Welcome to the Wild Heretic forum where ideas are explored and information is linked so that hopefully all of us will have a clearer and better understanding of the world we live in. (When uploading avatars, make sure to resize them first by using a website such as this one - http://resizepic.com/. Max dimensions are 120 x 120 pixels.)

New members must first INTRODUCE THEMSELVES in the introduce yourself thread below if they want to post replies and start threads. If more than a couple of days have past after posting on the introduce yourself thread, and you still can't start threads, pm me. Either I've been away, or I have overlooked your introduction and forgotten to add you to the approved list.

My Earth hypothesis.

Any alternative scientific theory or interpretation of the micro or macro world. Where does the mainstream model fail?
User avatar

Topic author
sceppy
Aware
Aware
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:14 pm
Location: England

My Earth hypothesis.

Postby sceppy » Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:57 pm

As some people will know my thoughts on gravity being DENPRESSURE, which is my own take on it, it all ties in with how I perceive the Earth to be.
Bear in mind that this is my own thoughts and is backed up with little to no physical evidence or equations. It is not meant to be an argument against any other alternative Earth thought, as each individual has their own thoughts and reasons of how and why they choose their own system.

First of all I think any rational person who has enough common sense and logic and who cares to delve into a deeper thought about Earth will know that the spinning globe on a 23.5 degree axis in a near vacuum of space is not only preposterous but borders on the absolute ultimate fantasy magic.

We are being forced to a accept magic as a reality instead of a trick. We are forced to accept lies for truths'. We literally have a choice whether to accept it or not. However, if we do not accept the indoctrinated version then we have to be prepared to be bullied until we do. It's the nature of the beast unfortunately.

You drop a ball. It's gravity. You fall over and hit the deck. It's gravity. You wonder why the Earth doesn't fall into the sun or the moon doesn't fall into Earth, or space craft don't fall out of Earth or other planetary orbit. It's all to do with gravity.
So what is gravity?
It depends on who you ask and why you're asking.

You see: one minute it's a force pulling you to the centre of Earth and then it's a push/pull or not even a force at all.
This is how we get told about it. It pulls massive bodies of water UP to cause tides, all from the moon and yet the Earth cannot pull the moon into it. It's gets more weird but that's basically a small portion of the bullshit.
So I ask the question. I say: "what is gravity?"..."what is gravity as a force or not a force?"... "I don't want to know what it does - I want to know what it is as a force."
The answer is quite simple and truthful. Nobody knows what it is. All they know is what it does. It works by mass attracting mass.

The bigger the mass against a tiny mass will attract that tiny mass to it. It's why ants get pulled into mountains or sand gets pulled into large boulders.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, 'HUH?...this doesn't happen.'
Correct it doesn't and nor does it happen on anything other than experiments that just happen to be performed in environments that we cannot prove or literally prove nothing.

But things fall at 9.8ms/s/ we are told and yet this somehow proves gravity. This gravity stuff of dropping a bowling ball and football from chest height somehow proves that they both fall together because of gravity.
When it gets disproved from a greater height, we are told that ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE caused change by resistance against the mass of one ball against the other.

It doesn't matter what a person says or how much they see through the bullshit of gravity - gravity always wins because it's backed by people who are paid to feed it and adhere to it, who are also afforded high scientific status in order to parrot this stuff to University students or school children, etc on official lines.
Hard to argue against when so many people are brainwashed into acceptance and will defend it unconditionally because they feel they're qualified to do so, on the back of a few equations that somehow proves a force that is or isn't a force and cannot be understood as anything other than simply "it is."


I've went on a bit but I done it for good reason. It's to give people the opportunity to at least look at alternatives to why Earth works and what we are actually living on or in.
It allows a person who wants to spend some time having an alternative take on what they were forced to think and to put those thoughts to the back of their minds to give them a fair chance of grasping a more potentially sane reality.

I'll start off by telling you that gravity is really atmospheric pressure upon any dense object. Basically all things on or in Earth have density/mass.
Denpressure is my simplistic version of the lie that gravity is. It's atmospheric pressure acting on a dense object and the dense object acting on the atmosphere by energy applied to it.
Confused?

Ok, just imagine the Earth covered with a dome. I'll get to why that is as we move on. Now imagine that dome encases an atmosphere. To make it easier, just picture it like it's of water all the way to the top of the dome and imagine that the very top of the dome holds the least amount of water and yet the bottom of that dome holds the most as well as holding all of the water above it.
To make this even easier. Imagine circus performers making a pyramid by standing on each other. Those at the bottom are holding all those at the top and the person at the very top is having no pressure upon his/her person, except the feet of that person placed on the person under him/her.

So what we have is a massively compressed bottom and a basically near dormant top.
In order for the pyramid to stay in shape, it requires each person to exert ENERGY to fight against those above from crushing them and so on but it becomes easier for those above them to expand a little and those above them to expand a little more.

I have to go for now but I will definitely elaborate on this. It's long and maybe tedious for some and will take time. Just try and grasp it as I'm going along and if not, please ask if you're not sure. This way I can try all angles to explain it enough to be grasped, hopefully.


When people hurt you over and over, think of them like sandpaper. They may scratch and hurt you a bit, but in the end, you end up polished and they end up useless.

User avatar

Observer
Hoax destroyer
Hoax destroyer
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: My Earth hypothesis.

Postby Observer » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:04 am

Thanks for creating this thread, to freely share your current big picture view, just as I (and no doubt many readers) have been hoping for. Much gratitude!

First off, about your idea of DenPressure, I love the DenPressure way of describing the atmospheric pressure factor.

