1

Flat Earth General / Re: Antarctica, Atlantis and Flat Earth

« on: May 31, 2012, 12:52:41 AM »

If your familiar with the concepts that place antarctica as a continent before the ice wall I think it holds more weight... but even then no reason why It couldn't have been a circular city on the Ice walls edge

2

Flat Earth General / Re: the solar system

« on: May 28, 2012, 02:27:55 PM »

this is the best and clearest explanation of a horizon. maybe thats what TB etc have been trying to say all along but balls it up and make it confusing by adding words like perspective in that tend to make you think of it differently to how you just described it.
but as interesting as it is, it has nothing to do with venus passing in front of the sun in just over a weeks time.

What about the post above that one - did you miss it or not understand it?

3

Flat Earth General / Re: the solar system

« on: May 26, 2012, 10:58:45 PM »

This was a pretty good explanation of infinite earth from a user on GLP
....

I love threads like this because they challenge the brain. OK ill attempt to come up with a workable hypothesis...

Supposing it was an infinate plane:

As you stand on earth and look down, you see a flat section of the plane, but as you look further out you come to the horizon, the point where the distance of that section of the plane is so far away that you no longer have a perpendicular perspective, but rather by comparison, your height Above the plane is now so miniscule as a percentage of the distance of the plane that you might as well be parallel to it.

Therefore when you look to the distance, you see a horizon. Looking down is like seeing the flat part of a knife, looking in the distance is like seeing the edge of a knife. Thats why we see a horizon on an infinate plane.

example:

suppose you are ther dot below, and the plane is below you

.

____

you see the flat part.

now look in the distance...you see the edge and the flat dissapears.

. ______

Thats what causes the horizon.

Now heres the magical part:

If the plane is infinate, the horizon should always be there no matter what.

So if you begin to go higher and higher, you will see a wider streatch of the flat plane, but the horizen will ALWAYS be there, in all different directions. And it will ALWAYS appear parallel to you.

If you get far enough away from the plane, it will look like a circle, because the edges are the horizon which are parallel to you can not break the infinate horizon and the flat part that is directly belowe you simply gets further away the higher you go. The circle will just appear to get smaller.

Thats why stars . Appear smaller than the moon and why we always see the same part of the moon and never the "Dark Side".

From this distance we merely see the flat section of the moon that we are directly above, and the edges are merely the ever extending infinate horizon that is parallel to us.
From this distance we merely see that as ROUND.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: the solar system

« on: May 26, 2012, 10:48:16 PM »

well what is seen as the stars and planets may very well simply be the projected image of another geothermal pocket of the infinite plane taking a very long arch from its origin..

It might even be plausible to say that its arc-velocity of light in contrast with our sun's when it's projection crosses the sun's path creates a distortion due to different wavelengths - creating a cancellation effect on the projected planet hence it turns dark - or inverted - similar to how sun spots can appear dark or even how the sun when viewed for a split second with the naked eye can be seen as a dark circle surrounded by intense light

5

Flat Earth General / Re: the solar system

« on: May 26, 2012, 07:16:47 PM »

You want to hear one of my takes on it?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: The World Tree (Flat Earth mithological model)

« on: May 23, 2012, 01:17:34 AM »

I would love to see a thread or info reposit entry with all the flat earth art work you guys have aquired

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.

« on: May 20, 2012, 03:55:47 PM »

Overview:

The conclusion that can be drawn from this presentation, is that the horizon line - riddled with potentially and or absolutely misleading anomalies of light - is of no discernible quality so as to determine the shape of the Earth. The notion that the mast of ships and boats being the last part to remain observable as they pass beyond horizon, is evidence of the Earth's curvature is a misunderstood assumption that has been repeatedly believed. The calculation of curvature renders the distance that amounts to any shift in a convex degree large enough to get a boat's hull dipping “below” the horizon  is a much larger distance than that of 4.7km. It would seem according to figures that the distance before apparent curvature should be noticeable is much larger than 4.7km. Here is a site with some figures that support this notion -http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html   It states that every mile, the earth curves 8 inches considering 4.7 km is about 3 & 1/3 km then that's only about 32 inches of curvature from ones position to the horizon line which appears to slant upward anyway negating any perceivable curvature – scratching your head? *chuckle* I sure was.

The fact that a boat will disappear behind the horizon   to an observer at ground level - being around 4.7km away – in the exact same manner as it will when viewed form an elevated altitude, which renders the horizon at a further distance, is there fore evidence that boats are traversing a flat ocean surface when their mast's are the only thing observable from ground level at roughly 4.7km away.
_____________________________________
   
Hot air balloonists have been know to comment on how the horizon line always remains perpendicular to relaxed eye level, some even state it persists as such above some of the highest safe altitudes for breathing without an oxygen tank. Some have also documented in books about how the resulting concave appearance of the horizon - as it rose with them - produces the appearance of being in a large bowl and that the surface beneath them went dim as tho they were rising above the threshold of their perceivable limit of scope. This dimness would make sense if one were to contend with the notion of bending light, as it would account for why within the atmosphere there are certain folds of refracted light which will only enter ones eye from specific altitudes. This means that some rays bypass the surface of the earth below ones exact location, while others meet it, hence leaving the surface dim if one is above the fold of light which would illuminate the Surface if they were in position  to receive it. Once one gets above the sky dome, the folds which pertain to atmospheric refraction no longer apply and one receives the longest arcs of light reflecting off the Earth's surface, thereby yielding to the appearance of the “Earth Ball” or the lit portion of the terrestrial plane - by a seeming “spotlight effect”.     

All of these perceptual anomalies are simply that, effects which appear as something that they really are not. The general assumption that can be made however is that technology can't prove that the appearance of the sky-dome (from within it) lends toward anything other than the notion that the earth is flat.[/size]

8

Flat Earth General / Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.

« on: May 20, 2012, 03:50:06 PM »

Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.

 

Disclaimer: a line like so denotes a suggested rest/memory retention point to avoid info overload. The following presentation equals 7 pages of size 12 TNR font. The content herein is not especially scientific, it is logical, mostly sensorily verifiable thought provocative analyses, which are best approached with curiosity and an open mind.
 

Synopsis.

Herein will be detailed reasons to suggest why the anomalies at the brink of ones perceptual scope are neither evidence that Earth's surface is flat or curved - convex or concave

The Horizon Line:

Apparently the Horizon at sea-level, for an observer with a height of 1.70m standing on the ground, is 4.65 km. It rests at ones relaxed eye level.

If one is to hold their gaze to the highest angle they can, whilst standing straight without tilting their head, the highest point in which they can see is actually further than 4.65km. This fact has lead many to assume that this means that the horizon is the distance in which things begin to drop behind the curvature of the earth, when actually natural eyesight has an uneven threshold to which it is limited and the Horizon line - the medium band of this threshold has the closest retention. This is because the eyes lenses are receptive not projective and the pupil is the part of the organ which absorbs/attracts the light into the rods and cones which then filter the optical data such as colour depth etc. that the brain then creates a 3D image of.

However the visual threshold is limited to different distances depending on the level of the atmosphere it is receiving from. Variables in the saturation of light and its angle/arc-velocity, moisture and air pressure (which create distortions/accentuations or diminishment of the actual size and or distance to which sense data can be received), are what determines the limit of ones visual scope at any given angle.

The horizon line is the area of ones visual threshold which is limited the most,

Because:

1. light has travelled the furthest to get there.
2. The arc-velocity (otherwise known as bendy-light) is at the greatest compression thus acting as a filter on the retention rate of visual reception.

3.The atmosphere is at its most dense serving as a further filter.

4. Additionally as potential weather variables:
Natural lens-like refraction (the effect of an image projecting closer or further away than it is) and further velocity of arcing – resulting in the appearance being compressed so to appear smaller due to moisture and or ice crystals at low altitude, this being dependant on the weather and/or season.

All of these variables account for a number of potential combinations of reasons for why an object may appear further away or closer than it is in reality.
[b/]
The reverse of what has been explained here can account for why the limit of one's scope is extended further as the angle of gaze is elevated above the horizon.
_____________________________________

Thought experiment:

If the atmosphere were not present and one were suspended in the centre of a huge sphere, the distanced of the spheres surface would be equally far away from every point with no distortions, provided the light source were also emanating from the central vantage point.
 
This would mean one's perception of the sphere's inner surface would have no distortions of distance ratio, every possible angle of observation would be seen as the exact same distance. Hence, if the sphere were then to expand outward it would eventually pass beyond the limit of ones visual threshold.

The true limit of one's threshold is as good a guess as anyone's, as this experiment in reality is practically improbable. The optical distortions of distance lead us to 2 conclusions which support the hypothesis of a limited threshold to the visual scope of living beings.

1. It is not possible to see forever with the naked eye, this is why telescopes are required to observe the outer cosmos - there is a definite point upon which objects begin to shrink beyond observation.   
 
 2. This therefore means that what is observable in the sky as stars and luminous astronomical objects that are further away than the highest known point of the atmosphere, are beaming light through it which  saturates the air particles within the range of one's  scope...

Its note worthy to understand that the size of observable stars according to the popularly held Copernican world view, is taken for granted. One's immediate senses cannot show them that they are as large and as far as they are said to be, for the simple fact that one does not view the light from the point of origin. The light seen has travelled to ones scope of perception.

All proposed distances of the stars are calculated in contrast by the estimated distance and size of our own sun by comparison to the intensity of light and Einstein's speed of light equation. This does not take into account that space may be spherically warped and variate in Aetheric density. Even Einstein supposed there were an Aether. There are no measuring instruments that can directly measure actualised distances of a stars light.

The notions presented so far can now serve as a means to discuss the perceptual phenomena of objects disappearing beyond the horizon and the uncertainties which surround the assumed speculations that are so often taken as given truths.
These “truths” have been habitually ingrained into each generation and no one has bothered to question the foundations upon which they stand because they are presented as fact, when in fact they are elaborate assumptions supported by a number of complementary guesses, which all more or less fit together nice enough so as to make relative sense.
_____________________________________

Now you can get to know an alternate point of view.

Fig 1.
http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g369/Ryan_Onessence/?action-view&current=PerspectiveA-1.jpg

Firstly the depiction in figure 1. can set a frame of reference as to how things are in reality, before perceptual distortions are accounted for. Bear in mind the diagram is not drawn to scale so does not cater to a specific over all shape of the earth's surface. It is depicted as a straight surface for simplicities sake – being that it mostly envisages the spans of the suggested area of one's immediate observation.

Whilst Observing fig 1. take the point upon which the sun is perched and contend with that level of altitude. The distance between the surface of the beach/ocean
and that altitude can be set as absolute, in so much that that altitude exists all across the world and is always the same general distance from the depicted surface level.

Next take note of the line of sight that extends from the person standing on the beach from the left over to the orange point just beyond the boat. In Fig 2 - a little further down the page, the person and the orange point are labelled as a and b.

Now the key to fathom how objects on the horizon distort, is the fact that in reality a straight line from eye level will run geometrically parallel to the surface of the earth all the way to the horizon and once beyond - depending on the cosmology one contends with – the 2 lines will either, a. continue knack and knack given the Earth is flat, or b. the surface will dip away from the line of sight or c. it will rise up and intersect it - in the same way as the rectilineator experiments conducted by the Koreshan Society/Religion along the beach of Florida during the early 1900's, are said to have proven Cyrus R Teed's hypothesis that the Earth is concave i.e. that we are inside a hollow world, and the atmosphere's appearance is an illusion of bending light.

The nature of perception is that things shrink as they get further away and eventually disappear from sight as they become smaller than the eyes reach of visual reception - not to be confused with clarity, for one with short sight can still receive light into the retina from the same limit as one with “perfect” long sight, the eye's lens are what determine the resolution of clarity, and the retina is the base part which taps the quantum medium or substratum which light propagates through. The retina's radial limit of the quantum medium is more or less the same for all people, it's limit of scope is a product of the eyes innate design as a whole, and its finite constituents  are the main reason for why the yield of size retention of objects, diminishes outwardly i.e. stuff shrinks but resolution can be kept crisp if one's lenses are focused for long sight. If one is short sighted the retina is still  accessing objects from the same scope limit but the objects are blurry instead and may appear closer than the limit actually is.
_____________________________________

In light of these factors one can comprehend the implications of perspectives that are explained with the help of figure 2.

Fig 2. 
http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g369/Ryan_Onessence/?action-view&current=Perspectiveb.png

Note: the boats deck being drawn level with the horizon is not intended to suggest that a boats deck will always appear at horizon level as it gets closer to it. It may appear above it before disappearing out of sight. The illustration is merely showing how the boat will shrink toward the vanishing point, this will occur anywhere from both the top and the bottom of the boat according to where the horizon line sits in relation, and will change depending on distance. Hence the deck at times may appear below, on or above the horizon

The surface of the Earth can now be seen as tapering up toward the line of sight. The horizon is now shown as how it appears for an observer, resting at eye level i.e. where the orange point b is marked. The surface of the ocean and the base of the atmosphere converge toward one another and the seem where they meet is  where the horizon-line sits for the observer (point b.)

Because perception causes everything to shrink to some extent as the limit of ones scope diminishes, the horizon line is therefore the point upon which things become somewhat tiny before they disappear altogether (if not so tiny that they cannot be seen at all from or before they reach such a distance). Hence an object will begin to compress and shrink to some extent as it passes beyond.

Its also note worthy to consider that the actual horizon line itself appears before the exact limit of which the eye's retina can receive light from. A way to compare this effect is with two straight edges or even finger tips will suffice. Hold them against a plain background with ample lighting and you will see how as you bring the edges together holding them very close without actually touching them, there will be a slight bleed over effect whereby they appear as if they are touching. It's sort of like how when a droplet of water is touched the spherical shape of the droplet will immediately de-form as it clings to and spreads out across whatever surface it is in contact with. Except where two straight objects are concerned the convergence of both edges, exactly parallel, produces this merging effect as tho they seem to become like liquid able to expand into one another before they actually make physical contact. This is thus synonymous with the effect produced by the surface of the ocean and the base of the atmosphere as they produce the horizon line - especially because they are of different reflective calibre so there is an intermingling of their unique reflective signatures, this effect will be refer to as the phantom limit. Therefore some light is being received from a point which resides beyond the phantom limit and can add to the additional factors of atmospheric lensing conditions and the arc-velocity's compression of bending light. Note: this implies that sometimes the phantom limit may reduce or cancel out these factors and vice versa.
_____________________________________

This helps one fathom that in the case that an object is large enough so as to not shrink into obscurity before passing beyond the horizon (such as a large boat) that at some point it will be subject to the   
phantom limit and the anomalies described, where the level just above the horizon (the base of the atmosphere) and the surface of the ocean do not blend in equal ratio to one another's reflective signature (of optical lensing and refraction) thus causing indiscernible blending of distances between ones true limit of scope and the phantom limit.

To fully grasp what is meant by this statement a visualisation can be done.

Imagine the horizon line as a line drawn on paper and then draw another line directly above and touching it, so that the initial line is now thicker. Continue to add layers thus increasing the thickness of this line, except each addition is less bold than the original. So what's being visualised is a gradient with the horizon line symbolised by the boldest at the base, all the lines that progress above become softer. This is because the lines above are symbolising a less dense level of refraction whereby the clarity compresses less as the arc-velocity takes a more obtuse stride, meaning it doesn't curve at as intense an angle so the geometry of the ray is less acute before it reaches ones eyes thus allowing larger volumes of distance to magnify than the horizon's phantom limit. This effect also occurs to the levels below the horizon tho it is imperceivable to the physical perception because the ocean is not as transparent and where the ground is concerned it isn't transparent at all. This is still relevant however regarding the compression of objects as they shrink into the distance, for although the ocean or ground is closer than the levels of one's limit below the horizon, the quantum medium that they reside upon is still occupying the eye's scope of reception. Think of it as a field of transmission, so the ocean is denser and thus one can only see the immediate level - much closer than what the eye's retina is tapping as a field of quantum energy which extends beyond the apparent surface's distances - thus the lower half of the field of scope is still at a quantum level extending to the same innate limit as the upper hemisphere of one's scope, hence point e in fig 2 represents the mirror of the upper limit of one's scope i.e. points a-c-d-f-b. This is also indicative that the distances in front of the apparently reflected surface - be it ocean or ground, are occupied by the lowest levels of the atmosphere which are invisible in front of the perceivable surface below the horizon. Thus they are also subject to compression (diminished clarity) as they proceed outward up to the horizon, tho this is obvious, it is only apparent - as with all atmospheric perception - when a distinct object of reference is occupying such levels of this otherwise invisible effect upon the atmosphere. 

Now getting back to the line-gradient visualisation,
Each line that progresses above the horizon but which is still within the scope of one's true limit, represents an amount of compression, whereby objects shrink to sizes of less discernible clarity and resolution. As this occurs the definition of objects being compressed such as a boats hull, may begin to blend into or be obscured by the ocean as different levels of lensing magnification and resolution-deterioration occur due to a combination of both the phantom limit and numerous refraction factors that have been addressed.   

This entails that the horizon line - being the boldest of the gradient i.e. the densest level of distance between the phantom limit and the true limit, will compress the hull of a boat more than the higher softer levels of gradient above which the mast - being a much greater vertical length than the hull - will therefore occupy. This renders the mast of boats and ships as the last thing to be seen as they pass beyond the true point of the horizon's limit. The effect of the ocean and hull blending together is a result of the gradients of clarity - refraction/magnification of the closer levels of water in contrast with further away levels of the hull; the hull residing in between the phantom limit and the true limit thus resulting in obscurity as the water before the phantom limit is magnified by closer gradients of clarity of which receive and reflect light at less acute arc-velocity compression than the phantom limit
_____________________________________

In the case that a cloud appears to be hugging the horizon line, this can be attributed to the fact that the cloud is much higher than it appears due to the compression and curving incline of one's scope. If you recall the example that was shown earlier where the sun was used to gauge a reference point of altitude in fig 1. this will make more sense.

Any line that could represent a given altitude is subject to the same perceptual distortions as the surface of the Earth, that being  decline from a point at any level directly above ones head, which  steadily sweeps down toward the horizon in the same manner that the Earth sweeps upwards.

This means that the base of a cloud hugging the horizon is in fact occupying a high altitude and is relatively further away then the top of the cloud. So the cloud's base existing at a level of altitude higher than the horizon is therefore subject to more atmospheric lensing effects that magnify it since the arc-velocity of light at that altitude sweeps up into higher less dense levels and therefore propagates forward into the perceptible range. Hence where it appears at the horizon line is not where it originates (it is not on the surface of th eworld just appears to be so due to the downward slant of its altitude at a larger distance; magnified forward by an obtuse arc-velocity angle), so it is not subject the effects of the phantom limit which has influence on objects that do originate at or  closer to the horizon in so far as being the actual surface of the world where light has hit the most acute angle rendering the scope of objects within its magnification as diffused by the acute compression effect – akin to if one intentionally blurs/unfocuses their eyes whilst looking at a sharp line – it dilutes and becomes semi-transparent, add to this the fact that light further away - arriving at the appearance of the horizon line from a higher altitude is less obtuse in compression (more clarified/sharp) so then projects through this transparency of the lower acute compression and appears closer than things which diffuse right upon the horizon line/surface of the world.[/size]       

9

Flat Earth General / Re: General Purpose Moon Topic

« on: May 07, 2012, 03:25:22 AM »

It's is well known that murders and violent crimes occur with greater frequency during a full moon. If the moon had no effect on human existence, why would this happen?

Tulpa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   This article contains Indic text.

Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks or boxes, misplaced vowels or missing conjuncts instead of Indic text.
   Look up tulpa in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
[show]
Part of a series on
Tibetan Buddhism


Tulpa (Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: निर्मित nirmita[1] and निर्माण nirmāṇa;[2] "to build" or "to construct") is an upaya concept in Tibetan Buddhism and Bon, discipline and teaching tool. The term was first rendered into English as 'Thoughtform' by Evans-Wentz (1954: p. 29):

In as much as the mind creates the world of appearances, it can create any particular object desired. The process consists of giving palpable being to a visualization, in very much the same manner as an architect gives concrete expression in three dimensions to his abstract concepts after first having given them expression in the two-dimensions of his blue-print. The Tibetans call the One Mind's concretized visualization the Khorva (Hkhorva), equivalent to the Sanskrit Sangsara; that of an incarnate deity, like the Dalai or Tashi Lama, they call a Tul-ku (Sprul-sku), and that of a magician a Tul-pa (Sprul-pa), meaning a magically produced illusion or creation. A master of yoga can dissolve a Tul-pa as readily as he can create it; and his own illusory human body, or Tul-ku, he can likewise dissolve, and thus outwit Death. Sometimes, by means of this magic, one human form can be amalgamated with another, as in the instance of the wife of Marpa, guru of Milarepa, who ended her life by incorporating herself in the body of Marpa."[3]

The mindstream communion affected by the wife of Marpa in the abovementioned quotation, is an ancient mode of mind transmission (Tibetan: dgongs brgyud) or empowerment (Tibetan: dbang bskur) in the Himalayan traditions, documented in the folklore and anthropological studies of Himalayan and Siberian Shamanism. The Russian Psychiatrist Olga Kharitidi published her direct experience of this phenomenon in the Altay Mountains, where a shaman merged a stream of his consciousness continuum or 'spirit' with hers.[4] This phenomenon is a variation of the spiritual discipline of phowa (Tibetan: 'pho ba) and is often rendered as "spirit possession" within English anthropological discourse.[5]

In mysticism, a tulpa is the concept of a being or object which is created through sheer discipline alone. It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.[6]

The term comes from the works of Alexandra David-Néel, who claimed to have created a tulpa in the image of a jolly Friar Tuck-like monk which later developed a life of its own and had to be destroyed.[7]

The tulpa phenomenon is vindicated through the consciousness-only doctrine first propounded within the Yogācāra school and is part of the Mahayoga discipline of the generation Stage (Wylie:kye rim; Sanskrit: utpattikrama) , Anuyoga discipline of the completion stage (Wylie:dzog rim; Sanskrit:saṃpannakrama) and the Dzogchen perfection of effortless "unification of the generation and completion stages" (Wylie: bskyed rdzogs zung 'jug).[8]

.....

