43/ Flat Earth
I admit I haven’t studied this topic much and I didn’t plan to devote any special attention to it. But when in the previous article I dealt with targeted censorship, it occurred to me that this very topic is perfectly suited to explaining another hidden type of censorship — to explaining ostracism, in other words the psychological-social exclusion of a person (or group of people) from the collective. That is, for the purpose of deliberate mockery.
The main opinion-forming information stream, instead of explaining and using explanatory counter-arguments against the presented theses, is only capable of ridicule and discrediting in the information struggle. It relies on the fact that by undermining authority the topic will lose significance and attention. Mockery is a primitive but effective tool: when someone becomes the target of ridicule, most people automatically distance themselves from them so as not to be ranked among the “lunatics” themselves. In this way the topic does not need to be refuted — it is enough to belittle it.
What are they trying to hide from us with this topic, to conceal? At first glance the topic is simple and the main idea (flat Earth) is easily refutable. So why doesn’t the mainstream use counter-arguments against the measured data of the “flat-earthers”?
The data may not fit
From my point of view, arguing about the shape is only a surface matter of the whole problem. The result that the “flat-earthers” are trying to achieve — that our Earth is a flat disc or something similar — is wrong from beginning to end. To realize this it is enough to imagine how energy spreads in space: in all directions. The most natural shape that energy creates in the world is therefore a sphere. Whether it is an atom or the core of a star or planet. This shape can be deformed by the action of other forces, other energies or other cores, so the resulting solid shape need not be a perfect sphere — it may be an ellipsoid, and with the action of multiple cores even a lumpy potato — but it is certainly not a flat disc. We can create a flat disc artificially; it does not form naturally in the universe. All bodies that we observe with telescopes and that have an orbit (have a functional core or cores) have a “spherical shape”.
Okay, if I turned my fantasy on full blast and imagined that “someone” artificially created for us a “spaceship” moving through the universe in the shape of a flat disc, I ask: why would we have to be in orbit, and why precisely a flat disc? There are better and more natural shapes for moving through space. I find it very hard to develop this idea, and I prefer to stick to the natural development of our Earth and the natural development of life on it — a development that takes place not only in our parts but in the universe as such.
But how to argue against the observed experiences of the “flat-earthers”? In short: their observations have found that the horizon we see and observe with a telescope does not match the theoretical horizon derived from the diameter of our Earth. According to scientists the diameter of the Earth is approximately 12,742 kilometres, so the Earth should be a little more curved than what the “flat-earthers” actually observe, and that even when atmospheric refraction is included in the measurements and calculations. I’ll stop here, because I really haven’t paid them much attention.
Theory of the expanding Earth
Personally I think that all the discrepancies between physical observations and the fixed scientific data can be explained by the theory of the “expanding Earth”. Simply: our Earth is growing. The Earth’s core constantly creates energy, matter, gases and particles and deposits them into its envelope. The Earth’s envelope expands and “inflates” like a balloon. It is held together by the gravitational force of the core. So the explanation why to some of us the Earth seems flat is that it is simply enormous — larger than the published scientific data. That is why the mismatch with the observations.
Let us prevent the spread of panic
And this is precisely the reason why attention is diverted from the topic. After all, there are more important things in the world that need to be dealt with — whether politics or power relations between countries and between nations living on an expanding balloon flying through the universe on a trajectory determined by our growing Sun. Instead of people uniting, instead of humanity prevailing among us in the understanding of our essence, and instead of us together creating means capable of flying through space and manoeuvring as needed, we lull ourselves by solving our disputes and everyday soap operas.
I do not know whether the conditions for life on our planet will remain favourable for a week, a year, a thousand years or a million years. The fact is, however, that they will not remain favourable forever. The sooner we as a society realize this threat, the sooner together we will find a solution to our situation.
Conclusion
There is no need to mock anyone, and least of all those who make their own observations. We need to communicate with each other, reflect, and above all nothing should be concealed.
Humanity faces great challenges. One of the greatest is that we must take our fate into our own hands, and for our movement through space in the universe we must gain manoeuvring capability. In today’s age of satellites a great deal is known about the shape, size and properties of our Earth. If Elon Musk says that the shares of space companies will rise by 2000% within a few years, he is right.
However, our first and even greater challenge is that we must start cooperating with each other and stop competing across our entire Earth. Only by understanding our common essence and unity are we capable of this. Only in this way will we achieve our COMMON SECURITY.
Juraj Tušš
