Flat Earth? Round Earth?

Maybe that is the wrong question.

“The three-dimensional world of ordinary experience––the universe filled with galaxies, stars, planets, houses, boulders, and people––is a hologram, an image of reality coded on a distant two-dimensional (2D) surface.”—Leonard Susskind, Professor of Theoretical Physics, Stanford University(1)

A holographic Universe means information that makes up what we perceive as a 3D reality is stored on a 2D surface, including time. This means, essentially, everything you see and experience is an illusion.

“Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions, and your perception of time, in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field,” says Professor Kostas Skenderis from the University of Southampton.

The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a 3D image is encoded in a 2D surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire Universe is encoded.” Another way of simplifying this is through 3D films. Although not an example of a hologram, 3D films create the illusion of 3D objects from a flat 2D screen. The difference in our 3D Universe is that we can touch objects and the ‘projection’ is ‘real’, from our perspective (2) and with our limited senses.

All the experiments we know that work to show the earth as a sphere are tools that exist inside the projection. The real world is non-dimensional and only appears to be 3d.

Crazy Horse went into the world where there are the spirits (Wakan Tanka) of all things. That is the real world behind this one” This one is a projection of that one. “This one is like a shadow of that one”—and we are entangled to it.

•Wakan Tanka is the Lakota name for the “Great Mystery“. Christian missionaries attempted to similarize the American Indian “Wakan Tanka”, translating it as “Great Spirit” to integrate the Christian god, which it was not. It is the “Great Mystery”—not a entity at all.

Though I don’t really believe earth is a hologram, but may be like a hologram. Many religious traditions have similar accounts.

“It’s the substance that casts all those shadows to our world. The circles here are copies of the spheres there. The squares here are copies of the cubes there. The triangles here are copies of the pyramids there.”—Randy Alcorn

“Consciousness is the screen on which all the pictures come and go (projection) The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows on it”—Sri Ramana Maharishi

Speaking of the priestly duties and edifice —Hebrews 8:5 “They serve as copy and a shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

“You do not leave one place
for another. You are always
stationary. The scenes go
past you. Even from the
ordinary point of view you
sit in your cabin and the ship
sails but you do not move.
We see a picture of a man
running several miles and
rushing towards us but the
screen does not move. It is
the picture that moves on
and away.” —Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharishi

“Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky”—Iroquois Creation Myth

Considering what energies comprise matter, analyzing them or the composition of a hologram makes no difference under the microscope.


Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

43 thoughts on “Flat Earth? Round Earth?”

  1. Some of the beliefs you cite don’t suggest a 2-D reality we perceive as 3-D, but rather a multidimensional reality that’s ‘flattened’ into 3-D to comply with our sensory apparatus and cognitive models. If I had to plug for one or the other I’d go with the ‘flattened consensus reality’ theories rather than a ‘holographic consensus reality’.

    But you left out the inside-out hollow earth hypothesis Cyrus Reed Teed proposed in 1869. In the 1980s Mostafa A Abdelkader developed a completely consistent geometry to explain how it works and why we perceive it incorrectly, which Martin Gardner confirmed was “a consistent physics that cannot be falsified by any conceivable observation or experiment”.

    And I think that gets to the nub of it.

    It’s very easy to propose theories of a specific reality which is very different to our perceptions of it and which may even explain apparent anomalies in consensus reality. But unless they can be tested and potentially falsified they must jostle with the multitude of other purely speculative models of reality – including Christian fundamentalism.

    Einstein’s model of space-time was a huge departure from what everyone else had always assumed about reality, but the difference was it was potentially falsifiable, giving it the status of a scientific theory. There have been many observations and experiments since that could have disproved his theories of relativity, but they haven’t. This gives it the status of a robust scientific theory.

    If someone can come up with a detailed model of how a 2-D universe could be perceived as a 3-D one which would enable some form of testing that could potentially prove it false it would be a scientific theory. But unless that happens it’s merely idle speculation.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I suppose that’s why I suggested that round or flat were the wrong questions. Our senses also interpret the world as a physical object and in a purely physicalist view I would probably agree with you—when someone can finally determine it’s actually made of something physical. Even that is fleeting.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting science, philosophy, religion or Popperian philosophy of science are likely paths towards the ‘truth’ about ‘reality’. Merely that unstructured speculation from metaphors such as holograms ultimately lead nowhere and is suitable for little more than filling the silence at boring dinner parties.

        I think you can challenge half-arsed assumptions about the ultimate nature of reality with other such assumptions, and that may be useful for getting dogmatists off your case. But I don’t think it’s valid or helpful to try to substitute one self-referential, circular ontology with another.

        Both Hoffman and Kant made compelling cases that we can’t perceive or deduce the ultimate nature of reality, but they weren’t so silly as to contradict themselves by then proposing substitute ontologies of their own devising.

        Perhaps some questions don’t have answers.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. You want me to choose between round earth and flat Earth after you convinced me there is no substance to anything we see — that matter does not exist because there are spaces between the subatomic particles that make up those things we see as solids? Jim, if you are going to be my science guru you are going to have to show me the sound of one hand clapping or explain the difference between a duck!
    I mean, at least now when I say I believe in spirit, which is immatererial, I know I am on the right path, and not the left one.
    Go right, young man, go right, and you will never be on the wrong path. Unless you are talking politics where right is wrong and left is right.
    Oh, woe is me that I was born into such a confusing world that cannot exist, but yet I do. So where the hell am I, Jim? Where – the – hell – am – I – ?

    Liked by 5 people

    1. If you believe in spirit and that it is immaterial, then you are already the apparition. Zoom in a bit and what is the difference between you and that?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I can speak only for me, maka. I am a spirit inside a physical body where I can communicate with other bodies that contain spirits that belong to the same bigger spirit my spirit belongs to.
        To try to explain: there is only one life in this whole cosmos, but it cannot communicate with itself while whole. So it splits itself into little bits that it sends into physical bodies to which the bits give life. Each bit has d8fferent experiences from each other, and through communication between the bits life learns what it means to be alive. This is a form of reincarnation, but not of the egos and minds, but of only the spirit bits.


          1. No I cannot demonstrate it, but I have lived it and returned to tell the tale. I don’t expect many to believe me, nor do I want any to believe me outright. But for those willing to consider it, maybe it can help them broaden their epiritual horizons, which can never be a bad thing.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. I collect and make true color 3D holograms, and for years — before it became popular with scientists — we were saying that the cosmos is largely holographic. Leonard Susskind, one of the famous scientists who have been advocating the holographic universe, when asked, ‘Which is more real, the 2D version or the 3D version?’… said, “Take your pick, it doesn’t matter.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Maybe I’m missing the point. Won’t be my first time. But I can observe Jupiter with a tracking telescope @ 200x, or 300x on a great night. 300x is a rare night and my scopes view rivals that of a multi stacked photo. I can see the features rotate with the planet, I can see the red spot come around the corner. I can see Jupiter’s moons moving with time. I have observed many a shadow transit where one of Jupiters moons casts its shadow on Jupiter, and watch it move across the face of the planet. The entire scene a 3d model in space I can show you.

    So I’m pretty much stuck in a 3d world no matter what spin gets put on it. That a sphere resembles a 2d object when you see it in a pic, does not mean the logical conclusion is that it is 2d.

    Now what ya’ll do is up to you. Call me a Luddite if you want. I can take it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Presumably your telescope is monocular rather than binocular. So you actually are seeing a 2D image of Jupiter. The interpretation of it as a 3D object is entirely a figment of your mind. And as the hollow face illusion demonstrates, minds a very easy to fool about that sort of thing.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There exists a device known as a binoviewer, that does allow the use of both eyes when used with a monocular telescope. I don’t have one, but I hear great things of them.

        I went to your link, I see an obvious 2d form giving a 3d representation. As it spins it becomes quite obvious.

        My Jupiter scenario is an actual 3d model whether I see it with one eye or two. You can see the interactions with the moons, moving around the sphere of the planet. If that’s not 3d, what is? My actual view may be 2d. But it shows the 3d action going on.

        So does one of these:



        1. There exists a device known as a binoviewer, that does allow the use of both eyes when used with a monocular telescope.

          But there’s still only one tube, right?
          So it’s the same image in both eyes.

          Binocular 3d vision relies on receiving two slightly different 2d images in each eye that the brain and mind process into a single 3d image.

          Another type of illusion that exploits that is autostereograms. The illusion they produce can be so profound it can lead people to imagine they see a symbol of peace in US flags.


          1. Technically the binoviewer is a beam splitter, the two beams while identical, sent to both eyes. Rendering a very noticable and profound 3d effect, once the brain merges the images. There is some loss of resolution with them when used with smaller aperture scopes, but I have a couple of big guns for telescopes where the loss of resolution won’t be as much an issue. I got to get myself a binoviewer, one of these days.

            Must be something wrong with my brain, as much has been said lol, but I cannot see anything in that image other than a bunch of garbled flags.

            Side note on our perspective of reality, our eyes produce an image that is upside down, and reversed. Our brains send us an image of reality that has been turned right side up and reversed again. It’s a wonder we get through the day…

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Huh. I finally got to the 3D view of the image (by Method 7), but it was still the same “picture.” Is that supposed to change to something else? (Sidenote: it took several seconds for my eyes to feel normal again!)


            2. The US flag tiling is the same all over, but the 3D image is of a peace symbol that appears suspended in front of a flat background. It’s probably easier to see if you click on the image and expand the size a bit.

              If you check out the examples on the website I link to in my previous comment you’ll find hundreds of stereograms that are easier to see than the example above.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. That looks like a lot of damn work! Do I somehow appear to be that sort of guy? 😉

              Best I can get right now is a vague outline of a circle, and I’m not real sure on that.

              I’ve been a rock hunter since I found my first “arrowhead” years ago. I’ve found many in the course of my diving work, and still walk riverbanks and creeks regularly. I’ve noticed as my eyes have gotten older it takes them longer to refocus. When you have been walking a creek bed looking at nothing but rock everywhere, then look up for a farther out perspective, it takes my now older eyes some time to readjust.

              You can feel that readjustment. And that’s what it feels like when I’m staring into the void of those damn flags.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. HA! A bit easier for who??? I don’t think my eyes and brain are on the same wavelength as nothing happens … and now my eyes are getting tired (maybe that’s good?). Anyway, it’s an interesting experiment. Maybe later.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Best I take some LSD or something, because I still see only stones or bricksor something. I used to see things when I was younger, but my brain must have calcified. Maybe its the lens implants after cararact surgery. But whilek I can no longer see the other side of life, I can still think it. I am more spirit than body, in a manner of speaking.


          2. I must ve blind, all I see are white-dotted blue sgapes on a red and white background. To saythey are American flags is beyond the capacity of my brain. If there is a peace symbol in there anywhere it is very well hidden. Neither can my partner see one.


            1. I did finally get the 3-D image … but it DOES takes time and concentration. The link that cabrogal provided is easier than the flags … and the “instruction” link also helps. Quite an experience.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Yeah, I love optical illusions. Reminds me of the gap between reality and what my senses tell me.

              When a primary school teacher taught us to find our ‘blind spots’ (the part of the visual field corresponding to where the optic nerve pierces the retina) I was blown away and spent ages staring at that bit of paper.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Another day I might persist, but today is not that day. It might even be that I am colour-sensitive, i am not colour blind, but I am missing something that distinguishex certain volours from others.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. How does one do that?

              Download the image. Load it into a graphics editor (I used Microsoft Paint, but Photoshop, Figma, Gimp or any others will work in a similar way). Use the tool to convert to monochrome. (In Paint, you just save it as a monochrome BMP image).

              Alternately most viewers allow you to adjust RGB to B&W or you can just change the settings on your monitor either manually with the hardware or via your graphics driver software.


  5. Round earth.

    I will give you this… somewhere in the equation of 3D reference points, we are 2D but not from any reference point we are designed to observe.

    We are forced to accept a 3D reality until we have a different type of sense or perception.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: