1

Flat Earth Theory / Holographic universe (Round sky Squared land)

« on: December 24, 2018, 05:41:07 AM »

The heavens are not far from me and revolves around me.
The ancient east Asian 'round sky squared land' is a representation of it.
It is possible because the celestial bodies are holograms.
Hologram is an interference phenomenon of waves.
This world is full of waves.
Therefore, Newtonian gravity that sees the celestial bodies as stones is a complete fiction.
How come huge rocks float on our heads?
Satellites are possible by waves full of sky.
Solar winds and cosmic rays are a kind of powerful waves.
If I were on the equator on the Spring Equinox, the sun would move a perfect semicircle around me.

If the radius R is 6,360 kilometers, the distance the sun moves is about 20,000 kilometers.
It takes 12 hours.

The semicircle of the sun's track could be drawn on a flat surface.
At 6 a.m. when the sun rises, the sun appears to be in the position of 1 to the observer in the middle.
However, it appears to be on top of the head of the observer in the position of 1' at the same time.
Similarly at sunset, the sun appears to be in position 3 to the middle observer,
but it appears to be on the top of the head of the observer in 3' at the same time.

This wave is repeated equally to form a circle.
The circumference is the same as the circumference of the earth.
In other words, the circumference of the earth is a cycle that the sun's wave completes.
This is possible because the sun is a hologram.
All celestial bodies are holograms.
The hologram is made by the interference of three waves.
Likewise, this world is a beautiful harmony created by the heaven, land and human.
I think that It has something to do with the Trinity.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km

« on: December 19, 2018, 08:52:59 AM »

The principles of sundials are the same everywhere in the world.
It was used on flat ground.

My multiverse principle is simple.
Everyone has the same celestial sphere.
The celestial Spheres revolve around the North Pole from the east to the west.
The North Star moves at a constant rate with distance along the longitude.
All celestial bodies are holograms.

The Equatorial Sundial would disagree with you.  It looks more like a wheel with spokes. The northern side works March to September and the southern side works from September to March.  Interestingly the numbers go clockwise for the Northern Hemisphere side and counterclockwise for the Southern Hemisphere side.   All sundials in the Southern Hemisphere numbers go counterclockwise.

There is nothing simple about a holographic celestial sphere... Please elaborate further if you can.

I know what you're talking about.
The celestial sphere moves symmetrically between North and South.
It is the principle of waves.
holograms are waves.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km

« on: December 18, 2018, 12:43:43 PM »

The principles of sundials are the same everywhere in the world.
It was used on flat ground.

My multiverse principle is simple.
Everyone has the same celestial sphere.
The celestial Spheres revolve around the North Pole from the east to the west.
The North Star moves at a constant rate with distance along the longitude.
All celestial bodies are holograms.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km

« on: December 18, 2018, 08:43:57 AM »

We know where the sun is vertically above.
namely, 2 equinox and 2 solstice.
As you know the distance to the area and the angle of the sun,
you can easily get it by using Pythagorean theorem.
Then, the distance to the sun is almost the same as the Earth's radius.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Multiverse: distance to the sun is 6360km

« on: December 18, 2018, 12:16:02 AM »

We are all at the center of the universe.
The celestial bodies are not so far away,
They are close.
The sundial proves it.

Eratosthenes interpreted the sundial with the premise that the earth is round.
But that's a total nonsense.
At that time, the sundial was used on the basis of the flat terra.
So they applied Pythagoras theorem.
If you get rid of Eratosthenes' unreasonable assumptions,
You will find the distance that the sun shines on the flat terra.

The earth is modeled after a celestial sphere.
Therefore, the distance to the sun is about 6360 kilometers.
The same is true of all celestial bodies, including the North Star.
That explains the change in the elevation of the North Star.
Of course, the shadow of the sundial turned from the equator.
Because, the celestial hemisphere moves with the observer.
The position of the North Pole is also moving at the same time.
as if the axis is fixed in one place

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: November 16, 2018, 06:40:20 AM »

Will it have anything to do with explaining the rise/descent angles of the sun?

I ask because I don't understand the connection of your previous video posted above to the topic at hand.

Of course. wave principle appears as phenomena, like sun and moon, etc.
Angles of the sun is also.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: November 13, 2018, 11:35:02 PM »

Distance to the sun is about 6,700km.
I'll show you the video later.
Video is comfortable for me because of the language barrier.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: November 13, 2018, 04:25:35 PM »

wave is answer.
Sun's motion is wave.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 30, 2018, 03:14:04 PM »

The picture of wave is just for convenience and for visual effect.
The calculation was done according to perspective.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 30, 2018, 02:51:46 PM »

The sea is not an ideal plane.
I hope this video would help.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 29, 2018, 02:23:43 PM »

Imagine a complete flat plane.
The flat plane  almost rises up to eye level in the distant.
But there are no obstacles on the flat plane, so it doesn't cover the building.
However, there are many kinds of waves in the sea.
wind wave, swell, tide etc.
These serve as obstacles on the flat sea.
So they can cover the building.

If your eye level is at the same level of something else, that something else will never block line of sight to yet something else that's above eye level as long all those somethings reside on a flat plane. Never. Doesn't matter where you place them. You need light to bend upward or the surface to curve down (convex) in order for a 1m "wave" to obscure anything above 1m when viewed from a height of 1m.

That video is different from the ocean situation.
The sea is not an ideal plane.

Imagine an ideal flat plane.
The plane rises to an eye level at a distance.
Imagine adding waves to that.
It's not the same, but the sea is a similar situation.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: October 29, 2018, 09:03:52 AM »

Annotated:

interesting. But It is hard to understand that the island is below the eye level.
In addition, The extension lines are not correct.
The device may not be accurate.
When I try again, they don't meet at one point.
Some meet a little above the horizon.
(I don't know how to insert a picture.)
Precision is important in this experiment.
The result varies from a slight angle.
I've done it three times,
The points of intersection of the <left extension lines> are usually <below>,
The points of intersection of the <right extension lines> are usually <above>.

