Jump to content
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

229 Excellent

About Anthem(0)

  • Rank
  1. Thx Roth. As it happens, I am I writer. I'll be releasing first episode of my science-fiction flat earth epic later this year (been working on this since 2010 or before). As well as the updated version of the 0th episode of the same flat earth/space is a lie/metaphysics series which was released in an abridged version back in 2012. Both will be free. Back then there were very, very few of us on the net who had discovered the heliocentric lie and were seriously exploring alternative topologies and cosmologies, so I had honed my chops pretty well by the time flat earth hit the conspiracy-mainstream in 2014. A lot of "the fractal nature of reality"-centric stuff from that 2012-2014 period has been lost by the admittedly overwhelming mountain of evidence cast by the Zetetic FE proofs. But with that, many elements which are essential to solving this puzzle box are being overlooked, such as TIME for example, which has inexplicably been relegated to a realm of "man-made construct" where it can be soundly ignored. Flat earth is very interesting, we all agree on this, but it's really square ZERO. And the veterans honestly need more to chew on at this point. Zetetic flat earth proofs is best used as a springboard into advanced concepts where one can begin to actually deconstruct the false model presented by the establishment. There are excellent proofs in the maths for example that treating TIME as a "quasi-4th dimension" LITERALLY draws the "spiral/toroidal/circular dimension(s)" created by the circuit of the sun moving in the sky (whether or not it moves in "reality" is irrelevant as it undoubtedly moves in the sky) and relates it with the other 3 linear spacial dimensions. This trick then primes the turf to warp the 2-d topology around whatever invisible 3-d object you want (a sphere in the case of a globe) while maintaining perfect consistency with BOTH the arcing "circular dimension" of the curved pattern of the sun and the FLAT topology which is defined by the "linear spatial dimensions". This is also ironically why astrophysicists define the UNIVERSE -- which is visible in ALL directions from the surface of a sphere -- as FLAT. An impossibility made all the more absurd by the fact that their model has horizontal line distance INCREASING as one moves away from the surface. So how can lines in the universe be parallel (thus making the universe geometrically FLAT as they claim) if all lines diverge as they extend from every point on the surface of our ball earth (and therefore from every other spherical planet as well)? They can't. It's mind-blowing, the gall of it all. The doublespeak from the authority is absolute. And until a person wakes up to the fact that the authority is an unrepentant liar, it is nigh impossible to make sense of such contradictory concepts, merely to accept them as true without understanding them. But it's all in the math and they admitted up front they are treating TIME as a dimension. TIME (as it relates to the motion of the sun in the sky) is cyclical, not linear. Also, TIME moves in ONE direction (a direction which metaphysically is "located" opposite of "experiential reality"). This is one of the few immutable laws of this "reality": TIME moves FORWARD and accumulates behind us in the past (Input/Output, another fractal). In the case of globe earth mathemagicks, FORWARD is literally defined as "an east to west spiraling arc above a 2-d surface area of linear dimensions." To combine these concepts is essentially to "Square the Circle". It's a paradox. It's literally an alchemical magical spell being cast on humanity. And it works brilliantly until one realizes it IS a magic show. Once one becomes aware of the stage crew and begin following their movements rather than those of the magician, the illusion can no longer sustain itself. This is where Zeteticism shines, in pointing out the stage crew and the "how-to's" of the trickery. Don't really have a link, no. Most serious writings on the "fractal nature of reality" are heavily metaphysical and gnostic in nature. Often mathematical and musical as well. But as with most things which deal with "reality", there is no singularly correct interpretation. Everyone "resonates" with the concept differently. It is terribly intuitive and self-evident to some and impossible to see for others. The typical dogmatic materialist coincidence theorist has serious barriers which will forever prevent understanding until those barriers are first disassembled. A well-rounded knowledge base (specifically the understanding of concepts, not rote fact memorization) is helpful as the relations between seemingly disparate fields become more evident the deeper one probes said fields. Syncretism is very real and very powerful in my experience. If you're using a math/programming lens, then the most general description I can give is you are both inside of and surrounding an "infinite" fractal set arranged by size Matryoshka-style. The boundaries of this fractal set are located in the direction that telescopes look and the direction that microscopes look.
  2. I know what I mean by "fractal nature of reality." But it's a vague enough term that I can understand how you have trouble following. But at no point has anyone claimed all laws of physics are scale-invariant and I have no idea how you could have pulled that out of anything I've said. It is not my personal opinion for example that elementary particles are non-demonstrable theory. Their proponents admit they are many, many, MANY orders of magnitude too tiny to be observed. It is a personal opinion to espouse that photons are therefore bullshit , but their inability to be demonstrated in reality is well-outside the garden of opinion and firmly in the FACT category. If you're uncomfortable that your establishment-prescribed belief system is not fact-based but is rather just a hodgepodge of unproven hypotheses then I'm sorry for you. Truly I am. That's gotta be tough to accept for personas who believe they have a firm understanding of reality because of their confidence in the unproven superficial narratives presented by the media for public consumption. But it's the truth regardless. And academia full-well knows this, hence the "Theory of ..." attached to nearly everything they implicitly teach as "unquestionable fact". If any of the core tenets of Scientism could be demonstrated to be true, then it would be done. That has nothing to do with me behaving as any sort of authority and I staunchly deny I'm doing anything of the sort. I know that I know next to nothing. I'm simply pointing out an undeniable truth that you aren't even attempting to deny: that establishment Scientism deals largely (often exclusively) in non-demonstrable theorycrafting, not in empirical reality, and certainly not in FACTS.
  3. Electric current being measurable has nothing to do with the particle theory employed to model the phenomenon. For example, the existence of the photon described as carrying the electric charge in the current is entirely non-demonstrable. The existence of the electron is non-demonstrable. The existence of the outer shell of an atom is non-demonstrable. These are FACTS, no matter how uncomfortable they may make you. You are free to CLAIM that electric current is caused by free electrons quantum leaping energy boundaries all you'd like, but you cannot even begin to demonstrate that claim as true in reality. And neither can the sum of academia whose unfounded claim you are repeating. This non-demonstrability principle expands to virtually all of accepted mainstream science and absolutely to all of mainstream cosmology. It's essentially a religion. And it's frightening to watch the operations of the cult once you're on the outside. The mind control it exercises over its supplicants is near-total and made all-the-worse by the fact that the practitioners have no idea they are following a religion. I never said the ground is flat and certainly not in relation to topography. What I said is the hypothesized regular curvature of the ground is non-demonstrable. That is a fact. I said nothing of aliens or petri dishes. Those are irrelevant strawmen you are introducing for reasons beknownst only to you.
  4. The fractal nature of reality is theoretical perhaps in the strictest sense, but it is demonstrable. Empiricism and demonstrability are the hallmarks of "actual Science". "Establishment science" is not only theoretical (and therefore not a fact as well), it is entirely non-demonstrable. Beginning with the ground-level foundations, nearly every facet of it is non-demonstrable. This is a FACT. Regular curvature of the ground is non-demonstrable (it measures flat). Motion of the ground is non-demonstrable. The vacuum of space is non-demonstrable. The accepted model of stars being self-sustaining superheated gasses inside of a non-demonstrable vacuum is non-demonstrable. The accepted structure of an atom is non-demonstrable. The photon is non-demonstrable. The non-demonstrable photon being emitted from the non-demonstrable nuclear furnaces and traveling through the non-demonstrable vacuum is non-demonstrable. The concept of particles ricocheting off one another creating effects like temperature is non-demonstrable. Et al. These are all non-empirical and purely theoretical concepts which cannot be demonstrated in any capacity. The fractal nature of reality and the continuity between scales is a repeatable, verifiable concept. 1/10 is to 10/100 is to 100/1000; that is the fractal nature of reality (there are of course exceptions in practice but nothing relevant to this discussion). Furthermore, this all has very much to do with the concept of relativity in practice, which is what I said. To repeat: when the relevant RELATIVE distances at the same visible location (eg - the horizon) become severely disproportionate (eg - orders of magnitude) certain obscuring effects are unavoidable. Hence the term "relativity." The concept of relativity applies to much more than the purely theoretical and 100% non-demonstrable establishment astrophysics mathemagicks gobbledygook popularized by Einstein.
  5. Keen points. It all relates back to the fractal nature of reality which spirals away from us both inward toward the small and outward toward the large. This is what the concept of relativity expresses in practice. The effects of scale in regards to focus and magnification are staggering when none looks at the practical effects of the math (the demonstrable in other words) and the necessary implications cannot be overstated. Simply put, when orders of magnitude (10^2 vs 10^3, etc) of distances are at play at the same location (the horizontal intersection of the sky/ground known at the horizon in this case), concepts like obscuring WILL occur within the hazy horizon zone. This is a concept you can easily demonstrate yourself by holding your finger several inches in front of the midline of your eyesight (just generally, no need to be precise) against a backlit screen several feet away like a tv or monitor. You can very easily and simply using your own eyes focus on the flattish top of your finger (the sharp horizon) and you will notice the text on the backlit screen being obscured at a certain height. Without moving your eyes or finger, if you simply focus your eyes on the backlit screen, the finger will go blurry out of focus and immediately you'll see "through" it and you'll see significantly more height of the text on the screen. Many lines of text which were previously clearly blocked by the finger will become unobscured. Voila. In reality, the horizon is always the more former defined finger version because the ground at the horizon is MUCH closer than the distant obscured mountain or sky at the horizon (often times many magnitudes). This necessary means that the distant objects beyond the defined horizon ARE obscured and thus necessarily washing out downward (magnification from defocusing being comparable to atmospheric density, etc) into the bleeding hazy zone. The obscuring effect is undeniably provable without introducing curvature of any kind (which would only worsen the effect). It's proavable on small scales and large scales. This is simple stuff, really. But very important in understand WHY the whole idea of a curve is not necessary to describe any observable phenomena. And in fact a curve would only make matters worse, adding an additional exponential variable which could ONLY further reduce visibility of distant objects, never aid in rendering them visible again at impossible distances.
  6. Fascinating. I wonder what the official explanation is. Micro-wind tunnels, magnetism, what? Many possibilities. Very interesting vid. Surprised I've never seen this before.
  7. Watch how smoothly the doublespeaker tries to shift the subject OFF of the "astronaut" on a zipline in the video, first with goading then with attempting to harp on their goading. So transparent and hilarious, these diversion tactics. Guy on the zipline in the background? Tell us all how he's really an astronaut in zero-g in space who just LOOKS like he's being supported by on a zipline on his belt with leg harnesses. And how unless doubters can prove beyond all reason it is indeed the zipline that it certainly appears to be that we should just default our beliefs to the authoritarian position that the footage is genuine. Please, defend your master to completion, none of this third base line-toeing. Be proud of your apologism of the authority.
  8. Classic doublespeak from the above apologist who hardlines the authoritarian position. In this case, the authoritarian apologist labels himself a "doubter". Amazing.
  9. This is brilliant. It makes so much sense. It's been awhile since a new idea has had my mind working like this one. This is promising.
  10. For the definitive in NASA harness footage, check this vid out. This is on an official NASA channel, check the link. it's cued up to 12:00 where you'll see an astronaut on a zipline in the background. It's clear as day. The man in the background is being suspended by a clearly-visible zip-line complete with leg harnesses. He goes back and forth several times. Slow it down if need be and examine it for yourselves. Bonus: Check at 18:15 where green shirt passes off an invisible object to hang on the wall beside him. This is ALL smoke and mirrors and you're doing yourselves a disservice by ignoring this possibility Known liars presenting us with obvious video forgeries should be examined skeptically. Be wary of apologists who defend a video like this as being a genuine footage of humans floating in zero-g in space. Edit: Just saw @Rothbard already posted a video containing this footage. I'll leave the full official NASA footage here for thoroughness' sake.
  11. Fair point VonLud. Upon reexamination, I probably misinterpreted your intention. My apologies.
  12. Indeed. It's all so transparent once you're paying attention. So much effort expended fighting against something so "stupid" promoted by "crazies". And ultimately all for naught because it's too late at this point. The cat is out of the bag. People now KNOW that there is no scientific backing for ANY of modern cosmology. No amount of posturing and distracting will change that fact. This particular site's authoritarian apologists have reduced their "proof of spinning ball earth model" to "because the sun rises and sets." That's literally all they have: this baffling notion that ancient man believed the earth to be flat because they somehow had yet to notice that the sun rises and sets. Then once man noticed the new phenomenon of a sun rising and setting, it became obvious that the ground is curved and the earth is moving. It's such a hilarious non-sequitur argument that it defeats itself. But they'll go on repeating it for the next year+ whether or not we continue responding to the absurdity of the argument. That's the intention of this distraction, to keep us locked in an endless of tug-of-war against characters who have no intention of seriously addressing the flaws in their accepted model...for whatever reasons they may have. /sigh 300 meters of atmosphere VS 2414016 meters of atmosphere. You can do the math Von. That's over 8000 times more atmosphere. No trivial matter, I'm sure you'll agree. Can you see a soccer ball through 300 meters of atmosphere which is on average 8000 times more dense than normal?? To piggyback on the above "distractors" statements, here we have Von isolating my post while inexplicably giving a blind pass to the patent absurdity of the alleged "challenge" of filming a ground object 1500 miles away. Von is perfectly intelligent enough to know that the proposed challenge is nonsense, but he'd rather ignore the reality of atmospheric density (etc) and remain silent on the inherent flaws of the proposed challenge. Not to mention a similar experiment HAS been done spanning mountaintops which were dozens of miles away rather than thousands.
  13. 1500 miles of visibility through ground-level atmosphere? ROFL @ that being called a "challenge". The request is comical, truly. May as well ask someone to photograph an atom. Two words: Angular resolution.
  14. Marty Leeds is totally legit imo. The elite don't own 33, they simply use it. The power exists in the sigils and signs themselves, not the people using them. We can (and arguably should) reclaim the power by using the sigils and signs ourselves. I think that's the point Jeran was making in that IPS defense video. And great point about the angular resolution of the mountain shrinking. The curvature calculators pretend to ignore that entirely but the "standard refraction" they calculate IS the perspective drop. All this is irrelevant though when we can clearly see objects from well beyond maximum viewing range on a ball. It is easily experimentally proven that refraction moves the images down and doesn't lift them into the air to be made visible again. It's such a blatant lie to pretend refraction can allow us to see objects which are blocked by the "curve" of the earth because refraction works the exact opposite of that. But what's one more lie in the raging torrent of deception known as ball-earthism?
  15. Impossible Views on a Globe

    Completely untrue. My statement which YOU QUOTED me saying and were directly responding to was: "Evidence of curvature and motion of the earth simply does not exist. These sorts of circular arguments which do nothing to attempt to prove the requisite curve of the earth are the best the establishment can offer. Nothing remotely empirical or scientifically repeatable supports the spinning ball earth model. 100% of scientific attempts to directly quantify the requisite motion of the earth have FAILED to detect motion." Anyone can look for themselves above, the exchange is still there. So no goalposts were moved whatsoever. And see how I can point this out to you without pretending to be offended that you would have the audacity of falsely accusing me of moving the goalposts. Serious, civil discourse. Participants answer direct questions, and don't accuse our opponents for what could be innocent mistakes. ROFL!! What do you mean IF I want to debate the question of whether the earth is in motion? This ENTIRE time, I have asked you for evidence that: The surface of the earth is curved The earth is in motion Don't start pretending I'm changing up anything. I have been 100% consistent all this while you've been tapdancing around discussing the core tenets of your accepted model. And this just happened to be the first time YOU directly addressed the subject. Don't put you ignoring that part of the request for 20+ pages on ME. But let's be serious here. Are you seriously for real asking me for evidence that the earth is not moving? You're asking me to prove a negative again, which is a logical fallacy. But all the same, I'll follow through and show you WHY it's a logical fallacy. The the logic of the earth not moving is simple: our senses and instrumentation can detect motion and neither have ever detected the ground to be in motion. Indeed, on rare occasions when the ground IS in motion, this is immediately and undeniably evident to our senses (earthquakes, treadmills, collapsing floors, etc). Our senses can detect the slightest wind breezes and our instrumentation can detect even slighter breezes yet. Now, is it theoretically POSSIBLE that the earth is in motion which is somehow undetectable to not only to our senses but also to all motion-detecting instrumentation yet designed? Yes. Is it theoretically POSSIBLE that gravity somehow magically negates the necessary measurable sensational effects of being on the outside of a spinning, bulleting, wobbling ball and that it somehow does so at every point along it's oblate surface? Sure. But that is WHY it is YOU who must provide the evidence of these extraordinary claims! The evidence that the earth is not moving is self-evident and everyone experiences this. Indeed, had you never been told the obviously stationary ground was moving in multiple different conflicting direction at super and hyper sonic speeds, you could NEVER arrive at such a conclusion.
  1. Jump To Top