Earth's shape, motion and place

[golly]

My personal ideology tells me that repeatable information gathering is worthwhile and gives us a useful way of seeing if we can all agree on matters together. As such, I think science is best when we produce experiments that are well documented so that they can be tried again by others. This is the standpoint I am coming from when I suggest that we should consider the possibility that we do not know Earth's shape, and that's okay.

However, what is not "okay" (what does not sit right with me) is the domineering imperious style of convincing people what our world's shape is by denying evidence or constantly weighing some evidence as greater than other evidence. That is the method of forcing a model onto a situation. But if we do not force a model, we are left with the beauty of the mystery and the recognition that an even more nuanced or complex or elegant model may present itself when we can be conscious of it.


Earth's Convexity

Conventional wisdom is that Earth is something like a ball, since that is the shape we see objects in the sky. The Sun, the Moon and the planets all have indications of being spheres. We can see their surfaces wrapping around their bodies as spheres or semi-spheres do. Therefore, we imagine, it is as simple as assuming they are spheroids and that is probably what we live on too.

The horizon seems to hide objects (maybe)
It appears that objects disappear below the horizon after they reach a considerable distance from us, but telescopes are also said to retrieve objects back from the horizon given enough power. This debate is in an extreme state of disarray and disrespect, particularly on the side of people who want Earth to stay convex in all its properties. Due to vehemence alone, we might "give this one" to convex Earth believers, simply because there are plenty more evidences that are also controversial. However, in my mind nobody has purely won this debate because the tests need to be done over again and triple checked in double blind experimental observation.

Looping surface
This has been given further weight in conventional wisdom when our species has predicted and noticed that the Earth's features loop as if wrapped to a sphere.

Government stories
Unfortunately for those that require greater certainty in the world, that is still our best proof. Yet, there are proofs for other shapes, as we will soon examine. If you believe space programs achieve everything they claim to achieve, and there are no other explanations for the media they produce about their achievements, then you will also submit those stories as proof that governments have confirmed and discovered that Earth is convex like a ball.


Earth's Concavity

Earth has been shown to be concave; that is: a hollow sphere whose inner surface we walk upon and whose outer surface is unknown due to it being a solid ground that we cannot penetrate beyond a few kilometers. The evidence for this comes mainly from two experiments.

Upward curving land
A cult in Florida set out on an ambitious experiment to measure Earth's shape and they discovered to the best of their ability the curve was a rise (rather than a drop) of approximately 8 US imperial inches per US imperial mile. This corresponds to an inversion of the expected result if Earth were convex. In other words, Earth's surface rises at a rate that would lead to the prediction that Earth is a hollow bubble of some kind whose surface we walk upon, our heads toward the center of the bubble, and its size corresponds to the size of Earth's 8,000 mile diameter. For this experiment they used devices called rectilineators, which were checked repeatedly and thoroughly for errors in straightness.

Mineshaft experiment
Another experiment is known for and named after the Tamarack Mines used to conduct it. It was discovered that when two plumb lines were dropped in parallel mine shafts, nothing could compel the weights at the bottom to converge naturally. Instead, their distance was greater than the lines' distance at their tops. In other words, Earth's gravity seemed to be a pushing force from the center of a concave spherical hollow just as the Florida beach experiment showed.


Earth's Motion

Copernican/Keplerian explanations would have us understand that Earth is moving around the Sun at a speed that accelerates and decelerates according to the pull of planets caused merely by their presence. This is called "gravity" and is considered vaguely related to electromagnetism, particularly if you follow String Theory. However, there are a slew of problems with the concept of Earth traveling at this speed.

Michelson-Morley experiment
The interferometer experiments were invented by Michelson and Morley to find the speed of Earth's motion through space. The experiment was conducted again and again and it always finds a negligible, backwards or no motion for the Earth.

Precession of the equinoxes
There is no explanation for the precession of the equinoxes in a Copernican/Keplerian (heliocentric) system in which Earth revolves around the Sun each year. However, if the Sun travels around the Earth while Earth moves 1 mph in an orbit roughly the size of Mercury's orbit, Earth's tilt will exhibit the precession of the equinoxes exactly as stargazers have mapped and predicted. This is the TYCHOS model for the geometry of our system, and it corresponds closely to the Sirius binary system, our celestial near neighbor.

TYCHOS explanation
Simon Shack has thoroughly checked every aspect of the geometry of the solar system and concluded that Tycho Brahe and Pathani Samanta developed the most geometrically accurate models of our solar system based on all available data that Earth and all the bodies in the solar system travel at uniform motion. This would place Earth at a geoaxial center moving at slightly less than 1 mile per hour while the Sun goes around the Earth's position carrying its moons Mercury and Venus, while Mars goes around both the Sun and the Earth in a somewhat binary configuration. According to geometry, the stars and planets should all exhibit much different behavior if Earth were traveling at 140,000 km/hour.

But there are still more unexplained measurements (and lack thereof)


Earth's Rotation and Lack of Rotation

In the highly flawed conventional models and the much more accurate TYCHOS model, Earth should rotate once every 24 hours. However, there are conflicting experimental data to both support and refute this motion.

Star field
The star field and planets all rotate precisely as if the Earth itself rotated, causing our frame of reference to rotate every 24 hours. This is the best (if not the only really solid confirmable) explanation for Earth rotating. Yet, even this is in doubt because physics behaves strangely for a rotating object.

Earth's rotation measured
In experiments to prove Earth's rotation, the Sagnac effect also uses an interferometer like the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, given the assumption that light travels at a constant speed (an entirely different topic but it seems this may fluctuate as well), one beam of light will slow with respect to the other when the experiment is oscillated. It was shown that against "ether" then Earth rotates once every 24 hours, or else the entire cosmos around us does so.

No centrifugal effect
There is no effect of pushing of objects on the surface of the Earth, nor the Earth itself, based on its position on Earth's surface. If the Earth were rotating in a mechanistic Newtonian sense, there should be an observed pushing of all objects toward the equator of the Earth. However, buildings stand exactly straight up and down as if things fall to Earth's surface uniformly regardless of location on the surface. This effect would especially be felt at the tropics (between the equator and poles) due to the fast angular rotation as well as the obliquity to the equator. Instead, everything tranquilly rests "straight up and down"


Earth's Flatness

Not only is it found in advanced physics that "muons" (a theoretical particle that is mapped purely mathematically) "become two dimensional" as they approach the surface of the Earth, but there are many more practical and accessible suggestions that do not require an initiation into any sciencist priesthood.