If the island higher than an observer is below eye level,
it is impossible on FE.
But I don't think that's possible.
When I draw the line, eye level is lower than yours.

By the way, How far is it to the island?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 26, 2018, 02:19:00 PM »

Imagine a complete flat plane.
The flat plane  almost rises up to eye level in the distant.
But there are no obstacles on the flat plane, so it doesn't cover the building.
However, there are many kinds of waves in the sea.
wind wave, swell, tide etc.
These serve as obstacles on the flat sea.
So they can cover the building.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 24, 2018, 05:22:53 AM »

I can help you.
Don't forget that you are an observer.
Now you are seeing it in the eyes of a third party, not as an observer.

The sea rises at an eye level to the observer's eye.
But the sea never rise at an eye level to the third party's eye.

I don't understand. a person is standing 10 feet above sea level and sees far building which is also 10 feet above sea level.

The bottom part of that building is obscured to the person. Even if the horizon rises to the level of person it seems that a  3 foot wave would not block the view of the building.


Could you correct my diagram?

If the distance is short, you are right.
But if the distance is long, horizon is up to the eye level in your diagram.
and then, Add the waves to the horizon.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 20, 2018, 04:44:07 AM »

Anyway, I have shown that the Flat earth can explain why the building is covered.
It is difficult to get the exact figures.
Visual phenomena are influenced by many factors.
That's the reality.

I disagree strongly. Did you not look at my diagrams? The observer is standing 10 feet above sea level. The building that is being obscured is 10 feet above sea level. In both the horizon at eye level model and the flat horizon model there is not a situation where a 3 foot wave can obscure these things like you have claimed when both the observer and the obscured object are above sea level.

Can you help me understand by drawing a diagram of an observer 10 feet above sea level and a wave blocking the vision of something far away 10 feet above sea level?

I can help you.
Don't forget that you are an observer.
Now you are seeing it in the eyes of a third party, not as an observer.

The sea rises at an eye level to the observer's eye.
But the sea never rise at an eye level to the third party's eye.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Carlsbad from La Jolla

« on: October 18, 2018, 12:13:21 AM »

According to my calculation,
0.5m waves cover about 63 meters at eye level 2m from 32km distance.
So Flat earth fits quite well.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 17, 2018, 11:54:57 PM »

It's so complicated that I don't know what it is.
(Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator by Walter Bislins)

On the other hand, my math is simple.
Truth is simple, not complicated.

Obviously, the effects of the waves exist on both model.
It will be much more obscured on the round earth.
That's because waves are added to the curvature.
But things are different on the flat earth.
Because it is a visual phenomenon.

Look at the horizon.
It is not a simple line drawn by pencil.
Is there a distinct line between water and air?
If so, that's what our eyes tell us.

Anyway, I have shown that the Flat earth can explain why the building is covered.
It is difficult to get the exact figures.
Visual phenomena are influenced by many factors.
That's the reality.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 16, 2018, 05:52:10 AM »

Same island, but on a day with smaller waves, from a viewpoint of about 3' above low tide:

This video shows well.
The horizon is not a clear mathematical line.
So it is not a clear line.
It is a complex visual line.
The horizon and waves block the sight.
It is difficult to explain the calculation process that I did here one by one.
Instead, I explained it briefly in the video.
It comes from experience and experimentation.
It is not just mathematical reasoning like Earth curvature.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 15, 2018, 07:56:21 AM »

I'm more than willing to be wrong, but in this example, it seems the waves had to have been inordinately high, like tsunami high, to obscure 84.26 ft at an observation height of 12.1 ft.

(Turning Torso image)

When we had that Turning Torso discussion before, "waves" wasn't the flat earth rationale; it was optical compression. 

Here is a view of North Coronado Island about 16 miles away from this spot today, almost high tide with a 4-5' primary ground swell coming from the SSW.



The island is about 425' at its peak (130m). That spur on the far left is 100 and 120' (30-40m) high.

1 meter waves are not blocking 100 meters of that island.

You said that its peak is 130m high and the spur on the far left is 30-40m high.
The pixels of island image in your video is as in the following.
The peak is 273 pixels and the spur is 31 pixels from horizon.

Then the obscured height is about 20m.
If eye level is 2m and wave height is 1m and the horizon distance is about 7.4km
then the obscured height is about 78m.
But If eye level is 5m and wave height is 1m and the horizon distance is about 11.7km
then the obscured height is about 50m.
But if the horizon distance is farther away, the obscured height is even less.

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
Horizon distance depends on the resolution and ID curve accuracy.
Reflection of light should also be considered.
So it is complex visual phenomena.
More research is needed in the future.
Anyway your video can be fully explained on the flat earth.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 14, 2018, 01:39:18 AM »

I don't understand why continuous or quantized space matters.

I showed an example of 1m waves NOT obscuring 100m of something at or beyond the horizon.
 


Doesn't the observation trump diagrams and rationalizations of how perspective should apply? It's not happening. 100m of that distant island are not being obscured by the swell (which was actually greater than 1m and on a high tide to boot.)

Where is the horizon in your video?
How far is it from the horizon to the island?
It's not good visibility.
according to my calculation, the horizon is at 6~7 kilometers away at 2m eye level.
But in your video, the distance to the horizon and the island is unclear.
The island in your video doesn't look very far.
Then of course it will not be obscured.

My calculation is done under the assumption that visibility and resolution is good.
So a long distance is needed.
If the distance is close, anything will not be obscured.