It seems your view sees DenPressure as the major thing pressing us to the ground, and thus DenPressure is a better way to explain what currently the consensus view claims is gravity.

Gravity being defined by the consensus view as "a magical attraction that brings smaller objects closer to bigger objects" as if either A) the smaller objects just love the bigger objects so much, due to their larger size, and so the smaller objects choose to rush towards, and smash into to hug if possible, this grand object of desire: bigness, or B) the smaller objects are passively sitting there, not really choosing to move towards anything in particular, but they are simply being PULLED in by the relatively stronger omni-directional tractor beam pulling force (a force which supposedly all things with mass have, and which the higher mass objects have relatively more of.) Either way, whether the consensus claims it is a matter of smaller objects running towards bigger objects, or bigger objects simply pulling in smaller objects, either way, the net result if that were true would be all of the objects in their grand imagined huge galaxy-filled-universe would suddenly come together into ONE huge ball (haha, a pun chance: the mass would amass into one ball), very quickly, a ball consisting of all those pieces of mass that were floating around in the universe, and now this ball is surrounded totally by nothingness. Boom. If all of the objects with mass, were to actually follow this rule of mass-pull, the little would attach to the medium, the medium would attach to the large, and the larges would attach with each other to create one super large ball. Hey, creators of the mass-pull idea, slight problem with this idea, suddenly we've got this huge ball of mass floating in the middle of nothingess. /rant paragraph

Back to reality, back to earth, back to your Denpressure explanation. Let me say this, your essential point there, the "imagine we are in water" idea, really helps me to recognize reality more clearly.

"Imagine we are in water" is so helpful because: YES, even though this "air" is invisible, we are immersed in this substance, a substance which is... a substance.

This substance is invisible to us and we can breathe it, so we usually fail to think about it, but we are living within it, living within this body, this jello, this collection of liquid molecules which we call "air."

And your next point is basically: now imagine that this substance is trapped within a limited confine, because of a huge barrier which is so tight it doesn't let any of this "air" substance escape.

And thus comes in the pressure part of DenPressure.

Since all of the air is trapped in this Den, that is why the air has no choice but to press press press on us things within it trying to co-exist in the same, limited, amount of den space.

Yes, yes, I'm understanding you there. This points to the container being airtight.

(Although, I am slightly reluctant to say this, because it reduces the chance of the other theory being right, a theory which I love so much, the theory which says that there are various holes, huge ones at the poles, and other ones located around the world, holes which lead to tunnels which lead to... other concave bubbles of life. Oh, but wait a second, even if a zillion concave balls are all interconnected with tunnels, linking up the airbubbles in the grand swiss cheese rock analogy, that STILL would mean the TOTAL space for the air molecules are limited, so this would simply mean there are no air-pressure "locks" between the various concave earths, our air pressure is their air pressure, we all are breathing the same air, that is of course, comparing someone living at ground level here, and someone living at ground level there. So yeah, even with holes and tunnels leading away from this concave earth bubble which I think we inhabit, Sceppy your theory about the air pressure being unable to escape, and thus (partially thanks to ever increasing birth of new living creatures which grow, or, at the very least, ever increasing amount of molecules, but wow I'm getting too deep there) anyway thus the limit of movement encapsulating the entire air environment is what makes us able to say with confidence, "We live in a den, and the den space is limited, and thus room for air molecules is limited, and thus our body molecules are always bumping into air molecules, and that our body molecules are always losing, and being thus compressed tiny creatures, if we were to be in a low pressure environment all of the molecules which form our body would have more room to expand and sit more comfortably, with less of this whole pressing action. I wonder how much bigger we would get, would it be just a centimeter, or would we almost double in size, and if it happened gradually and to all molecules equally would then the fear of exploding certain areas be unfounded, would one simply gradually grow in a smooth way since each individual molecule would be growing at the same speed as its neighbors?)

(Obviously, I'm getting sidetracked there, and throughout this reply, by various thoughts unrelated to Sceppy's main point in the first post above, please forgive me Sceppy, these are some of the branches of thought which your main root denpressure idea brings to mind, ideas inspired partially by your words above, combined with a few good hits while relaxing, heh-heh)

If all we are indeed CONTAINED within an airtight container: an expansion limiting, denpressure creating, container (like for example, Sceppy's Ice-Barrier Dome-Shaped Roof, or even the ConcaveEarth's Glass-Barrier Ball-Shaped Onion-Layer, either way) if there is no easy way for the "air" molecules to "runaway" or "make way" for the co-existence of these new creatures which keep being born and growing larger WITHIN this massive body of jello called "air", then eventually, over time, I see pressure building up (pressure being defined as "Any amount MORE than a zillion molecules, trying to live within a limited space where only a zillion molecules can live comfortably without bumping up against each other") and thus this fight between molecules trying to co-exist in such a cramped too-small enclosure is what you Sceppy rightfully rationally call Denpressure.

The "Air Pressure" part is already admitted to exist by the consensus, what Sceppy is first bringing to the table is the Den part. The part which says, "We are living in an enclosed Den, and that ENCLOSEMENT factor is what causes the Pressure. If our den WASN'T enclosed, then there would be no pressure on our skin all the time, because molecules would continuously be moving outward away from each creating more and more space between molecules if space was really unlimited and infinite and if molecules were continuously expanding outward moving the frontier of mass further and further away from the source, as we are told according to the consensus theory. The very fact that pressure exists proves that we live within an enclosed den.

So I think that the following three theories agree that Limited Den Space would cause air pressure, which could be thus labeled "DenPressure": "The theory which posits, as Sceppy does, that our flat-earth or bowl-earth has a total air-space limitation created by an airtight dome cover" as well as "The theory which posits our Concave Earth is totally sealed off from the outside airtight" as well as "The theory which posits our Concave Earth is open to via tunnels other Concave Earths, thus even in that case a total air-space limitation would exist, simply on a grander scale."

