Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: [Misinformation] Mark Sargent: "The Spinning Ball You Think You Are On Is Flat"

  1. #16
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    I'd like you guys taking this flat Earth theory seriously to help me understand how this is possible.


    So let's take this image:





    As you can see, the places near the center of the flat Earth are much closer to one another and take up less space in general than the continents toward the outer part of this flat disc, which become larger and larger due to the nature of this particular geometry.

    Let's compare with this image:





    So one thing that should pop out to us immediately between these two images is that, if the first one is accurate, then flying around the farther edges of the flat disc are going to take a lot more time than flying around the inner part of the disc.

    Notice that in the 2nd image, Tokyo and New York are about the same distance apart as Brisbane, Australia, and Santiago, Chile. However in the first image, Brisbane and Santiago are about 3 times the distance from each other as Tokyo and New York.

    So we would expect that the flight times from Brisbane to Santiago would be about 3 times longer than that of Tokyo to New York.

    Flight time from Tokyo to New York: 12 hours 55 minutes = 775 minutes
    Flight time from Brisbane to Santiago: 15 hours 40 minutes = 940 minutes
    (These times were taken from Google listings of flights, without taking into account the down time at airport stops in-between, but only the time in the air.)

    The flight from Tokyo to New York is 84% that of Brisbane to Santiago, whereas it should be more like 33% if the first map is accurate.


    So let's start with this problem, since it would probably be easier to explain away by someone arguing from a flat Earth position than would be something like the fact that it's day on one side of the Earth while it's night on the other side (something I have seen for myself in Skype video chats to Russia), etc.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Swami (1st April 2015)

  3. #17
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 497 Times in 144 Posts
    Problem.....

    Greenland fits 17 times in Africa

    More accurate world-map:

  4. #18
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 497 Times in 144 Posts
    Couple of other 'more accurate' maps



  5. #19
    Tot Founder England The One's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    In-Be-Tween
    Posts
    10,964
    Thanks
    26,665
    Thanked 48,690 Times in 10,221 Posts
    Awesome stuff wow

    Dont get me started on the south Atlantic anomaly and the so called Van Allen radiation belt
    No one person can ever change the truth, but the truth, once learned, can and will change the person

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world when you are through changing, you are through


    theonetruth forum status theonetruth facebook

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The One For This Useful Post:

    Swami (1st April 2015), Tribe (1st April 2015)

  7. #20
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 497 Times in 144 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by The One View Post
    Awesome stuff wow

    Dont get me started on the south Atlantic anomaly and the so called Van Allen radiation belt
    If it fits the flat earth theory, please do...

  8. #21
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Swami View Post
    Problem.....

    Greenland fits 17 times in Africa
    I lined up the lines of longitude, so it doesn't make any difference what size the continents appear to be. It makes no difference to the question I asked above. Notice that New York and Santiago are still more or less on the same vertical line, and so are Brisbane and Tokyo. That's the point, you know, to measure how long it takes to get from one side of the Earth to the other, on the northern hemisphere, and then on the southern. According to flat Earth theory it should be a huge difference.

    Brisbane and Santiago are around the 30 S latitude and New York and Tokyo are closer to 40 N latitude, which is probably why there is a 16% difference in flight times (30 degrees from the equator vs. 40 degrees). But it's still not close to 3x as long of a flight as the flat Earth theory would predict.

    Seriously, I'm not being dogmatic here. I want to explore what people are seeing in this idea. But for it to ever prevail against the old model, it has to be able to stand up to it logically. So I posted some questions and want to know what the response would be according to this theory.
    Last edited by bsbray, 2nd April 2015 at 03:30.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Swami (2nd April 2015)

  10. #22
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    The Land of Flowers
    Posts
    1,455
    Thanks
    2,522
    Thanked 6,367 Times in 1,410 Posts
    I don't subscribe to this theory, or any theory really, but I can fathom it being possible that when you travel around the outer edge of Flat Earth, you travel faster because of some law or property we aren't familiar with yet. I don't know, maybe it's somehow related to how the outer edge of a carousel travels faster than the inner edge? I'm purposefully being vague because I don't speak for believers of this theory. I'm just saying I can fathom abstract ways that would allow this theory to make some sense.

    But this theory does tickle me, pleasantly.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Church For This Useful Post:

    Swami (2nd April 2015)

  12. #23
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    So I thought, "maybe I missed something farther into this interview that would make more sense to me." So I jumped ahead to around 51:40 of Dubay's interview, and he's asking something like, "If gravity exists then how come when I jump up two feet in the air with both my legs, the gravity should be less there, so why don't I just go flying off into space."



    Seriously, people have already come up with theoretical models to explain this stuff. I'm not saying all the models we use in physics today are correct, because I don't even believe that. But this guy doesn't even understand the scientific models he's trying to replace. Our current models explain all the questions he's asking. You don't go flying off into space because the difference in gravity two feet higher than where you're standing now is basically no difference at all. There is apparently no appreciation for the sense of scale for this guy.

    A planet or even a moon is slightly larger than a human being, and since gravity depends on mass, it would logically make a difference according to current science. There is no gaping hole in the physics here that would even allow someone to say "I wonder why the laws of gravity don't explain why I don't just go flying off into space when I jump."

    Then he wants to know why gravity keeps us stuck to the Earth but it doesn't cause the Moon to be sucked instantly toward the Earth. That's because the Earth and Moon are not stationary objects, even in relation to one another. There are physical laws, described in mathematical formulas, being taught in universities right now, that can simultaneously explain why we are stuck to the Earth but the Moon is not. Again, I understand that does not automatically make these laws correct, but this guy is asking "why" questions that any physicist would already be able to answer for him, and we don't need 2 different laws, one for the Moon and one for people on the Earth. We have one law that already explains both at the same time.

    Then he says that it doesn't make sense that the Moon's gravity causes the tides on Earth because, as Dubay reasons, the Earth is bigger and should have more of a gravitational pull and therefore the Moon should have zero effect on the Earth. So then according to Dubay, if I have a planet with a mass of 10,000 units, and another planet with a mass of 11,000 units, does he not think that they're both going to have an effect on each other just because one is slightly larger than the other? It's not like gravity is turned on and off just by whether or not a larger object is nearby. Again this is really really basic stuff that he would not even be saying if he had taken a physics course. At least then he could argue a flat Earth theory with some knowledge of what it is that he's even trying to debunk.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (11th December 2015), Swami (2nd April 2015)

  14. #24
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    The Land of Flowers
    Posts
    1,455
    Thanks
    2,522
    Thanked 6,367 Times in 1,410 Posts
    I haven't watched any of those videos, but yes, that's a bit silly. Of course, I'm starting to believe we are all living inside of a computer program, so I can't judge anyone.


  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Church For This Useful Post:

    Calz (2nd April 2015), citsym (2nd April 2015), Dreamtimer (11th December 2015)

  16. #25
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    8,603
    Thanked 8,070 Times in 1,329 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Church View Post

    I haven't watched any of those videos, but yes, that's a bit silly. Of course, I'm starting to believe we are all living inside of a computer program, so I can't judge anyone.






    Well Thomas Campbell who helped Monroe get started with his brain sync out of body work suggests just the same.

    Fascinating reading ...




    Most Helpful Customer Reviews


    106 of 108 people found the following review helpful


    With humor and high spirits, Tom Campbell informally shares with you in his Trilogy, who he is, and how he started on the journey that led to his Big TOE. Campbell's Big TOE, which refers to nothing less than a Theory of Everything, stands on firm ground.

    In a bigger picture of our existence than has ever been presented, My Big TOE weaves Philosophy, Physics, and Metaphysics together to create a model of reality through which you can begin your journey towards a higher quality of consciousness.

    Campbell's books are derived from his own experiences with altered states of consciousness, his work and experiments with respected people in this field, and the objective verification of the results. The author shows how previously, Philosophy, Physics, and Metaphysics clashed in their isolated quests for answers to the nature of reality, and that by setting the camera of our conscious mind to a wide-angle lens, we can better understand reality in the larger sense.

    This is not necessarily an easy read,the book is designed to unfold his model of reality slowly.You cannot expect to breeze through concepts involving the larger reality as you would a novel.The results and the rewards are worth a slow read. The personal asides that the author provides enrich the reading process, and the Trilogy format allows the complex subject matter to be more accessible to everyone.

    From those mildly curious to the potentially eternally grateful, please note: from whatever level you personally begin, you cannot go back to exactly the way you previously viewed reality - this Trilogy will reach the core of your being, and you will certainly glean from it something of lasting value.

    The true value, however, will lie in your own experiences and explorations, the author cautions, as the Trilogy provides only a framework for your personal quest in search of a higher quality of consciousness and awareness.

    While personal effort is expected to achieve results, I appreciate the lengths the author has gone to in order to relate the processes, and the why, of how he arrived at his Big TOE.

    I like the why of things, and there is plenty offered here:

    * Why you are here and the "point and meaning of both physical and non-physical existence"
    * Why our culture and beliefs may inhibit our ability to see the Bigger Picture of reality
    * Why improving ourselves is the best way to solve our collective problems, and possibly the best road to Peace
    * Why time travel into the future and past is accessible to us
    * Why meditation is a good beginning towards all of this; showing you how to create your own mantra based on which of your five senses works best for you
    * Why "Spirituality, Consciousness, Love, and Paranormal Phenomena are interconnected"

    These are but a few of the answers and profound insights the author presents in this Trilogy.

    The noble goals of evolving our consciousness toward the positive side, exploring alternate realities, improving the quality of our being, our life, and our planet, are a challenge the author inspires us to take on.

    For all of these reasons and many more besides, I cannot recommend this Trilogy highly enough!

    As for "flat earth" ... without digging into it ... would not hundreds of thousands of images from space of the earth being round suggest a statistical likelihood that all such images could not have been at the precise angle necessary to create such an "illusion"???
    Last edited by Calz, 2nd April 2015 at 05:38.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Calz For This Useful Post:

    Church (2nd April 2015), Swami (2nd April 2015)

  18. #26
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 497 Times in 144 Posts
    Thank you for all your answers.

    I noticed 'some' tensions going on between Mark Sargent and Eric Dubay, these guys don't like each other one bit, the hegelian dialect being played?

    I like what Thomas Campbell says, I've been trying to think like that for a while now to let it sink in.

    Anthony Peake speaks about ´Self Feeding Virtual Reality´ with the body as a computer connecting into something bigger. Could that be the computer program Thomas Campbell is talking about....?


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ADH3SO3WQ


    So, if we truly live in a computer program, can we hack it...?

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Swami For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (2nd April 2015), Calz (2nd April 2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •