Do we live on the outside of a ball? Do we live on a circular disc? Or do we live on the inside of a sphere that houses our entire universe? While this may sound absolutely ridiculous, there are some interesting things to learn just by asking these crazy questions.
It’s OK to ask such a ridiculous question. The authorities are often wrong, and usually programmed to believe half truths. Our society is backwards. The things we have been led to believe in mainstream science, media, and our school books are usually a 180 degree perversion of the actual truth. It’s not hard to see this for some subjects like traditional medicine, where we treat poisoned patients with more poison. Or our political system, where we vote for a conservative or liberal puppet of a corrupt oligarchical corporatocracy we call ‘government‘. But to say that our whole world is opposite of what we think may be a stretch. I can understand. But if there’s nothing to it, there’s nothing to it.
For a more detailed explanation of the concave earth theory, Wild Heretic dives deep down the rabbit hole and argues a Concave Earth.
If we look at the evidence and use the Trivium as a method for discerning our own subjective truths, we should be able to weigh opposing theories and judge what makes most sense to us, independent of cultural programming. If there’s no evidence for the opposing viewpoint, it can’t hurt. It can however hurt our reputation, but not everyone is concerned with such debilitating constraints to personal inquiry, such as the fear of what people think of you for asking such a crazy question in the first place. It’s only possible to progress in our quest for truth by asking the impossible questions. The questions everybody else is afraid to ask.
“If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run — and often in the short one — the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.” -Arthur C. Clarke
Something like 25% of Americans don’t believe we went to the Moon and rightfully so, since there is a lot of evidence to counter the official narrative. All of these things considering, it is a viable option to question the cultural mantra that we live in an insignificant place in the universe, a meaningless speck of nothingness. I like to question the sacrosanct ideology that our lives are without meaning, of which mainstream academia so passionately purports.
Our worldview shapes our beliefs. Some beliefs are unthinkable to those with a preordained ideology of how nature and reality operates. In India, to deny the reality of telepathy and other powers of the ancient Shiddis is unthinkable. You’d be laughed at. In the US, traditionally trained doctors will laugh at the idea of ‘hands on healing’ or color therapy, as their worldview relies solely on the materialistic reductionism. It’s all about our upbringing, environment, and culture that molds our collective unconscious. It is important to transcend this cultural programming so we are free to ask questions, and not give a crap what people think of us.
“Personal empowerment means deconditioning yourself from the values and the programs of the society and putting your own values and programs in place.”
In the concave model, life is nested nicely inside the shell of the cosmic egg. The beautiful starlit heavens surrounds our experience in a celestial sphere, the firmament they talk about in the Bible. In the currently accepted model(which is always subject to change), we are spinning at about a 1000 mph at the equator, and whirling through space even faster. Are we really on the outside of a ball, spinning around the universe, with no safety net or purpose? Comets and meteorites might erase our existence in a single blow.
What then? Would it matter? If we lived in a concave earth it would be easy to surmise that all of this was created just for us. The Flat-Earther psychology also encompasses an existence of importance and meaning, rather than a nihilistic and depressing outlook on life.
“Myths come and go, and so do scientific theories. It may not seem to matter very much which particular formula or fairy story is used to explain the universe, but in reality it is crucial, because the way we understand the world and our origins largely determines our attitude towards life and how we experience it.” -John Michell
The Sun is just big enough to allow life but not too big to destroy it. Supposedly, the moon is just the right distance from Earth for life to be possible. Gravity is just right. The charge on the proton. Everything, all the conditions are perfect.
Earth could be all there is. The math seems to suggest that “It’s all for us”. Today, the controllers of the collective unconscious might be glad we consider ourselves so insignificant, constantly searching out there for answers and taking meaning away from our lives, since there are so many other Goldilock planets. Ever notice how much mainstream cosmology points to the fact that we are very insignificant, Look how big the universe is!! Do you think this gives us power or takes it from us? Not to get too conspiratorial but it is easy to control people if they don’t understand their own meaning and importance. Big Bang, Evolution, Materialism, they all point to the fact that life is meaningless, and the people are powerless.
“…it is a Greek, Anaximander, who is credited with the distinction of being the inventor of maps. Working during the 6th century BC, he is also thought to have been the first of many Greek philosophers to attempt the determination of the size of the earth. Noting that the whole sky revolved around the celestial pole, he declared that the earth was at the centre of a colossal sphere whose inside surface held the stars in place.” -Robin Heath from ‘The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth’
In the heliocentric model, it would be easier to contrive a nihilistic ontology, a model where we are a mistake. In this worldview(our current one), our consciousness and free will are an illusion. We are coincidentally evolved robots made of material stuff that serendipitously evolved over time. Our consciousness is generated by the matter in our brain. We are mere chance. In this model we are insignificant and so is life, and therefore easier to manipulate. The only reason we’re here is because of Darwinistic evolution and survival of the fittest mentality. There is no God because there is no scientific material evidence to show a Creator’s existence. Our lives are purposeless and our existence here is by chance. We are mere biological robots lumbering the face of earth. Which way the face curves, well that is still up for debate. Concave or Convex. Anthropocentrism vs Nihilism. Perhaps a hyperbolic comparison, but still, intuitively interpreted from each drastically contrasting model.
Heliocentrism is much more comfortable for materialistic science who long ago cast away the possibility that our existence was intelligently created. If they admitted that, they would be stepping into “God territory” and believe you me, they don’t want to go there. It’s easier to explain away every ostensible coincidence as evolution, junk DNA, dark energy, and quantum physics.
The fact that every condition for life is perfect, from the apparent distance to the Sun, to the charge on the electron, these are all just coincidences. This would’ve eventually happened anyway, there’s no significance to it. You see, everything evolved from nothing, and accidents just take time. We even coined a name for the uselessness in asking why we exist. It’s called the Anthropic Principle, a logical fallacy and cop out for intelligent design.
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” – Carl Sagan
I like to keep an open mind and not have someone tell me that it is too open and my brains might fall out. Who decides how open it can be? TED?
After all your mind, like a parachute, works best when it’s open.
“Professor Hogben, author of ‘Mathematics for the Million’, the best selling popular mathematical book of all time, describes many ancient applications which relied on treating the vault of heaven as a clock-face rotating around a central and fixed earth. …The moon, as the fastest moving body in the heavens, provides, as it were, the ‘second hand’ in such a cosmic time-piece. We must not therefore be surprised that ‘mensuration’, our modern word for the accurate measurement of time, length, area, or volume, relates directly to the moon, for its root, ‘mensis’, means month. – Robin Heath ‘The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth’
Thus preached Hermes: “O people of the earth, men born and made of the elements, but with the spirit of the Divine Man within you, rise from your sleep of ignorance! Be sober and thoughtful. Realize that your home is not in the earth but in the Light. Why have you delivered yourselves over unto death, having power to partake of immortality? Repent, and change your minds. Depart from the dark light and forsake corruption forever. Prepare yourselves to climb through the Seven Rings and to blend your souls with the eternal Light.” -Manly P Hall
“We all walk in mysteries. We are surrounded by an atmosphere about which we still know nothing at all.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The Pyramid texts state “Whoever shall make a copy of the Duat, and shall know it upon Earth, it shall act as a magical protector for him both in heaven and in Earth, unfailingly, regularly, and eternally.” -‘Taking Measure’ by Scott Onstott
“The plane of the earth offers another delusion to the traveller in air, to whom it appears as a concave surface, and who surveys the line of the horizon as an unbroken circle, rising up, in relation to the hollow of the concave hemisphere, like the rim of a shallow inverted watch-glass, to the height of the eye of the observer, how high soever he may be–the blue atmosphere above closing over it like the corresponding hemisphere reversed.”–Glaisher’s Report, in “Leisure Hour,” for May 21, 1864.
“The chief peculiarity of a view from a balloon at a consider-able elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”–London Journal, July 18th, 1857.
Recently I few to New York. At certain times during both flights I could look down and envision concavity, then if I blinked it would go back to looking convex. This visual ambiguity reminded me of the way optical illusions work, where you can see both images, but not at the same time.
The horizon seemed to stay at eye level no matter how high we went. I’d like to know how much lower it is supposed to be if we are living on the outside of a ball. If Earth is concave it would make sense that the horizon would rise, and perhaps the same for a flat Earth.
Psychologically, heliocentrism and the concept of living on the outside of a ball spinning through space does not rule out the possibility of intelligent design, but for me it makes a whole lot less sense. If I was going to create life, I’d center everything around it.
The Geocosmos was the belief of many ancient civilizations. Only in the past few hundred so years have we changed our minds about Earth being the center of the Universe. Any aberration from the accepted norm is vehemently rejected these days, just as it was in Bruno and Galileo’s time. Makes’ ya think..
Here is Thomas Joseph Brown’s take on the Geocosmos:
“The concave model does not deny the possibility of other worlds with life, rather the universe can be infinite and filled with life, yet we’re still concave. In this model space is dimensional, projective.
Space is not 3D, the three dimensions are imposed by our consciousness in its assessment of objective reality. The three dimensions are proprioceptive, Steiner indicated it was a grave error of materialistic consciousness to externalize them as a metric of space. Space functions on projective geometry, with a spatial-counterspatial polarity.
Discussing these anthropic models is certainly not about stroking one’s ego, rather it is an unprejudiced approach to assessing all world models that were considered viable by serious experimenters in order to discern the fundamental nature of reality. The concave earth, or geocosmos more properly called, has been measured and probed; by Cyrus Teed and his rectilinear in the late 1800s as well as top German scientists during WWII who were attempting to photograph the British fleet in the North Sea from the Baltic amongst other large-scale geophysical experiments along these lines.
And the somewhat more easy to grasp geo- or anthropocentric world is supported by an incredible amount of evidence, much collected by Anthroposophical researchers working out of Steiner’s indications. Basically all living things on the planet have biological rhythms and shaping from formative forces effected by the direct appearance and motion of the planets, sun and moon as perceived from earth.
And what if the Earth really is going around the Sun? This could also be true. Perhaps they are all true in some sense. Quantum physicists claim that our observation of reality directly affects that observed; perhaps we are modeling our world and our place in it as we develop our understanding of it.
In the Heliocentric model the spatial arrangement (which has awe inspiring mathematical harmonies and relationships) we find the skeleton or physical circuitry of the cosmic life body. In the Anthropocentric we find the software program running creating the “virtual” world of our experience.
In the Geocosmos we find the engineers & programmers, the counter spatial source of the spatial manifestation.
In the Archecosmos resides the original awareness of the concept. Think of this like Tesla conceiving the rotating AC field whilst cogitating on a poem by Goethe. He has the flash of the archetypal four quadrant relationships in action, then it’s engineered in the Geocosmos, next it’s built in the Anthropocosmos, and finally run in the Heliocosmos. All stages are inherent in the final device.
So far we have the heliocentric, geo/anthropocentric, and the geocosmos. Need a fourth to fulfill the archetype. In that we look at the flat earth. In projective geometry (which is all inclusive, Euclidean coordinates are but a subset) all planes are sections of spheres at infinity. Think it out if you can, and expanding sphere, wouldn’t have to be that large in diameter before you could cut out a perfectly flat piece to make a table top. So we are on a plane at infinity, the Earth Plane, as long diagrammed in esoteric literature.
And what is this flat plane but the archetypal world itself, the mandala where the four etheric forces weave our reality via generation in the geocosmos, formation in the anthropocosmos, and manifestation in the heliocosmos. These are the four worlds of the Qabalah.”
Apollo 8 (the first manned mission to the Moon) entered lunar orbit on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1968. That evening, the astronauts; Commander Frank Borman, Command Module Pilot Jim Lovell, and Lunar Module Pilot William Anders did a live television broadcast from lunar orbit, in which they showed pictures of the Earth and Moon seen from Apollo 8. Lovell said, “The vast loneliness is awe-inspiring and it makes you realize just what you have back there on Earth.” They ended the broadcast with the crew taking turns reading from the book of Genesis.