Earth appears flat
Despite climbing several tens of kilometers into the air, thousands of airplane passengers every day may plainly see for themselves that Earth's horizon rises to the eye line and does not drop to the proportion it should on a curved surface. The explanation may be that Earth is flat (or that Earth is concave) or that light bends in a particular way at higher altitudes.

Earth behaves flat
As mentioned above, there is no need (or desire) to calculate for the curve of the Earth when launching projectiles of any kind. Instead, Earth is treated as a flat surface because models which do so land their projectiles more accurately.

Earth flies flat
Airline pilots fly as if the world were flat. There is no need to compensate for convexity, concavity or anything else except a direct heading even while traveling hundreds of miles per hour.

As it is said by those who are convinced the world is flat in some properties (if not all) everyone within range can feel the slightest Earthquake, yet nobody feels the slightest "gravitational" tug from Earth supposedly accelerating and decelerating, nor the Moon's motion above. Therefore, Earth might just be motionless (or motionless relative to our existence within the solar system).


Origin Stories

Furthermore, let us set aside Cartesian materialistic science for a moment and consider the glorious and wonderful diversity of mythical, mystical and spiritual sciences the world over.

Creation stories
Creation stories by different cultures tell much more vital, real and spiritual reasons for the Earth. The shape is less important than its role and its connection to and through us as living beings with the Earth. There are countless iterations of creation stories with so much to offer us besides a way to box the Earth into any physical laws that it will not obey even though we claim it ought to.

Because of all these reasons, and more, which I will be happy to post more about, I think we do not have (nor do we need) a model for the Earth or the solar system that would dismiss any of these incredible and wonderful observations of our beautiful mysterious home mother, the Earth.

However, if you absolutely had to come up with a model based on all these evidences, I would begin first with the concept that physics is a warping shape of life, like an electromagnetic field with consciousness, and that is the shape of the Earth and cosmic objects as well. So, due to the particular (and presumably somewhat consistent) warping of space and light, we (Earth beings) might be collectively envisioned as a repeating four-dimensional wave pattern whose components (such as ourselves) are bound to our greater vibration (the Earth) and attempts to measure and observe ourselves will result in different properties of our physical nature becoming more apparent. For example, it may be that the TYCHOS, when warped into an "internal" component of a concave Earth, will become the most accurate way of predicting the apparent location of the near bodies against the star field. However, it does not preclude the idea that the entire sky is merely a hole through the top of a toroid, through which we are peering into an ether-saturated magnetosphere around us due to warping physics preventing us from seeing ourselves. Perhaps we are trying to use a larger and larger and larger mirror to try to see the back of our head and it will never happen because physics prevents us from curving the mirror or making more than one mirror (metaphorically).

So I am not trying to paint a solid physical shape like a sphere or inverted sphere or toroid but rather communicate the possibility that we are a multi-dimensional object whose shape cannot be simplified in miniature as if we were just an orange or just a pizza or just an apple or donut. On the contrary, it may be that there is no "shape" at all to the Earth and all we have are predictions of observations from Earth because the only way on or off is through spiritual physical means and not Earth-physical means.

[golly]

In a book entitled Mysteries of the Sacred Universe scholars have studied and revealed fascinating information about ways in which Earth can be viewed based on ancient Indian texts.

The subject is made more complex by the fact that the references are both some of the oldest texts known to exist, and in turn based on the very oldest texts/histories/legends known to exist in Indian cultures.

The author Richard L. Thompson distinguishes early on in the book how the Bhagavatam (and interpretations thereof) fits into our current understanding of its source. So if you'd like more information about that mystery alone, it seems a good place to start.

However I would like to highlight some of the most fascinating aspects of ancient knowledge, which have to do with a map of the Earth that has appeared in similar forms throughout various cultures, apparently "independently" of one another. That is, dependent on something other than formal intercultural communication between nations.

meru.JPG (235.07 KiB) Viewed 3161 times

Cosmological Mandala with Mount Meru
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1989.140/

The map depicts a flat plane like a pizza for the Earth. In the original Indian cosmology this also features many concentric rings of ocean and land around it for millions of miles out from the center but all on the same plane, and the rings correspond excellently to proportional orbits of planetary bodies. In countless cultures, in the center is depicted a tall upright mountain, tree or even an individual person, God or demigod. This all may represent a kind of biology of the system that connects us to the divine. The mountain is also depicted, interestingly, as tapering away from the Earth plane so that the mountain increases in width as we ascend. This is a fascinating description to me because of its reminiscence with Earth's tilt in Western materialistic cosmology. In Simon Shack's TYCHOS system, we also see a cosmological teepee from the combination of the tilt of Earth's poles and its motion in an orbit that takes a Great Year (25344 years) to complete.

tychos_teepee.png (177.38 KiB) Viewed 3161 times

-http://www.tychos.info/book_imagery/038_NEW_AxialTilt_ofEarth_01.jpg

This is also fascinating because in some illustrations it appears (though it's not discussed in the book) as though circumnavigating Mount Meru is a star or planet. And if you place a star or planet there upon this surface, doing an orbit of the base of Mount Meru and you also make it Earth itself rolling around on a flat plane, you have encoded an interesting reference to the TYCHOS postulation that Earth travels in a small ring around empty space. It could be that "Mount Meru" and the TYCHOS "empty space" are referring to the same great tree of life, mountain or spire that connects us with the divine. If you make that body the Sun itself, it is still a reference to the concept that the Sun orbits around us rather than the other way around.

Graphical depictions of Navajo, Scandinavian, Indigenous Peruvian, Korean and many many other preserved ancient cosmology models have also shown us a sacred mandala that resembles the flat four-directional circular plane (often surrounded by water) and a spire or embodied ascendancy to divine heavens within a center column of some kind.

