1

Flat Earth Investigations / Lunar Nature

« on: December 13, 2017, 02:24:12 AM »

The moon appears to be a nearly perfect counterpart to the sun.
They appear to be about the same size as one another and about the same distance from the earth.
If the sun is a big ball of fire, than perhaps the moon is a big ball of ice.
Does the moon emit its own light?
Does lunar light cool as sunlight warms?

The moon has a face just as earth is said to have a face when viewing it from space.
The moon has two primary colors, dark grey and white.
Perhaps the dark grey color represents liquid and one material and the white color a solid and another material, or vice versa.
Sometimes the moon changes color, occasionally it's red, blue or golden.
I wonder what these color changes represent?
Maybe the lunar weather is changing, or vegetation on the moon periodically goes through metamorphosis.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Stellar Nature

« on: December 12, 2017, 05:44:32 PM »

More than the shape of the earth, what's intrigued me is the nature of stars.
What are they?
Are they bright balls of fire, or something else?
If so, how do they keep burning for eons?
Is their fuel inexhaustible, or are they just so big that a day of their burning is equivalent to thousands of years of ours, or can they somehow sparkle and shine without burning at all?

Are they pinholes in the curtain of night?
Are they souls of ancient heroes and kings?
At this point in time, we can only speculate.

Are they much bigger than the earth, and very far away, or much smaller, and very close?
Are we spinning or are they spinning?
Perhaps we're both spinning.

Stars appear to be very close together.
While scientific extremists says this is merely a trick of light, that they're actually much further apart than they appear, I'm more inclined to think they're about as near together as they seem.
They also appear to be uniform in size, and uniform in distance from one another and the earth.
While scientific fundamentalists tell us this is also a trick, a trick of perspective, I'm more inclined to trust my eyes and Occam's razor than their wild speculations and unverifiable dogmas.

How did they form?
Did the intelligent designer(s) place them there, to light up the night sky?
Do we conjure or dream them into existence?
Are they unformed, always did exist, and presumably always will?
Are they the remnants of the earth's gravitational formation, or are we a remnant?
I guess we'll never know for sure, until the public has direct access to the heavens, and until we have the technology to reach out and touch the stars.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Cosmology & Consciousness

« on: September 16, 2017, 01:17:42 AM »

Where did the earth come from, where is it going, and how does our creation myth/science affect our collective consciousness?

Was it created by (the) God(s)?
Will it be destroyed by (the) God(s)?

Is it a kind of collective dream or nightmare we're having, and really the only thing that exists is consciousness?
Or is the only thing that exists polarity, and that in order for somethingness and consciousness to exist it all, they needed an antithesis, both nothingness and an unconscious something, like an enormous hunk of rock, in which to contrast/define themselves with/against?

Did it materialize out of the aether by chance?
Or has it always existed, and presumably always will?

Was it created by extraterrestrial/interdimensional scientists/sorcerers, and if so, perhaps we'll go on to create our own worlds someday, when we're ready?

Humans are in peril it seems, because we can be our own worst enemy at times.
We're overconsuming ourselves into oblivion.

Part of the reason for this may be the standard model.
The standard model tells us our existence is a complete fluke, a one off, a role of the dye.
With that sort of thinking, no wonder we don't treat the earth with reverence.

We also think the earth will at some point burn to a crisp when the sun explodes.
No wonder we're in such a haste to develop technology then, because we think we'll need to use it to escape from the earth someday.
But technology could just as easily or more be our undoing rather than our salvation.

But if this is the only world in existence, or at least the only one we'll ever call home, and if it was intelligently designed so we could live in and enjoy it, and we could go on existing forever so long as we respect it, then perhaps we wouldn't be in such a haste to take the thing apart and put it back together again, fixing what isn't broken and for all we know will never break.

So perhaps the sun, moon and stars, earth and sky may always exist, I mean year after year, century after century they never change, even thou contemporary science keeps insisting they will.
Perhaps thinking of them that way, as divinely designed, as potentially immortal so long as we're good stewards of the earth, only intervening when necessary, will prolong our lives.
Our present model, true or false, may be the very thing that's hastening our destruction.

4

Flat Earth Community / Alt Flat Earth

« on: September 15, 2017, 11:17:45 PM »

Could the flat earth be repeating itself like this:



And that's the real reason why we can travel west or east and end up back where we started?
Perhaps it works the same way if you travel north or south, or, perhaps you enter another infinitely repeating reel if you travel north or south.

5

Flat Earth Community / Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 01:12:38 PM »

I think the earth is probably round, but I think flat earth theorists have made a better case for flat earth than round earthers are crediting them.
However, I don't wish to get into that here.

Who can prove to me the heavens are what NASA claims they are?
At this point all I have is information, not knowledge.
I've been told what the the sun, moon and stars are.
I've been told what their dimensions are, but I haven't observed anything indicating the sun is a million times bigger than the earth, or millions of miles away.
I've observed nothing indicating the stars are suns, or that they're averagely as big as the sun, just millions of times further away.
Where's the proof?

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Public Vice, Private Virtue

« on: August 17, 2017, 04:04:28 PM »

The lazier, more slothful and unproductive people are at work, the less money they'll tend to have, the less they'll be able to consume and indulge in their spare time.
The less they splurge and consume, the less resources will have to be extracted from the earth, saving the environment in the process.
Myself I think everyone that can should pay their way, but other than that, why pressure ourselves or others to achieve more, or be more productive than they feel like being?

Is their some deficiency of productivity I'm not aware of?
Are machines not amplifying productivity a hundred fold?
The world is awash with mechanical and organic capital, saturated.
Is there a lack of creativity or goods and services?
Is the earth and its bounty inexhaustible?
Are workaholics really so virtuous?
Is their intent to benefit society, or are they merely more avaricious than the rest of us?

I think in many-most cases it's more-mostly a case of the latter, not the former.
People are having less kids, and I think that's a good thing, people should only have one or two kids these days max, after all the less rare humans are, the bigger the supply of humans is, the more the demand for them goes down, as it should, rightfully so.
The last thing we need is more mouths to feed, more crowds, pollution and noise.
Speaking of which we need to cut down on immigrants, way too bloody man of them.

The problem is people are still working too hard.
How hard do you have to work if you only have your self to support or one kid?
Why do you need a house?
Why not just wait for your parents to die so you can move into theirs, or live in their basement, or just rent or buy a one or two bedroom?
What do you need a big, stupid house for, when you'd rather be online than cutting the grass anyway, cleaning or decorating rooms and things you rarely if ever use?
The things and stuff online are free, you don't have to work for them, it's a virtual Garden of Eden.
If I want to hear a piece of music, or watch a video, or play a game, I simply pluck it from the tree.

It's fun to recycle and throw things away.
I'm always thinking of reasons I don't need things that I have, or reasons I don't need to buy things.
Things take up so much space, and you can usually get by just fine without them.
Before the end of the year I'm going to look through all the things I have, which probably isn't much lot by most peoples standards, and figure out which ones I'm going to toss in the bin.
I can't wait, it's going to be so much fun!
Don't even donate them, return the materials to nature where they belong.
There are too many people with too much things.
Population should be 90-99% of what it is.

You see this guy right here:



Or this guy here:



It's because of guys like this, the secular Bernarde Mandevilles on the one hand, and the religious John Calvins on the other, the world is so topsy-turvy.
The scourge of consumerism began primarily in the northwestern nations of Europe in the renaissance and 'enlightenment', but it did not end there, we took our dark values with us wherever we went, and they have since encompassed the whole globe, and perhaps they served us Europeans for a time, but they've long outlived their usefulness, their sustainability.
I think it's time some of us toss these values in the scrapheap, and search for new ones.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Softening on Crime

« on: August 17, 2017, 12:34:48 AM »

Why have punishments for crime softened in the west in last two or three centuries?

I have a few theories:

One is it was harder to catch criminals back then, so when you did catch them, you had to make an example of them.

Two is people had more of a sense of community, of togetherness, so when you transgressed the law, people were more hurt by it, more offended.

Three is life was poorer, nastier and shorter, people were harder, tougher, it took more to deter them from committing crimes, and they had a stronger stomach for violence, they weren't as apprehensive about dishing it out.

The king and the aristocracy made the laws, and they were often above them, so they had nothing to lose by making tough laws and everything to gain.
It was their own order they were maintaining, why break their own self serving order, and why not strengthen as much as possible?

We have more resources now, to both quarantine and rehabilitate people, back then they didn't have the means to take care of criminals, certainly not very well, so conditions were poorer, and punishments swift: amputation, execution.
Not only do we have more material resources, but we have more psychological ones at our disposal additionally, we have more effective drugs now for treating the sorts of mental illnesses that're thought to exacerbate violent or criminal tendencies, and we have more in the way of counselling and therapy in our inventory.

It was believed laws were made by or at least given the okay by the Gods, so you weren't just breaking a village's law, a town's or even just a state's, but the divine, absolute and objective law.

Laws have always changed, but probably more now more than ever, as the pace of society as a whole is changing, continually updating and supposedly upgrading, reassessing and evaluating its morals and values, its ethos, and so the law is viewed as more arbitrary now, questionable, and so we're more hesitant about punishing people severely.
We're also more familiar with how things are done in other countries, and even in other provinces or states, which makes laws seem even less immutable.

Females are having more of a say in politics, and there may be a tendency for them to be more lenient when doling out punishments, at least when the crime doesn't affect them personally.

While sometimes it can seem like it's worse than ever before, violent crime has been decreasing significantly for centuries, and so it may seem less necessary to root or stamp it out powerfully and speedily whenever and wherever it's found.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Define & Destroy

« on: August 14, 2017, 03:15:36 AM »

I think the USA itself could be said to have an ideology, and gradually, perhaps inevitably, it's becoming the ideology of the world, for better, but mostly for worse.
There's few individuals, nations and countries that aren't fully or partly on board.

Is it humanism, science and technology?
Politically is it representative, liberal democracy?
Economically is it capitalism?
Socially is it progressivism, or multiculturalism and feminism?
It's probably all of the above.
Perhaps more than anything thou, it's consumerism, the notion society is improving if people are taking more from the earth, turning more of it into things people think they need and/or like, and giving it to them at whatever price they'll pay.

Now there're many casualties and consequences of this ideology, to the environment and to ourselves, and society is slowly awakening to them, but it's probably too little too late.
endless growth is not an option for the USA and its cronies, it's compulsory.
There may be a few bumps, and if absolutely necessary, we might have to occasionally slow down a little on our road to a consumer's paradise, where everything we could ever possibly imagine or wish for is a mere click, or thought away, but only temporarily, until we can find a way to resume or increase the pace of change without annihilating ourselves and everything on ball earth in the process, but we should never, ever have to come to a halt, or, dare I even say, reverse course in any way, perish the thought.

I believe that you could do away with everything, democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech, perhaps even feminism and it'd still be the USA so long as there's Coca Cola, McDick's, Walgreens and the Gap, so long as there's haves and have nots, so long as people, or at least some people have loads more than they need, know what do with or use, and the promise of everlasting shit to come if we all just work hard enough, or at least work hard enough at cheating or better yet rigging the system.
We may have to sell some of our rights and freedoms along the way to get there, we may even have to sell our souls to Satan, it doesn't matter, by God, Satan or Mohammed we'll get there.
It's what we consume now that defines us, makes us Americans, or Amerophiles: coke or pepsi, Chrysler, GM, Ford, Bentley or BMW?

But of course, it won't last, every civilization that has ever existed has come to an end, and the bigger they are...and never have we been more big for our britches, figuratively and literally.
While I think civilization, at the very least as we know it is doomed, perhaps some individuals and small groups can survive, and do their part, however futile, in changing course, if not for civilization/culture as a whole, than at least for themselves and their friends.

I am an anti-consumerist needless to say, not only should growth slow down and stop, but it should recede decades or even centuries in many regards.
We need to localize, not globalize, and work on being greener, not just, or even primarily for the sake of the environment and unborn generations, but for our own health and well being.
Rampant, reckless, unbridled and unchecked consumption is making us all a hell of a lot sicker.
I think asceticism is the answer, and minimalism-moderation, reducing what we produce/consume down to what is essential, and little else, being more appreciative and content with less.
If you're already off the grid, that's great, I'm still fully connected, but I may not be someday.

Anyway we live in interesting times, and with resource shortages and wars looming, times are sure to get a whole lot more interesting before the end of the century, but where there is disaster there is usually also opportunity, at least for some with the resourcefulness to look for and seize it.
I really don't believe life as we know it will survive this century, I mean after two world wars and the cold war, we should be counting our lucky stars we're here at all, right now.

9

Flat Earth Community / Rescuing flat earth with Refraction

« on: July 07, 2017, 12:51:09 AM »

I'm not a flat earther, and I think it's safe to say flat earth has some glaring holes.
Perhaps it's biggest, most obvious and well known one is the sun and moon appearing to set.
How do flat earthers get around, or in their case through this?
One way is with refraction.
But simply mentioning the word refraction isn't, or shouldn't be enough.

I'm captivated by the prospect of a flat earth, especially by an infinite plane, and I wish I, or someone could make it work somehow, but I'm not holding my breath, at least not forever.

10

Flat Earth Community / Paradox Moon

« on: July 05, 2017, 02:43:11 PM »

I find this phenomenon puzzling.
Moonlight appears localized, yet millions of people all over the globe can see it and its light simultaneously, why?
Is it an optical illusion, or something else?

11

Flat Earth Community / Geocentric Round Earth

« on: July 03, 2017, 02:32:08 PM »

If the government and academia are lying to us about cosmology, perhaps it's more likely they're lying to us about the layout of the heavens, than they are the shape of the earth.
A lot of what academia is telling us about the sun, moon and stars seems counter-intuitive.
If you had no knowledge of academic science, and were to look up at the night sky, would you think the earth is spinning, or the heavens are?
Would you think the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, but 400 times further away, so they only appear to be the same size and the same distance from the earth, or would you think they are just as they appear, the same size and the same distance from the earth?
Would you think the stars are millions of times bigger than the earth, and trillions of miles away?
That the gaps between the stars are trillions of times larger than they appear?
That the sun orbits the center of our galaxy at 400 000 miles per hour, but where is the evidence for this motion?
Where is the evidence for any of this?
How can mainstream science prove any of this to common people?
I'm not taking their word for any of it, their word doesn't mean a whole lot to me, I require evidence.

12

Flat Earth Community / Resurrecting the Antiquated Flat Earth Model

« on: July 03, 2017, 03:32:56 AM »

I'm pretty sure the flat earth model modern flat earth individuals and societies champion, with north in the center, as opposed to, well, in the north, is not the original flat earth model of old.
The old flat earth model had north in the north.
The continents weren't encircling the center of the earth, they were laid out just as they are on the Mercator map.
The sun literally rose in the east, went from being down below the earth, to being up above it, and set in the west, it didn't encircle the center of the earth, and neither did the moon and stars (I mean if the sun whirled around the center of the earth, how do modern flat earthers explain the sun appearing to move in a straight line from east to west? It's trajectory doesn't curve).

So the old flat earth model is dead in the hearts and minds of modern men, and the new flat earth model is incubating, it may never catch on, never see the light of day.
While I think the round earth model is better, nothing is absolutely certain for me.
I'm here to explore possibilities, and probabilities, not to arrive at truth with a capital T, for me there's no such thing.

Anyway, I'm wondering if there are any flat earthers out there who believe in the old model, and regardless of whether there are any, I'm wondering if it's possible to make the old model work, I mean it has some glaring holes, like the sun still being visible for some after it goes down for others, but the new flat earth model has some glaring holes also.
I'm also wondering why modern flat earthers fail to mention this fact, that the new flat earth has nearly nothing to do with the old one ancient men believed in.