So the Moon related events are cued by collective negative associations.... the moon i would suggest is no less bad than the sun each in their own respective ways

Also:

As my core reason for presence on these forums is well know to most of you now, this is in line with what I suppose is the effect that is happening at a mass scale... regarding RET - it is a collective conscinsess tulpa which deviates from the natural Flat perspective. However because the flat earth perspective is natural there is more power behind it than the sub-created RET-tulpa. so an individual can disconnect from the RET perspective regardless of the fact that over 50% of the world population view it as round as it has a pre-buffed exponential source of perpetuation in form.

Also the RET universe has existed long before the world tuned into it due to alternate realites crossing over and blending etc. and the fact that time cycles; consciousness, sciences, and the many ages etc repeat but never the less flat earth is still predominant as the original natural worldview

http://cynthiasuelarson.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/living-in-parallel-quantum-worlds/

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The horizon is curved.

« on: May 05, 2012, 08:45:58 PM »

Because the light from the Sun shines in a spotlight therefore what is visible is a circular shape NOT spherical.

Here's the problem. Yes, the horizon is curved at high altitudes as it should be on Flat Disc shaped earth. But, the horizon is not curved at lower altitudes where curvature should be present on a Spherical earth.

The curvature observed in your original picture is not spherical curvature but circular curvature. You will notice that the curve wraps round your line of sight and does not curve downwards in all directions as if you are standing on TOP OF A BALL.

Take this high altitude picture for instance. There is simply NOT ENOUGH curvature to constitute the shape of the earth being a Sphere.

It's a Flat Disc:

*whistle* thats a breath takin pic

11

Flat Earth General / Re: The Supermoon

« on: May 04, 2012, 08:03:09 PM »

The moon here in OZ, had some awesome multidimensional energies last night... Super indeed. I do feel a great buzz from it tho I don't spend extended periods out in it... I think maybe moderation might be the case for some, don't be totally frightened to step outside ay... I think a little moon basking will help you shift energies and transmute into immunity that is if you well and truly feel it effects you.

I have spent half an hour directly under it looking up for most of the time and had a very strong sense of cosmic consciousness (this was in concave earth mode tho LOL)

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Donut-Shaped Earth

« on: May 04, 2012, 05:10:11 PM »

This is actually a variation of concave earth theory... concave earth is is one of the 3 prime shapes that the earth can form in a holographic universe.

I didn't elude to this when I divulged all of the Omniverse material last year for it is but one of the tertiary forms of the 3 prime codes flat concave, convex...

The contemporary concave earth theory uses a Torus to model itself...

The Torus hole is however included as part of the space within a hollow sphere the singularity or exponential shrink zone of non-Euclid (curved; torsion) space.

Where as what Varaug has articulated is one of the seven potential forms of earth derived by holographic principles of toroidal physics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Omniverse thread (see the globe-link under my avatar to the left)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The Tetra Dimensional Torus of Existence & Omnified Cosmologies

As of 24/02/11 it has been announced by the International Science Grid that NASA has a mathematician Grigor Aslanyan, a doctoral student at the University of California at San Diego who is solving data that suggests the universe is a torus - see Grigor Aslanyan: Universal Torus.

A Double Torus

The torus field of a cosmos is double because reality is polarity based.

It is believed the dimensions of a Torus could be arranged in 3 different variations.

a. Infinite in 1 dimension and finite in 2.
b. Finite in 1 dimension and Infinite in 2.
c. Finite in all 3

If a torus becomes infinite in all 3 dimensions it is no longer a torus and instead collapses back into the transcendent semi-formlessness of the 4D Hypersphere to which it is the infinitesimal potential of (in 3D space). I feel that this is actually happening in every moment at an unfathomable rate. Thus producing the heart beat of the cosmos which governs the rate of implosion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are however actually 7 variations.

Here is the table of finite/infinite variations of dimensions:

key: e = envelope
v = volume
s = singularity
I = infinite
f = finite
Va = variation a-g

Va (e) (v) (s)

a ... I .. I .. f
b ... f .. I .. I

c ... I .. f .. f
d ... f .. f .. I

e ... I .. f .. I
f … f .. I .. f

g ... f .. f .. f
 

The following link is another rendition of the Omniverse thread with further posts, see the 5th one to get acquainted with all the variations in detail.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=221584

Essentially the way I see this "Torus-Earth" (variation of concave earth) model is that stars and the cosmos all shrink into the "jam filling area" or the central ring within the torus.. i.e. if you extend a line down the middle of the cylinder before rolling it up into a donut, then that line becomes the central ring.

Now to just be clear on the variations...

We have 3 prime codes; flat, convex, concave.. and with each variation of the 7 Infinite/Finitism's  a-g codes there may be anywhere from 1 to all 3 of the prime shapes which can utilise any given of the I/F a-g codes...

In my own brain storming I think there were about 18 different shapes I came up with intialy but I know there are more which I just couldn't be bothered to figure out at the time as its not that important to understand all of them when th eemediate perception of the earth is all that matters - tho "shapes" can also be definitions of how space behaves inside a concave space or outside a convex earth or above or below the flat disk/ infinite plate and or how the earth can expand over time into various non-euclidean ratios and dimensions.



I think from memory there were 5 concave variations this one being one of them - I really am surprised that some one has posted it here as I thought it was a pretty unusual anomaly and absurdist even to discus like cube earth lol.. - then there were 7 convex and 7 flat... all utilising the curving torsion at different angles to produce different optical illusions that change the internalised perceptuial orientation of the earth's and or the stars shape/size

With the concave specifically it can be finite in all dimensions...as Cyrus r Teed's cellular cosmogony proposed. Or it can be this enclosed donut shape model or the Geocosmos concave theory as described early where the donut hole is part of the inner space of a hollow sphere like singularity. That makes 3 prime types for Concave... then throw into the mix the expanding earth aspect and you have a hollow earth which grows with a space inside that may or may not be growing as well - so that 2-fold variable or 3-fold when including the non existence of it i.e. a non growing earth, can be applied to all 3 concave models.

The finite earth which does not expand is 3D dimensional or 3rd density (lowest aetheric dimension - gross material under limitation of the thermodynamic side of physics) and that as inferred can apply to the donut earth in the OP or Cyrus model and the standard Geocosmos...

And the expanding earth ones are 4th/5th dimensional earth's which are taping into or fully anchored into the Cryodymnamic unlimited world view. where the worlds crust expands (potentially infinitely) over time, yet it is not an infinite sphere because an infinite sphere is infinite in all moments which means it has no shape and does not grow - it is total, thus it is not a sphere. The infinite plane is the only possible tangible realm that can utilise infinite endlessness of eternity in the 5th dimension+. 
 

 

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: February 29, 2012, 11:05:22 PM »

The straight line is the limit value of a continuous (with continuously increasing flatness, or continuously decreasing curvature; btw, π (pi) changes its value in the process, its value being 2 for the maximal circle; there is a metamorphosis of geometrical relationships when one reaches cosmic extensions) family of circles (between the convex and the concave), it's the maximal circle, whose curvature is 0. But there is no logical reason to assume that it is not also a closed totality. Only problem is, the human mind cannot imagine, "see" it.



Same here with spheres (cross sections depicted). The maximal sphere is the limit value of a continuous family of spheres, whose curvature is 0. So, the maximal sphere (actually it's a double maximal sphere, a convex and a concave one falling in one), whose curvature is again 0, is a total plane. That's the reality of the Earth's surface!

If you are really interested (and not one of the trolls here) you should get Barthel's "Einführung in die Polargeometrie" from 1932. It is worth it, since it provides the proof that polar (spherical) geometry is the objective geometry of nature. It also contains solutions to hitherto not understood problems in geometry.

This is awesome and it is synonymous with the reason I appeared here at TFES.

If you noticed in my first post in this thread I linked the Concave earth Hypothesis thread to my analogies. Well I am a perception seeker so, I never discuss anything out of the norm unless I have prior experiences regarding it.

When I came across the Concave earth cosmology -- after having read enough and understanding that mathematically it canot be disproven -- I rigorously deprogrammed convex curvature out of my mind just to add a bit of novelty to everyday perception really experience a concave perspective. lo and behold I found concave perspective to be more grounding than convex... and after some time doing research on the subject I came across the -- (for me at that time) -- bizzare fact that a Flat Earth Society exists.

Tho much on this forum are trolls there are a few true believers.. so to this day there are people in western world who do believe the earth is flat.

Anyway before I actually signed up here I researched the original flat earth society and documents etc (still skeptical as its allot more divergent from simply inverting the "known principles of space into a concave surface)
And one day I was standing outside and I figured well if I can experience concave perception...I want to know if it is possible to experience flat earth perception, regardless of the (at that time) lack of facts I had to give reason to its credence.

And ya know what it hit me like a tone of bricks I just stood there and imagined if all the continents were on a flat plane and not spread out inside a concave surface -- bearing in mind I had become bored of convex perception and was deeply entertained by the concave view.

Soon after this time I started to discover the more perspectives one entertains as possible the more dream-like reality becomes -- more grounding and more contentedness = satisfaction. And it was then I decided to sign up here. 

So your image is synonymous with what I feel is two sub realities of dualism: Convex and concave - predecessors -which collapse back into one which is the original source of both alternate perspectives.

Anonymous user on another forum:

Ships's visibility
Lunar Eclipse
Circumnavigation
Sunrise and sunset
Shapes of other earth like objects like sun moon

All these can prove that the earth is round [both concave and convex, mind you].
But what if we think the earth is round because reality is shaping around us to keep up with our percerption or thoughts. Just a thought thought. So in essence, no one is necessarily wrong.

This quote is in line with the quantum factor of particle/wave dualism and the observation result/effect... but taking it and applying it to both the  quantum and macro level of the world.

Also I know your not to fond of the idea of infinity applied to the context of the earth or cosm, but... have you considered that the extending "closed" maximal sphere i.e. the line denoted with the value of 0, may be connecting with and infinite number of parallel identical Earths which share all events. So effectively they are like a perfectly self similar infinite horizontal prism

Surely, regardless of religion, if one entertains an absolute god then that god is infinite... agree?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: February 28, 2012, 05:42:20 PM »

Sorry for the poor quality of that image, but I thought the basic idea is so simple one actually doesn't even need a drawing.
All one has to understand is that space, irrespective of the direction one takes has the properties of the surface of a sphere (more precisely: a spheroid), that means one always returns. The important difference is that unlike the surface of a usual sphere, space as a whole is flat, there is no curvature whatsoever: it is closed without being curved. No curving, looping, bending, warping etc. The behavior of light in space is another matter, there certainly is bending there. But space (3 dimensions), the plane (2 dimensions) and the straight line (1 dimension) are all totalities with the characteristic quality of being closed without being curved. Once people get this into their head, the rest is easy.

I understand that this idea entails that the space is spherical instead of the earth whereas the vice is a round earth in a euclidean "uncurved" space.

Well, that is one of the implications of this "idea". And there are many more, and quite fundamental ones, I might add. For people, who are capable of rigorous logical thinking, Barthel provides the proof that Euclidean geometry is a more than two thousand year old error (when applied to great, cosmic extensions, it works well for small areas), and it's about time to move on to the post-Euclidean geometry, which describes the real world, not a fantasy one.

"Sorry for the poor quality of that image, but I thought the basic idea is so simple one actually doesn't even need a drawing."

Well it probably just made it more confusing than it need be by trying to weigh your words with the image's labels which are hard for some to read (th equality plus the hand writing style).

"All one has to understand is that space, irrespective of the direction one takes has the properties of the surface of a sphere (more precisely: a spheroid), that means one always returns. The important difference is that unlike the surface of a usual sphere, space as a whole is flat, there is no curvature whatsoever: it is closed without being curved. No curving, looping, bending, warping etc."

Now this give two very opposite ideas at the same time. Thats why its confusing.

I am getting the impression that you are implying that what is perceived as a straight line from one place to another on a convex spherical Earth. Is instead on a maximal sphere a circular line, a curve, so for instance on RE the equator is a complete convex loop and on maxiamal Earth the equator is a circular horizontal loop - thus bringing oneself back to the beginning from any point along itself.

This gives and incline that space is like a series of spheres overlapping across a horizontal plane whereby the circles that they intersect the horizontal plane with produce the spacial passages that stationary mass complies in accordance of.

This is purely my interpretation of what was implied. And it still leaves me unable to draw any understanding as to how these lines link one side of the earth to the other and vice versa in a closed circuit. I understand what your saying is a geometric fact I just don't understand it based on the limited info there is in English.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: February 27, 2012, 04:07:33 PM »

I get feel for what you are conveying. I envision that what is being said is that the disappearing point in the geometry example loops back round space horizontaly. Correct?

you are still "thinking" Euclidean so to speak, it takes time to unlearn that habit...

Oh I dont think Euclidean I get the space wrapping back on itself idea and that light and mass moves in curves with it, its just the diagram isn't very clear with the lettering etc so its hard to follow the mathematical interpretation.

I understand that this idea entails that the space is spherical instead of the earth whereas the vice is a round earth in a euclidean "uncurved" space. 

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: February 27, 2012, 02:17:56 AM »

Welcome Lactantius.

Nice OP it was delivered very well.

Thanks, but I could have said it clearer. Since this forum and the whole Flat Earth Society are nothing but another disinfo operation, as I've come to understand by now (how much are guys paid for typing nonsense here?), it doesn't matter much, though. However, thanks to Google & Co. there is the chance that really interested, normal people stumble upon this, so I'll once more announce the truth that the Earth is flat without being a disk.

Forget about Moebius strips, toruses, fractal space, infinite depth, concave earth yadda yadda yadda... This is all (deliberate) confusing nonsense. The truth is simple, even a child can understand it.

Before thinking about the shape of the Earth or the composition of the universe, before making astronomical calculations one must get an understanding of space itself. What are its qualities? Which geometry describes it best? This, the correct geometry, is the cornerstone for all cosmological models devised.
There are basically three geometrical systems, the Euclidean and two non-Euclidean ones: the elliptical/spherical and the hyperbolic. Which one of these three describes the reality of space? It is today taken for granted that the Euclidean system (parallels never intersect, or they intersect "in the infinite") is correct (except for relativistic nonsense like "masses curving space(-time)"), but it is wrong, which will be shown below. Even more wrong is hyperbolic geometry which is nothing but a formalistic sport for bored mathematicians anyway. So we are left with spherical geometry, which is the objective, true geometry of the cosmos. Any two straight lines in a plane always have two intersection points, there are no parallels (i.e. straights which keep the same distance in infinity; if two lines do keep the same distance, at least one of them cannot be a straight line).
Space itself is circular, runs back on itself, however, without being curved in any way! Space is finite, it has a definite volume, but it is not limited; when moving through it one never reaches a border, one just eventually comes back to the starting point, the same as when traveling on the total plane of Earth. The only problem with this cosmic reality is that we humans with our limited horizon cannot imagine, envisage it as a whole, we cannot put the totality before our mind's eye, so to speak. God alone, who built it, can see the entirety of the cosmos or, for that matter, the Earth in all its beautiful flatness, simultaneously.

This, space being spherical, is the only logically consistent solution. Why?
See the diagram below.



Let s be a straight line and P a point outside of it, through which we lay another straight g perpendicular to s. We now start turning g around P like a clock hand (which initially points downward to six o'clock) and carefully observe the intersection point S of the two lines. It moves along s with increasing velocity as we rotate g around P, the intersection angle α getting ever smaller in the process. For clarity's sake, let S be the center of a mass, say, a small blue ball. Now, what happens when we reach the 9 o'clock position, i.e. a rotation angle of 90°? In Euclidean geometry a miracle occurs! The intersection point and the mass attached to it just vanishes into nothingness, it simply disappears. This can, of course, not be the case in the real world. Points and masses do not just disappear. In reality, that is in spherical space, the intersection point persists, it keeps moving, while the intersection angle of the two straight lines starts to increase again. The "turning" point is located at a distance of 90°, that is approximately 10000 km apart from P, i.e. a quarter of the length of the total straight, which, as we know, is approximately 40000 km long.

That's the truth of the matter. If you want to learn more, find someone who reads German and have them translate Ernst Barthel's works .

Lactantius

I get feel for what you are conveying. I envision that what is being said is that the disappearing point in the geometry example loops back round space horizontaly. Correct? if so this means that the space responds to each individual in a unique manner according to thier position. So its sort of like a wormhole effect.

Also: I did not write what I wrote to deliberately confuse anyone. Click on the little globe below my avatar pic, that will take you to a thread and links to others which I wrote on these forums explaining my position in regards to the earth's shape.

What you have described can also occur inside a toroid. Toroidal space itself follows spherical geometry.
 

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dimensions

« on: February 26, 2012, 12:21:38 AM »

The shadow analogy is apt in explaining how the 4th and 5th dimensions are still 3D objects but operating in 3D space in a manner which doesn't allow an observer to perceive the higher dimensional reality of the cosmos (given its a torus) because the stretching wavelengths exceed the cohesive threshold of sensory perception so outer space is stretched and the light travelling in those areas cannot resonate with the eye... so at any given time an individual can only perceive the local segment that they exist on a as a 3D gradient which is not warping - even though it is in the wider picture; they warp with it so they can see the local wavelengths as relatively normal.

What's the cohesive threshold of sensory perception?  And wouldn't a stretched wavelength due to the expansion of space be red-shift?

If you have space which expands -- as in its very fabric -- then light/energy and mass/matter of any given wavelength will be stretched beyond the interpretable frequencies of the eye. Hence why the naked eye can only receive light up to a certain point from outer space, past that the wavelengths become decoherant too small in energy and mass i.e. stars really far away cannot be received because they are smaller wavelengths than the eyes can interpret. That is to say they are folded along the non-Euclid curvature of dark energy which is expanding further away from all points faster than the light can travel to Earth.

Err...
The fabric of space DOES expand.  We know that already.  In fact, we know that all of it is expanding.

Also: what is this ^^ all about... you sound as tho you think my post is intending to shed light on this for the first time in public domain.

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dimensions

« on: February 26, 2012, 12:16:43 AM »

The shadow analogy is apt in explaining how the 4th and 5th dimensions are still 3D objects but operating in 3D space in a manner which doesn't allow an observer to perceive the higher dimensional reality of the cosmos (given its a torus)
because the stretching wavelengths exceed the cohesive threshold of sensory perception so outer space is stretched and the light travelling in those areas cannot resonate with the eye... so at any given time an individual can only perceive the local segment that they exist on a as a 3D gradient which is not warping - even though it is in the wider picture; they warp with it so they can see the local wavelengths as relatively normal.

What's the cohesive threshold of sensory perception?  And wouldn't a stretched wavelength due to the expansion of space be red-shift?

If you have space which expands -- as in its very fabric -- then light/energy and mass/matter of any given wavelength will be stretched beyond the interpretable frequencies of the eye. Hence why the naked eye can only receive light up to a certain point from outer space, past that the wavelengths become decoherant too small in energy and mass i.e. stars really far away cannot be received because they are smaller wavelengths than the eyes can interpret. That is to say they are folded along the non-Euclid curvature of dark energy which is expanding further away from all points faster than the light can travel to Earth.

Err...
The fabric of space DOES expand.  We know that already.  In fact, we know that all of it is expanding.

When does mass have wavelength?  Are you referring to a photon?

What you're describing sounds an awfully lot like the Doppler effect.

call it what you like.. people can get the jist of what's being implied. Mass would definitely have a wavelength or clusters of harmonic wavelengths since everything else does...even if its a wavelength of seeming "emptiness" which equates to density (dark energy or matter).. the wavelengths cant be measured and I've explained why in another post quite some time ago. Cant remember where exactly it was that I posted it and I've dug enough through my past posts on here today so I'll link to another forum where I know which one it is easily that is if you'd like me to.

19

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dimensions

« on: February 25, 2012, 10:39:11 PM »

The shadow analogy is apt in explaining how the 4th and 5th dimensions are still 3D objects but operating in 3D space in a manner which doesn't allow an observer to perceive the higher dimensional reality of the cosmos (given its a torus) because the stretching wavelengths exceed the cohesive threshold of sensory perception so outer space is stretched and the light travelling in those areas cannot resonate with the eye... so at any given time an individual can only perceive the local segment that they exist on a as a 3D gradient which is not warping - even though it is in the wider picture; they warp with it so they can see the local wavelengths as relatively normal.

What's the cohesive threshold of sensory perception?  And wouldn't a stretched wavelength due to the expansion of space be red-shift?

If you have space which expands -- as in its very fabric -- then light/energy and mass/matter of any given wavelength will be stretched beyond the interpretable frequencies of the eye. Hence why the naked eye can only receive light up to a certain point from outer space, past that the wavelengths become decoherant too small in energy and mass i.e. stars really far away cannot be received because they are smaller wavelengths than the eyes can interpret. That is to say they are folded along the non-Euclid curvature of dark energy which is expanding further away from all points faster than the light can travel to Earth.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

« on: February 25, 2012, 08:30:47 PM »

Welcome Lactantius.

Nice OP it was delivered very well.

Hi guys,

glad I found this interesting forum. Living at a large lake in Europe I have known for quite some time that the round earth, earth being a ball claims are nonsense and have been sharing my observations (e.g. seeing storm warning lights positioned approximately 12 meters above sea level at a distance of more than 40 kilometers) with other people standing on the shore. Fortunately there are no earth curvature denial laws in Europe, at least not yet, so that topic can (still) be discussed freely . Only problem is: most people don't want to know. Imagining that the earth might be flat after all is just too scary for most and, let's face it, most have lost touch with reality long ago anyway...

However, I have to disappoint the flat earth theorists here insofar as they still cling to that (primitive) disc theory. In reality it's simpler and at the same time more beautiful than that, albeit we humans can't visualize it at once: the earth's surface is a total plane. This total plane is flat, uncurved and yet closed within itself, it runs back on itself. All one needs for this to be possible is switch from Euclidian geometry to spherical or polar geometry. The surface of the earth then is a maximal sphere, which is flat...

This theory was first postulated by the Alsatian philosopher and mathematician Ernst Barthel in 1914 with strong (I would say forcing) geometrical and philosophical proofs. And he was never disproved, but simply declared crazy and his memory was made to go down the memory hole. Unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon world -- the only place AFAIK where there still are flat earthers! -- his works, which were written in German, have, to my knowledge, not been translated into English.
Here is an online copy of the first edition of his work "Polargeometrie" for those who read German:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ABR1507.0001.001?view=toc
He wrote many more books on this topic, they can be found in a few university libraries, but as said all in German.

Now, I don't want to start a fight about the "correct" flat earth theory here, all I can say is I know most, if not all of them, and after studying the subject for a while I have come to the conclusion that Barthel got it right.

A belated Happy New Year to all!

Lactantius

I tried to explain something similar to this some months ago -- very cumbersomely -- in a thread about infinite earth...and another one (I do feel infinity is more than a concept tho). Ernst has a very adept description of what I think could be called a seemless wormhole plane or moebius plane. These insights you have presented have helped me understand how to articulate  it better. 

on a moebius strip the strip is twisted 180 degrees where one end meets the other in a loop -- it does no produce a closed circular loop with an inside and an outside surface. Instead its all a continuation of one side (the sides meld into one another), so 2 objects set atop the same point but on either side of the strip, will thus upon travelling out in either direction from that same point, end up swapping positions whilst having run the entire length of the strip. The length traversed is therefore equivalent to the distance of the inside surface plus the outside surface if it was a simple closed circular loop.

Also in the same or similar line -- I assume -- as what pizza planet supposes. I can attempt laymen explanation of a fractal moebic earth via combining the moebius strip idea with the principle of infinite depth -- self similar fractal space in a toroidal sphere -- whereby all points from any given point of concentric bands of spherical (curving-space) have self similar proxification of (local) Euclidean geometry, but over the coarse of distance the local space shrinks or expands whilst maintaining local Euclidean reference and resolution.

To understand this one must envision the central ring of a toroid i.e. take a circle with a point in the middle and stretch it out into a tube so the middle point is a line that extends through the middle of the tube. Then wrap it into a donut. The extended line is the middle ring of the toroid.

Now for a toroidal moebic Flat Earth to work the toroid has to be double (for polarity) So form the inside side of the middle ring toward the double toroids singularity, the space of one toroidal layer shrinks and the other one expands, but the one which expands has overt dominance (a toroid can be infinite in 2 dimensions and finite in 1 or vice versa -- see this post for an in depth articulation of this) so the one with dominance maintains 2/3rds of the spacial fabric at the north pole. This is so space does not continue to shrink forever beyond the pole like a hole at the pole with endless depth. Rather the expanding factor keeps a finite threshold of mass seemed together at the north pole as it is 1/3rd stronger in effect. It doesn't continue to expand the north pole tho because the opposite end of the toroid at the south pole is operating in the same way but the inverse orientation so the space is pulling the finite mass of the earth in both directions with equal force (the space is curving and cyclic like a black hole that wraps back on itself through the singularity)

Now this shouldn't be making full sense to anyone yet because it would seem as tho the south pole would be sprawled out like the “ice wall” at the toroids sphere-like circular border. This is where the moebic part comes in.

The middle ring of the toroid is the equator as Lactantius' map is described, with either pole coinciding at the centre but on opposite sides of the map. This means then the equator has the moebic twist dimension which is the same as a moebius strip whereby if one travels in one direction constantly they will traverse all points of the strip and end up at the beginning. This occurs in all 360 degrees.

So, both hemispheres of the earth are occupiying inverse  qualities of Infinite depth (of self similar space)  and are thus spread out as flat plates within the inside of the toroids middle ring but  due to the inverse qualties of space they can occupy that space simultaneously whilst dimensionally separated -- like how the frequencies of 2 or more TV channels occur at the same time in the same space. So as one moves across the middle-ring from any point of the 360 degree equator that occupies it, they are actually walking into the same space as that which they left from but on the inverse dimensionality channel of space and are then heading toward the south pole -- if coming form north and vice versa.

The other side of the ring in the toroidal space which reaches the border of the toroid, is a quantum soup of strings and moebic non-Euclidean dimensional folds which wrap up and unwind dimensional info through the reimanian manifolds. Thus In the same way as the north and south are dimensionally separated, so too are the quantum soups of each poles vice on the outer side of the ring in accordance of the opposite pole as manifest on the inside of the ring.

Now th elast thing to add to this is the fractal space which renders the argument of landmass distortions moot. Take a tennis ball for instance and cut it at its equator. One can pop it inside out either which way but it cannot be made truly flat without distortions. The infite depth of space is what remedies this so that as a spherical hemisphere is popped inwards in non-Euclidean space the self-similar proxification of concentric bands of shrinking space cause the dips and ripples that wont go flat in Euclidean space to be smoothed out. This actually works outward from the poles so that spaces resolution shrinks toward the equator but its a very slow incline of a bell curve not a steep one.  So as to accommodate for smoothing out the warped edge of the half sphere (hemisphere) which would otherwise tend to create tension and make the top of the hemisphere want to pop back out the other way as inside the inside out of the prior state.

The beauty of this model is that it is as irrefutable as the concave earth theory ina as much that the geometries and dimensional principles of inversion etc. all work soundly without violating any known round earth physics. All optical observation that lend to the assumption of a round earth can be explained away in the same manner as concave earth physics i.e. light which bends in accord with non-Euclid curving space, so what is seen as objects at certain points in the sky are not actually where they appear but instead on the other end of the bending lights origination point.   

It also renders the need for a conspiracy moot however that isn't necessarily to say there isn't one, in one way or another, I personally prefer to not focus on it.     

21

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dimensions

« on: February 24, 2012, 04:15:45 PM »

My brother made this picture. 

just saw he has made the whatsamajig-torus as well... which is I guess similar to what I was getting at regarding the tesseract following the same principle as a torus their both 4D objects following 4D principles.

22

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: What do you think black matter is made out of?

« on: February 24, 2012, 03:29:52 PM »

Note a line "_____" denotes a retention rest point to avoid info overload.

All matter and energy is vibration -- wavelengths of "quantified source-energy" ... so its made of energy... but i feel your post is more so saying "what is the cause for this energy".

If one considers the imploverse approach i.e. the cryodynamic interpretation of the "big bang" being akin to the shrinking atom theory -- a great mass of neutral energy which divides itself into smaller and smaller portions which all shrink at equal pace and eventually generate heat through friction as they interact, and thus form stars etc..  Then dark matter/energy are the portions that occur between each division of the original mass of energy (quantum foam), the mass/energy is shrinking at the same pace but the overall division which causes the initial splitting up of the original mass becomes less frequent (slows down) as the cosmos expands (shrinks inward). Thus as the particles increase in number they shrink further inward between each moment of division of the quantum foam. So there begins to be a larger amount of intergalactic space occurring...

Note: division of the quantum foam isn't literally a splitting of the component but rather the shrinking of those which already exist so that others may pop into the cosmos at a greater level of infinite depth via 4D hyperspace; superposition.

The duration of divisions over time:

i.e. 
                         
Moment
length:            |-|--|----|--------|----------------|   
                       0  2   4         8                16                   
no. of parts ___/
of Q-foam: 

the no. of parts of Q-foam increases the size of the cosmic playing field for mass atoms-galaxies etc. to form complexity on. With each increase (division of the existing Q-foam components i.e. Cosmic Mitosis ) the length of time that the mass and energy has to play on the new threshold of Q-foam, resolution is extended as the Q-foam playing field continues to shrink at the same speed as it has been shrinking from the get go, whilst the frequency of division slows...

So, the larger amounts of mass/energy are occurring inside greater levels of depth that are surrounded by a void of intergalactic and hyper space (dark energy).
____________________________________________________________________

Initially one would expect the larger amount of intergalactic space to occur on the outside of the inward accelerating mass and energy. But because Imploversial physics rest on the notion of the shape of a cosm being a toroid, this means that the central band of the donut shape is where the expansion inward is directed i.e. think of a circle which is one end of a tube and take the middle point of the circle and extend it as a line down the length of the tube. Now wrap the tube into a donut -- this is what "the central band of a torus" implies. Then buff the donut out into a sphere shape.

The singularity point (donut hole) is not a separate space from the rest of the toroid shape it overlaps into it but is a higher frequency and feeds the space with energy from outside the cosmos (the push or thrust of expansion) because its energy is higher frequency "dark energy" it propagates around the toroidal donut shape faster than any other frequencies of mass and energy within. So it pushes energy inward toward the inside side of the central band and the outside of it at a more or less equalised rate... so the cosmos expands into the very central band...

This gives a better picture than a sphere pushing energy into the centre, which would imply the interstellar dark matter/energy as being on the outer regions of the sphere  as it slows its pace all the whilst mass and energy shrinks faster into the middle...

For toroidal physics its the same principle but shrinking into a ring which provides the reason for why clusters of mass are shrinking but with larger distances occurring between them rather than being clumped together. This is because each part of the central ring behaves as a single point with  mass and energy expanding out to some extent which eventually slows but the shrinking of its components continue inward faster and thus cause the large interstellar gaps between each point on the ring...  since creation is a continual thing there are different toroidal-tube-centric (if you will) layers - rather than spherical onion layers -  or intervals between the progressive levels of galactic mass and energy shrinking on the way inward.

This however is one explanation for a toroidal cryo-comsos, there is actually 6 more variations but this one fits best as the inversion of contemporary assumptions.
___________________________________________________________________

Here is the table of finite/infinite variations of dimensions:

key: e = envelope
       v = volume
       s = singularity 
        I = infinite
        f = finite
     Va = variation a-g
   
Va        (e) (v) (s)

 a          I    I    f   
 b          f    I    I         
         
 c          I    f    f
 d          f    f    I

 e          I    f    I
 f           f    I    f

 g          f    f    f
         

The description in this post is the result of a toroid that is finite in 2 dimensions -- the envelope and the singularity -- whilst infinite into the depth of the central-ring i.e. the dimension of volume i.e. Va f.  In other variations the volume can be extended infinitely into the outer (envelope) or inner ("singularity") whilst sharing/overlaping the infinitism of the central ring -- this accounts for 2 more variations.

The others are a result of the central-ring being finite whereby volume expands either into the donut hole (singularity) whilst the envelope shares finitism with the central ring, or the vice -- expanding outward to the envelope i.e. shrinking into depth faster than the rate which it travels toward the envelope -- so the envelope is never reached) this accounts for 2 more (thats 5 in total so far)   

The 2nd last is if the cosmos is finite in the central ring and infinite in the envelope and the singularity simultaneously. This would produce a very strange effect if it were observable since its the exact inverse of dimensional orientation of the main description in his post. So there would be a ring of static unchanging depth at the cosms centre rather than the the envelope. Again the envelope is still a fundamentally static size (in inter-cosmic hyperspace, as with all variations) but the resolution of the Q-foam upon the inside surface is shrinking into depth faster than its travelling outward toward it, so it never reaches the envelope. Like wise is the case for the singularity.

The last variation is when the cosm is finite in all 3 dimensions... this would mean a finite amount of potential for the cosm to divide its energy into. in the dark energy would not appear to expand in this case as matter would not shrink. Instead it would divide and compress into portions leaving large static pockets of dark energy.

Its probable that a cosmos may undergo transitions between any of these variations as it progresses due to influence from circumstances outside of the cosmos i.e. in the multiverse.

23

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Dimensions

« on: February 24, 2012, 01:25:14 PM »

Rotating:


This shape is know as a tesseract.  It has four dimensions consisting of the normal dimensions of length, width, and height and also consisting of a fourth dimension which we will call ?.  Once again this is a shadow.  You cannot point in the direction of the fourth dimension because it is something else rather than the normal up, down, left, right, forward, and back.  We can still project it though, but only as a shadow with inaccurate measurements.

I used to draw pictures like this when I was bored in school.  I'd get them up to 10 dimensions.   I figured out how to do it and that what I was drawing was multi-dimensional cubes on my own.  I also used to do it with pyramids.

I could never figure out a good way to do it with spheres since there are no vertices.

The tesseract is the same as a torus (prety much a spherical shape) only substituting the donut shape for a cube within a cube. If you can keep track of the shape as it is minus the rotation you can see one side of the inside cube stretching out and unfolding around the outside as the opposite end being one side of the wider outside cube shrinks inwards and becomes the inside.


same as this without geometric edges


and here is the inside view of torus



In the same way as a cube can be rotated inside a sphere so that all the cubes points can trace every single point on the inside of the sphere then a tessaract is basicly the same math as a vortating torus. if you were to take every possible moment of the tessaract's cycle and have them coloured differently and in sequence so there is no empty space's in the squares of the cubes etc. like a whole flowing field. Then it would be just like a sphere..It cant rotate and produce the same effect as a cube travesrsing the inside points of the sphere (making a sphere from a cube) at same time as this because the vertical axis akin to the donut hole would be rotating as well

but the point being is that the tesseract represents the same thing as a sphere inside a sphere which unfold into inversions of one another as they turn inside out with the cycle through the "4D" axis but with cubes.

The shadow analogy is apt in explaining how the 4th and 5th dimensions are still 3D objects but operating in 3D space in a manner which doesn't allow an observer to perceive the higher dimensional reality of the cosmos (given its a torus) because the stretching wavelengths exceed the cohesive threshold of sensory perception so outer space is stretched and the light travelling in those areas cannot resonate with the eye... so at any given time an individual can only perceive the local segment that they exist on a as a 3D gradient which is not warping - even though it is in the wider picture; they warp with it so they can see the local wavelengths as relatively normal.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Parallactic Angle

« on: February 23, 2012, 08:48:54 PM »

The only thing I see in the first post is an illustration and a blind assumption that RET is true.

Causeless has at least provided evidence to support his contentions.

FE - 1
RE - 0

The only thing I am getting from this post, is that the accusation that a blind assumption of a certain facttheory being true automatically resolves to being in favour of any conflicting liestheories.

Therefore, based on Mr. Bishop's flawed logic, all FET theories support RET and all RET theories support FET.

Someone give this man a medal

Truth is relative to the observer...

Its not about the data but about the discrepancy of possibility that it implies both advertently and inadvertently .. its always easier to see things the way is expected due to contemporary thinking but there is always other variables to consider which will lean toward alternate interpretations. Its easy to assume the most convenient interpretation for an argument or scientific assumption for experiments etc but there are always other possible abstractions that can render the same data in different light   

The notion of alternate realities that share the same relative timeline but different shape to the earth resolves the whole debate... facts only exist subjectively to each version of reality... Perception can see either model of a the cosmos as true.

Why argue about such things you all know the FE arent going to change thier mind that the earth is flat (tho they may consider multiple cosmoses and shapes as notioned) and for RE vice verse.

Couldn't you go play with your dog or cat or do something truly constructive with your time rather than argue???... just saying arguing doesn't acomplish anything when there exists philosophy that either one of the theories can fall back on if "facts" don't show up in favour of either.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon - Clear evidence of a round Earth

« on: February 22, 2012, 03:03:55 PM »

Some people say that it varies its orientation lately.... an effect observable from the same location... i.e. one night its "normal" the next its upside down. Some believe its that chemtrails have been used to obscure it from certain places so that people wont catch on that something different is happening. i.e. That the trails are to explain some sort of atmospheric illusion or such... it happened here in Oz recently people commented that the crescent was "upside down".

Food for thought

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Vedic Cosmology and Greater Earth

« on: February 21, 2012, 10:02:20 PM »

There are others who are astounded by dreams whereby they have no idea that they are dreaming and there is no tell tale sign that it is a dream... in thes dreams they have friends and family (that they don't know in their waking life) and upon awakening they can recall past memories of events that happen months/years ago in the dream (alternate world) prior to the point that they can recall as the "dreams" beginning . he dream goes on for what seems like days even weeks or whole lifetimes can be lived tho not remembered in exact details but the feeling of having experienced vast amounts of time lingers...

Errr... Most people don't know they're dreaming inside of dreams.
And since you yourself admit they don't remember the details, how can they say their "memories" are accurate?  I can easily dream of a family and invent memories on the spot.  Why, I can do that now.  I'm day-dreaming about my future children, my future grand children, and where I'll be in 50 years.  I can see it clearly now but by then, I suspect I won't remember what I'm day-dreaming yet I bet it'll happen exactly as I remember!

Also, most people have experienced the phenomena whereby upon awakening the dreams details dissipate but the atmospheric vibe of the dream lingers for minutes even hours after awakening a form of quantum entanglement with the emotions of the dream self's world which override the expected waking world emotional associations to ones surroundings/atmosphere and circumstances...

....
Or they're dreaming, which is a function of the brain and the emotional state that occurs due to the dream lingers in the brain until the memory fades.
Happens all the time when people watch movies.  It's no different.  Why you seem to think it is is a great mystery to me.

You didnt quite read that thoroughly cos your reply actually reinforces the notion presented... I said that the  feelngs persist long after the memory has dissipated...

This why you are not going to be able to accurately practice what I have devised as a means of practical esotericism until you can step back... bite your tong humble yourself (admit that maybe you jumped the gun too soon on many occasions)
and give it an honest shot to see just how potent entertainign the perception of alternate cosmologies asthough they are possible realites.. of coarse your going to resist this because you have spent god knows how much time ridiculing others who believe in flat earth and such... So I am not going to expect any miracle that your all of a sudden going to admit that in some ways you were wrong and "they" (the FEer's who you debated with) were all right to some extent (in their beliefs at least, if not in the scientific details)

Even entertaining the perception in the stance of pretending that you don't know better... simply to see how it feels to assume the earth is flat (this takes imagination like when you were a child so you will need to be adept at lowering your brainwaves into theta state whilst awake -- binaural's aren't good enough either because they can do more damage than harm if you aren't ready to change to a responsible intention toward others) and I mean really get into the perception... If you can do that you will experience some very fascinating effects both in waking life and the dream state

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Vedic Cosmology and Greater Earth

« on: February 21, 2012, 08:32:48 PM »

M-theories parralel realities have been proven to a large number of people (fore themselves) via dreaming precognition and dajavu etc. Whereby certain events are dreamt of which are slightly different in the dream but also predict the same outcome of the individuals waking timeline.

I once dreamed I was in a car driving over a bridge.  I wasn't buckled up, accidentally opened the door, and fell out.  These events would happen if I did it in real life.
I also dreamed once that I was at work and did my job for the day.  This was similar to what eventually occurred in reality though by then, I had forgotten most of the details.

There are others who are astounded by dreams whereby they have no idea that they are dreaming and there is no tell tale sign that it is a dream... in thes dreams they have friends and family (that they don't know in their waking life) and upon awakening they can recall past memories of events that happen months/years ago in the dream (alternate world) prior to the point that they can recall as the "dreams" beginning . he dream goes on for what seems like days even weeks or whole lifetimes can be lived tho not remembered in exact details but the feeling of having experienced vast amounts of time lingers...

Errr... Most people don't know they're dreaming inside of dreams.
And since you yourself admit they don't remember the details, how can they say their "memories" are accurate?  I can easily dream of a family and invent memories on the spot.  Why, I can do that now.  I'm day-dreaming about my future children, my future grand children, and where I'll be in 50 years.  I can see it clearly now but by then, I suspect I won't remember what I'm day-dreaming yet I bet it'll happen exactly as I remember!