What could it mean that this ancient cosmology:

1. Maps a 3D cosmological space onto a flat plane?
2. Depicts a cosmic passageway from a higher spiritual dimension to a lower one, where Earth resides?
and
3. Even has a selection of certain 3D objects (Sun, Moon or even Earth) diagrammed into the ancient 2D map to indicate multiple dimensions mapped to a flat drawing or decoration?

To me it means that our ancestors knew that Earth is multidimensional and that there was no single "correct" way to "map" our place and our existence here. However, multiple overlapping maps (even with Earth depicted on itself or divided into different components such as physical and spiritual "shapes") could be combined in a graphically and literally pleasing way. And that is just what we have done as a species for a long time.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If you look at this post: http://www.waykiwayki.com/2015/05/flat-earth-mount-meru-and-four-lands.html you will notice many images referencing four quadrants of the "flat Earth" also known as continents. This is part of the system, which you can read one depiction and interpretation of here:

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eight_subcontinents
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Mount_Meru

There is so much rich information recorded of this cosmology, but I believe we are still limiting ourselves when we attempt to understand the divine place of our home as something merely "flat" or merely "round" or assume our ancestors did the same. For instance, if you map the three sub-continents of the four regions, you might consider twelve sub-continents. This could correspond to physical or spiritual or even temporal stages.

Please note how the spirographic TYCHOS Great Year inset resembles the pattern woven in to the cosmological model.

Four_Continents (1).jpg (76.42 KiB) Viewed 3161 times

Note that we are told by the Rigpa Shedra site that we live on the blue continent, which is considered the "South" of the great plane. It is explained that Mount Meru's invisible surface reflects blue lapis stone here, which is why we see blue water and sky.

What if the "continent" is not a location we are upon the Earth but a location in which Earth is in its own home? Could Earth actually be moving through a multidimensional home space, and she is actually approaching, let's say, the Western region of this space in the next "Age" (e.g.; about 7000 years from now)? Therefore, where we "reside" is actually the present location of Earth in its great orbit around the spiritual polar axis? Could it be that these changes may reflect a different sky and in the next great "Age" we will see reddish (rather than blue) tones to our waters and skies, or in some way is this spectrum (Blue, Red, Yellow, White) not just representative of the four directions of the plane but a reminder of the changes that occur as we travel around/across it?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Some thoughts:

1. The age of the Yuga we are in is said to end in about 6 or 7 years from now in the year 2025. This would make the time from the Kali Yuga (calculated to be in the 32nd century BCE) to be about 5000 years plus a century or so, which is about one fifth of a Great Year that is said to be 25,000 years or thereabouts. If we divide the TYCHOS version of the Great Year (25344 years) we get 2112 years twelve times within it (this corresponds to twelve "regions" or "sub-continents" of time). And if we multiply that by 2.5 we achieve 5280 years. This is about the length from Kali Yuga to the end of the age, give or take a century and some decades.

2. It is said by some that the Earth has "expanded" which is why all the continents fit together on a smaller sphere.

alright.JPG (51.66 KiB) Viewed 3161 times

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... gEarth.htm
Expanding Earth Hypothesis © 2018 Bernard Burchell

3. It has been recorded many times that a year was 360 days, though ancient cosmologies have also been very accurate about 365.2X days in a year as well. Could it be that the year has also gotten longer and the changes have been missed due to gaps in known records? Could it be that the Sun has slowed down in its orbit around the Earth (or that the Earth has slowed in its orbit around the Sun, if that's what we postulate)?

4. It is said that cycles go up and down. Therefore, projections of two "regions" of time (i.e. two ages of the twelve) may be what causes civilizations to rise (one region) and fall (another region) forming a Yuga. If there are six of these "up and down" motions (making our twelve-region map) could it be that the up and down can also shift in time scales? Could it be that in the middle of an "up and down" the size of a Great Year changes? Could it be that 2025 will mark the end of a Yuga but the "middle" of the Yuga is not a year equidistant from the Kali Yuga? That is, could an "up cycle" from Kali Yuga be about 2000 years, which is shorter than its "down cycle" of about 3000 years, and could the cycles increase in length over time? Could this be why we have noticed 2.5 "regions" rather than just two? We are using an old measurement of the Great Year, just as we once used 360 days and had to update to 365.2X? And could it be this is because it takes our civilizations so long just to recognize the patterns, so that each time we try to develop a pattern we are already behind?

5. Could it be that the "rise and fall of civilization" is a matter determined largely by the "breath" of the planet? Could the planet be not only alive but breathing, and we live upon/within it and we feel its motions, expansions, contractions, etc. just as we would if we were a small animal living on a larger animal?

6. Or perhaps, it isn't just an "up and down" wave but also a general increase, like a spiraling dynamic. This would explain, perhaps, why the Earth's land forms have only grown in distance from one another, in known geology. This may explain why a year has lengthened. Perhaps, if so, a Great Year is also changing in size.

Perhaps we should pay attention when 2025 "rolls around" and see if more understandings of our cosmos occur to us in peaceful contemplation of our place in universal ecology.

[OriogenSpirit]

Wow. Why it never appeared to me that the Earth is breathing; that the reason continents look like they fit together is because they did, and may again as the Earth breathes out, then in again. Of course our planet was far smaller than it is now. I wonder what creates its breathing movement? And as for the ancient Indian texts and images. I think they are the closest to describing our ancient ancient past, both on this planet and how the cosmos around us is affecting us. Also, the toroidal image that only appears after mapping the Earth's trajectory around the Sun is like a gigantic slow moving Spirograph and suggests to me that no matter how we "spin" it, we (and all of matter .. or all that matters) becomes the toroidal nature of which nature 'is' - SPIR-it is a SPIR-ograph; can't get away from it, it even resides in the spelling.

[golly]

It had not occurred to me before that you could (re)connect "spirograph" and "spire" like the shape of breathing. That is very fascinating. Thanks for the comment on that!

[golly]

Commenting more on

Earth's Rotation and Lack of Rotation

So, in the opening writings, I talked about these concepts:

Star field
The star field and planets all rotate precisely as if the Earth itself rotated, causing our frame of reference to rotate every 24 hours. This is the best (if not the only really solid confirmable) explanation for Earth rotating. Yet, even this is in doubt because physics behaves strangely for a rotating object.

Earth's rotation measured
In experiments to prove Earth's rotation, the Sagnac effect also uses an interferometer like the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, given the assumption that light travels at a constant speed (an entirely different topic but it seems this may fluctuate as well), one beam of light will slow with respect to the other when the experiment is oscillated. It was shown that against "ether" then Earth rotates once every 24 hours, or else the entire cosmos around us does so.

No centrifugal effect
There is no effect of pushing of objects on the surface of the Earth, nor the Earth itself, based on its position on Earth's surface. If the Earth were rotating in a mechanistic Newtonian sense, there should be an observed pushing of all objects toward the equator of the Earth. However, buildings stand exactly straight up and down as if things fall to Earth's surface uniformly regardless of location on the surface. This effect would especially be felt at the tropics (between the equator and poles) due to the fast angular rotation as well as the obliquity to the equator. Instead, everything tranquilly rests "straight up and down"

Let's say we wanted to try to build a set of physical laws that govern those laws we have found on Earth. In other words, we are assuming physical laws of Earth have some sort of transition effect to a "super physics" outside physics of the planet, akin to how atmosphere and (assumptions about) gravity diminish as we leave the surface. In that case, we could imagine that not just the Earth but physical laws themselves have a rotation. Now we have “made room” for the idea of no centrifigul effect occurring to objects on the rotating Earth.

This is even while we interpret that the results of the Sagnac experiment maintain light travels at a constant (just some fun trivia, the shorthand for light’s speed is “c”). Lets go a little deeper into the concepts of Newtonian physics and the Sagnac experiment so we can imagine why Earth’s physical laws might have a rotation or moving frame.

The result of the Sagnac experiment demonstrates how light may be emitted/bounced or in any case traced on a path that begins from a light source and bounces on any objects exposed to the light source. Theory supports “samples of light” (we do not yet have to go into the arguments that samples of light should be thought of as particles, waves, both at the same time or something else) and that these samples are not an instantaneous emission but something which takes the time for light to travel a given distance with speed “c”.

This narrative from Gianni Pascoli’s article The Sagnac effect and its interpretation by Paul Langevin (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0517300907) gives us some great thoughts about why the Sagnac experiment was devised.

1.1. Newton and the absolute space (end of the 17th century)
For Isaac Newton, the concept of absolute space (or pure extension) exists, regardless of the presence or not of any material. In Newton's worldview, absolute space was a pre-existing frame, empty and immutable, a fundamental background to any moving body. But its undefined nature made it a kind of metaphysical entity, close to transcendence. In the Scholium, at the beginning of the Principia (Definitiones), Newton expatiated on time, absolute or relative space and motion [1]. He suggested that an absolute motion can be distinguished from a relative motion. To justify his argument, he introduces a thought experiment that is still famous. A bucket filled with water is subjected to a fast rotation. There are two phases. (i) The bucket rotates, but the surface of the water remains flat. (ii) The movement is finally transmitted to the water. It is then observed that the latter leaks from the center and ascends towards the walls, the free surface taking the form of a paraboloid. During the first phase, there is indeed a relative movement water/bucket, but no centrifugal force appears. It is only in the second phase, when the movement of rotation is communicated to the water, that these forces develop. For Newton, the conclusion was that these forces are not correlated with the relative movement of the water/bucket, but are generated by the movement of water in relation to absolute space. A second thought experiment was also devised by Newton. Two spheres are connected by a rope and the assembly is rotated. The rope tightens and one can measure the tension that develops there. Newton's conclusion is the same.

When we are concerned about the physics of our Earthly laws we can use some of this lexicon and say that we are talking about how rotation is “communicated” to physics. Just as a pail has to be rotating within a frame of stillness for the water inside to develop its parabolic shape, so perhaps a 24-hour rotating Earth frame carrying with it its own physics could be within a physical frame of stillness.

But first, how do we know the Sagnac experiment shows an actual 24-hour rotation to Earth, as the stars sometimes inspire us to assume? Here is an example of how the experiment was thought out:



We have a light source with spinning equidistant reflective surfaces around it. For ease, let’s imagine these are square mirrored surfaces and each has a laser pointed to its center.


The “light samples” illuminate the surfaces in some way. For ease and specificity let’s imagine our four laser light sources in the four cardinal directions and a ball of light leaving each laser in extreme slow motion. (I realize I've drawn a light bulb here. Please forgive some artistic license.) When the surfaces are hit by these “particles” of light, they should all hit at the same time and illuminate the middle of the surfaces.


However, the light also bounces off these surfaces and the surfaces have a relationship to one another so that “particles” bouncing off will reach each of the secondary surfaces at the same time. Let’s use yellow light to represent the light bouncing off the initial mirror and heading towards the other surfaces. Here is a video animation showing the movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOdD4Sd-Oko&t=10

Now when we add a specific even rotation to the surfaces we should expect the yellow (secondary) light “particles” to reach surfaces coming towards them sooner, and surfaces headed away from them later. So given the spinning is fast enough the secondary lights hitting the mirrors will distort from the middle and we will see the secondary lights do something like this:




A FALSE BATTLE OF CONCLUSIONS: AETHER vs. RELATIVITY | WHY NOT NEITHER?
According to Sagnac, this experiment verified the existence of an ultimate framework – a medium through which the light must travel. I am not sure why this is but I think he is trying to imply that if there were no medium, the light’s constant speed should travel completely relative to each individual bounce and therefore even when spinning, the mirrors would not show any distortion to the bounced light. The light would simply “speed up” or “slow down” based on the physical objects that the light “touched” so that c was always relative to the objects. Otherwise, I don’t see why the Sagnac results won’t just result in a different explanation; such as that Earth carries with it a sort of universal location medium. In any case many physicists agreed with Sagnac until the aether was discarded by Einstein and others. After discussing Michelson-Morley and follow up results of similar experiments providing evidence of “an ultimate context” (e.g.; the aether, “universal medium” or as I’ve sometimes heard it called a “Max Planck constant”) Pascoli in his article writes the strange line that:

The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable (unlike sound, the light can spread in the vacuum). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained.