“For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send you”.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”
“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”
“And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
Borman then added, “And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you – all of you on the good Earth.”
Many people believe Flat Earth(and other theories) to be a psyop, and this may very well be the case. However when we dismiss these ideas entirely, we are sometimes throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The real psychological operation going on here is to get us to keep bickering over the shape of the Earth, and have us completely avoid other related and more important questions.
Why are the Sun and Moon the same size in the sky, Why the essential charge on the electron, Why the anomalous nature of water, Why are the living conditions of Earth just so perfect, How and why are we here, Is this all just some big serendipitous accident, Or is our existence and the world we live in or on, absolute proof of divine creation?
Wow, great article, why no comments? Is the comments section censored or are people just shy of sharing what they think?
Probably because most people are afraid of looking crazy 😉
“If we lived in a concave earth it would be easy to surmise that all of this was created just for us”
There you go. If ‘all of this’ was created just for us, that implies some type of Creator, a higher intelligence. It logically points to a Mind prior to the human mind.
That is why the mainstream scientific community keeps clinging to the obsolete Darwinian and Big Bang model like fundamentalist religious zealots in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Because they KNOW that once they step outside those models they have to acknowledge the idea that they might have been wrong all along and those pesky creationists, ID’ers and other ‘conspiracy theorists’ might actually have valid scientific (and philosofical) arguments.
Current scientific models and arguments are purely driven by (irrational) personal emotions and double standards, not logic and open minded rational discourse.It is not about thruth, it’s about favoring one thing over the other for personal gratification and pride.
While I am personally still somewhat sceptical of the concave earth theory, and reject the Flat Earth theory, I totally agree with the excellent thesis of how we SHOULD approach these matters.
If this line of thinking would be mainstream, no matter from what worldview you start off with, it would quickly lead to profound and amazing discoveries regarding our reality. It would propell human understanding of ourselves and the universe ‘around’ us to dazzling new heights. We would be able to unlock numerous mysteries of life.
Instead, we are locked in a very narrow minded worldview of, mostly, angy atheists (there is a big difference between atheists and ‘angry’ atheists!) and a small group of powerful people who want to keep us dumb and in the dark for their own perverse reasons.
There is hope on the horizon though, but we have a long and hard battle to fight, but it IS possible to arrive at the ‘next level’ of human progress, maybe even in our lifetimes. I believe that.
Thanks Peter. The people who basically rule the world are anti-God. They hate our Creator. They hate God. And God hates them. But you’re right about how close minded we can be, and you make a solid point. It reminds me of a few quotes.
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it’s opponents simply die off. Science progresses one funeral at a time.
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’
If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally supported by the general public, it is almost certainly wrong.
Isaac Asimov, 1977
Hello Peter. Perhaps, hope and clarity only become available to the conscious ones while those who lead the top echelon of power are not the malicious liars then seem to be, but merely maintainers of the baseline that serves as a burnt offering(s) to all. Perhaps, it is the same challenge for all to discern it and discover the world of the Earth through many revelations instead of taking a path of blind acceptance and sacrifices. A human can become a magnificent being, but only so through a path of conscious learning. When one is born with genetic powers to know the difference between an apple and an orange, one must face a lesson when an orange is presented as an apple. It is done not to deceive the student, but to offer an opportunity to engage the consciousness along with cognition to open a true path of learning which is this life. However, vast majority shall believe that they live in the world of apples and take every opportunity to crucify the teacher because they feel that they are being deceived. Also, there are few of those who know that they live in the world of oranges and thank the teacher for an opportunity to unlock the power of consciousness.
Really awesome man, I’m impressed. Sharing this with my friends. 🙂
divine creation in itself is B.S
I agree, there must be a Creator. I’m sure of it actually.
Joe, can I privately email you? Please tell me how.