Also, most people have experienced the phenomena whereby upon awakening the dreams details dissipate but the atmospheric vibe of the dream lingers for minutes even hours after awakening a form of quantum entanglement with the emotions of the dream self's world which override the expected waking world emotional associations to ones surroundings/atmosphere and circumstances...

....
Or they're dreaming, which is a function of the brain and the emotional state that occurs due to the dream lingers in the brain until the memory fades.
Happens all the time when people watch movies.  It's no different.  Why you seem to think it is is a great mystery to me.

This is what esoteric science is all about, introspection rather than retrospection so as to yield wisdom regarding the true nature of the universe (omniverse) at large via personal data rather than second hand data which can literally be the manifestation of another persons thoughts/expectations...

If the data is from a personal perspective, one can not have an objective viewpoint.  You can only see one side of a cube at any given time.  As such, to see the entire true nature of the universe requires you to exist in an objective format, which isn't possible since you're seeing everything from your single point of view.
So really, you're just diving into your imagination and making things up as you go but believing them to be factual.  Happens all the time.

And if the data can literally be the manifestation of another persons thoughts/expectations, then logically the same thing can happen to you can't it?  You can, literally, manifest your own thoughts and expectations onto the universe you see.  After all, which is harder: manipulating the material universe with our thoughts or manipulating our own thoughts with our own thoughts?

Due to this esoteric approach being able to convey that which cannot be discovered through quantitative measures then its responsible for scientist to apply the techniques and attitudes to researching these "real" metaphysical phenomena at an internal self introspective level and draw the most likely conclusions ?

Since you can't come up with any process to do what you suggest the answer is no.  After all, can you define a 100% proof way for an individual to see the fabric of the universe and believe as you do?  Can you give me a step by step guide that will guarantee results?  Because I'll do it.  I will. 

But you and I both know the answer:
Each individual must find his/her own path, then listen to the universe and you will know the answer.

And by answer you mean "You will agree with me or you're doing it wrong"

M-theory has the framework to the answer.

You, who can't even understand the basic principal of M-theory believe that do you?

Dave bantering words as always. the basics yes I know - I have seen Brian Greens series...forget the name of it but is all about string/M thoery (I don't know how to read the equations)

Why not click on some of the links in my post (afraid of what you might read?)

Well then that clears that up. Oh I almost forgot... Are you saying you've never had a dream and forgotten the details only to remember latter on, I sometimes remember dreams years after I had them...

Also not everything one dreams is going to be precognitive many dreams are Astral/Subconsciousness and unrelated to Physical reality.. There are many states and phases of dreaming and metaphyscal consciousness...

Personaly I know there is substance in what I say. The first ground breaking dream I remembered since being partially brainwashed by primary school was a dream where my grandfather had a heart attack and died... 3 days latter guess what happened? thats right... now the circumstances were different in the dream but the informational theme was spot on   

And yes I have given a system within these very forums but you refuse to accept the premise attitude that will yield the results... (i.e. saying that you wont read further on a post because you "know" from the first couple lines that its wrong - more like couldnt understand the context of words...) Others I know have tryed it as I suggested and had results.. saying that they feel like reality is a dream like when they were a child...

Now difference between fabricating a reality of limitation and a reality of holism is that if one creates their own reality and it is in alignment with what is real the one will feel more content and down to earth in oneness... if they are not in alignment and only perceiving fragments of the unified perspective then they will be more inclined to have irrational self destructive antispiritual or anti responsible spiritual behaviour... Also if you accept that reality is defined by perception and intent then you know that reality is based on consciousness...

Now if you want to prove to me that ypu are going to try the methods I outlined in the Esoteric/Exoteric thread go and read so that you can atleast respond with believable notions regarding what I have written rather than narrow comprehension of what I have extrapolated in great detail...You ought to know better and realise that only reflects a lack of investigation of the threads on your part...

28

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Vedic Cosmology and Greater Earth

« on: February 21, 2012, 06:06:07 PM »

M-theories parallel realities have been proven to a large number of people (fore themselves) via dreaming precognition and dajavu etc. Whereby certain events are dreamt of which are slightly different in the dream but also predict the same general outcome of the individuals waking timeline.

There are others who are astounded by dreams whereby they have no idea that they are dreaming and there is no tell tale sign that it is a dream... in these dreams they have friends and family (that they don't know in their waking life) and upon awakening they can recall past memories of events that happen months/years ago in the dream (alternate world) prior to the point that they can recall as the "dreams" beginning . The dream goes on for what seems like days even weeks or whole lifetimes can be lived tho not remembered in exact details but the feeling of having experienced vast amounts of time lingers...

Also, most people have experienced the phenomena whereby upon awakening the dreams details dissipate but the atmospheric vibe of the dream lingers for minutes even hours after awakening -- a form of quantum entanglement with the emotions of the dream self's world which override the expected waking world emotional associations to ones surroundings/atmosphere and circumstances...

This is what esoteric science is all about, introspection rather than retrospection so as to yield wisdom regarding the true nature of the universe (omniverse) at large via personal data rather than second hand data which can literally be the manifestation of another persons thoughts/expectations... Due to this esoteric approach being able to convey that which cannot be discovered through quantitative measures then its responsible for scientist to apply the techniques and attitudes to researching these "real" metaphysical phenomena at an internal self introspective level and draw the most likely conclusions ? Even more so is this a valid notion due to the fact that much of what was once unbelievable and therefore considered fiction, turned out to be true/possible.

M-theory has the framework to the answer.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Vedic Cosmology and Greater Earth

« on: February 21, 2012, 04:16:41 PM »

Note a line "______" like so denotes a suggested retention/rest point to avoid info overload.

P.S. Dave this is not a post for you, it is a post for everyone

http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/superstrings.html

Multiple String Theories

There is, however, more than one string theory. These theories are classified according to whether or not the strings are required to be closed loops and whether or not the particle spectrum includes fermions (particles that makes up matter). In order to include fermions in string theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called supersymmetry, which means for every boson (particle that transmits a force) there is a corresponding fermion. So supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces to the particles that make up matter.

String theories that incorporate bosons only are no longer popular as they require 26 space-time dimensions and a particle with imaginary mass known as the tachyon. There are quite a few superstring theories that make sense mathematically that only require ten dimensions. A few of the differences between them include theories with closed loops only and others with closed loops that can break into open strings.

Theories with massless fermions only spinning one way (chiral) and string theories, which are heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings, differ. Different combinations of the above properties leave us with 5 (mathematically) plausible theories.

M-Theory

There was a difficulty in studying these theories: physicists and mathematicians did not have tools to explore the theories over all possible values of the parameters in the theories. Each theory was like a large planet of which we only knew a small island somewhere on the planet. But over the last four years, techniques were developed to explore the theories more thoroughly, in other words, to travel around the seas in each of those planets and find new islands. And only then it was realised that those five string theories are actually islands on the same planet, not different ones! Thus there is an underlying theory of which all string theories are only different aspects. This was called M-theory.

One of the islands that was found on the M-theory planet corresponds to a theory that lives not in 10 but in 11 dimensions. This seems to be telling us that M-theory should be viewed as an 11 dimensional theory that looks 10 dimensional at some points in its space of parameters. Such a theory could have as a fundamental object a membrane, as opposed to a string. Like a drinking straw seen at a distance, the membranes would look like strings when we curl the 11th dimension into a small circle.

I have no idea what the actual mathematical theories are or how to read string theory equations however I can deduce this much with intuitive logic - I see maths literally as patterns in nature (directly via meditation (visionary states) and introspection) rather than numbers so I don't need to understand it in academic terms to grasp the underlying concepts in laymen manner.
______________________________________________________________

So,

5 different string theories are unified via M theory. This is why I use the term 5th Dimension and also why many others do (some picking it up without knowing its origin and reasons for its use) to refer to the higher dimensional reality. There is even a website called in5D (dedicated to consciousness expanding (ascension) material.

It is also synonymous with the first interval of the FIB sequence if we include the intervals as part of a wider wavelength of reality which encompasses and produces the FIB i.e. 1,1,2,3,4(5)
   
if one starts the series with 0 in the place of the first 1 i.e. 0,1,2,3... then, the 5th number (first interval with the value of 4) being a hidden expression (synonymous with 0 < which represents the formlessness of infinity in space ) the it can be deduced that 0 the first one or the void that beggets all possibility, is synonymous with the first interval of 4(5) whereby it permeates its creation as a transcendent membrane.

If one treats the 3 consecutive values in between 0 and 0/4(5) i.e. 1,2,3, as spacial dimensions, minus linear time then they represent the potential of 3 dimensional reality held inside the membranes of source 0 - the 4/5+ Omni-Dimension/s.

In reality all frequencies (cycles) have an overlap point. So the interval of 4(5) is mostly formlessness in space beyond the fields of 3D reality but it also overlaps into the next dimension above i.e. 5 in the FIb sequence (which is an expressed value i.e. a Physical aspect of reality) i.e. 0, 1, 2, 3, ( 0/4(5) ), 5

Note: this is what string theory is mostly indicative of.. loops which interlace with one another in a chain-like effect.

Thus the interval of 4 synonymous with 0 and 5 represents the binary tangents of a hyper-spacial membrane (transcendent of 3Dimensionality) and it renders the value of 5 in the FIB as the 6th number (when including hidden values/intervals as qualities). This factor of 5 is synonymous with how there is 5 equations /string theories which all work in describing the relative reality but which need a single one to unify them as a whole... so this 5 factor by the grace of 1 can be referred as a ( 1|5 ) principle where the 1 is 0(1)<(as the first value 1 of the FIB expressed as 0) i.e. 0,1,2,3, and the 5 is the first interval (4) interlaced/overlapping with the expressed value of 5 (6th in sequence when including intervals as hidden qualities of existence). If one treats the first 0 as void and intangible (irrelevant to studying how reality works at a tangible level) then it can be discarded from the sequence, as was done by the modernized representation of the FIB i.e. 1,1,2,3,5,8.

if the first two 1's are considered simultaneous expressions mirrored as an entangled oscillating binary membrane (like a double torus field)  one torus is reponsible for space "dark energy" and follows the PEM perfect even multiple series, 0,2,4,8,16,32 etc. and organic matter/energy is the other Torus which follows the FIB 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, etc.


then the 1,1, becomes one step in the sequence i.e. 1,1, is 1(0),1 as a single step or quality/membrane (1(0)/1) = 1 in 1,2,3,(0/4), 5, 8 etc and if one thereby ignores the intervals as well then 5 in the FIB is also the 4th value from a certain perspective... just like how a specific string theory equation of 11 dimensions can be seen as 10 dimensions from alternate points of view i.e. other string theory equations

for this reason the first interval can also relate as the non linear aspect of the troiodal membranes entanglement when viewd from another perspective. So essentially 1,1, and 0 / 0(4) i.e 0 ,1 ,2 ,3, 0(4) are the same expression existing in multiple dimensional states and positions simultaneously, one is non linear and ensures the existence of itself in the future and past (to any relative present) and the other (former 1,1,) is the linear whereby the later is always beyond and out of reach... this infers that all possible moments occur simultaneously and the potentnial of all possibilities for a given moment to come, exist as variate potential before it is reach linearly. 
___________________________________________________________________

Each proceeding step in the series (linear layer of a Cosmic torus field) can express as the former in relation to points beyond, so for instance in: 0,1,2,3,(4),5,(6,7),8... the (6,7) (2nd interval) which also reduce to 13 > 4 relates back into the 0 /0(4) principle but it is further along than the first interval. So the first interval (0|4) can play role of 1(0) as in 1,1, with the second 1 being related to the 13 >4 (2nd interval), therefore functioning as as another fundamental waveform/Cosmic layer occurring in the same space as the initial 1,1, of series except dimensionally separated... this means that there is another cosmos beyond site of the first cosmos's fundamental step/s 1,1, occurring in exactly the same way except via intervals (4), (6,7) which each express as the same quality as 1,1, in a higher level (further allong in sequecne mathematically but still the same space on a differet channel).