However, defining something like “the only acceptable conclusion” is the opinion of those who believe they should negate the experimental data entirely rather than assuming our a priori set of assumptions may somehow be open to change based on new scientific data. I mean, shouldn’t we always assume our assumptions could be in error or at the very least incomplete? This is not likely to be the case with someone who unquestioningly accepts the government’s claims of their space escapades. (Space Escapade is an excellent 1958 album by the father of the exotica musical genre Les Baxter, by the way.)

Just what would it mean if Earth were to demonstrate an “etherically confirmed” rotation (as it does in the assumption the aether exists) but Earth’s physics behaves separately from this rotation? It could mean that we can design a model in which Earth physics can have a different relationship to the aether than expected. What if results of experiments consistently show the speed of Earth to be around 1~2 km/h because the Earth is in fact going that speed in relation to a “framework” medium (as geometrically shown based on Simon Shack’s TYCHOS model)? If Earthly physics were “separate” or somewhat contained or constrained by Earth’s location in the aether, then we might consider that some of Earth physics may demonstrate subtle relationships to the aether’s universal physics but a larger adherence to its own behaviors.

In any case, let’s set Earth’s translation (the movement of its entire self through space from one point to the next or “orbit”) aside for now and come back to the idea that according to experiments assuming an aether or local medium, the Earth rotates through it. This assumption was, as far as I can tell, only “scaled up” to the actual size of Earth in an experiment referenced by Pascoli at the end of his article:

4. The universality of the Sagnac effect
The Sagnac effect appears universal. More specifically speaking, one can cite the experiment carried out by Hafele and Keating in 1971 [44]. It consisted of the following. Two planes each equipped with an atomic clock flew around the Earth, one in the direction of the Earth's rotation and the other in the opposite direction (the two clocks are synchronized at the start). On arrival, it is observed that the two clocks indicate different times (in fact it is simply a revisited Sagnac experiment).

Now, this is getting interesting. It would seem like a “variation” of the “same experiment” to someone who believes that the General Theory of Relativity is the best macro scale physics model available (as opposed to micro physics in the form of Quantum Theory or String Theory or similar speculative models). Because it is said by today’s Einstein’s proponents that the Sagnac experiment was actually related to time dilation rather than merely the physical offset of particle bounces as explained in images above.

Not to rub it in, since I have no idea the motivation for Pascali to write his paper. He might just be seeking some sort of credit or acceptance in a target scientific group or he’s trying to convince himself, but once more he uses alleged achievements of NASA to retroactively confirm his assumptions:

A practical conclusion is that one cannot synchronize a collection of clocks distributed all along the Earth equator. The effect in question is taken into account in the GPS calculations.

I am sure that the “effect in question” is indeed “taken into account” in GPS calculations, since even claiming scientific achievements like “GPS satellites” involves including as many accurate complexities as you can possibly integrate to avoid any fraud being detected.
The simple truth is that correlation does not always imply causation. And a “Sagnac” effect from lack of synchronized watches is an entirely different and differently respectable experiment that should be taken on its own merits. I would like to look into this Hafele and Keating experiment of 1971 and see what we can ascertain about its conditions, assumptions and conclusions. We can imagine that time pieces not synchronizing could be the result of countless different models. Perhaps even one which is related to the idea that Earth physics “rotates with” the Earth?
As a final quote from the article, he mentions:

The phase shift of the Sagnac experiment was also measured in the case of coherent beams of relativistic neutrons traveling in opposite directions along the circumference (closed path) of a rotating disk [45], [46].

Of course these experiments must be judged in the context they were created. And today there is a religious adherence to General Relativity that belies its assumptions, no matter how hard we have had to work to eliminate “pseudo-contradictions” as framed by Relativists. At first glance it appears to neither confirm nor deny the conclusions of the original Sagnac experiment, since we are still talking about opposing circumferential paths. Yet it seems in this experiment there may be an attempt to distinguish or conflate physical particle “objects” (neutrons) from/with “particles” of light. And the differences or similarities that this establishes, besides whatever confirmation of current theory it purports to celebrate (since that will be a given or it wouldn’t appear in this context), could give us more insight into the nature of how things may rotate with Earth’s 24-hour rotation yet not display overt physical signs of the rotation. I am not sure how “neutrons”, which have never been observed, can be said to be sent in “beams” but I am eager to learn.

Moving on from the postulation of a “rotating physics” I do have to go back to the original concepts in the OP and mention why this could be relevant despite the possibility of a multi-dimensional shape to our world. In this model, Earth loses some of its properties as a “living ball” and becomes more like a fluctuation of some kind. Could it be that given Earth’s mysterious shape, size and behavior that we can consider Earth to be a bit more like a multi-dimensional location of being? This could make more sense than assuming there is something at all lifeless in the universe like a “round chunk of rock”, let alone any stretchy physics we’ve been opposed to while assuming physics has hard rules that are never broken or change.

THE NATURE OF OUR ASSUMPTIONS, AS EARTHLINGS
It could be said that it takes profound arrogance to pronounce Earth physics as a demonstration of physics throughout known existence. Even if Earth is a living “ball” of some kind as sometimes mused by astrophysicists and biologists, it would make sense that she exists in an unknowable context. NASA claims that they have captured images of Earth during the very Apollo missions that demonstrate all their contradictions, excuses and cover ups. And perhaps they have other ideas to suggest why their images should look the way they do. Since context might define the subjects within it, an Earth that appears to our minds “round” like the planets we see, may fit just perfectly with the idea that air pressure extends infinitely in all directions from Earth. Perhaps it’s a bit better than the Loony Tunes cartoons where Bugs Bunny floats down to Earth from space with an umbrella. Yet, a similar presumption is taking place.

I am prepared to assume our friends in the system – the Sun, the Moon, the planets and their moons – are all different “versions” of the same thing that is Earth, and that Earth could even be an old star in its “life” stages of development thanks to its peaceful properties traveling under 2 km/h (or almost exactly 1 mph in Simon Shack’s system) relative to surrounding aether of the solar system (and perhaps beyond, proving a universal constant medium). However, given the widely different ways in which Her measurements of difference, dimension and speed are taken, I would not assume She – nor any of her neighbors – were simply a “living ball”.

Instead I would assume She, like Her neighbors, and like us and the forms on her, are a complicated multidimensional place with life inside and out, whose shape appears different depending on the point of observation. However, in addition to perspectives merely being different in the ways we see difference on Earth (for example, many rocks of sand appearing to smooth out into an “even” surface as we stand up and gain perspective on the beach), I would suggest that approaching a moon, planet or other similar body would require us to have an entirely new context that shifts as we “leave” one world and “approach” another.

What if the process of travel were not as simple (or as complex) as waiting for ages of Earthling lifetimes for a tiny speck of light to become a giant ball and then the surface to gradually flatten out as we “land”?

What if distances between objects and the appearance of the objects even communicate differently to the observer based on the nature of where “we” are in this “space” – this “universal medium” or other ultimate context in which the worlds all coexist? From Earth, and based on Earthly physics, we can say a planet is such-and-such distance from “Earth” and we might even sometimes say it in terms of Earth. We might say something like, “The Moon is about 30 Earths away from Earth.” But how often do we add another, “from Earth!”? From Earth’s perspective, we may be 30 Earths away. From the Moon’s perspective we might be 30 Earths away as well, or maybe “108 Moons”, but maybe we are only assuming that being on another world is just like being a certain distance from Earth with a certain physical difference from Earth and so forth. What if we found from the Moon we would calculate we are just a simple difference of 109 Moons away? Would we acknowledge the difference in perspective or would we get into fights about it? What do you think is more "human" and what behavior is more typical of modern science?

CONCLUSION
So now I’ve come back around to the point of this post. We think of things in the heavens the way we think of things on Earth because it is how we think we can approach understanding of the greater world in which our world lives. We claim to see what we do “in space” because it helps us understand what we cannot have true and complete understanding about. We see what we are capable of seeing. Things that do not fit in our explanation, modern science tends to tuck away and say that it's so small that it's unimportant or an error. But when it keeps showing up, we don't question the model enough. We instead say that the error is so small that it may as well be ignored.

Well, I don't wish to ignore small truths. I actually am rather fond of them and I think they show the intricate and complicated unfolding beauty of the fantastic nature that we are a part of. Models help us look at Her again and again, but let's not mistake the model for the being itself.

How often do we notice that the Sun’s rays do not hit the Moon “directly” if the Sun and Moon really have the locations they supposedly do “from Earth”? How often do we recognize that traveling in an airplane does not actually result in the Earth’s curvature being appropriately visible, compared with our supposed “distance from Earth”? How often do we notice that Earth doesn’t actually make us (or anything else on its surface) lean toward the equator compared with the rapid speed of the supposed rotation we are making around Earth’s alleged “middle”?

It could very well be that on the surface of Earth we can make a map of the universe that dissolves completely were we to actually achieve a “secular” or “physical” way of taking a vacation from Her. In that case, we may ask ourselves, what kind of map should we use to understand the context in which Earth exists? Isn’t the one we have (or the perhaps the improved Cartesian one in development called the TYCHOS) good enough for predicting locations? I would say it depends on what you are using the map for. To understand how the Earth may see its neighbors (and even physically respond to them as thousands of years of astrological sciences and Graham Calderwood’s latest research shows: http://www.budworkshop.co.uk) the TYCHOS is an excellent model.

To have a “space map”, however, and to place Earth within it in such a way that our UFO-type vehicles can traverse away from Earth and to other worlds, I think will take an enormous paradigm shift in understanding the properties of light, matter and our living, ever-shifting electromagnetic bodies.

[golly]

Post-Script: Why I didn't discuss gravity as "counteracting" Earth's spin?
Answer: I forgot to mention it

One possibility that I didn't mention is the concept that gravity's force holding us (and everything) to Earth's surface as the entirety whip around with the Earth rotation (particularly the distant clouds which should be moving faster in translational space, being distantly above the Earth's core – despite the argument that we are in a "thin shell" of atmosphere) somehow cancels out the spinning effects.

This is kind of like the concept that Earth physics just happen to be a simulation with only enough "memory" to process a certain extent of effects. And when gravity comes to town, everything else stands out of its way so that it can do its job. As a result, the spinning of Earth (or even the supposed 107,000 km/h speed of Earth in the outdated Copernican system) become negligible because the "Earth movement" program is busy running gravity and no longer has room for the other forces we are familiar with and should expect from a spinning fast flying orbiting Earth.

I suppose that this could be a possibility, and something that is a better and more eloquent representation of the beautiful solar system (than my brusque slapdash depiction) may explain it better. Maybe something about Newton's laws gaining power only through their independence from gravitons or other imaginative Einstein-inspired random correlations that don't have any proofs yet but which will blow our minds one day.

However, I don't think this will prove to be the case with experimentation. Instead, I think we will find that Earth is a vibrational living being whose shapes, surfaces and the beings throughout, are determined by a spiralling waveform pattern emanating from a multi-dimensional portal and depending on how you go about trying to measure the "planet", you will get surprising patterns. Perhaps gravity is a force that binds us to the surface because we are a part of Earth and we are generated by Earth's field, rather than the result of a universal 9.8m/s^2 constant that exists because of mass density.

[golly]

Let's compare how sources can sometimes reveal bias and prejudice:

Hafele–Keating experiment
(Confirming Relativity's assumptions)

Because the Hafele–Keating experiment has been reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2 ... epetitions

The only thing said here in reference to how the Hafele-Keating experiment could have been questioned, and failed, is in a single article:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... in_paradox

And the claim of Wikipedia's fact checkers is that it stands to reason that this means the experiment confirms Relativity's assumptions because the whole of Relativity is correct. Where are the arguments? If you just read the Wikipedia article, the possibilities simply don't exist.

Meanwhile, here is an article on the Tamarack Mine experiment:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

The article proceeds to try to find every other possible explanation for disproving the findings of the original Tamarack Mine experiment, and finally concludes with a classic straw man argument:

I have been unable to locate any solid evidence that the proposed experiment using two mine shafts 3,200 feet apart was ever performed.

Apparently eager to call something about the experiments a myth, the critic takes a proposed experiment and says it has never been done. Well, the same could be said of Relativity in countless cases. Yet we are supposed to accept those experiments as being already verified?

Wikipedia and the other source share a supremecist culture of science that is biased in its entire practice against using even-handed methodology to deal with enormous topics.

[golly]

TORUS

Another possibility that I've been wondering about is the idea that Earth has properties of a toroidal shape.

That is, there may be something to the claims (typically associated with "hollow Earth" discussions) that there are deep holes all around the Earth, including around the poles.

Perhaps, rather than being like Swiss cheese, the Earth actually has traits of toroid patterns. Not just in the EM field, but in some kind of "loop" which can bring us safely within the "hollow Earth" (or to the surface of the same, if we are actually on the inside). Perhaps Earth resembles (or physically acts like) something more like an orange, which has its stem nubbin and navel as poles, but which is a torus pressed into the shape of a pseudo-sphere.

inside earth.JPG (137.84 KiB) Viewed 3161 times

A cross-sectional drawing of the planet Earth showing the "Interior World" of Atvatabar, from William R. Bradshaw's 1892 science-fiction novel The Goddess of Atvatabar
Courtesy: Wikipedia

Why do so many cultures give us the impression of a torus field's inner channel, void or stem when describing the path to a heaven or dwelling of Gods? It may be a tree, a column, a mountain, a great building or some other simile or metaphor for the method with which we arrive and establish ourselves on the Earth, as a species. All of these show similarities with the "bottom" of the inside of a hollow donut. The mountain may be reversed on the other side. The Earth may be inverted on the other side as well.

It may be difficult to fathom how Earth shapes itself (to our limited perceptions) as we merely walk across it. We may only be able to comprehend a ball shape because that is the limit of our imagination about the means with which we travel to and steward the worlds we arrive at. Are we living in the middle channel of a torus? Would that explain the "narrow tall mountain" or "tree" metaphor? Could it be that we are meant to understand the poles are actually the point at which Earth and its gravity curve at an unexpected angle?

If Earth were a torus, how would we be observing it? What does this mean about how to arrive at other planets, moons, stars ... ? Would they too have an interior? Do we arrive at its interior, or exterior, if we traveled by advanced technology? Is there a difference? And where is that difference?


SPIRAL

Another possibility is that there is something we can elaborate on, from the "breathing Earth" or "expanding Earth" phenomenon. This occurred to me before I even thought of how this may affect the Sagnac measurements.

What if travel in one direction (for example, East) will bring you to a smaller iteration of the looped Earth, and travel in the other direction (say, West) will bring you to a larger iteration? Earth is not then, just some solid object that you can freeze in time and summarize as a ball. Rather, it is more like a Möbius onion, or four-dimensional coil, with each layer connecting to the adjacent underlying and overlapping layers.

We assume the Earth loops the way a ball loops; we reach a point because we can see it and we advance toward it. But what if it is only possible to reach that point once in a series of loops — after which, subsequent returns to that point bring us into another dimension? We perceive that we've traveled from Australia to Hawaii to Mexico City to Cairo to Bangladesh to Australia. But if we performed the same trip again, and again, perhaps each Australia we visited would be of a slightly different timeline from the "last one" we left.

The concept is that the dimension may seem identical to our own, but there are non-identical traits such as a different Earth shape or size, different vibration and different electromagnetic properties. Tests could be devised to have a test subject stay in one place and another test subject travel the Earth in loops, each time taking a variety of measurements when the traveler returns. It could be that the traveler gradually begins to notice a change in the stationary individual and vice versa.

— "Are you still you?"
— "I think so."

[golly]

Tectonic Plates Don't Shift?

According to David Warner Mathisen (https://www.starmythworld.com/) we should take a look at the fact that ancient monuments oriented to stars do not actually shift under those stars. That is, as the starfield advances over thousands of years, several factors do not affect the monuments:

The parallax of stars in relation to Earth's motion (which would be minor anyway, as long as Earth's tilt remains relatively similar, and indeed the TYCHOS suggests Earth's speed is only 1mph). However, this does present another fascinating conundrum. If Earth's tilt shifts (whether in a Tychonic or Keplerian manner) causing our North to graduate through different "polar stars", then the stars should be shifting out from under these monuments, or else perhaps we are conflating different constellations and saying they "continue to align".

The movement of stars according to the executives of NASA/ESA would indicate the stars are all headed in rather random chaotic directions. Over thousands of years, apparently this hasn't happened to a significant degree.

The tectonic plates, also according to modern science authorities would suggest that over 5000 years, we should see hundreds of yards of difference in the position of monuments, whose "continental drift" would move them out from under the specific stars they were designed to reference at night. This has not apparently happened according to Mathisen's research.

The point may be moot if in some way the level of the surface were on average flat, such as in valleys or flat hill tops, in which case shifts would be lateral and continue to point to the same part of the heavens.

The point may not work fully with the concepts of sinking continents like Mu, Lemuria and/or Atlantis. It may also not work with concepts of expanding, contracting or "breathing" Earth. Or could it? Just how still is the Earth said to be under the guidelines that star monuments do not shift?

However, I do think he may be the only person, as he alleges, to have made a point of telling humanity about this curiosity. It's a very compelling subject when it comes to documenting the documentation of stars.

[golly]

Thank you to Cooler1021 for suggesting that a unified model has merit and giving me reason to post more about this today!

Flat and Round or Let us resist "weighing" evidence when we haven't agreed on a scale yet

Some people have a hard time with the concept that points on the Earth could map to a pseudo-sphere. Flat Earth proponents, genuine and not, will sometimes contribute arguments that are totally unconvincing, even to themselves, because they are so eager to avoid this point.

Similarly, some people have a hard time with the concept that the Earth behaves as a level median and still surface. Globe proponents, whether they mean to or not, will sometimes contribute arguments that do not add up because they are so eager to avoid that point.

What happens if we came up with an argument that the Earth most likely maps to a pseudo-sphere (and not a dome, plane or other map configuration) and that its surface median is level and still? How can we explain this in some kind of default "middle" model?

Well, that could be simple for astrophysicists and physicists and geologists and airplane pilots to agree on, in my opinion. Just make a model that relies on evidence first rather than forcing your model to ignore evidence. That way you could have something that, even if it doesn't satisfy either party, encourages dialogue and exchange instead of stonewalls. In that case, we could (without adding the extra dimensions mentioned above, which I think are also potentially important to deep understanding of our world) simply say that the Earth is a pseudo-sphere, but while we are standing on her, swimming in her oceans or flying above her mountains we dwell in a flat realm.

How does this make sense? How can something be both flat and round simultaneously? Well, think of it like the elephant parable, where each old wise man (who is blind) thinks he has identified the key element of the elephant while only identifying one part that is soft, hard, rough, smooth, round, flat, narrow or seemingly endless. We could actually say the Earth is "really" flat and devise a truly unconventional mathematical explanation for suggested proofs that it is not to satisfy people who favor mathematical physics. That would certainly be a (slight) change from the usual stubborn way of the loudest old blind man: which is to argue that Earth is "really" round and everything has been solved by assuming the discussion is over so that more and more convoluted physics systems can be glued to the pin board that he controls and beats people with.

But why not try to find a more logical middle way?


Fiberoptic cables

fiber.JPG (39.5 KiB) Viewed 3198 times

When we look through a fiberoptic cable, we see light travel through one end and out the other, even if the cable is bent. It is observed by Eurocentric science (Germanic, Anglo etc.) that the light is not merely bending around but also bouncing around inside. We might see things like this:

In case of single-mode fibers a much bigger bandwidth can be obtained. This happens because light takes essentially a single path only, so pulse spreading does not occur to the propagating light not so bad as with the multi-mode fiber.

Timo Korhonen, PhD Teleco, Aalto University (1999)
https://www.quora.com/How-do-optical-fi ... -bent-tube

But the suggestion is still that the bouncing has been reduced to its minimum using Maxwell's equations. The suggestion is that what causes a fiberoptic cable to move the light with the shape of the cable is that the density of the medium the light has entered has a higher refraction index. This, it is claimed, will cause the light to "slow down" and bend towards what is called the "normal line", which means the surface of the medium. On some level, it sounds to me like the narrower the constraint of the high refractive material, the more the light will conform to it.

Refraction-of-light-in-water20150805-30610-expmep.jpg (49.41 KiB) Viewed 3198 times

Source: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resourc ... n-of-light

Can Physics bend like light?

Perhaps you see where I am going with this. Before we assume I am jumping to conclusions, please note that officially speaking, the same body of science describing light's behavior in fiberoptics says that refraction can also occur with the entire spectrum. Now, when we start to talk of "entire spectrum" I hear the dialogues of Electric Universe Theory and String Theory and other all-encompassing expositions that try to account for everything, even at the risk of occasionally conflating supposedly unrelated things. Yet, conflating things is useful when drawing up experiments to test one's science.

All I am suggesting for the purposes of creating the simplest of unified models between "Flat Earth" and "globe theory" is that physics itself may bend around in a pseudo-spherical globe. This explains why the Earth seems still even as it rotates at the incredible rate of 24 hours per revolution. The entire physics translates (changes position), for free, due to the rotation of energetic emanation of the planet. This means that the Earth's flatness and stillness also translate, free of charge, without the need for a globe-shaped Earth to act as we expect a rotating body to react within a universal set of physics.

In short, Earth is not modelled as a round rock spinning in air like a Bugs Bunny cartoon; this would cause everything to lean to the equator, cause much more dramatic winds and cause other problems that we can all see and experience are totally not an issue for us. Instead, it is modelled as a dynamically rendering emanation of a system (from air and clouds to mountains to ocean to mantle) that translates the source of the emanation rotationally. (And orbitally, but that is a subject of TYCHOS and then we're talking about our binary system and getting away from the local Earth model).

With this Earth model (which we might describe as a kind of physical projection) since we mostly ignore empty space and we only pay attention to what we presume are dense objects, we assume the physics we see here on Earth just stay the same throughout the known universe. Another possibility is that this isn't so. It could be the stars and planets are all vastly different physics depending on the locale and are each their own physical projection whose emanation sources rotate/translate at different rates and with different qualities. However, let's for the sake of not upsetting astrophysicists too much give them their theory that Physics work "exactly the same" on each body. Perhaps, then, we could say that they too would be "flat" if we were to somehow transport ourselves through sheer space and onto each of their surfaces.


What would bending physics suggest?

There are many ways you could theorize it does this. Each one would have different connotations. In terms of your video game of life, it could be as though the sim physics of your main character were re-rendered each infinitesimal moment (each frame) but no matter which way you turn your monitor without a motion sensor (the physics frame) your character is not going to be moved.

You might also suggest Earth re-renders itself each moment by transforming cosmic energy (primarily but not exclusively from ether, from itself and the Sun, as well as the stars and planets and comets and less obvious participants) into the dense existence we see here around us. This could mean that instead of merely being a reference frame that rotates to face the various heavens, Earth "starts over" each moment. Kind of like theories of cymatics, where each pulse "redraws" the shape of the material affected, but if you turn the sound vibration off (if you turned off the electromagnetics that pulse through the material of Earth, which is possibly little more than extremely slowed/knotted electromagnetics) the material would dissipate. In this case, might we also consider the possibility that the "free translation" I am proposing is due to everything on Earth being an interrelated wave traveling through a medium of locally dense physical substance? (Does this mean that everything next to us in a certain direction was very recently us? Does this mean that things on the equator change faster? To me, many new ways of thinking appear when we consider more).

This same mode of thinking could explain a variety of other shapes mentioned in this thread (torus, spiral, other natural forms). However, let's stick to the goal of finding the "middle way" between Flat Earth and globe theory (or even Concave Earth theory as exposited at Wild Heretic's site).

One could also very probably write mathematics to explain how a flat object can physically translate to a moving sphere while retaining certain physical qualities of flat stillness.

In any case, I would hope this is a step towards ending the violent communication and arguments (not quite true debates) between people who will not listen to each other's evidences. When we set our sights on unity, and deep listening, what more could be possible?