel like a flat body to me, I can't imagine
    it to be flat. With that much change happening now, on many levels, I may be surprised, how my belief system proves to
    fool me. I'm always learning and therefore I'm genuinely interested in how you and others here study this theory and share
    food for thought about it. I've grown an appetite, by now
    Cheerful

    avatar
    Vidya Moksha

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:06 pm

    I have just sat through "Flat Earth clues" full movies, describing Mark Sergeants (spelling?) theories. Thats an hour and half of my life I wont get back. Apparently we are living in glass dome, like a paperweight you can shake to see the snow fall. There is a glass ceiling onto which the stars are projected, and god or whoever is playing with us in some experiment or other. Exactly like the movie the Truman show (which I have seen, contrary to my Jim Carey aversion) Okay. enough of that.. This movie does raise some interesting points, why do they switch off GPS in the southern hemisphere.. why is Antarctica off limits, whats down there? Why arent there direct flights between the southern hemisphere countries...but other than that its just silly....

    OK, I have an admission to make... I dont believe the world is flat, but I still have huge problems believing that the earth spins... which would make it the centre of the universe, i.e everything revolves around the earth. Now this is just a feeling I have, I have never researched it before, and I came into this thread hoping to find some answers to my 'feeling'... I will persevere with this and look more at what Dubay says...I know he thinks Mark Sergeant is a shill.. (pots and kettles and black stuff?).

    I am aware of the Foucault pendulum..I have also read that cant be replicated consistently. What other proof is there that Earth spins, if I dont want to trust 'video' evidence, which cant be proved? (or can it? How do we know motion isnt created by a moving camera and not a moving Earth)... I do take the point that there are a lot of space agencies out there and this sort of thing would be hard to fake forever... but I cant shake this feeling that the earth isnt spinning...are we not seeing what we want to rather than what is real?
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:29 pm

    Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .
    From page 74:
    If the globe-Earth was really spinning West-East 1,000 mph, orbiting the Sun counter-clockwise at 67,000 mph, spiraling around the outer-arms of the Milky Way at 500,000 mph, while shooting through the Universe at 670,000,000 mph, how is it even conceptually possible that Polaris, 2 quadrillion miles away, day after day, year after year, always maintains its alignment straight above the North Pole!? That would mean from 2 quadrillion miles away, Polaris would have to be perfectly mirroring Earth’s several simultaneous wobbling, spinning, spiraling, and shooting motions. Polaris would have to be shooting the same direction through the Universe at exactly 670,000,000 mph; it would have to be following the same 500,000 mph, 225 million year spiral around the Milky Way, and mirroring the same 67,000 mph, 365 day orbit around our Sun! Or, the Earth is stationary - as common sense and everyday experience testifies.
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:37 pm

    Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .
    From page 85:


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

    Posts : 1851
    Join date : 2014-01-31
    Age : 66
    Location : Druid county UK

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  B.B.Baghor on Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:42 pm

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


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

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


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

    So what ARE those building blocks mudra?

    They are NOT whimsicalities of human imaginations

    HypnotizeEnlightenedHypnotize

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


    Love from me
    mudra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


    Last edited by B.B.Baghor on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:50 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Raven

    Posts : 513
    Join date : 2010-04-10
    Age : 49
    Location : The Emerald City

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Raven on Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:58 pm

    The Nature of Consciousness

    http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t2692-physical-consciousness-in-a-selfconscious-quantum-universe

    For the detailed treatize from Thuban, published in JCER (Journal for Consciousness Exploration Research) Consciousness Journal in March 2011.

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

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







    Tonyblue


    Review of My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell


    The one irritating and at first glance a little unfortunate aspect of Thomas Campbell's presentation is his choice of labeling his work under the title of: "My Big Toe".
    This is ambiguous, as it renders many casual observers; including me, when I was first introduced to this work by Owlsden and then by Brook; as less than impressed with yet another self-aggrandizing and egocentric attempt of someone attempting to cocreate a new cosmology, often abandoning the history of what has come before in the construction of the cultural edifices and parameters utilized.

    Thomas Campbell actually promotes the converse; in calling his work: "My Big TOE!", he in fact does not refer to "His Big TOE", but to "Everyone's Big TOE" in an attempt to individualise the underpinning New OmniScience, based on the nature of consciousness as the fundamental building block or unit and synergizing the 'Physics of the Measurements' via the 'Scientific Method of Reproducibility' and the 'Objectification of all Reality' with the 'Metaphysics of Subjectivity of Individual Experiences'.

    And this 'personification' of the Ontology or Origins of the Physics in a Metaphysics, using the Physics of Consciousness to itself evolve and form multiverses from a seedling protoverse and so construct many phaseshifted individualised cosmologies from a common cosmogony is surely brilliant in allowing the uniqueness of the separation to become unified in a oneness of the cosmogenetic origins for all data collectors, data interpreters and information decoders and consciousness units of the 'Many in One and the One in the Many' as a heartthought and mindfelt invitation from Thomas Campbell.

    I highly recommend viewing those videos, especially the first two for a grounding in the premises of contemporary terrestrial sciences and how the old paradigm of  a fixed measurable physical realism of objectification and disallowing the metaphysics of the subjective experience of the individual cosmic selfhood, must now move aside as a subset of a grander and more encompassing new paradigm or worldview, which has recognised the basic statistical nature of the microcosm and the macrocosm as being quantum relative and quantum mechanical in their nature, evolution and self expression and as an 'a priori' consequence and causality of a physicalised consciousness in the discretisized quantum of creation, also known as the 'Quantum of Cosmic Love'!.

    Tonyblue



    Regarding the 'Collapse of the Wavefunction' in video #1, here is the Dragon Science to elucidate on the 'measurement-consciousness' problem of the 'Double-Slit' experiment and the Duality and Complementarity of the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of the quantum entanglement.

    The Dawn of Space and Time in a Selfconscious Quantum Universe

    The Solution to Schrödinger's Cat Paradox


    The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics concentrates on a 'classical treatment' of the observer and the observed; leading to a 'collapse of the wavefunction' upon the act of the observation.
    This has little to do with the 'quantum phenomenon of entanglement' as is indicated in the Weinberg critique of Copenhagen below.

    Summararily, Schrödinger was right in the first instance; BUT this does NOT require a Copenhagen observer.
    Schrödinger's Cat is BOTH ALIVE and DEAD as the superposition of quantum selfstates and INDEPENDENT on any classical observer (looking at the cat).
    The superposition is the entanglement of the collapsed and the escaped quantum eigenstates.
    The cat is a living Particle-Entity with 'consciousness/soul/god' INSIDE as a collapsed wave.
    And the cat is a dead Wave-Entity with a 'consciousness/soul/god' OUTSIDE as an escaped wave.
    These two eigenstates define QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT of the SIMULTANEOUS CAT, being BOTH a living body and a dead nonbody at the same time.

    Why does the human mind find that this is so hard to understand?



    Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements.
    Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?" exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".


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

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

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

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



    [MIKE] Certainly Schrödinger's thought problem was originally proposed to show the problems with the Copenhagen interpretation, but even today you get the Cat in the box and a few seconds later you read about collapse of the wave function. It still has not really been resolved. As Gribbon said in one of his books is that the problem with QM is that it is too democratic everyone has an opinion on what it means. All of the interpretations you listed above give the same results they just use differing explanations as to what it means, the philosophy as Mac puts it. Feynman had two one was a sum over histories and the other was an electron going forward and back in time to interfere with itself. As Gribbon also wrote no one knows what QM means. We use it like a cookbook knowing if we do this we get that but we have no idea why the ingredients do what they do to get the result.

    BTW. It does not get much press, but Eugene Wigner's adaptation to Schrödinger's Cat is much more easily understood. The thought problem is called Wigner's Friend. Substitute a human volunteer for the cat. Do the same experiment. At the conclusion, open the door. If the volunteer is still alive, ie the radioactive particle did not decay and release the poison, ask him to describe the transitional states he was theoretically supposed to experience.


    Mike, here is the solution without any OBSERVED COLLAPSE of any wavefunction.
    Schrödinger's Cat is BOTH ALIVE and DEAD as the superposition of quantum selfstates and INDEPENDENT on any classical observer (looking at the cat).
    The superposition is the entanglement of the collapsed and the escaped quantum eigenstates.
    The cat is a living Particle-Entity with 'consciousness/soul/god' INSIDE as a collapsed wave.
    And the cat is a dead Wave-Entity with a 'consciousness/soul/god' OUTSIDE as an escaped wave.
    These two eigenstates define QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT of the Cat in simultaneity, being BOTH a living body and a dead nonbody at the same time.

    Why does the human mind find that this is so hard to understand?

    [MIKE] Think about Wigner's friend and you should have your answer.

    There is more to it Mike. I didn't ask a question, but stated the superposition as quantum fact and thoroughly without any Many-Worlds of splitting universes.
    Wigner's argument engages Consciousness and in that aspect he has hit the 'occuli tauri'; but the basis is that this consciousness itself is superposed.
    Below is 'my accomplice' in Roger Penrose.





    Consciousness and measurement

    Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.
    However, a conscious observer (according to his reasoning) must be in either one state or the other, hence conscious observations are different, hence consciousness is material. Wigner discusses this scenario in "Remarks on the mind-body question", one in his collection of essays, Symmetries and Reflections, 1967. The idea has become known as the  "Consciousness causes collapse" interpretation.



    Consciousness and Superposition

    A counterargument is that the superimposition of two conscious states is not paradoxical - just as there is no interaction between the multiple quantum states of a particle, so the superimposed consciousnesses need not be aware of each other.[1]


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


    This last comment of Roger Penrose nails the quantum paradox. Trouble is, that he doesn't believe his own words.

    Council of the Thuban Elders
    avatar
    Vidya Moksha

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:45 am

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

    I am going to concentrate on the idea that the Earth isnt spinning now. if I get anywhere I will post in here.
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:26 am

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

    Thanks for watching.

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

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

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:48 am

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

    Thanks for watching.

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

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

    I downloaded the video so I could watch it at one and half speed, so its on my hard drive if I need to access. It has a NASA source saying that all earth photos have to be composites, and therefore all images are photoshopped. Well that was one quote from one NASA dude anyway. The video contains hilarious faked footage from "inside the space station", but again this is one clip. The problem is, why even fake one? I guess its cheaper to make than sending someone up there. They were faking some ebola patients in Africa recently, (after all walked in, lied down and pretended to be sick/ dying and then walked off again after, but the camera was rolling the whole time !) they stage many events now, with crisis actors and bluescreen and they admit to doing it and it is considered legitimate as long as it 'represents real events'...

    As for flat earth its as the screenshots you posted above with light from the setting sun and long shots of flat horizons... but as raven's video show the former could be refraction and perhaps the latter just isnt over enough distance, so no proofs there.

    The video highlights several NASA lies and other weird anomolies, but offers no proofs, its quite repetitive and whats with the 'atmosperic music'? I think I would look into his forum and seek/ ask for clarification in there... but I havent had the time yet, Im supposed to working on other projects at the moment... my interest was piqued in here by my notion that the earth aint spinning...
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:58 am

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

    Yes I'm interested in that, too.

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

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

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:10 am

    As an exercise, here is a How Stuff Works article on what would happen if the earth stopped spinning:

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:15 am

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

    Yes I'm interested in that, too.

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

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

    My feeling is that tides wont work against the spin... i dont understand how air travel takes the same time both with and against the spin, and i dont know how water would stay on the surface of the spinning planet..

    There is another reason, but here is not the place to write about it... but I had 'an experience' one time when a lot of information came to me in very quick download, and this was one of those data downloads....

    As for what the official version is, I have to confess I havent had time to look, I am barely online and I dont have my own net access to check. My understanding is that the atmosphere works something like a rip tide... in a rip tide the whole water column is moving, with you or an object in that moving column of water.. so as a swimmer for example you may be floating in the water and the water around you feels stationary... but the whole body of water is moving.. there must be an edge somewhere, and likewise there must be a point in the atmosphere where it is spinning at 1000pph, against something that is not spinning....

    so we and everything is spinning at 1000mph (approx) .. even the air column... But I cant believe this, and it would have to change speed fractionally every centimetre away from the equator to the poles? What about momentum in this case? How can the Coriolis effect effect bullets, but apparently not cannon balls fired into the air (which drop vertically down to the point from which they are fired)? why cant aircraft simply hover above ground and await their destination to come to them?

    My understanding of mathematical models, as limited as it is, is that the centre of the universe can be modeled from any point, say the end of my nose, and even though the calculations might be very complicated a model could be built around my notion. I see maths as a tool, but its only a tool, its man made construct.. a gardener uses a spade but doesnt call himself a spade and puts it in the shed when done with it.. scientists cant let go of their bone.. science really is the new religious dogma, so i would like to find the answer to my notion that the earth isnt the centre of the universe in simple language, not because I am stupid, but because only when someone fully understands something can they explain it in simple terms.

    Anyway, a bit of ramble without sufficient caffeine in my bloodstream, but that the gist of my interest.. and I have another week or so online to explore.. or procrastinate away from what I am supposed to be doing Wink
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:53 am

    Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .
    From page 90:


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



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

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:54 pm

    Seashore wrote:This is from the e-book The Flat Earth Conspiracy by Eric Dubay, copyright 2014 . . .
    From pages 118-119:


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

    Page 120:

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

    Also from page 120:

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


    Last edited by Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Add)
    avatar
    Vidya Moksha

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:26 pm

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


    This is not true. There are tides on inland lakes. The moon definitely affects tides. I do need to use tide tables for actual predicted heights but I used to have a lunar calender on the wall as a quick look-see as to the state of the tide.

    The theory of tides is that it is a combination of sun-moon interaction that causes tides, but when I was taught it, it was clear the lecturer had no clue and the theory seemed very woolly. I have never seen an adequate model for the moon's influence, but it remains a fact that tidal height is predictable years in advance, and only changes on the day in relation to atmospheric pressure. But it does relate to lunar cycle for absolute certainty.

    The nature of the sea bed and the shore has a tremendous effect on tides, and where funneling of the water occurs tides are greatest in height. Different tidal heights generally relate to coastal morphology, but also seemingly to latitude, with smaller amplitudes near the equator.

    All the above I know from direct experience and not from theory.

    (wind also causes tides in lakes)
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:23 pm

    Vidya Moksha wrote:The moon definitely affects tides.

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

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

    Vidya Moksha wrote:The nature of the sea bed and the shore has a tremendous effect on tides, and where funneling of the water occurs tides are greatest in height.
    How do you interpret the statement, "Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep"?

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

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:53 pm

    Seashore wrote:
    Vidya Moksha wrote:The moon definitely affects tides.

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

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

    Vidya Moksha wrote:The nature of the sea bed and the shore has a tremendous effect on tides, and where funneling of the water occurs tides are greatest in height.
    How do you interpret the statement, "Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep"?

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

    Barometric pressure and wind both effect tides, but these are random, day to day effects. The lunar cycle has a predictable and constant effect on tides, whether that is direct or indirect I dont know (and who does?)..But the effects of the moon are only part of the story that is told... the sun plays a part too... imagine sun and moon 'pulling' together in line as it were (big tides), and the sun at right angles to the moon pulling in a different direction (smaller tides) or pulling in opposite directions (smaller tides still).  

    I have no idea what the 'bosom of the mighty deep' is, I was referring to the nature of the sea bed, its depth and general morphology. Also the presence of estuaries, the general shape of the coastline, the 'fetch' of the waves. Deeper 'coastlines' (the sea bed depth) produce bigger waves. The underlying substrata will cause different drags and effect tidal height.

    The biggest tides I have encountered are where the natural shape of the seashore (no, not you my dear Wink )produces a funneling effect, especially noticeable in the mouths of estuaries.
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:17 pm

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

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

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

    Posts : 440
    Join date : 2010-04-17
    Location : on the road again :)

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Vidya Moksha on Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:39 pm

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

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

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

    I would avoid Mark Sargent's work, it is silly beyond belief. He claims that there are giant furnaces below the earth who's sole function is generate enough heat to stop humans from drilling through the bottom of his flat earth (it melts the drill heads). Crazy Happy

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

    He claims the ice wall prevents humans from discovering the outer rim...

    oh and Sargent claims 'they that watch us' created multi culture societies (races) and different religions so that we would too busy fighting each other to notice we lived in a glass dome.

    As i say, Mark Sargent really is worth avoiding.
    avatar
    Seashore

    Posts : 641
    Join date : 2010-04-14
    Age : 72
    Location : Virginia, U.S.

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Seashore on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:28 pm

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

    It is interesting because Mark Sargent is the one Lisa Harrison interviewed.


    Last edited by Seashore on Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Remove video posted in error)
    avatar
    mudra

    Posts : 18060
    Join date : 2010-04-09
    Age : 62
    Location : belgium

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  mudra on Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:52 pm

    Not high enough to prove this or that but a nice watch on Earth from above really. Just for fun :)

    DIY Rocket Fly Into Space - Amateur High Power Solid Model Rocket Launch to Space

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY7W3EMfrgc



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVCi4T2FLw8


    Love from me
    mudra


    Last edited by mudra on Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: FLAT GLOBE

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:42 pm