This factor is what the PEM relates to, it is a perfectly self similar canvas for accommodating multiple wavelegths of potential in each step yet all separated into different planes...  whereby each value i.e. 0, 2, 4, 8, etc. are all the same quality of infinite potential of resolution accessibly reorganised into quantified cohesion at every possible level into infinity (within a Cosmic Torus i.e. Implosive expansion).

So, essentially a universe/cosmos can sit in the palm of your hand and still be just as full of energy as your own objective universe. Tis way the FIB and PEM series can be see as counter vortating aspects of double torus...imagine all the numbers of the fib and PEM series in parallel to one another and then each step superimposed upon each other (signifying infinite depth; implosion). This too can help see that the initial 0 relative to ones given Cosmos is also the 2nd interval for another cosmos and the 3rd to another and so on into infinity. like wise the 2nd interval (value of 4) of ones cosm is also the first 0 for another cosm (one just before/ahead in implosive depth)

This the notion that each wavelength of reality is cycling on a different concentric band - tho to themselves they are a spherical existences; the reference to being concentric bands is merely a way of indicating their individual frequency/channel vibrationally centered on a different section than the others and not that they are literally cycling as shell-like sections of an onion, rather they are toroids which overlap into one another in graduated integers of depth but they are broadcast each on a fundamental lengths whose central point of emanation do not make contact with each other. Thus their tangible levels of reality do not enmesh they are separated.


The PEM also works on another infinitesimal axis, that being the Macro-quantum factor i.e. a Cosmic Toroid is made out of micro toroids (micro cosms) and the depth charge contrast between clusters of static micro cosms are what produce particles. From the objective level of a cosmos the 0 value is the fundamental waveform of that cosm when entangled with itself non-linearly i.e. 0(1)/4(0) principle, so as to to maintain simultaneous imprints of all possible moments etc (the non linear 4thD). Whilst for the microcosms in that cosms quantum foam, the 0 of the first 1 in the FIB serves as the sourcve to thier fundamental waveform i.e. the infinite Aetheric eenry that the vortexes draw sustinence form.     

Note: 1,1, when thought of as a single step (as entanglement of a single PEM step/ membrane into double portions of a cosmic tours represents the relative 0 in the FIB and the 0 of the PEM in an objective cosm as simultaneous mirrors which produce form as the split within ifnite potential polarises them. The tw 0's however arise from a single preceding portion of 0 (from the objective cosms parent cosmos a level higher, in which the fundamental wave of the parent cosm serves as the 0 aspect or source due to its cmparativley expansded state of density in relation to the objective cosm and parralel cosmso of same scale which are a mere quantum components)

i.e.

  1    1   (1)0(1)
   \   /      \ | / 
     2          2
     3          3 
     5          5
    etc

if one considers the interval of 4...

  1    1   (1)0(1)----(1)
   \   /      \ | /         |  \
     2          2         (0)--2, 3, (4), 5, (6,7), 8 (9,10,11,12,) 13   
     3          3           |  /
    (4)       (0)-------(1)       
     5          5
    etc
 
then the two axis of infinite depth are expressed symbolically i.e. implosive depth of cosms fundamental waveform (linear time) and infinite depth into the macro-quantum factor cycling through each proceeding level of cosms within cosms the former i.e. implosive depth carries the macro-quantum levels into greater levels of depth by proxy, but that is negligible to an observers perspective within a given cosm because all shrink at a relative rate maintaining appropriate contrast of perceptible sizes.   ____________________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Extra dimensions
[edit]Number of dimensions
An intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts extra dimensions. In classical string theory the number of dimensions is not fixed by any consistency criterion. However, in order to make a consistent quantum theory, string theory is required to live in a spacetime of the so-called "critical dimension": we must have 26 spacetime dimensions for the bosonic string and 10 for the superstring. This is necessary to ensure the vanishing of the conformal anomaly of the worldsheet conformal field theory. Modern understanding indicates that there exist less-trivial ways of satisfying this criterion. Cosmological solutions exist in a wider variety of dimensionalities, and these different dimensions are related by dynamical transitions. The dimensions are more precisely different values of the "effective central charge", a count of degrees of freedom that reduces to dimensionality in weakly curved regimes.[15]

One such theory is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions,[16] as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time. The original string theories from the 1980s describe special cases of M-theory where the eleventh dimension is a very small circle or a line, and if these formulations are considered as fundamental, then string theory requires ten dimensions. But the theory also describes universes like ours, with four observable spacetime dimensions, as well as universes with up to 10 flat space dimensions, and also cases where the position in some of the dimensions is not described by a real number, but by a completely different type of mathematical quantity. So the notion of spacetime dimension is not fixed in string theory: it is best thought of as different in different circumstances.[17]

_______________________________________________________________

From Spiratio (Myself on other boards)

4D is something that I redifined

That is an interesting theory spiratio,
Did you know that the 4th dimension is time?
So we are already in it.

In the context of academic thinking yes I'm aware. However many fringe thinkers consider the 4th D to be transcendent of linear time. It can be said that all dimensions below the 4th i.e. directionality in 3D space, the 2nd D and 1st D are all simultaneously time, so it can be said that the 5th D and 6th D etc. are all simultaneously time as well. The 4thD in the context of fringe thinking has an element of time as well but its non linear - omni-momental: all moments happening simultaneously thereby cancelling out defined form yet still existing as blueprints of informational potential.

So because time is applied to all dimensions in one way or another as either linear, non linear or one eternal moment, then it seams logical to displace time to the last dimension after all other spacial oriented dimensions just as Einstein did. He had not conceived of other dimensions in a multidimensional manner beyond 3... had he done so I think he would have given the number which was last after all others the title of time.

(quote from reply in thread on ATS: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread804852/pg1 ) I prefer to think in terms of Aetheric Density and fields which overlap into each other non linearly (via toroidal wormholes which access the Omni-dimension) rather than speaking with multiple (numbered) dimensions to describe the principles of the cosmic structure.

In M theory I have heard the use up to 26 membranes or dimensions. It can be shown that the number 26 is related to the cube spliced into a Rubix (27) cubes whereby each quantum tori in the Q-foam are surrounded by 26 thus being repulsed into the middle. Every Micro Tori is simultaneously active in 2 states a. repulsive and b. attractive so they all interlaced with one another, whereby each of the 26 relative to any given 1 are repulsing inward at it on an angle which renders the value of each being 1/26th of thier total fields charge. Likewise the middle one is repulsing outward at all of those 26 surrounding it thereby delivering to each a force1/26th of its total charge.

Likewise they all are centralised to a unique group of 26 of which the central one (in the first explained instance) is part of. The toroids of the quantum foam are all a single unified field.

This works because all are receptive and repulsive simultaneously, so the interactions of all of 26 surrounding any 1 result in a force which travels toward the exponential event horizon whereby it meets the omni-D force of infinite strength (beyond their scope of potential/limit i.e. absolute formlessness the 5thD aspect of 0. This thereby causes the collective charge of those 26 which are received into given 1's event horizon, to then be repulsed outward (it is a constant steam) so that which goes in is the same force coming out - considered to be the repulsive charge of the given 1 which in turn goes back to those which delivered it (or conversely can be though of as the one which is give to them so that they can give to it)

These forces cannot be measured in their totality form within the limit of ones local cosms 3D scope, so 3D technology cannot utilise or measure their full potential as they are only fractional emanations from their total source (thus their fundamental waves are beyond tangible means of measurement).

Regardless of the fact that the 26 dimensional string theories are not used because a lesser number can explain the same reality it doesn't mean that the 26 dimensions don't exist and function on levels which are related to the omni-dimension (that which is not required to study the tangible level of ones immediate cosmos)

The Omniverse - A string theory approach paralleled with the Holistic Macro-Quantum factor

The Infinite Earth plane is a construct of the quantum foam minus a master macrocosmic torus that any given cosmos has. So essentially it exists in open 5D space rather than closed 3D spaces... also synonymous with 0 as absolute formlessness and its symbolic relation to the value 5. As mentioned there are two axis of infinite depth i.e. implosive depth of a cosms fundamental waveform (linear time) and infinite depth into the macro-quantm factor cycling through each proceeding level of cosms within cosms. On Infinite earth the Macro-quantum foam is a hyper-spacial field, It transcends 3D time and functions solely from the flip side of th 4thD's overlap into the 5th rather than the 3rd. This means that all possible points of depth that all toroidal quantum components (micro-multiverse-cosms) access by proxy of the Implosive depth whilst they serve as components to a parent cosm, are in effect the only expression that takes form on Infinite earth. Thus all possible quantum points exist as a truly static potential - a crystallised quantum foam (it does not implode) of all possible states of depth

30

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Vedic Cosmology and Greater Earth

« on: February 21, 2012, 12:38:24 AM »

Interdimensional reality is a lot less interesting than you all think it is.

0 dimensional objects are points.
1 dimensional objects are objects that move in 1 dimension.
2 dimensional objects are objects that move in 2 dimensions.
3rd dimensional reality is the universe we live in without time.
4th dimensional reality is the universe we live in with time.

It's all rather dull.

What isn't dull is M-theory.  Read up on it.

Ok Dave.

Since your so well educated, what terms should be used academically speaking. Enlighten us as to what terms should be applied when discerning various planes of existence If calling them other higher dimensions of reality do not suffice.. Im preety sure mr Kaku has used the term higher dimensions more than once when discussing such subjects pertinent to M-theory and alternate realities...

As NE has stated Infinite Earth transcends many-worlds cosmology and encompasses them