A Flat Earth not Round ...?

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

... trim

addition Then space must be awash with light that we cannot see.

As an aside, I said to John Lash one time that that to us, the Originator is blackest black, but to itself, it is full of light.

The light you see is the interaction with the matter contained within the star - this interaction is extremely intense, nuclear in fact Somewhat related, I love the Ken Carey text that states: "When spirit brushes matter lightly, life is born; when spirit brushes matter with intensity, stars are born."

And yes space is full of light we cannot see

[Selkie]

Posted by Jake (here)

Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it. 

The light from Andromeda can be seen clearly from any planet with an atmosphere.. The light refracts off of our atmosphere. If you are on, say,, the moon,,, you dont see stars or suns or galaxies. (Assuming the moon has no atmosphere. )

but if im on the moon, looking in the direction of Andromeda, and a large dust/gas/ice particle cloud comes in between us, I may see light refractions, and the light from Andromeda will come into view,,, if only briefly... Space is Bizarre!

From the moon, I can see Earth clearly, even though it does not have its own light... But I can't see the sun, even though it Does have it's own light source.. If im not mistaken, Heat from the sun works the same.. there is no radiant temperature, per se,,, not until the radiation hits an object is there heat! Effin bizarre! Earth does not roatate around the sun! The sun is flying through space too... The solar system trails the sun behind it! What if the universe is static, and it is SPACE that is moving? Has anyone calculated the rate of expansion? Is it possible that motion through space is an illusion caused by expansion? The amount of space between galaxies is increasing, and every galaxy is speeding away from each other.. That does not mean that they are moving,,, only that the amount of Space is increasing!!! Effin bizarre!

Jake

Yes, like this



except that I would bet that the sun follows a spiral path, too, and not a straight line path like the illustration shows.

[Jake]

Here is a good chap explaining invisible light...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J-m4pPGIPZg

Quite bizarre!
Jake

[Selkie]

Posted by Jake (here)
Here is a good chap explaining invisible light...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J-m4pPGIPZg

Quite bizarre!
Jake

Fantastic!

And you're right...it is bizarre!, and the atmosphere is a kind of "miracle". In a way, it actually makes things appear.

[13th Warrior]

Posted by Jake (here)
Here is a good chap explaining invisible light...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J-m4pPGIPZg

Quite bizarre!
Jake

What the gentleman is talking about is the reflection of light being visible.

Do you see the connection between refraction/reflection???

[13th Warrior]

So what can we say about light...

We can say that the only time we can "see" light is after it has been "bent" or "refracted"...

What does it mean to bend/refract light and to what are we to reference this movement to; space time/time space???

[loveoflife]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

And yes space is full of light we cannot see

I find it amazing how scientists are so full of themselves explaining concepts that defy common sense. I also do not like it when they call people stupid for not understanding these crazy ideas.

I was 5 years old when they told me that the earth was round so................

[13th Warrior]

Y'all will have to excuse my musing on this and other subjects this morning as i've had fried potatoes with fresh garlic and according to Dr. Bob Beck; i've been clinically brain dead all morning...

[Hervé]

Posted by Silkie (here)
[...]
except that I would bet that the sun follows a spiral path, too, and not a straight line path like the illustration shows.

See over there:

Posted by Hervé (here)
This guy's got a good grip on the subject except he is missing why our sun is traveling in an elliptical spiral in a similar fashion as planets do around it... i.e. that the sun is "orbiting" around a twin in a binary system:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

[DarMar]

best explanation so far ive seen on youtube:
it talks about whole paradigm in great way, and how new age religion is tied to globe concept..
really calm and intelligent man, if someone is really interested in this thematic, it should not miss this thoughts.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RgPA35K3p7M

and..
did you knew that russians went to moon first? :D

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=gWlktLumdt8

[Hervé]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[...]
And yes space is full of light we cannot see

... unless one is old enough to have experienced going to the vue and see a movie in a theatre where smoking was allowed... did anyone ever saw that beam of light landing on the big screen?

... yet that theatre's space was full of these buggers called "photons."

[Selkie]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[...]
And yes space is full of light we cannot see

... unless one is old enough to have experienced going to the vue and see a movie in a theatre where smoking was allowed... did anyone ever saw that beam of light landing on the big screen?

... yet that theatre's space was full of these buggers called "photons."

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind

[Hervé]

Posted by Silkie (here)
[...]

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind

That's not totally accurate, about not seeing the stars without an atmosphere, to the contrary, one can see the stars better in rarefied or no atmosphere (Hubble telescope): why do you think that astronomical observatories are built on top of high mountains and peaks? First to avoid "light pollution" (the smoke in movie theatres of old) and second to minimize atmospheric interferences and distortions. Stars are visible all by their all lone selves in a similar manner that red-hot, melting iron is visible in the dark.

[Selkie]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Silkie (here)
[...]

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind

That's not totally accurate, about not seeing the stars without an atmosphere, to the contrary, one can see the stars better in rarefied or no atmosphere (Hubble telescope): why do you think that astronomical observatories are built on top of high mountains and peaks? First to avoid "light pollution" (the smoke in movie theatres of old) and second to minimize atmospheric interferences and distortions. Stars are visible all by their all lone selves in a similar manner that red-hot, melting iron is visible in the dark.

Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

[Selkie]

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Silkie (here)
[...]

It just blows my mind that light, itself, is invisible, and that if it weren't for our atmosphere, we would not be able to see the stars. Call it a sense of wonder, but it just blows my mind

That's not totally accurate, about not seeing the stars without an atmosphere, to the contrary, one can see the stars better in rarefied or no atmosphere (Hubble telescope): why do you think that astronomical observatories are built on top of high mountains and peaks? First to avoid "light pollution" (the smoke in movie theatres of old) and second to minimize atmospheric interferences and distortions. Stars are visible all by their all lone selves in a similar manner that red-hot, melting iron is visible in the dark.

Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

Here it is. Jake said it,

[QUOTE=Jake;982518]

The light from Andromeda can be seen clearly from any planet with an atmosphere.. The light refracts off of our atmosphere. If you are on, say,, the moon,,, you dont see stars or suns or galaxies. (Assuming the moon has no atmosphere. )

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post982518

So I didn't misread him, after all.

[Jake]

No you are both right... Defracting lenses are used to defract the light instead of the particles in the atmosphere. Hubble would be quite blind without defracting lenses, etc... so would many of the high powered telescopes, placed on the highest peaks..

Shine a pointer lazer at the wall,, you only see the red dot,,, not a beam of light. Same basic concept.. Our eyes cannot see the light, only the refraction...

jake

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Jake (here)
Shine a pointer lazer at the wall,, you only see the red dot,,, not a beam of light. Same basic concept.. Our eyes cannot see the light, only the refraction...

Shine that same laser into your face (hopefully a low power one that won't damage your eyes) and you can sure see it .

One cannot see photons that are going off in some other direction, unless some of them are scattered back at one's own eyes or other sensing equipment.

One can see photons that impinge on one's eyes, and one can build various kinds of sensors that will detect photons that impinge directly on them.

[Hervé]

Posted by Silkie (here)
[...]
Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

You probably read and understood correctly what is written... however, as far as the veracity of such statement is concerned, there may be some serious misconceptions at the basis of such considerations, fueled by some NASA high-contrast pictures.

However, the light they emit in the form of photon is itself not visible until said photons hit something. The very same way one can see a movie on a theatre's screen as well as the arching between white hot graphite electrodes inside the film projector but nothing in between projector and screen

[loveoflife]

As the thread is veering of topic onto the properties of light. I thought the following would muddy the waters a bit more. To me it has more relevance to whether Earth is flat or spherical.

“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” – Asher Peres, pioneer in quantum information theory

......imagine a star emitting a photon billions of years ago, heading in the direction of planet Earth. In between, there is a galaxy. As a result of what’s known as “gravitational lensing,” the light will have to bend around the galaxy in order to reach Earth, so it has to take one of two paths, go left or go right. Billions of years later, if one decides to set up an apparatus to “catch” the photon, the resulting pattern would be (as explained above in the double slit experiment) an interference pattern. This demonstrates that the photon took one way, and it took the other way.

One could also choose to “peek” at the incoming photon, setting up a telescope on each side of the galaxy to determine which side the photon took to reach Earth. The very act of measuring or “watching” which way the photon comes in means it can only come in from one side. The pattern will no longer be an interference pattern representing multiple possiblities, but a single clump pattern showing “one” way.

What does this mean? It means how we choose to measure “now” affects what direction the photon took billions of years ago. Our choice in the present moment affected what had already happened in the past….

This makes absolutely no sense, which is a common phenomenon when it comes to quantum physics. Regardless of our ability make sense of it, it’s real.

This experiment also suggests that quantum entanglement (which has also been verified, read more about that here) exists regardless of time. Meaning two bits of matter can actually be entangled, again, in time.

Time as we measure it and know it, doesn’t really exist.

source: http://www.collective-evolution.com/...mind-altering/

[loveoflife]

This post is being updated as i investigate this phenomenon further.


We are taught that gravity bends light.


Gravity is rejected by flat earthers in their model.

Here are some links that i saw posted that highlight some of the anomalies in the theory of gravity. For anyone interested.

This is worthy of a thread of its own, i would imagine there is one already.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...-with-gravity/

PBS NOVA,,. rejects gravity...

http://www.quora.com/What-does-the-s...-about-gravity
QUORA..,rejects gravity...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...s/unigrav.html
GSU,,, rejects gravity...

http://www.livescience.com/1770-grea...s-gravity.html
LIVE SCIENCE,,. rejects gravity...

http://www.science20.com/the_standup...roblems-152844
SCIENCE 2.0 rejects gravity...

http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/gravity.html
ASTRONOMY TODAY,,. rejects gravity...

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model
CERN,,, rejects gravity...

http://www.nature.com/news/gravity-r...16090#/trouble

NATURE.com rejects gravity...

From Universe Today:

"Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."

This from a flat earther. Flat Earth: Gravity is a Hoax


As for the electric universe.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM

I like this, an amusing perspective.

"Gravity is simply density and buoyancy.
People argue that things with different densities fall at the same rate through air. However, that is because both items have reached critical density in relation to its medium: air.
If you were to change the medium from air to say, water or liquid mercury, the critical density to achieve the same rate of falling would increase significantly.
Critical density is directly proportional to the medium density. Thus the denser the medium... The denser the objects would have to be in order to achieve the same rate of falling.
A basketball and a rock might fall at the same speed in air. However... Drop them in a thicker medium like water... And they will not fall at the same rate. That is because critical density has not been achieved by both the rock and the basketball, in water as its medium.
In a vacuum... Critical density is zero and is the reason why objects of any density fall at exactly the same rate. Any medium denser than a vacuum has a greater critical density than zero... Thus the reason why objects that haven't attained critical density fall slower in certain mediums.
Critical density variation is "gravity."
Darrell Dragoo

Flat earth knowledge ends the matrix, that is quite a claim and could be true, although i am not a believer this flat earth information has had a profound effect on how i know see reality. A reality that has now several variations. lol

flat earth knowledge ends the matrix gravity is no force as force was already spent to make gravity appear. its just density and that simple gravity is density on flat earth

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=D_j_SUAwafU