Now here comes the part where I say, "I think that denpressure explains airpressure, but I still need to learn more about your current understanding Sceppy, for me to understand how this denpressure also explains the push we feel pushing us against the earth. Meaning, and I know that really need to just read more of your words with more of an open mind, because I still don't understand why this denpressure by itself wouldn't just have us all floating around in all parts of the sky, since the pressure of the jello we live in being equal in all directions.

What I mean is, I think there needs to be a push coming down from above, and I haven't found that push yet in your theory, but I think that perhaps I am not yet reading with a open enough mind to see it. I know, I have only begun to learn your theory, and you have only given one lesson today. I think I need to re-read it, and I'm going to. I'm just throwing out my initial thoughts after the first reading.

Basically, yes to denpressure being something we should admit exists, and yet I am currently not yet able to see how the denpressure itself causes the stuff at ground level to be supporting the stuff above it.

Meaning, if there is no pull from the ground in your theory (thank goodness, whew, so we agree on that) and if there is pressure all around us pushing in every direction, because we are trapped in a limited amount of den space, thus we simply don't have enough space in here, for all of these molecules to expand as much as they would like to (I agree with that too, if this is the definition of denpressure, pressure caused by a limited den space) then I still am wondering, in this dome theory, what is pushing us against the ground?

Meaning why do the lighter molecule collections move up towards the top of the dome? Why is the ground (which I still wanna know, is it flat in this view or is it bowl shape) the base point holding all of the molecules. Why are the heavy molecule collections at the bottom, like us humans, holding up all of the molecules above us? For example, in this theory, there's me, and then above me a line leading up to the top of the dome, with molecules of lighter and lighter (lesser and lesser dense) compositions, right? Heavy sinks down to the bottom of the water, and light floats up to the top of the water. I get that, but what I don't get, is why is the ground the bottom, and the top of the dome the top. What is outside this flat earth (or bowled earth) with a dome on top? Why isn't the whole thing reversed, with the glass dome being at the bottom, with everything settling down at the bottom of the glass dome, and light stuff floating up to...

Oh wait a second, I get it, maybe you could be pointing towards (consciously or unconsciously) the idea of this glass dome ceiling actually being, when zoomed out from a totally outside perspective, as actually being just the top half of a huge glass ball, a ball in which we are INSIDE, a ball in which all of the heavy stuff sinks to the bottom, and the light stuff goes up, and thus over time since the heaviest stuff goes down in this ball, the bottom half of the ball becomes filled with Earth, and Water, and then the top half of this ball is the lighter stuff, stuff which we call nitrogen and oxygen and helium.

Actually, whether the dome itself is just a half-ball dome, which would limit sky travel but still allow deep digging for an escape out the bottom (as I think you are saying Skeppy) or a full-ball, which would limit sky travel AND limit deep digging, no escape possible (and this full-ball is a remix I just thought of right now, a full-ball being half-way filled with dirt at the bottom, and half-way filled with air at the top) either way these both can be classified into the "Snowglobe" type of "mass, suspended within liquid, held within glass, with the heavier mass always settling at the bottom" ideas, and the problem I have with both of these ideas is: they both still imply that outside of all this, is there some base (with, ahem, gravity) which is being sat upon. Meaning, what is under the dome-earth's dirt? If we dig down, say, oh, a million miles, do we keep hitting ground? Or eventually is this half-ball snow-globe type den toy sitting on a desk, I can imagine, just as now I can imagine a full-ball snow-globe type den toy sitting on a desk. Either way, I can see the stuff settling to the bottom, and I can say, "Yeah, I can imagine that we two are in a similar situation, especially the part about not realizing that the air we are moving around within (and being inwardly pressed upon by) is just like the water which the stuff within the globe is moving around within (and being inwardly pressed upon by.) Air just like water, and we are trapped within an airtight container. No inifinte space as the consensus agreed to imagine. Much the opposite. Finite, limited space. A den. I can imagine all that, and it all makes sense. But still, why is there a BOTTOM in this theory?"

I just want to say, as an honest student totally open to learn, currently I want to take your DenPressure idea, and incorporate it into the Concave Earth 3D imagining I hold in my mind right now, because I like the Concave Earth idea seems to be able to handle the question of, "Why are we pressed against the ground?" because it answers, "There is a push which is being emitted from the center of the Concave Earth bubble we live in, a central source of emission, emitting either energy or molecules or something which pushes "relatively denser collections of molecules" (like humans) away, and only allowing "relatively sparser collections of molecules" (like helium in a blimp, or heated [dryer, less water-filled] air in a hot-air-balloon) to move up so strongly that this push from the center is unable to push us away."

So WH's Concave Earth idea has a push, coming from a central point, which explains gravity due to this centrally-sourced emitting point located right in the center of (and perhaps, when you think about it, the initial cause of in the first place) this bubble of space which we live in."

Meaning, in this concave earth theory which I learned from WH (when he first posted that "Gods of Eden" post about Hitler's "Swiss Cheese Rock" theory) at least we have a CENTER of gravity push, namely a push from the center of the concave earth, and that this push from the center thus presses equally on all things living inside the earth, with the same amount of pressure, towards the same direction, namely, pushing everything away from the center towards "that which is perfectly surrounding the center of the concave earth", that which we call, "the ground." We could just a s easily say that we are being pushed equally to the roof, and we are simply walking around like bats do on the roof. Main point is, I like the concave earth's center of gravity-push being a known spot.

The center of gravity-push being at the center of the sky, in the concave earth view, means that the push comes from DIRECTLY above each and every human's head, that each and every human is being pressed AWAY from the center of the sky, and since we are all as far away from the center as the ground under our feet allow us to be pushed, it all makes sense.

The flat theory, and the bowl theory, still leaves me wondering, "Well, OK, if that is true, then where is the center of pull, or where is the center of push, or basically, what is outside this den?"

In my current view, what is outside of this den is rock, forever rock. Rock without any inherent mass-based gravity pull. Rock with simply balls of air here and there, some balls of air that are NOT connected to any other balls, some balls of air that ARE connected to some other balls (and I thank you Sceppy for the DenPressure realization which would exist either way) and I am imagining within each of these balls an outward push from the center, an outward push which pushes all of the dense stuff away more easily than it pushes less dense stuff away. And I am imagining that over time, the size of each of these balls of air (defined by each air-ball's edge which we call "ground") increases slightly. Meaning the diameter of the air ball increases slowly over time, due to the constant push from the center.

So that's what I think we are totally surrounded by: rock. Rock. Infinite Rock. Interspersed with tiny bubbles of air where we live.

So, Sceppy, what do you think is directly above the ice dome, and what do you think is directly below the ground we walk on?

I am so interested in the shape of our den, and what lies outside of our den, so that is why I keep asking about that aspect of your theory.

Anyway, already in one lesson, I am agreeing with you that we live within a den, a limited den, which causes denpressure. I thank you for that, and for the "imagine we are in water" simple analogy, which helped open my mind up to the denpressure idea in the first place.

I'll bet that in your writings, in addition to trying to keep it simple, you are also hoping to get people to think for themselves, by leaving some things un-explained on purpose, to encourage the listener to actively begin thinking more and imaging more and opening oneself up to more and more possibilities, and letting go to the degree possible previous incorrect imaginings, to maybe even stop thinking for a moment to allow all the reality vibrations to enter the brain more smoothly.

Anyway, I like your style Sceppy, I wanna say that because it is true and because I'll bet you've had a bunch of consensus reguritators repeatedly rudely refusing to even think about what you are saying with an open mind.

I just want you to know, you finally have a spot where you know WH and everyone here are seriously interested in non-convex ideas: there is much respect here for ALL non-convex thinkers. Let's put all of our jigsaw pieces on the table, to see the blue bits more easily. :-)
Concave Proof
Auto-Pilot: 10,000m altitude. Then sea-level curves UP thus 9,999m altitude. So the nose must correct UP...
10,000m altitude again. Then sea-level curves UP thus 9,999m altitude again. So the nose must correct UP again...

User avatar

Topic author
sceppy
Aware
Aware
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:14 pm
Location: England

Re: My Earth hypothesis.

Postby sceppy » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:30 pm

Observer: I've read what you've wrote and I see you have interesting takes on stuff. However, I haven't quite explained much about my theory and you have taken denpressure to mean pressure inside a den. I'll have to fully explain how and why it all works.

In a way the dome does act as a final pressure holder but not in the same lines as people thinking of some kind of compressed air tank or bubble, or whatever. This is where people have to try and take their minds away from the pressure we live under at sea level whilst trying to understand the overall pressure in the entire Earth.

You see, denpressure is atmospheric pressure upon any dense object/matter, or simply density of something under pressure of the atmosphere = denpressure.
There is no push down by the atmosphere. This is where people tend to get confused and is why they always mention floating up and back to gravity and such.

There's a hell of a lot to take in but my Earth looks like a manual orange squeezer with an ice dome over the top of it. This means that the centre is raised (think of this as the orange squeezer) which falls into a large concave bowl (juice catcher) and then raises back up to form a rim. Cover that with a dome and there's your basic Earth.

In the centre is the life giving energy source that we see as reflections of reflections but the major energy source is seen as one bright reflective sun.

I'll go into all that later but the fuel needed to keep that energy going is created by the oceans around it, as in hydrogen/helium, etc feed by expansion or by what we term as electrolysis.
We are feeding some kind of super carbon glowing spinning energy that is like a magnet falling through a tube as it loses energy and gains it by rising up that tube, except it's got to be imagined in terms of thinking about the centre of Earth's working's of which I'm obviously not physically (and never will be) in touch with, which is why people need to try and think from my terms of my hypothesis and understand that it's not set in stone as a correct answer.

Anyway, moving on.
Because this sun energy needs feeding, it creates a vortex as it is being fed by atmospheric pressure and ocean molecule rising naturally feeding into the centre. Think of it like water running down your sink plug hole and think of the hole in the centre as the water runs down the outer, but picture this as hydrogen/helium, etc feed.

Now surely this amount of energy would wipe us out quickly if it was swallowed like this, people would think. The answer is no it wouldn't.
For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction and nothing in created or destroyed. It's basically Earth's vacuum cleaner or air conditioner to our perception.

For every action there is a counteraction. When you burn wood you're not destroying the wood, you are merely placing that wood back into the elements that actually made it in the first place.
The fire you see from burning wood is the release of matter that is expanding, including all the trapped hydrogen inside that matter that is released so fast to expand, it creates a super friction against all other matter. You see that as fire but it is just expanded matter forcing through denser matter in innumerable stages.

This also needs explaining in depth and will probably be gobbledygook to a lot of people. Understandable I suppose. It's about trying to see simplicity through the hive of so called scientific reasoning with a lot of it. Stuff that ends up as a chalk board of equations that literally end up explaining nothing in reality but looks clever and complicated for those who adhere to what it's meant to portray.

Anyway back to denpressure.
Imagine the Earth dome being built. It starts from a sort of build up of water which fills the bowl but also has many dense solids placed around the bowl. We know this as land.
The energy expands matter and also forces matter up from the ground as well as expanding matter into denser forms by vibration and frequencies which I won't go into.
All matter pushes UP and in doing so it pushes through matter already above, like a small amount of building atmosphere to start.
The more matter/molecules that are pushed up, the more dense the atmosphere becomes because it's creating a stacking effect.
This stacking effect is always a push on push or a push on resistance to that push.

To make this easier to grasp, think of yourself underground as an energy. Above you is a tube. You push a sponge ball into that tube with ease. You see that sponge ball as a fully expanded sponge ball because it's on its own with no pressure above it and only it's own mass against the ground which is very little to create anything like a pressure.
Now imagine shoving another ball under that one and pushing that one up. You have now created a push on resistance. Your bottom ball pushes on the ball above and also resists that ball's own mass which is still little.

Keep pushing balls against another and another and eventually you realise that your ball's are compressing, smaller and smaller against the ground but fully expanded at the top of the pile.
Now imagine this happening over the entire Earth but from the central point of energy being that raised orange squeezer.

Picture glue coming out of a central spout and cascading down to form a build up. You create a dome, right and once that spewing stops, it creates a skin that keeps the glue inside from going any further unless more energy is applied to stretch it or it condenses a little inside to shrink it.
This is what's happening in Earth.. It's a breathing cell. Or to make it less life like. It's a dome that expands and contracts depending on the movement of energy.

Ok, so we're now under atmospheric compression but we don't feel it. I mean we can wave our arms about and even drop pieces of paper that sort of flutter down to the ground carefully. Bugs don't just squash and we can defeat the pressure upon us by flying and such.
Why?
The reason is simple. It's because we are equalised to it, like everything else is. The only time we change that equalisation is by using energy, which we do all the time,, like every other energetic piece of matter.
The simple act of breathing is you using energy to rob the atmosphere to fill your lungs. Remember that the atmosphere wants it back and will crush you to get it back...but why?

You see, because you robbed the air, you had to EXPAND your chest in order to take that air in, but by doing so, you filled the space of air outside by that expansion, so it's always action/reaction in equal doses.
You can't get a reaction unless you first use energy to create an action. I know it seems easy for people who know this but it's important to marry it up with what I'm saying about denpressure.

People ask why they don't float if the air is pushing all ways. This is where people get lost and is why I have to use water as an analogy because it is basically just a more dense version of atmosphere.
To understand this water analogy you have to understand that we need to equalise pressure, so we need to become water people, breathing water and not air. Hopefully it will be grasped.

Ok, imagine we breathe water. We are in a dome filled water Earth. We take a breath of water and that water fills our lungs. We have basically drank that water and expanded our bodies against the external water because we had to fill the void left from taking that water.
We are under all that water and it is forcing our bodies to the floor because we do not have any expanded matter to create buoyancy to float in it.
We are the brick on the water bed. Throw us up and we fall back down because we have no expanded matter. Give us a bag of air and we now become buoyant but why?
You see, by taking in air we cause the water pressure to try and equalise with it and it will try to crush that air out of you but in doing so, it does the buoyancy act. It's squeezes you like trying to squeeze wet soap on the bath. You float in essence.

We do it by expanding air against the dense air and it does the same thing.
This is why we can only float if we expand against dense atmosphere.
I'll try more analogies of people don't quite pick it up. I don't expect it to be understood in full as my mindset is much different from each other persons'.

I'll leave it at this for now and see if people grasp it or at least question it in any way, which I will answer as best I can. Just bear in mind that I am not saying my hypothesis is better than or is the right one. It's merely my own musings if you like.
When people hurt you over and over, think of them like sandpaper. They may scratch and hurt you a bit, but in the end, you end up polished and they end up useless.

User avatar

Observer
Hoax destroyer
Hoax destroyer
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: My Earth hypothesis.

Postby Observer » Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:10 am

Good Guy poster Sceppy:

Someone specifically requests a thread about Sceppy's view,
and then that same someone (me) replies to the first post,
without pondering deeply enough what Sceppy himself wrote,
without sticking to the actual points raised in lesson one,
instead going off on a long ramble about non-Sceppy theories,
and even misguessing the etymology of the word denpressure (oops.)

And yet, even though Observer's not listening enough was a little rude,
the good guy poster Sceppy, without taking offense, very politely replies:

sceppy wrote:I've read what you've wrote and I see you have interesting takes on stuff. However, I haven't quite explained much about my theory and you have taken denpressure to mean pressure inside a den. I'll have to fully explain how and why it all works.


And then, without skipping a beat, good guy poster Sceppy then kindly does exactly that, laying out more details of his beautiful original theory, just as hoped for.

I am definitely going to re-read with a fresh mind all you have posted, and think about it deeply, keeping my thinking as simple as possible to not project my current beliefs onto it so much, because really the goal of this thread is NOT to debate, the goal of this thread is to LEARN about what is Sceppy's view.

I know that the bottom line disagreement is going to be, "You think Antarctica is spread out as the edge, the barrier wall around the bowl [orange juicer], but I think the Southern Cross and the Southern Flight Times somehow disproves that" BUT (and this is the big but) I do NOT want to go there into that area of discussion now, because I love that fact that, even though that we're going to disagree on that one point, I would MUCH RATHER enjoy hearing all of the OTHER wonderful true points which you are helping me see.

For example, already you helped me to realize that the substance sitting above the water, which we call air, is a substance just like water, and thus, that air sitting on top of the water is like oil sitting on top of vinegar, and thus regardless of the shape of our environment, I will from now on have that "air is like water" understanding in my big picture, thank you.

And, already you helped me become more confident that we live in an airtight container which causes airpressure (although I was wrong about den meaning a room, haha, the fact remains) I'm going to remember that it IS the inability of air to escape this airtight container which causes airpressure. Thanks for teaching me that.

And, other interesting facts are also learned, things which you are using to teach other things, for example I never thought of a fire starting up as being the expansion of molecules causing super-friction, but wow, from now on that is how I will remind myself to understand a fire starting up. Wow.

So I definitely do NOT want to shut down the conversation by focusing on the one or two points in which our current thinking differs, I would much rather openly listen to ALL of your understandings, I would like to look openly at ALL of the puzzle pieces which you have collected over your years in this lifetime.

So please forgive me for having spoken more than having listened. I now look forward to listening more, hopefully with new posts each day or each week being shared by you Sceppy.

Actually, instead of wasting space on this valuable thread with MY long-winded musings, I should start up my own thread, haha. So should everyone! Think about it, fellow readers, shouldn't everyone on a community forum have their own thread somewhere where their OWN view of everything can be expounded upon. Meaning, in addition to the threads which we all play together on, like a community park picnic, which should also have our own little living rooms (self-started threads) where folks can visit our home thread at anytime to easily come to see each of our individual, respective, personal, current, big picture views of the reality we live in. Each of us trying to do our best to see clearly, to understand clearly, and to explain clearly. Love it! :-)
Concave Proof
Auto-Pilot: 10,000m altitude. Then sea-level curves UP thus 9,999m altitude. So the nose must correct UP...
10,000m altitude again. Then sea-level curves UP thus 9,999m altitude again. So the nose must correct UP again...

User avatar

Topic author
sceppy
Aware
Aware
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:14 pm
Location: England

Re: My Earth hypothesis.

Postby sceppy » Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:08 am

Observer wrote:I know that the bottom line disagreement is going to be, "You think Antarctica is spread out as the edge, the barrier wall around the bowl [orange juicer], but I think the Southern Cross and the Southern Flight Times somehow disproves that" BUT (and this is the big but) I do NOT want to go there into that area of discussion now, because I love that fact that, even though that we're going to disagree on that one point, I would MUCH RATHER enjoy hearing all of the OTHER wonderful true points which you are helping me see.
Actually I don't believe Antarctica is the outer rim. I actually don't believe we can reach the outer rim. You see, the outer rim would naturally be ice but it would be so inhospitable that any ship even sailing to it (I believe) would literally have to turn back - or even a sub due to the atmosphere being devoid of life giving air and lacking the means of the sun reflection creating any living environment for anything, basically.
Think of the air being like a thick ice soup and the ocean full of ice, then as you go out further, the ice soup atmosphere would literally be turning into a huge ice foundation of an unknown thickness. The foundation of the dome.

I believe that Antarctica is around the other half of the centre.
Think of it like people living on one side of a huge hill we call the north. Then another mass of people living on the other side we shall call the south.
Then obviously people living to east and west of it and spreading outwards a little.
This is why these places that are thought of as the top and bottom of a globe are at elevation. It's because they literally do elevate up a gradient of that orange squeezer but we have to remember to think in thousands and thousands of miles with this and not just a simple steep gradient like a hump. lol

This is why the moon looks upside down on one half and the right way up on another, etc.
The reality of a compass pointing north and south, is merely up and down, with no such think as east of west, except to us as land reference, because east and west are simply following a circle.

Observer wrote:For example, already you helped me to realize that the substance sitting above the water, which we call air, is a substance just like water, and thus, that air sitting on top of the water is like oil sitting on top of vinegar, and thus regardless of the shape of our environment, I will from now on have that "air is like water" understanding in my big picture, thank you.
Have you ever looked at fish in water and thought, " how in the hell do they drink water." Just like we have air and water; they will take their heavier water from their environment.
To think there's heavy water. Sounds silly when you think we have oceans and lakes that don't show anything like that.
The thing is, we have an atmosphere at sea level where we live that is heavy compared to what's higher up.
It makes you wonder about certain things. I'll expand on this in another topic.

Observer wrote:And, already you helped me become more confident that we live in an airtight container which causes air pressure (although I was wrong about den meaning a room, haha, the fact remains) I'm going to remember that it IS the inability of air to escape this airtight container which causes air pressure. Thanks for teaching me that.
People often ask me who built the dome. I keep telling them that Earth did. It's a living cell that creates it naturally against a true vacuum, because the Earth is made up of super dense to super expanded (last of the elements) matter and the last of the matter being fully expanded against nothing, meaning they simply go dormant. They freeze, like glass against the vacuum of space but under that glass will be changes from ice to liquid as variations of pressure changes due to what we understand as temperature, which is just the change of compressed matter being agitated against each other by expansion.

It's like rubbing your hands together and heat building. This is what your body does in every sense of cell movement and so does the Earth.
The cell movement that agitates slowest, is more rigid. Like our bones. Anyway I'm slipping off track a little.
If you evacuate air from a chamber at sea level with a glass of water inside, you see that water look like it boils. In a way it is boiling but it isn't boiling HOT. It's boiling COLD.
The reason it boils to your vision is because all the molecules are starting to expand to fill the void being created by the pump not allowing atmospheric pressure to force its way inside and it allows all matter to expand at all times to always fill a low pressure.
Take away atmospheric pressure from your body and your body will expand to fill that void, until it basically goes bang and even then all your cells start to expand. Basically you get churned back into the environment in the form you started off as - as in, dust, Earth and water.



Observer wrote:And, other interesting facts are also learned, things which you are using to teach other things, for example I never thought of a fire starting up as being the expansion of molecules causing super-friction, but wow, from now on that is how I will remind myself to understand a fire starting up. Wow.
Not many people think of fire as anything other than what it looks like. It just takes a little thought into why things do burn and it goes all the way back to the very essence of making fire by rubbing sticks against rock, or whatever. Basically friction burning at frequencies and pressures enough to create a glow.
A glow means you create a molecule expansion of various elements within that molecule of matter against other molecules denser or less dense depending.
Once you create that reaction of expanded matter, it's like you're releasing billions of balloons against millions of other denser balloons, etc and in doing so you create a massive surface friction of matter which glows to your vision and in fact burns like a fire to whatever height the friction lasts by energy applied.
All we are and all Earth is, is a cell of glowing heat. We are nothing more than any other creature. Just vibrations at frequencies that creates what we see happening. Simplicity in itself but we never accept it because most people like to look for the absolute complicated way, which to me is deliberate in many ways to stop the meek and suppressed human from gaining a reality.

Observer wrote:So I definitely do NOT want to shut down the conversation by focusing on the one or two points in which our current thinking differs, I would much rather openly listen to ALL of your understandings, I would like to look openly at ALL of the puzzle pieces which you have collected over your years in this lifetime.
I prefer to be questioned in any way because it helps me get into it more easily. I don't expect you to agree and I would expect you to ask me to explain more as it doesn't sit well with you or whoever. It needs to be questioned because by doing this we have a chance of either gaining an insight or adding to it or even chipping away at some of it that maybe doesn't quite make sense.
It's all good and I'm happy for it to be dug at.

Observer wrote:So please forgive me for having spoken more than having listened. I now look forward to listening more, hopefully with new posts each day or each week being shared by you Sceppy.
I'll certainly keep adding but keep inputting so I know you either get it or need more clarification on things. This way you'll maybe gain at least the full picture to ponder over, then decide if it's a potential in your mind. As anyone else is free to dig in.

Observer wrote:Actually, instead of wasting space on this valuable thread with MY long-winded musings, I should start up my own thread, haha. So should everyone! Think about it, fellow readers, shouldn't everyone on a community forum have their own thread somewhere where their OWN view of everything can be expounded upon. Meaning, in addition to the threads which we all play together on, like a community park picnic, which should also have our own little living rooms (self-started threads) where folks can visit our home thread at anytime to easily come to see each of our individual, respective, personal, current, big picture views of the reality we live in. Each of us trying to do our best to see clearly, to understand clearly, and to explain clearly. Love it! :-)
It would be good to see different people's takes. I already know WH's ideas which are good; so added extras from people can maybe gain a bigger picture. Who knows?...we can but try and fail rather than not try at all.
Let's try and succeed in our own way for our own peace of mind if we can, regardless of barriers set up to derail by people who would rather ridicule than take the time to look deeper.

The FES is full of those type.
When people hurt you over and over, think of them like sandpaper. They may scratch and hurt you a bit, but in the end, you end up polished and they end up useless.

User avatar

Observer
Hoax destroyer
Hoax destroyer
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: My Earth hypothesis.

Postby Observer » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:10 am

Dear my own Higher Self, please allow this body/brain vehicle which my spirit is currently residing in, to begin manifesting to a higher degree than I have up until now, some of these rare-diamond-like, true-kind-helpful, life-motto-worthy, forum-signature-worthy, Vibrations of Humbleness:

sceppy wrote:It's hard to get your head around, I know this but I urge people to really give it some thought and feel free to ask me to explain more if you get stuck.

I know I've went simple but sometimes I believe it's better for people to actually grasp much better than some supposed indoctrinated scientist adding equations into it all and basically rendering it gobbledygook.

I understand your theory but mine is quite different in many ways.

No offence to your thought's mind. These are just my thoughts.

Just my opinion.

Naturally it looks like I'm going against the science of it all so I don't expect anyone to adhere to anything I say.

All I say is, think about it and see if you can glean anything from what I mention, as I do with things that people say that makes sense to me.

We're all different though and don't all see eye to eye, which is good in a sense because it can give many different takes to chew over in the hope of matching up a model that starts to look feasible.

It's very hard for people to go along with what I'm saying, or even take any of it seriously, I have no power over people with that.

All I can do is explain my view in as simple a way as possible to make it easier to grasp and piece together so people can actually understand how this view marries up with reality,

People can actually understand how this view marries up with reality by thinking about it and allowing themselves to discard nonsensical magical forces attributed to so called genius people.

Many people have a head full of equations that people think make sense and don't realise that they only make sense because the theory that's used has had the equations made for it.

That's fine by me.

Again, just my opinion and musing.

That is my wholehearted belief.

I don't profess to know all the answers but I'm not and never will buy into what the mainstream science world of space tries to feed me, because it's clear nonsense.

I'm easy going with it and do understand that I've swayed a little off topic.

Anyway I'm happy with whatever you choose.

What do you reckon?

It's simply that we get baffled by their bullshit when we pick holes in their science, because the clap trap comes out so that we literally can't make head nor tail of it and yet you'll find that some people will jump in and shout, " ahhh yes, it's a varium of quantum targazines dropping (insert equations for nonsense) the egooliat temperature to the gonnalith mezzimutt toggle."

Clap trap equations are what we have to contend with when things cannot be proved or get seriously questioned.

The mainstream media and good old sci-fi films', as well as documentaries, narrated by so called science geniuses, have done an excellent job in brainwashing people into following exactly what they want us to and we tend to revert to much of it as we argue the points; simply accepting some to be true, when there is no direct proof of any of it where space and such is concerned.

The trouble is, people have been so brainwashed with equations that appear to fit a supposed reality, they merely discard the simplicity of life for the complicated pretence of it.

I'll put plenty of input in, in another topic, with my thoughts.

I'm glad when someone takes notice, regardless of whether they agree or not.

It's everyone's prerogative to decide if something is worth noting or not and I would be silly if I thought what I say is correct whilst everything else is a maybe.

If a person wants to tell me that my thoughts are way off the mark or even stupid, then that's all fair enough.

All I hope for are people who might take the time to think deeply about what I'm saying to get what I'm saying.

I realise it's easier for me to say what I think than it is for people to decipher what I'm getting at.

It's why I try to use the simplest form possible, which can look childish in many ways and will be immediately discarded by those who deal in the complicated ways of explanations

Those who deal in complicated ways of explanations usually dicard simple explanations because they are too proud to dare to contemplate the actual simplicity of a lot of this stuff.

People who attempt to understand are the ones that can maybe edge closer to piecing bits together, and that's what counts.

It all ties in with how I perceive the Earth to be.

Bear in mind that this is my own thoughts and is backed up with little to no physical evidence or equations.

It is not meant to be an argument against any other alternative Earth thought, as each individual has their own thoughts and reasons of how and why they choose their own system.

First of all I think any rational person who has enough common sense and logic and who cares to delve into a deeper thought about Earth will know that the spinning globe on a 23.5 degree axis in a near vacuum of space is not only preposterous but borders on the absolute ultimate fantasy magic.

The consensus explanation of gravity always wins debates because it's backed by people who are paid to feed it and adhere to it, who are also afforded high scientific status in order to parrot this stuff to University students or school children, etc on official lines.

Hard to argue against the consensus explanation when so many people are brainwashed into acceptance and will defend it unconditionally because they feel they're qualified to do so, on the back of a few equations that somehow proves a force that is or isn't a force and cannot be understood as anything other than simply "it is."

I've went on a bit but I done it for good reason: it's to give people the opportunity to at least look at alternatives to why Earth works and what we are actually living on or in.

My way of explaining allows a person who wants to spend some time having an alternative take on what they were forced to think and to put those thoughts to the back of their minds to give them a fair chance of grasping a more potentially sane reality.

I will definitely elaborate on this.

It's long and maybe tedious for some and will take time.

Just try and grasp it as I'm going along and if not, please ask if you're not sure.

This way I can try all angles to explain it enough to be grasped, hopefully.

I've read what you've wrote and I see you have interesting takes on stuff.

I haven't quite explained much about my theory.

I'll have to fully explain how and why it all works.

It's got to be imagined in terms of thinking about the centre of Earth's workings of which I'm obviously not physically (and never will be) in touch with.

We are not physically (and never will be) in touch with the centre of Earth's workings, which is why people need to try and think from my terms of my hypothesis and understand that it's not set in stone as a correct answer.

Understanding this view is about trying to see simplicity through the hive of so called scientific reasoning with a lot of it.

A chalk board of equations literally end up explaining nothing in reality but looks clever and complicated for those who adhere to what it's meant to portray.

This is what's happening in Earth... It's a breathing cell.

I'll try more analogies of people don't quite pick it up.

I don't expect it to be understood in full as my mindset is much different from each other persons'.

I'll leave it at this for now and see if people grasp it or at least question it in any way, which I will answer as best I can.

Just bear in mind that I am not saying my hypothesis is better than or is the right one. It's merely my own musings if you like.

It makes one wonder about certain things.

I'll expand on this in another topic.

Earth built the dome. It's a living cell that creates itself naturally.

All we are and all Earth is, is a cell of glowing heat. Just vibrations at frequencies that creates what we see happening.

Simplicity in itself but we never accept it because most people like to look for the absolute complicated way, which to me is deliberate in many ways to stop the meek and suppressed human from gaining a reality.

I prefer to be questioned in any way because questioning helps me get into it more easily.

I don't expect one to agree and I would expect one to ask me to explain more when it doesn't sit well with one.

This view needs to be questioned because by doing this we have a chance of either gaining an insight or adding to it or even chipping away at some of it that maybe doesn't quite make sense. It's all good and I'm happy for it to be dug at.

I'll certainly keep adding but keep inputting so I know one either gets it or needs more clarification on things.

This way one'll maybe gain at least the full picture to ponder over, then decide if it's a potential in one's mind.

Anyone is free to dig in.

It would be good to see different people's takes.

I already know WH's ideas which are good; so added extras from people can maybe gain a bigger picture.

Who knows?...we can but try and fail rather than not try at all.

Let's try and succeed in our own way for our own peace of mind if we can, regardless of barriers set up to derail by people who would rather ridicule than take the time to look deeper.
Concave Proof
Auto-Pilot: 10,000m altitude. Then sea-level curves UP thus 9,999m altitude. So the nose must correct UP...
10,000m altitude again. Then sea-level curves UP thus 9,999m altitude again. So the nose must correct UP again...


HologramT
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: My Earth hypothesis.

Postby HologramT » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:12 pm

Great discussion.

What about electromagnetic fields, what about have objects spinning at high rates of velocity in these fields. I'm no expert on these topics but for arguments sake if the earth was a 'sphere' what affects would an electromagnetic field have on the earth? Could it create an artificial environment, so to speak, as would a dome?

Could these forces contain an atmosphere and water to a spinning object?

Here's an interesting article I've found on gravity. It was initially to determine the standard deviation of Gravity but it ended up concluding Gravity is a push not a pull.

Not sure on the validity of this article but interesting test to preform and one I wish I could test.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm


Return to “Alternative theories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest