IS THE WORLD STILL FLAT?

Imagine taking an exam, at one of our modern universities, where one of the questions asked is whether the Earth is flat or round.  And for this question you are given two choices; (A), the Earth is round or (B), the Earth is flat, where (B) was the correct answer.

On top of this you are asked to explain your answer in respect to the physical structure of the Earth, and should you choose to explain (A) you would automatically received a failing grade.

Of course this sounds outrageous, but no more outrageous than to be asked whether the speed of light is a constant or a variable, or to be asked  to determine the equatorial radius of the Earth in meters.

The radius of the Earth is currently explained in terms of what I refer to as flat plane geometry, which involves straight and curved lines intersecting at critical points, where the dimensions are denoted by values corresponding to linear terms of reference, such as Meters and Kilometers etc.

Considering that the Earth is not flat, the speed of light is not constant and the Earth is dynamically structured, it would seem outrageous to consider defining the equatorial radius of the Earth to equal an exact number of meters.

So, the thinking goes like this; we will allow for the Earth to be described as round, because we can no longer hide this fact, but we still insist that the Earth can be accurately defined in terms of metric measure just as the value of (c) can be defined in terms of an exact metric value remaining relative to the linear duration of a single second.

Oh my, what have we done?

On the basis of this rationalization we can just as easily say that the Earth is flat, as it would appear that most of the graduates from this modern university don’t know the difference anyway.

Is this true?  It would appear so, as none of them have questioned the legitimacy of the exercise or protested the absurdity of such claims.

The real question is this; how can the Earth be dynamically structured and still be defined in terms of metric measure, in that the metric measures correspond to static terms?

The Earth cannot be defined in terms of metric measure, as the dynamic nature of the Earth’s structure invalidates the static nature of the terms applied.

It is physically impossible to accurately measure the internal portion of the Earth in a manner corresponding to a metric value, as there is no absolute center from which to determine the radius.

But, someone will say that the measure of the Earth’s radius can be approximated, in that the approximate value is extremely close to the true value.

Sorry, it’s not even close.  As time accelerates to the center of field the radius of the Earth is continuously increasing relative to the rate of expansion at the non-absolute perimeter of Universe, which is an accelerative rate of expansion.

This is a situation like the one where you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  You either keep your cake or you eat it, but once you eat your cake you have no more cake to eat.

So, we say the world is round and not flat, but we will still allow the dimensions to correspond to a flat surface, despite the fact that we have already determined that the Earth is not flat.

But, I can measure the metric dimensions of a box, so why not the Earth?

The dimensions of the box remain relative to the condition of field, whereby the measurements allow for a convenient standard of value, but they do not themselves represent the dynamics of field.  In other words, the dimensions of the box correspond to a purely abstract idea and serve no purpose in attempting to analyze the dynamics of field.

We have attempted to bore into the surface of the Earth and found the task a very real challenge, as the energy of field increases with depth.  This means that the structural dynamics increase in magnitude with depth, whereby the boring of the rock becomes increasingly difficult with depth.
At a certain depth underground it becomes impossible to bore any deeper, as the structural strength of the field affecting the dynamic structure of the rock exceeds that of the boring tool.

It is not that the rock gets harder or more brittle with depth, but that it gets stronger, as the strength of the field increases to the center of field.

Even within the Earth’s central core where the physical matter is in the form of a gaseous mixture rarefied to the center of field in the form of hydrogen, the strength of the field is of an immense magnitude.

This of course is very fortunate, as it allows the structure of the Earth to remain fairly stable for extended periods of time without any fear of the Earth being shattered like a fine china cup.

It also explains the shallow impact craters on the Moon, as the underlying dynamics of the Moon’s crust are of a greater magnitude than those of the Earth’s crust.

But should the dynamic energy of a planetary body be reduced to a certain critical point, the impact of a single meteor could easily shatter the planetary body in a manner similar to a fine china cup being smashed to bits by the impact of a sledgehammer.

The non-linear acceleration of field focused to the center of field imparts an accelerative increase to the value of time, which in turn alters the value of space and motion remaining relative to the system of reference.

Therefore, we might visualize a row of metric rules extending from the surface of the Earth to the center of the Earth’s core, where each meter rule becomes proportionally shorter toward the core.  And those meter rules closest to the center of the core are so short that it is quite impossible to distinguish one from the other even with the aid of a magnifying glass.

Yet, on the basis of a dynamic field we want to believe that it should still be possible for each one meter rule to remain equal in length to every other one meter rule regardless of any changes occurring in respect to the condition of field.

Oh boy, are we in trouble.
It would seem that there must be some hidden purpose in maintaining this outdated concept, which might be somewhat similar to the situation where a flat Earth prevented most people from venturing too far from home.

Does the linearization of time, space and motion not prevent us from realizing the accessibility of space, as we are convinced that the stars are too far removed from our geographical location to allow for interstellar transport?  And if we cannot travel to the stars, would it not be equally impossible for people to travel from the stars?

Therefore it would seem reasonable to laugh at the suggestion that our Earth might be visited by travelers from other worlds.  Such a thing deserves to be laughed at, as everyone knows that the constancy of light speed prevents such a thing from being seriously considered as a rational idea.

The trick is to allow people to believe that the knowledge of the world is an open book, whereby they will not even consider the possibility of the available knowledge being contrived for the purpose of control.  And in order for such a trick to work you must also convince the majority of the people that it would be impossible to manipulate or hide scientific knowledge.

Nonetheless, scientific knowledge is manipulated and contrived for the purpose of control.

It is the responsibility of every scientist to question the validity of an unreasonable assumption of fact.  But be that as it may, it is the orderly appearance of discord that compels so many to believe a lie.

For the whole story go to www.gravitycontrol.org

© 2005 by David Barclay and Gravity Control