|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 14, 2015 19:32:41 GMT 1
FLAT EARTH KEYS: FINAL KEY TO THE FLAT EARTH REVEALED Conscious TruthThis is along the lines I have been wondering about myself, but not as well as Concious Truth understands, and presents. Like I said in another thread, this intuitively appealing to me. Although, the 4D will take me some time to grasp. This could be similar to Cal's idea but I don't know, I like and understand visuals. Some of his comments below~ |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 14, 2015 19:35:57 GMT 1
His video brief states~
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 19:45:10 GMT 1
Actually, I would not be surprised if he got the idea precisely from cal. He had stopped uploading 3 months ago, then cal here mentions and explains Möbius strip and Klein bottle, which I had never heard mentioned in any flat earth video before, and then all of a sudden this (now former) flat earther, 3 days later, makes a video about it. I am not surprised either, given my own experience, that cal received no credit and was not mentioned by Conscious Truth. I had set aside cal's theory because it is too complex for me, and because neither of them explained it with very simple examples (of what doesn't work with the flat earth model), so, yes, I still do not understand pretty much anything about this theory, although I understand enough to bet that he got the idea from cal. From this experience, and from previous experiences, I am starting to think that this forum, despite having about 4 active members, is being read, at least occasionally, by at least some of the biggest flat earth YouTubers. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 14, 2015 19:49:24 GMT 1
oh yeah? I do better with visual things. It's the fold in the mobius strip that appeals to me. That would be in 4D space, and we would be living on the 3D plane, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 14, 2015 19:51:30 GMT 1
I found reference to different possible shapes of earth from a youtube comment but I forget who wrote it and which video that was on. I try to understand cal, but I don't get it very well. When I learn things, I feel best learning by doing and seeing and the reading part is secondary usually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 19:55:31 GMT 1
Being tired from the office, and worn out from years of such work, I can't afford the mental challenge at the moment.
Otherwise I would try to quiz you all on this model and ask you first of all what's wrong with the flat earth model.
But I don't want to ask questions, yet, because I can't afford to read long explanations, in terms of time and mental alertness.
At the moment, I am just limiting myself to cataloging the flat earth videos. I can't be a flat earth theorist yet.
And, finally, I have to recover from dealing with the average flat earthers (rude and intolerant) on the previous forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 14, 2015 20:56:17 GMT 1
OK, I don't have a lot to say anyway. I'll say this then to also parse some of this out for myself as well. 1. I am skeptical of the domed earth model for reasons we have talked about. Especially when there's no proof of the dome. Along with some people going along with the idea of it also being a machine, almost like a theme park or snow globe. The domed movies, such as the Truman Show, are simulations of our real world. If we live in a domed world, it would then be a simulation of another world. You get into that problem with that Simpsons video, I mention in this post. Where there's simulated worlds creating simulated worlds of simulated worlds. Even our planetariums would only be simulations of a simulation. If our world is machine-like, such as a planetarium/theme park, than I think it would be a simulation of some other world. Where does it stop? But we don't even have to ask that because I don't see any proof the world is machine-like in the way Sargent describes nor is there any proof of a dome. Sargent made it very clear his message is that the enclosed world was "built". Machines are "built". 2. I don't understand an infinite plane. It is harder for me to imagine an infinite plane being real than infinite space. That doesn't prove an infinite plane isn't real though, but I think it is more complex than infinite space. 3. I don't comprehend a flat earth floating in "space" similar to how we are told we are in space on the globe. I think the big bang and globe earth make more sense than a flat plane created to float in infinite space. 4. I have serious reasons to also be skeptical of the globe earth and space. 5. Yet, I lean toward the Earth being flat as it does appear to be so in experiments such as Acenci posted on this thread. 6. The curved space of the mobius strip allows for our reality to be a complete whole and theoretically enclosed world. The infinite plane, dome world, or a flat earth in space, all intuitively lack the elegance and wholeness of a mobius strip. As for it being truly "enclosed" I would not say that definitely only because I think, for lack of a better word that I can think of, we would be in a "dimension" and maybe there would be other "dimenions" nearby or overlapping. Similar to how some people claim we are in a multiverse. That's just my personal thoughts on this as of right now. I don't want to debate either as I am just expressing my way of thinking. Although others can comment, I just may not reply to debate or defend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 22:00:07 GMT 1
Yes, thanks for explaining. Yes, let's not debate. We both agree that 1) we should not force one another to adopt our own opinion, and 2) we should not belittle their opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 16, 2015 4:35:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 16, 2015 7:39:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 16, 2015 7:51:34 GMT 1
Mobius, his Band, and the Shape of the Universe - Professor Raymond Flood GreshamCollege |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 17, 2015 1:59:38 GMT 1
I'm going to give this video link and then copy and paste someone's comment on another video. The video below is still only showing us the 3D world but tries to show that in the 4th dimension, there is a way around the 3D wall. The video game character in this video below, would be able to get around the wall by stepping into the 4th dimension and then stepping back into the 3rd. How to walk through walls using the 4th Dimension [Miegakure: a 4D puzzle-platforming game] MiegakureThis video I link just below, I didn't t watch because it says 4D is time and I am not so sure about that. It also shows astronauts, funny enough. The whole comment is in this video link, scroll down to " linked comment" This is part of the comment by a youtuber named, Ryan Wittert, that I am interested in as this comment talks about how to think of space bending. If space is curved, the 3rd dimension is curved. If the 3rd dimension is curved in all directions you could travel in all directions and you would have traveled back around, in the 4th dimensional object. I am wondering if we are like 2D stick figures trying to understand the 3rd dimension (a cube or marble). I wonder if maybe the Earth is flat and this space is curved. In that Mario mobious strip, Mario experiences a completely 2D flat world that curves back to where he began. And so, his world is both flat, and curved back onto itself in the 3rd dimension. That is how he gets back to where he began yet experiencing no sphere or curve himself. |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145 
|
Post by cal on Dec 17, 2015 3:52:18 GMT 1
Here are a few videos explaining the fourth dimension. Note that the high school student explains it quite well, and even touches on the curved space idea.
4th Dimension explained
4th Dimension Explained By A High-School Student
4D World Explained
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 17, 2015 3:53:40 GMT 1
Flat Domed World or Infinite Plain?
Rob Skiba
I'm not sure how much I want to talk about what he says on this thread. I have started to use this thread as a way for me to explore this idea. One problem with his model is that now it brings up the question about what world or universe the boxed/enclosed world is in. And that question becomes even more of a problem since he calls the top of the dome, "literally, god's footstool" at 5:42. If he really believes God is like this, than God is a being in the same universe our boxed world would be in. Our creator God is not the ground of existence and so, something else would be if "God" is a being in the same universe we are in. My main point though, is that I don't believe it has to only be a choice between a Domed World or an Infinite Plain. At 7:27 he starts to say that his model brings God a lot closer. He says God isn't this invisible thing way out in another dimension somehwere out in the bazillions of galaxies and so more intimate. He says, "if this model is true, than this is Kristoff in the Truman Show". I actually think this puts God just as far away, but only closer in physical distance. God's immanence is removed from the domed box and is now a being above our enclosed world. We would still be in the same universe as God and that also make God smaller. In my model, or view, whatever you want to say, what we call "God" is immanent, the necessary fabric that holds it all together, you could say. The next question would be God's transcendence, and that is probably for another thread. And it God's immanence, makes our world real, and not a Truman Show.Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 17, 2015 4:03:11 GMT 1
I edited my message above so that I make more sense as some sentences were messed up, thanks..
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 14, 2016 6:32:11 GMT 1
FLAT EARTH - The 4th Dimension Explained Like a Boss StinkyCashPublished on Jan 9, 2016
He says he came across this video. He says he took the lazy way out and put in that kid's video. He says he wants to share this video because this is information he wants his subscribers to have before he continues on teaching about perspective. I was going to ask, if this guy is a domed FE'er? I have had trouble finding any videos of his specifically concerning a dome. But I found this comment here Lion said, Lion has a tagline that says, Apparently, this person only posted one time on that forum and that was it. I was specifically thinking and talking about this so as to get away from the mechanical and enclosed dome/box. As well as getting away from the artificial prison planet/dome, along with the idea of being trapped by the demiurge (or aliens, or who knows what), that goes along with it. This also allows for the size of the Earth to be much larger if that is the case, whereas the dome or enclosed box has a definite ending, usually around the land we all already know about. This allows for an enclosed system but indefinite in size (until fully explored, physically). The structure of it would be supernatural-like to us as well, so not artificial, thereby injecting sacred meaning into the universe and our lives, similar to how the mobius strip suggests infinity. It wouldn't be an accident nor would we be trapped in a cage anymore than we are trapped in the material/physical. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 18, 2016 5:32:17 GMT 1
100% accurateFlat Earth map 2016 ( improved)
canaljktNo need for "teleportation", the 3D world may be able to curve back on itself in a 4d shape. themorgile believes Mercator was possibly a FEer. Sounds like Lawerance says the Mercator map looks to be the most accurate. They are talking about flights and Mercator around the 30 min mark in the link below. At 33:30 they talk about the above map. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 18, 2016 6:20:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 26, 2016 7:00:45 GMT 1
Flat Earth Watergate: Is There A Psyop Brewing?
Flat Earth Conspiracy
52:48
"We have, in my view, a seamless passage to East from West"
Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 31, 2016 8:00:55 GMT 1
Patricia Steere/Mark Sargent/Jesse Spots/Jeranism/David Weiss. #56 Flat Earth & Other Hot Potatoes
Flat Earth and other hot potatoes1:33:32 David Weiss says he admires how Mark says almost anything is possible. David Weis says he doesn't like the Pac-Man thing (where Pac Man can seamlessly travel between both sides of the screen). He says it is possible but not high on his possibilities list. David Weiss says maybe there's something like that, but can't imagine it and puts it very low on the list. Jeran says he'd believe in gravity a lot quicker than he'd believe in this. This group has the most domed earth proponents. Maybe not all of them, but I don't think any of them critique the dome either. They are all referencing Lawrence's possible FE model on this episode of Flat Earth Watergate: Is There A Psyop Brewing?
I think it's pretty funny they all laugh at this but Mark's model has much more nonsense to it and causes more problems than it solves, such as making our world a machine and likely a simulation, as it is "built". They don't even need the Earth to be flat to have their dome.
Anyway, I focused on our 3D world folding back on itself in a 4D shape to show that an enclosed flat earth system does not have to be domed. If our FE world is enclosed it cannot be assumed to be domed now as this shows another possibility. And others can come up with even more possibilities.
This means they need to prove their dome. They cannot tell us it is domed simply because the earth is flat (and also intuitively, not an infinite plane).
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Mar 9, 2016 6:51:38 GMT 1
Free Our Flat Earth: Episode 3
Time Stamp 27:00 "....Or, it's also a possibility that the whole thing is like a continuous mobius strip. And we have seen evidence of that, that we made fun of, when we first started looking at this...." Speaking of the seamless west/east continuum. Either a portal or mobius strip...Well, portal doesn't answer the how, it is like saying miracle as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Mar 11, 2016 7:05:29 GMT 1
Free Our Flat Earth: Episode 3
Flat Earth Conspiracy
54:48
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Mar 13, 2016 23:15:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Mar 14, 2016 0:16:03 GMT 1
I was just thinking, what if the nature of the 4D shape changes it shapes to some degree or more? And can also expand like how our land on earth changes shapes as well.
If we aren't sure of the shape of the earth, how do we even know it's static or even measurable?
|
|
