The best argument, Robert, I have seen for a flat earth was an image of the sun rays spreading through the clouds toward earth. The idea is that had the sun been really far away, the rays would not be seen in a spreading way, but falling straight toward earth.

But that is optical illusion based on the eye of the beholder. The individual is not the earth, so the individual is not in the same position of experiencing the sun rays. Had we been the earth, we would have seen the sun rays falling straight at ourselves.

I live in California and I am originally from Europe, so when I do facetime with folks back there, I sit in the sun and they are sitting in the dark, lights on in their homes. I've known them all my life. When the sun is out for me, the sun is so to speak not out for them (time difference is 9 hours).

Egyptian Eratosthenes calculated more than 2300 years ago the circumference of the earth and he did an amazingly good job. He had heard about a place 800 kilometers away from his hometown where during the summer solstice at noontime the shadows disappear because the sun is literally right above.

He measured the shadow of a pole in his own hometown, and with the difference of zero shadow 800 kilometers away and the little bit of shadow in his hometown at the exact same moment, he figured out the circumference of our planet.

I do recognize a sober mind in you, Robert, but I think the sober mind of Eratosthenes is greater than your or my minds combined.

Lastly, I've been to the southern hemisphere only once, but it was a fantastic experience to see the sun in the northern sky. The shadow patterns of the buildings were different from the shadows in the northern hemisphere. Fantastic. Also, the moon's face is distinct because the perspective from the viewer is different. Where in the north, I view the moon from 8 o'clock (I hope you get this), and at the equator at 6 o'clock, in the southern hemisphere I was looking at the same moon from 4 o'clock.

Not the moon had changed; I had changed my position and it showed me that the earth is indeed a globe because the moon’s up was now in a different position. Last but not least, I experienced the earth being a globe physically, too.

If we are on a boat for hours and hours, or on a train for hours and hours and then we get back on solid grounds, there are moments when the body recreates the experienced motions. For instance, when laying down in bed right after the trip, one can still feel the reverberations experienced on the boat or the train for say twenty seconds at a time or longer. I hope you have had that experience, too. I know other people have. It is an impression of short duration that can occur several times during the next hours.

When in Argentina, the first two days I would get these 'physical memories' and low and behold it was not what I expected. I was laying in bed, resting from the trip, and all of a sudden I felt like I was hanging above the bed at an angle, face down.

This was fantastic. I relived my old position from the northern hemisphere for about twenty seconds, and it told me that I was not in the same position on the planet anymore. Of course this is anecdotal, but I do not need convincing the earth is a globe. I know for 100% because I have experienced it, and I have seen it. When I returned to California, I experienced it every now and then again, though slightly shorter (for about a day).

My advice it to travel the globe and experience the globe firsthand yourself, Robert.

---

While I agree with you that the Big Bang theory makes swooping arguments that in reality may or may not be true, I'd like to address something else first.

If someone says something that cannot be known or that cannot be true, then that does not mean that everything else being said is automatically incorrect, too.

I once talked to someone about non-mainstream perspectives, and I mentioned being fine with critical minds, but that I demand the critical mind is then critical about the non-mainstream perspective as well.

I read in your words that you have a sober mind, Robert, which means we can talk. It means we can agree on what the facts are, and we know what theories surrounding these facts are. We can then also agree that the Big Bang theory contains parts that are truly not floating within a normal atmosphere on earth any more.

Here is the common setup for using the term theory:

Theory = Fact(s) + Hypothesis.

The more facts inside a theory, the stronger the theory. The fewer facts, the less strong the theory.

As soon as we have a hypothesis, we have a theory. They are like steering wheel and the car. They come in sets. Last image I want to share on this is a balloon. A theory is a balloon, the hypothesis the helium inside the balloon, and the facts are the child holding the strings of the balloon in his or her hand, feet on the ground.

But... you may have a point about the background radiation. I tend to not discuss this with scientists because they have a hard enough time following me as it is. But I’ll discuss that later with you.

—

In the Big Whisper model, matter tells us two story lines. First, matter likes to unite. Examples are earth and the sun where we have single entities of matter, each declared as a mass. With solar system and Milky Way, we can see that these masses like to congregate in some kind of communal behavior. But, next, we have the universal level where we actually see how there is a lot of discrepancy in behavior. With the red-shift information, we can read the direction of stars, moving away from us, fast or even faster. As such, there is solid information that there is non-confirmation in action going on at the universal level.

That means we have two conflicting actions going on at the same time: matter coming together or hanging out together at the 'local' level, and matter not-coming together, not-hanging out together at the largest level.

That means that separation and coming together are both true at the same time. And that can only be true if they are not happening at the same time in the same place. The largest of levels is behaving distinctly different from the other smaller levels.

Let me give you an example from our own lives. If you go grocery shopping once a week and have a list for that chore, then at the end of the year you'll have 52 lists. We can then make a new list of these 52 lists, the yearly list, which is then list #53.

Let's add an item to all 53 lists. If we add an item to the weekly list, the list gets longer, but we do not need to go to the store an additional time. We just get the extra item while we are shopping.

But if we add an item to the yearly list, then we have to make a separate trip, even if there is just one food product on that added list.

What is above is not what is below, and logic has to adjust itself to that new level. In the middle ages, folks thought that what was above was also what was below. We don’t think that way anymore.

Same with crowd behavior. While each individual would behave x, y, or z by him or herself, put people together and there is something possible that is not associated with each individual, but rather with the collective of people. The example that comes to mind is politics where one group of people all thinking the same political way end up thinking they are seeing the entire truth truthfully. They confirm their own thoughts to themselves because there is no critical voice in the crowd showing any different perspectives. Basically, they are one-eye blind because the other eye is not open. Of course, the decisions they end up making is then not based on the truth, but only on their perceived truth — a big mistake.

I'd like to hear back from you, Robert, before discussing the larger picture further about the background radiation alternative. I want to see if you can agree that logic is not singular, but rather must adjust itself to the different levels we can apply it to. That the local truth (the earth is flat) and the larger truth (separation occurring at the universal level) need not be one and the same kind of logic.