Confusi

So, friction?

This one has bugged me for years but I never asked before; I noticed the water freezing on a small lake from the leeward side over towards the wind exposed side. What is responsible for the rippling water freezing last?

Matter, the dream that stuff is made of

Ok, sorry for the crap analogy, it was very off the cuff and not terribly well thought out. Ii was simply conveyng that the body is merely a machine, albeit a biological machine. The mind is not within the body, it is universal energy. When you dream, the mind is capable of doing whatever it wants without the physical restrictions. Mediums and psychics can access information about things they cannot see taste touch or hear. (yes, they certainly can, I have seen and heard this many times when trickery was definitely ruled out!) It also implies that matter is made out of energy. IF matter is made out of energy, it is not material either! Matter is made of atoms which are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. ..each of wich can be further broken down further into quarks, charms etc, all made from a tiny amount of matter and a large amount of space ( I hear and agree with ten oz's post, not exactly "empty space") re- the proofs of the mind being in the brain, please show them, I realise this does not count as proof but I am certainly not alone in this, neither is it strictly a "new age", or "conspiracy" theory, the reason I am using New Sceintist's publication, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221-300-existence-am-i-a-hologram/

This only brings a "chicken and egg" scenario though! Permit me an analogy, The brain is the computer, controls the body. The mind is the internet, infinite information streaming into it. If the computer breaks down, no information. If it was a breakdown of just the sound and video cards that broke down, we may think that there is no information in the computer, but there would be, we are just unable to access it! Further to this, as the physicists know, matter is created by mostly empty space, it is in fact an illusion, created by the focus of mind. @Phi, I wasn't lashing out, I was just saying we both have as much proof as the other, it is, and can only ever be, a matter of opinion, my opinion is no more ridiculous than yours

Phy, you must see that you have no evidence for your "unsupported fantasies" either, why is your opinion more valid than mine.

Professor Lipton, Heartmath institue, "the stomach sends more signals to the brain than the brain sends to the stomach" "The stomach lining is made from the same material as the brain" Consiousness is infinite, unfettered and unaffected by space and time as these are PRODUCTS OF THE MIND! No, can you? You are missing the point, the mind is not part of the body, the body is a hologram created by the mind! "it is your mind that creates this world" Buddah

looking for the mind in the brain is like looking into your television for the actors

May I suggest something for you to ponder, " condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Albert Einstein This video should suit you, the men wear white coats so they must be very intelligent! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TRQpJrYmU

Studiot, you have answered (some of) my questions poltiltely, respectfully and interestingly and I'm grateful you took the time to respond to someone who would be regarded as a fool by others. You haven't actually asked me any questions (that I thought you wanted an answer to) You explained about a level line curving, and this made pefect sense, and that pipelines were laid irrespective of curvature because of flexibility. You also mentioned refraction and geodesic surveying, both of which I looked into and now understand in a vague/layman fashion. Refraction I was going to look at more closely, but to be honest, I'm not sure how to work with the figures I have, perhaps you would be so kind; Bardsey should be below the horizon by 680 feet, refraction (as I have read it from limited sources) can account for a twelth of the height difference (56.6 feet?) but this still doesn't help! You pointed out the difference between a flat and spinning earth, stating as evidence observation of the planets (from Greek, meaning wanderers), but this didn't quite work for me. We know that the stars are in exactly the same constellations and patterns today that they were in when the Sumerians first began cataloging, drawing and describing. If we were not only spinning, but moving at mega speeds through the cosmos, with everything moving away from us with expansion, surely, there would have been a noticeable difference by now!? (slightly different subject so left it out back then) I have taken on board what you and others hav said, and agree there are proofs of a spherical, rotating earth, and by the same token, if one thing is wrong, then the whole theory is wrong, two wrong theories will not satisfy this enquring mind! You have surely given me a lot of food for thought, I only hope I have done the same for you. Apart for a few less welcoming remarks, I have actually felt welcome here, you at least didn't boot me! @Phi I don't really think that was fair, I showed my reasoning, I didn't plump for any conspiracy theory and the official story is as much conspiracy theory as any other. I should have said, that emphasis was not mine, nor was the video, I just found it whilst eating lunch. A valid point, @Migl, the altitude cannot be determined, but the curvature would be visible and noticeable at much lower altitudes anyway, and it was certainly "very high" judging by the clouds anyway. If you search for Felix Baumgartner's space jump video, you can see a flat horizon from inside the gondala, but as he steps out, the curvature becomes visible, but this is only the effect of a wide angle go pro lense, as can be confirmed when he tips upside down and the curvature appears in the opposite direction. I could start posting high altitude videos here all day but it would be better if each of you searched yourselves. I have to say, I'm not trying to get anyone to believe me I just want to point out that maybe everything is not as cut and dried as we may have been told. A lot of "proof" of ball earth is untestable to the common man, you must take someones word for it! (enter the Santa Clause effect)

(I may regret bringing this up!) After 9/11, there were many conspiracy theoriesabout what actually went down that day. Jet fuel, pancake collapse, zero point energy, Israeli secret agents, nuclear weapons, directed frequency etc ad nauseum (@ Phi for all, got your last post as I was typing, this is the point of this post!) I couldn't make sense of it, there were too many opinions, most of them with some plausible answers, but, somehow, the official narrative didn't seem to pan out as well as a lot of the "conspiracy theories" There are thousands of well educated architects, engineers and scientists who say it is impossible that shock waves, burning jet fuel and box cutters could bring the towers down, it has never happened before in any fire or collision or even a controlled demolition! I thought long and hard and came up with a slightly different angle! Someone explain how WTC7 collapsed, and I will believe everything they say about the whole saga. A newscaster actually said, live on air "we have just heard that they are going to pull WTC7, it was not struck by a plane, but the vibrations running through the ground have caused so much structural damage that the building is unsafe".... Seriously!, how much BS is that!? Here is the example I touched on earlier, if ONE thing is wrong, totally, irreconcilably wrong, then something is dreadfully amiss and needs investigation, we need "another model that consistently explains ALL the evidence.", but there isn't one!

? If you look at the video at 8.57, there has been a straight line superimposed along the flat horizon, I wouldn't like to guess how long that horizon is, but it is certainly flat! If the earth was spherical (or anything like spherical), you would planely see the curvature at this altitude, in fact, it would be obvious from a much lower altitude. Notice how the horizon stays level with the line of sight? On a sphere, the horizon would quickly fall away on all sides and you would have to physically look down to see it. I can't understand what you mean here Strange, are you deliberately not seeing this? IF what we are seeing here is a straight horizon, (and there are many videos showing a straight and level horizon at 30+miles elevation), it proves that there is something wrong with the "facts" of the matter as we know them! It is hard to accept that what you have been told since you was a child is wrong, I didn't believe it myself and I totally concede that some of Eric Dubay's " proofs" are totally incorrect and unfounded at best, BS at worst, but there is insurmountable evidence that there is something wrong, somewhere, somehow! I have learned a lot from this discussion, and whether you believe it or not, I do respect that some of you are trained and experienced scientists and have worked in the varied disciplines and, as I have said time and again, I don't wish to p**s anyone off but I think it's time you stop jumping to the conclusion that I am an idiot, just trying to upset the apple cart, and start looking at ( or at least accepting)the evidence against as well as for. I spend as much time trying to disprove my theories as I do trying to prove them, I am still sitting on the fence but I doubt I will ever find the truth and be 100% sure, there is simply too much evidence contrary to a spherical earth! (And don't think I have forgotten the question about how I can see Bardsey 30 odd miles away )

As I'm sure you guys would trust NASA, I wonder what you make of this film by them that appears to show a jet flying at 317,000 feet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7BhcufC-5Y

Would that angle be measured as the discrepancy from plumb at the theodolite? Was this theory first physically observed on the earth or mathematically?

lol An island 638 feet below the horizon! Sorry, my lager, not your rum learning that you are drinking Navy Rum gives this image a more graven feeling