What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

[Kenny McCormick]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Seems to me that if the earth was a flat disk, Antarctica would be a desert, because it would be closer to the Sun. We have deserts on the equator - it doesn't get hotter the further south we go.

No, it doesn't work that way. On equator we have tropics. Deserts are in subtropical zones, and they are connected to cold ocean currents rather than distance from sun. But that's not the point- flat earth believers think we have digital sky over us displayed on Earth-sized dome. And the whole Earth is a technological platform, designed the way it is.
It is rather improbable, since STS do like the easiest solutions, and that kind of enterprise would be really challenging ;)

 

[trendsetter37]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Most likely the earth being flat is just too crazy to be considered seriously for too long by someone who is genuinely wanting to know how things are...

After reading through the thread and following the flow of how it has progressed, I am beginning to think (as others have pointed out) that the importance of this discussion does not have anything to do with the Earth being flat or round but rather what happens to a person psychologically and mentally when confronted with egregious lies. Egregious is of course a relative term here and is mostly predicated on one's own world view and/or personal experiences. What if the actual point of the video is not to win someone over to the theory that the world is flat but actually to cause confusion which is then used to hypnotically entrain certain 'facts' into the viewer that are deemed useful to the PTB.

From my first post

I know I said years ago that the greater good was something that should be preserved....JFK, Pearl Harbor, and 911 were inevitable. I still believe it, and I understand the decisions. The globe illusion however has run its course over the last 500 years.

Is he attempting to placate the viewer and suggest that all of that had to happen for your own good. "Now go ahead and believe this while you are distracted and open by my saying the Earth is flat"

Confusion, prompted by an insane notion, is a documented technique of hypnosis and can be used as a hypnotic opener for a subject.

...When a witness meets a UFO occupant who asks, "What time is it?" and replies, "It's 2:30," only to be bluntly told, "You lie--it's 4 o'clock" (this actually happened in France in 1954), the story is not simply absurd. It has symbolic meaning beyond the apparent contradiction of the dialogue.

The Confusion Technique

Earlier I recounted the story of a witness who was asked the time by a UFO occupant. “It is 2:30,” the witness replied. “You lie; it is 4 o’clock,” said the occupant. I am indebted to Gerald Askevold for bringing to my attention a fascinating story by Dr. Milton Erickson, a pioneer in modern hypnosis, concerning “The Gentle Art of Reframing”:

One windy day … a man came rushing around the corner of a building and bumped hard against me as I stood bracing myself against the wind. Before he could recover his poise to speak to me, I glanced elaborately at my watch and courteously, as if he had inquired the time of day, I stated, “It’s exactly ten minutes of two,” though it was actually closer to 4 P.M., and walked on. About half a block away, I turned and saw him still looking at me, undoubtedly still puzzled and bewildered by my remark. {Example of being stuck in a hypnotic state brought on by confusion}

After quoting this story, psychologist Paul Watzlawick comments in his book Change: This is how Erickson described the incident that led him to the development of an unusual method of hypnotic induction which he later called the Confusion Technique.

The incident of bumping into each other had created a context in which the obvious conventional response would have been mutual apologies. Dr. Erickson’s response suddenly and unexpectedly redefined that same context as a very different one, namely, one that would have been socially appropriate if the other man had asked him the time of day, but even that would have been bewildering because of the patent incorrectness of the information, in contrast to the courteous, solicitous manner in which it was given.

The result was confusion, unalleviated by any further information that would have reorganized the pieces of the puzzle into an understandable new frame of reference. As Erickson points out, the need to get out of the confusion by finding this new frame makes the subject particularly ready and eager to hold on firmly to the next piece of concrete information that he is given. The confusion, setting the stage for reframing, thus becomes an important step in the process of effecting second-order change and of “showing the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.”

If the viewer goes into a confused state after watching the first ten minutes or so because of the notion that the Earth is actually flat then I would think that they would be more vulnerable to his poor explanations behind his claims. The point he makes about flight travel in the southern hemisphere becomes very unintelligent when you have a little knowledge on why flight paths are the way they are. But in a confused state and with little background knowledge on flight paths in general I can see how the video as whole could seem very legit to someone that has been hypnotically opened.

More on the confusion technique...

A confused person has their conscious mind busy and occupied, and is very much inclined to draw upon unconscious learnings to make sense of things. A confused person is in a trance of their own making - and therefore goes readily into that trance without resistance. Confusion might be created by ambiguous words, complex or endless sentences, pattern interruption or a myriad of other techniques to incite transderivational searches.

Keeping the above in mind, my questions are more along the lines of what's being said in-between the lines or what filler information is being broadcast throughout his message that isn't directly related to the Earth being flat or spherical.

 

[Joe]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Nevertheless I am still not feeling very comfortable about the forum.

That may be a good thing. It depends on what the nature of your uncomfortableness is. When delving into the nature of reality, we should probably expect to feel uncomfortable (at the very least) from time to time. :)

 

[Joe]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Keeping the above in mind, my questions are more along the lines of what's being said in-between the lines or what filler information is being broadcast throughout his message that isn't directly related to the Earth being flat or spherical.

Very interesting information, and I agree that there is a certain flavor to that video and the person narrating that seems to entrain the viewer's attention with a continuous flow of *seemingly" related "facts" that is in reality, however, a highly subjective treatise on a fundamentally irrational and unscientific theme.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Here's the real shape of the earth for anyone interested. We don't live on a "blue marble". We live on a lump of space rock.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Could be wrong, but I thought the geoid was a way of graphically showing the shape of the earth based on the specific gravity measured at any location on the surface, not as it 'really' is -- as in, the way it actually looks. Like in this picture, the geoid is sometimes above the ocean, or below the level of land.

This is because depending on where you're standing on the earth, there can be more or less mass, depending on the make-up of the stuff between you and the core, and thus more or less gravity. So the 'higher' parts of the geoid show where gravity is stronger (more mass), and the 'lower' parts show where it is weaker (less mass). But it's not a direct representation of how the earth actually looks. Like I said, though, this was my understanding of the geoid, but I'm no scientist! This is how Wiki describes it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth#Geoid):

The geoid, on the other hand, coincides with that surface to which the oceans would conform over the entire Earth if free to adjust to the combined effect of the Earth's mass attraction (gravitation) and the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation. As a result of the uneven distribution of the Earth's mass, the geoidal surface is irregular and, since the ellipsoid is a regular surface, the separations between the two, referred to as geoid undulations, geoid heights, or geoid separations, will be irregular as well.

That said, here's what the earth would look like without water:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...NE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Most likely the earth being flat is just too crazy to be considered seriously for too long by someone who is genuinely wanting to know how things are, but I think in principle questioning established ideas is healthy. In Harrison Koehli's foreword to The Cassiopaea Experiment Transcripts. Volume I. 1994 he writes (page vi):

And if history tells us anything, it's that the history of science is a long history of wrong or incomplete ideas. So it's best to be skeptical whenever scientists speak in terms of absolutes with certainty, whenever they put the lid on testing alternative hypotheses.

It's not that it's too crazy to be considered, or that the scientific consensus cannot be questioned. It's more that the 'flat earth' is just one of those 'wrong or incomplete' ideas from the history of science that has rightfully been thrown out in favor of better ones, because of new and better data and analysis. Like some have already written in their posts on this thread, that doesn't mean that everyone on the planet will understand exactly how and why this has occurred. That requires some background in various physical concepts and observational data that many if not most people lack the ability to evaluate. But it can be evaluated.

It's a different story when looking at a 'sacred cow' where such evidence is lacking. Take comets. The consensus is that they are dirty snowballs. The problem is, that hypothesis is NOT backed up by the data. In fact, the data suggests that the consensus is wrong.

 

[Niall]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Could be wrong, but I thought the geoid was a way of graphically showing the shape of the earth based on the specific gravity measured at any location on the surface, not as it 'really' is -- as in, the way it actually looks. Like in this picture, the geoid is sometimes above the ocean, or below the level of land.

This is because depending on where you're standing on the earth, there can be more or less mass, depending on the make-up of the stuff between you and the core, and thus more or less gravity. So the 'higher' parts of the geoid show where gravity is stronger (more mass), and the 'lower' parts show where it is weaker (less mass). But it's not a direct representation of how the earth actually looks. Like I said, though, this was my understanding of the geoid, but I'm no scientist!

Interesting, that would suggest the planet is even more irregular and lumpy than that video suggests.

 

[Joe]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Could be wrong, but I thought the geoid was a way of graphically showing the shape of the earth based on the specific gravity measured at any location on the surface, not as it 'really' is -- as in, the way it actually looks. Like in this picture, the geoid is sometimes above the ocean, or below the level of land.

I think you're right. My mistake.

That said, here's what the earth would look like without water:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...NE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nice, although apparently the true shape of the earth is a little flattened from a perfect sphere, i.e. an ellipsoid. Maybe the reason that it takes a relatively smooth and round appearance is because of all that water (about 70%) that makes up the surface and the fact that the deformations of land are, compared to the total area, not that significant. So viewed from a distance (which is kind of a requirement to see it all) it looks like a "blue marble".

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

That said, here's what the earth would look like without water:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...NE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nice, although apparently the true shape of the earth is a little flattened from a perfect sphere, i.e. an ellipsoid. Maybe the reason that it takes a relatively smooth and round appearance is because of all that water (about 70%) that makes up the surface and the fact that the deformations of land are, compared to the total area, not that significant. So viewed from a distance (which is kind of a requirement to see it all) it looks like a "blue marble".

Yeah, water 'rounds out' the picture, so to speak! ;) And the land on the other 30% only extends up to 8848 m above that level (Mt. Everest). Considering that the diameter of the earth is approximately 12,700 km, it's difficult to see the difference in size when looking at a visual of the earth using a small scale. For example, if your earth-picture is 12.7 centimeters wide, Mt. Everest will be a tiny fraction of a millimeter high.

As for earth's imperfect curves, the reason it looks so circular in pictures from space is that, again, the degree of flattening is hard to see because it is relatively small. This picture shows it exaggerated:

But if you were to draw it, again in scale, you could do so by making an almost-circle 12.756 cm high and 12.714 cm wide. So, technically not a perfect circle, but close enough for horseshoes!

 

[Buddy]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

In the video Approaching Infinity posted on what the planet looks like without water, there is something interesting to notice. At about 1:25 till the end, look at the gray mass of land between Africa and the Americas. I see what looks like signs of stress, suggestive of them having pulled away from each other over time.

Is it anywhere a consensus view that these continents were once together?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

In the video Approaching Infinity posted on what the planet looks like without water, there is something interesting to notice. At about 1:25 till the end, look at the gray mass of land between Africa and the Americas. I see what looks like signs of stress, suggestive of them having pulled away from each other over time.

Is it anywhere a consensus view that these continents were once together?

That's the idea behind Pangea, and the structure is called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge:

The discovery of this worldwide ridge system led to the theory of seafloor spreading and general acceptance of Wegener's theory of continental drift and expansion as plate tectonics. The ridge is central to the breakup of the hypothetical supercontinent of Pangaea that began some 180 million years ago.

 

[Buddy]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Thanks, AI. I certainly can't see how a non-roundish Earth could explain that.

 

[Richs]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

That said, here's what the earth would look like without water:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...NE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nice, although apparently the true shape of the earth is a little flattened from a perfect sphere, i.e. an ellipsoid. Maybe the reason that it takes a relatively smooth and round appearance is because of all that water (about 70%) that makes up the surface and the fact that the deformations of land are, compared to the total area, not that significant. So viewed from a distance (which is kind of a requirement to see it all) it looks like a "blue marble".

Yeah, water 'rounds out' the picture, so to speak! ;) And the land on the other 30% only extends up to 8848 m above that level (Mt. Everest). Considering that the diameter of the earth is approximately 12,700 km, it's difficult to see the difference in size when looking at a visual of the earth using a small scale. For example, if your earth-picture is 12.7 centimeters wide, Mt. Everest will be a tiny fraction of a millimeter high.

As for earth's imperfect curves, the reason it looks so circular in pictures from space is that, again, the degree of flattening is hard to see because it is relatively small. This picture shows it exaggerated:

But if you were to draw it, again in scale, you could do so by making an almost-circle 12.756 cm high and 12.714 cm wide. So, technically not a perfect circle, but close enough for horseshoes!

Earth has an equatorial bulge, that is, it is larger in diameter going around the Earth at the equator than going around it from pole to pole.

http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/equatorial_bulge.php

"The Earth has an equatorial bulge of 42.72 km (26.5 miles) due to its rotation. That is, its diameter measured across the equatorial plane (12756.28 km, 7,927 miles) is 42.72 km more than that measured between the poles (12713.56 km, 7,900 miles)."

Follow the link for complete explanation.

 

[Mal7]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

That said, here's what the earth would look like without water:

I think on that video the vertical (altitude or depth) scale has actually been enhanced considerably, to make the relief stand out much more. The actual appearance of the earth without water would be much more spherical, and less bumpy.

If the equatorial diameter is 12,756km, and the highest point (Mt Everest) is 8.8km above sea level, while the lowest point (deepest ocean trench) is 11.0 km deep, you can imagine those heights and depths wouldn't make much of a bump on a sphere of that size.

Mt Everest would be like having a bump .05mm high on the surface of 70mm diameter apple, or like a 1mm high bump on a sphere 1.4 metres in diameter, or 1/16 of an inch high on a sphere 2 1/2 yards in diameter.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

That said, here's what the earth would look like without water:

I think on that video the vertical (altitude or depth) scale has actually been enhanced considerably, to make the relief stand out much more. The actual appearance of the earth without water would be much more spherical, and less bumpy.

If the equatorial diameter is 12,756km, and the highest point (Mt Everest) is 8.8km above sea level, while the lowest point (deepest ocean trench) is 11.0 km deep, you can imagine those heights and depths wouldn't make much of a bump on a sphere of that size.

Mt Everest would be like having a bump .05mm high on the surface of 70mm diameter apple, or like a 1mm high bump on a sphere 1.4 metres in diameter, or 1/16 of an inch high on a sphere 2 1/2 yards in diameter.

Yep, you're right, the scale is very exaggerated. Amazing that the total variation of ocean depth and mountain elevation is only around 20 km! The biosphere really is like a thin skin on our giant globe!