1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 31, 2025, 10:01:48 PM »

What happens if you don’t tie your feet?

Then as I go through the centre of Earth, I know what is happening, so I make sure I get to the other side, so I flip around and start standing on side B instead of A.
That then has the elevator rise up on the other side of Earth we me standing upright.

Again, no contradiction.

What you're saying is nothing more than building a fortress of concepts.
The orderliness of your concepts may be free of contradictions, but in reality, such things can never exist.
Claims like people standing upside down on the other side of the Earth or that there is no gravity at the center are just empty ideas based on the assumption of a spherical Earth.

True science must minimize assumptions.
But the globe theory contains the biggest assumption of all — that the Earth is round.
The flat Earth theory removes that assumption and observes nature as it is.

I said that the world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.
But the world is not a round object (like the Earth).

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 29, 2025, 02:50:56 AM »

If we consider the Earth as a spherical object, there are several contradictions.
For example, let's assume that an elevator is installed by digging a straight tunnel from the South Pole to the North Pole.
Jack takes the elevator and travels from the South Pole to the North Pole.
When Jack reaches the North Pole, is he standing upside down or standing upright?
If he is standing upright at the North Pole, does that mean he was standing upside down at the South Pole?
Or does this mean the elevator itself has undergone some rotation?

So your "contradiction" is a poorly defined thought experiment combined with a failure to understand gravity?
Lets make it more rigorous shall we?

I will start in the elevator at the south pole.
For this I will have my feet strapped to the floor. The floor is labelled A, the roof is labelled B.
The elevator is mounted to a shaft which just allows translation, but not rotation.
The elevator then goes down, with me feeling the effect of gravity decreasing as I get closer and closer to the centre of Earth.
The elevator passes through the centre and continues. Now, the trend I observed continues as well, but that means I now feel gravity pulling me towards B instead of A, and I can feel that pull increase as I get closer to the surface.
I reach the surface at the north pole. Now side A is the roof, and side B is the floor. I am still strapped to side A and am hanging upside down with gravity pulling me towards the core.

What happens if you don’t tie your feet?
And what about at the center of the Earth — does a person spin around?
What you’re saying is just like the RE theory: pure imagination.
It’s something that can’t be seen in reality.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 27, 2025, 01:50:00 AM »

If we consider the Earth as a spherical object, there are several contradictions.
For example, let's assume that an elevator is installed by digging a straight tunnel from the South Pole to the North Pole.
Jack takes the elevator and travels from the South Pole to the North Pole.
When Jack reaches the North Pole, is he standing upside down or standing upright?
If he is standing upright at the North Pole, does that mean he was standing upside down at the South Pole?
Or does this mean the elevator itself has undergone some rotation?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 22, 2025, 12:14:26 AM »

Visibility matches actual phenomena better in a flat world. Take a good look at this video.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 21, 2025, 02:39:49 AM »

It means that each of us is the center of the universe.

How?
People are spread out in all three directions.
How could they all possibly be at the centre?

Just like we understand the cycle of time through a round clock

That isn't a cycle of time. That is simply how we count.
3 pm is not the same as 3 am, and 3 pm one day is not the same as 3 pm another day.

But if you start in Sydney, and travel around the world, you get back to the same Sydney as if you had just stayed there.
This is fundamentally different.

So, what does the world look like?
To put it simply, imagine the globe being flattened out.

And then how do you get all the observations that rely upon the globe not being flat, like the position of stars?

When you try to geometrically depict the shape of the world, you fall into a pit of contradictions.

Really? A RE seems to work fine without contradiction.

I have written two books.

So you are just here to try to sell your books?

The world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.

Or, because it is round.

The reality I see around me is definitely not round. Sometimes there are mountains, valleys, and rivers, but it is stretched out flat.

No, it isn't stretched out flat.
I find nothing to show it isn't round.

Therefore, both viewpoints are correct.

No, they aren't.
The FE viewpoint is based upon wilfully rejecting reality, and instead just seeing what you want to.

Thus, statements like "there is curvature on the surface," "people on the opposite side are upside down," or "if you go into space, you can see a spherical Earth" are all incorrect.

Then why do measurements show curvature? Why have people been able to go to space and take photos of a clearly roughly spherical Earth?

Yesterday's Sydney is not the same as today's Sydney. Only the name is the same. The limitation of visibility is not an indication of the Earth's curvature, but simply a visual phenomenon.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 20, 2025, 10:15:37 PM »

The Misunderstanding Between "The World is Round" and "The World is Flat"

1. The world is round.

The world has a circular nature because it is a space that circulates periodically.

2. The world is flat.

The reality I see around me is definitely not round. Sometimes there are mountains, valleys, and rivers, but it is stretched out flat.

The second viewpoint reflects the practical and sensory world.
The first viewpoint reflects the overall and conceptual world.

Therefore, both viewpoints are correct. However, people often argue because they focus on only one perspective.

But the world is not a round object (like the Earth).

Thus, statements like "there is curvature on the surface," "people on the opposite side are upside down," or "if you go into space, you can see a spherical Earth" are all incorrect.

7

Flat Earth Debate / The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.

« on: August 20, 2025, 09:56:24 PM »

Hello, I'm Pyeong Jee In.
I'm back almost six years. I am advocating for the human-centered universe, named HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE
HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE means a human-centered universe. It means that each of us is the center of the universe.

The world is not a round object, but a cyclical space.
The space circulates periodically, so it may seem round, but it is not a round object.
Just like we understand the cycle of time through a round clock, we understand the cycle of space through a round globe.
In other words, the relationship is 'time: space = clock: globe.'

So, what does the world look like?
To put it simply, imagine the globe being flattened out. That is how it circulates periodically.

When you try to geometrically depict the shape of the world, you fall into a pit of contradictions.
Space, like time, has no shape. Time and space cycle periodically, though.

Time, space, and I are one.
It’s not that there’s a path that I walk, but rather that because I walk, there is a path.
Therefore, as long as I exist, there is no end to the world.
The world is both finite and infinite because it cycles periodically.

All of this is possible because of the human-centered universe.

The original is in Korean, published as an e-book in Korea.
I have written two books. One is about the flat earth theory, and the other is about the history of the flat earth theory.

https://ebook-product.kyobobook.co.kr/dig/epd/ebook/480D190400800?LINK=NVE
https://ebook-product.kyobobook.co.kr/dig/epd/ebook/480D250843380?LINK=NVE

I also run a blog and online community. It might be hard to read since it's in Korean, but I hope it can be helpful as a reference.

https://blog.naver.com/zorbakim
https://cafe.naver.com/flatearther

e-mail: [email protected]

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: November 28, 2019, 02:37:53 AM »

Yes, you said
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."

The essence of light is the wave.

So you reject the wave particle duality of light?
The designers of solar panels, LEDs and so much more would very strongly disagree with you.

Wave is the essence of light and particle is phenomenon of light.
By the way, let's say another reason why the Earth is flat.

No curvature has ever been found in a survey conducted in Earth's space.
According to modern science, universal space is also flat.
In other words, the space surrounding the Earth is all flat without curvature.

It is a contradiction that the earth is round in a flat space.
If the earth is round, the space surrounding it should also be round.
Therefore, the Earth is flat.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: November 22, 2019, 01:52:42 AM »

The waves close to me look bigger.

Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.

Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.

That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.

I never said it did.
I said the objects have a visual size.

Now care to respond to what I said?

Yes, you said
"Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light."

But the incoming rays of light is just geometry.
Have you ever seen rays of light coming in through your eyes?
The essence of light is the wave.
Geometry is just interpretation.
Therefore, the size of things must also be found in the characteristics of waves.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: November 12, 2019, 01:20:26 AM »

The waves close to me look bigger.

Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.

Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.

That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM »

The waves close to me look bigger.
Visual size is determined by light pressure.
It has nothing to do with the incident angle of light.
A lot of optical action takes place near the eye level.
Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
It is important to remember that the horizon is not a single line.
The visual horizon is physically tens of kilometers long.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 15, 2019, 12:20:18 AM »

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?

Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
The point is objects don't appear to have their apparent (angular) size cut in half when the distance is doubled when they are close.
Again, you can easily show this cannot be the case by going the other way, i.e. halving the distance.
I already showed that and you just ignored it and said I am wrong.

Take an object that is 16 m away and 16 m tall, above your eyeline.
That makes it 45 degrees.
According to your claim, at 8 m away it would need to cover from straight out, to straight up, but it doesn't.
Halving the distance again to 4 m it now would also need to appear behind you according to you. This makes no sense.

The apparent size of the object is the angular size.

Doubling the distance resulting in the object appearing half the size only works for small distant objects. Not close ones.

You don't understand me.
I've never said, "the apparent size of the object is the angular size".
That's your argument.
You are confusing physical and visual sizes.
So there's a contradiction like what you said.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 13, 2019, 08:49:57 AM »

We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?

That is the same result JackBlack gave, look.

Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At . . . . .
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6

When the "16 m tall object" is 16 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan ¹⁶/₁₆) = (arc tan 1) = 45.0° and
when the "16 m tall object" is 32 m away the angle can be found from (arc tan ¹⁶/₃₂) = (arc tan 1/2) = 26.6°.

Why do you say is that wrong?

When the distance doubles, the size is seen in half.
But the angle is not half.
Therefore, the size we see is not the angle of an object.
The trigonometric function is not just our sense, but math.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 13, 2019, 08:46:50 AM »

Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.

I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?

I think it's better not to talk to such people.

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747

Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery. 

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?

Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

then I will summarize the subject. in fact, although each of us is different, we are in a same virtual environment. my studies show that we live on a 2-dimensional plane, not 3-dimensional. I researched a few things to see if I was the only one in the world, and I discovered that the world was not created for intelligent people like us, but for people with less intelligence. clearly this world fiction is meant to convince them, not us. It is clear that the creators aware at the start that we'll discover its being fictional. what is it that we gain when we discover everything? Hard questions, right? I am suspect on whether God has created this world or somebody did it by using the name of God. then I ask this question. There is god, we know that. So why would he allow that?

PS: Corrections made.

You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 13, 2019, 01:00:33 AM »

Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.

I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?

I think it's better not to talk to such people.

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747

Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

I had not actually looked at the issue in terms of pressure. Of course, in fact, the light needed to achieve the visual process is a wave, and the way we perceive it can be pressure. I thought that was interesting. I'm gonna have to work on that a little bit.

since we cannot see an object with its real dimension, because the angular dimension is an arctangent function; the simulation transmits its direct form to us. this information can be in the form of pressure. it may also be about how the brain perceives the world. for example, people who think that the shape of the earth is flat will see the total size of the objects as flat. and the image formed in the person's brain will be slightly slanted if the person believes the earths being round.

if we use the camera to understand it; the normal camera will make the world look flat, but in fact it is impossible to view. Because it would be slightly curve because of arctangent function. If we use the fisheye camera we see the world round, but this is not realistic, as the camera will show all flat objects round.

I believe that we must join forces to solve this mystery. 

@mods, admins; can anybody ban the jackblack please, parasiting the issue but adults are talking?

Your theory has a lot in common with me.
One of them is that the senses are different from physical things.
I do not believe that physical things exist separately.
I think physical is just my senses.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 13, 2019, 12:52:44 AM »

No, there are many problems using an angular size

Really? I am yet to find one which isn't caused by people making mistakes.
The only thing that comes close is the limit of resolution where very small objects cannot be resolved and either appear larger than they are (if they are bright enough) or they aren't noticed at all (if they aren't bright enough).

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.

Only as an approximation for distant objects.
If the object is close enough then doubling the distance will not cut the size in half.
The simple way to show this is to first consider an object 1024 m away which takes up 1 degree. (that is roughly 18 m tall).
Now we repeatedly half the distance and double the angular size and consider what happens. (the faster way is to note it is based upon the assumption that the size times the distance is constant, and thus we can just flip it and get it to be 1024 degrees, but lets do it the long way for completeness and to avoid any arguments)

512 m gives 2 degrees.
256 m gives 4 degrees.
128 m gives 8 degrees.
64 m gives 16 degrees.
32 m gives 32 degrees.
16 m gives 64 degrees.
8 m gives 128 degrees.
4 m gives 256 degrees, more than covering an entire side of your vision. This is only possible if you are inside it.
2 m gives 512 degrees. This is more than physically possible. Even if you were inside an object with no opening, it would only be 360 degrees.
1 m gives 1024 degrees. This is just insanity.

So clearly objects cannot simply half the angle angle when the distance is doubled.
If you think I am being unfair with my initial conditions then just take any object, and do the same. A tall building viewed from a distance is a good start.

The origin for this is the small x approximation for the tangent function.
When x is small, tan(x)~=x.
In reality, tan(a)=h/d.
The small x approximation means that a~=h/d, but only when a is small, which requires h/d to be small.

We can even show the problems with this.
Lets take a 16 m tall object.
At 1 m it is 86.4 deg
2 m it is 82.9 deg. Notice this is nothing like halving. In fact, it is more like subtracting the first angle from 90, then doubling it, then subtracting that from 90 to get the second.
4 m it is 76.0
8 m it is 63.4
16 m it is 45.0
32 m it is 26.6
64 m it is 14.0
128 m it is 7.1, now this is more like halving
256 m it is 3.6
512 m it is 1.8
1024 m it is 0.9.

Notice how this only predicts the angle is halved at large distances.

At small distances it is much larger than half the size at twice the distance.

So no, the reality of distant objects not having their size reduced to half when the distance is doubled is entirely in line with modern understanding of how light and seeing works.

As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.

The inverse tangent (which is what I am assuming you are using) is that angle.
If they don't match, you have done something wrong.

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 12, 2019, 01:52:58 AM »

Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.

Yes, because that is what all the evidence indicates, and how cameras and the eye works.
The light comes in at a particular direction.
Your eye/camera senses that direction due to specific photosensitive cells detecting that light and creating an electrical signal.
If something spans a large angle, it will stimulate a lot of those cells and be detected as that large angle.
If it only spans a small angle, then it will stimulate a smaller region of cells and be detected as a smaller angle.

It can also easily be explained based upon breaking the object into smaller pieces.
The top of the object is detected in one direction.
The bottom is detected in another.
The angular size is based upon the difference between these directions.

But I think it's because of the light pressure.

Which would make it proportional to intensity, unless you wanted to invent some new magic light pressure.
The problem is that it isn't.
A bright object can appear to span a small angular size, while a much darker object spans a much larger size.
More importantly, intensity typically drops as 1/r², not 1/r.

So that doesn't fit reality at all.

There is no problem just using angular size as modern science knows it works.

No, there are many problems using an angular size

If the distance is twice as far away, the object looks half the size.
As shown in the picture, however, the angle of light entering the eye is not reduced by half.
But the tangent of the angle is only reduced by half.
So our view is tangent?
Absolutely not.
Therefore, a modern visual theory is wrong.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 12, 2019, 01:04:48 AM »

Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.

I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?

I think it's better not to talk to such people.

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

To get it you should read a bit my workings in believer subforum. I've explained what I say, here:

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2184747#msg2184747

Very interesting.
In fact, I've thought of a similar problem.
I think it's a matter of the difference between physical and visual.
I can't say material itself.
I can only say the visual.
Because the world is our senses.
The size of an object is inversely proportional to the distance.
Modern science sees it as the angle of light that gets into the eye.
But I think it's because of the light pressure.
In other words, light pressure is inversely proportional to the distance.
It determines the visual size of an object.
That almost fits in with reality in flat earth theory.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 10, 2019, 01:38:11 AM »

Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.

I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?

I think it's better not to talk to such people.

I made a mistake and replied one of them. If you agree we can ignore their blabbings in this topic and continue our own conversation. You know, our one hour debating each other includes more valuable information than our talks with these blabbers during for years.

Did you examine that example? What do you think about it? Did sim-engineers* make a mistake or was it necessary? Thanks in advance.



*:simulation engineers of the earth/we/you/me/they/etc... So much so that we may be in the side of one of them or both of engineers or citizens.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're going to say.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 08, 2019, 04:07:49 PM »

Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.

I agree with you.

Thank you. Your agreing with me is worth of more than all the globularists deny in earth. Because, you know, they come from orangutans, how can they be smart?

I think it's better not to talk to such people.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 08, 2019, 03:59:00 PM »

The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.

For Earth, a triangle with an angle sum of 270 degrees can easily be constructed (or 180+x).
Start at the equator and go due north to the north pole. Then turn 90 degrees (or x), and head due south back to the equator.
Then turn 90 degrees at the equator and travel along until you reach your original line which is going off at 90 degrees.
That alone means Earth isn't flat, and thus can't be a flat torus.

You're a liar.
So what you say is worthless.
The curvature in the earth's space has never been measured.
What you say is a just theory but there is nothing like that in reality.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 05, 2019, 04:58:49 AM »

The doughnut's surface looks curvature, but it's mathematically flat.
In other words, the surface of a doughnut is like a flat surface, mathematically without curvature.
But if you go straight along the surface of the doughnut, you'll be back in place.
The doughnut's surface is flat and finite, but if you go straight, like a sphere, you can get back in place.
This is called a two-dimensional torus in mathematical terms.

The Earth is like that.
The Earth is flat and finite, but if we go straight, we can get back to where we are.
So far, we've believed that this is because the Earth is round like a ball.
We didn't think about a two-dimensional torus.

But don't  mistake the Earth for looking like a donut just because it's a two-dimensional torus.
They're both in the same topology, not the same shape.

So why does the Earth have this trait?
That's because the Earth is not an object, it's a space.
Space is a relationship.
The relationship between me and you, animals and plants, wind and clouds, mountains and valleys is the space.
So, without those elements, there's no space.
The change of space is time.
So, time and space are the same thing.
So the world is a space, a time and a relationship.

Time changes periodically.
Day and night, and season show it well.
Space and time are the same, so space also changes periodically.
It's easy to think about the fact that trees change regularly according to the seasons.
Periodic change and flow is like the progression of light.
So the world is light.

So if we go straight in the world, we'll reach the cycle and get back to where we are.
The space cycle, which is equivalent to a day in time, is 40,000 kilometers.
So if we travel 40,000 kilometers, we're back in place.

In short, the Earth is a space where the sky, the earth, and all the elements in it are involved.
It's a space, so it has no shape.
But it's finite, flat and without curvature.
It's already been scientifically proven that there's no curvature in the sky.
The space has a cycle like time.
That's true world.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 05, 2019, 01:23:45 AM »

Until you come out of the cave of  globe Earth, you will not see the flat.

Corrected for you. All flat earthers were globe earthers years ago. We have queried, investigated, compared and decided the true shape of the earth as flat, after we have come out of globe earth cave that you still in and deny to come out.

I agree with you.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 04, 2019, 01:07:17 AM »

I think as follows:
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.

We're all real: I think as so too.
God is real: Is God governs this earth be a simulation or somebody imitate him, can it be?

It's a difficult question.
In essence, Westerners and Asians have different ideas about God.
The God of Christianity is a transcendent being.
But the God of East Asians is an inherent being.
The god of Asia is not too far away. He is sometimes my friend, parent and me.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 03, 2019, 06:34:50 AM »

Then we should call it zorbs egocentric book of nonsense.

You can't love others if you don't love yourself.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 03, 2019, 06:33:21 AM »

In other words, the universe originates from me.

Is there a difference between humans with regard to being real or simulation. If it was; so how many of the people in this earth do you think is real and how many is simulation? And I wonder this one. Is God real, simulation, we or anyone who directs this simulation? I have some thoughts but I wonder yours. Thanks in advance.

I think as follows:
We're all real.
We are all the protagonists of our lives.
God is real.
Because we are the incarnation of God.
In other words, we are all sons of God.
That is the teachings of Jesus.
This is true in all religions.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 03, 2019, 06:21:53 AM »

In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.

Since the earliest Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmographies the Flat Earth model
"imagined the Earth to be a disc floating on water with an arched firmament above it
that separated the Earth from the heavens".

Arched Firmament is Dome, not Sphere.

Please tell me what do you mean by "lower part of the foot".

In his publication of AD 120 called The Spiritual Constitution of the Universe (靈憲, Ling Xian, lit. "Sublime Model"),[18][63] Zhang Heng theorized that the universe was like an egg "as round as a crossbow pellet" with the stars on the shell and the Earth as the central yolk. This universe theory is congruent with the geocentric model as opposed to the heliocentric model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Heng

But Zhang Heng's theory is different from the geocentric model.
He rightly viewed the earth as flat.

"lower part of the foot" means the lower part of the earth.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 03, 2019, 06:11:45 AM »

Can you define homocentric?

It means that man is central.

is your house in the center of your property?
what does it matter that man is central to the universe?

In other words, the universe originates from me.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 02, 2019, 03:38:05 AM »

RGB is the color of the three primary colors of light.
It is related to yin and yang and Goethe's color theory.

RED: yang(+)
GREEN: the combination of yin and yang
BLUE: yin(-)

Yin-yang is the key principle of HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE.

Electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 750 and 620 nanometers we perceive as "red".
People who assign the Yang principle to that are emotionally experiencing "red" as "active / male".

Wavelengths between 495 and 450 nanometers we perceive as "blue".
People who assign the Yin principle to that are emotionally experiencing "blue" as "passive / female".

Green as combination of Yin and Yang is just an extension of the attempts to spread out / design personal experiences of receptive part of the population.

On the contrary, Chinese tradition presents Yang as "sky / active / male", and the sky is blue.
Yin is "earth / passive / female" and before the industrial revolution it was mostly green.

Yin / Yang system is binary (base 2). Light and dark, regardles the color. Rods in the eye.
Red / Green / Blue system is ternary (base 3). Colors regardless the brightness. Cones in the eye.

Materialistic thinking cannot tell the secret of the world.
The world is a relationship.
Round is not the earth, but the celestial sphere.

Assigning Yang to sky and Yin to Earth is not materialistic at all.
Yin and Yang are principles by which humans (still) try to give emotional explanations to the world around.

What is materialistic is the Universe that surrounds us.
We can either limit ourselves to just own, personal point of view (declare our ego to be the center of everything), or
we can exchange data, have views from more than one point and build a bigger, more accurate (less limited) picture.

~~~~~

"Celestial sphere" is the term originating in Geocentrism, not in Flat model.
Ancient Flat model before Plato and Aristotle had Dome, not Spheres.
(Looks like the term "the seventh heaven" came from superficial understanding of Geocentrism among common people.)

In Geocentrism there is Earth as the sphere in the center of heavens and
several crystal spheres, each carrying own set of celestial bodies.

Instead of bands, Plato's student Eudoxus developed a planetary model using concentric spheres
for all the planets, with three spheres each for his models of the Moon and the Sun and four each for
the models of the other five planets, thus making 26 spheres in all.
Callippus modified this system, using five spheres for his models of the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars
and retaining four spheres for the models of Jupiter and Saturn, thus making 33 spheres in all. Each planet is
attached to the innermost of its own particular set of spheres.
Although the models of Eudoxus and Callippus qualitatively describe the major features of the motion of the planets,
they fail to account exactly for these motions and therefore cannot provide quantitative predictions. Although
historians of Greek science have traditionally considered these models to be merely geometrical representations,
recent studies have proposed that they were also intended to be physically real or have withheld judgment,
noting the limited evidence to resolve the question.

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

Of course, yin and yang theory is is far from materialism.
I thought you were into materialistic thinking.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

In the flat earth model, there was a concept of the Celestial sphere.
Of course, the lower part of the foot was very vague.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOMOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: FLAT EARTH (LIVE ON Amazon)

« on: July 01, 2019, 12:29:18 AM »

Can you define homocentric?

It means that man is central.