It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Earth Is Flat, Proof In Model - [FARCE]

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodcircle
So they fly higher, then - Whats the problem? They still end up floating off into space after falling off.
That does not answer my question, if the other planets (not the moon) also 'orbit' the 'flat sun', how is this possible, since this 'flat sun' is only big enough to illuminate part of the 'flat earth' at any given time?
We don't see 'flat mars' or 'flat venus', for example, floating close enough to orbit such a small 'flat sun', and given that the sun is flat and facing us, surely there would be times when we'd bump into them.


If you somehow flew over the edge of the earth, you would probably "fall" off the earth at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 If you try this, please send someone a text or something; as far as I know noone has made it over the wall. Please let us know what's on the otherside.
The sun, moon and planets are not neccessarily flat. I'm not sure where you get this idea. The other astronomical bodies are much smaller than you presume them. How could we bump into the sun or moon if they are all accelerating upward at 9.8m/s^2?




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
_Del_

First off, someone on the edge of this "flat earth" would indeed undergo a time dilation, but one so slight in comparison to a US city that such an enormous time dilation could not occur. Also, I believe I know where Cpt. Monty is going with his previous comment, do you or do you not concede that based on estimates made by numerous scientists the universe is between 12 and 16 billion years old?


The faster the disc spins, the faster the outside rim spins. people near the middle would hardly be moving at all in relation.

I have no idea how old the universe is. It wouldn't bother me to think of it as "old" or "young." I don't know how reliable the data from people who can't figure out the shape of the earth is concerning the universe's age.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Earthscum
By that theory, the earth would be shaped like a bowl in order to not be standing at an angle or feeling like everything is downhill from you. Tie a washer to a string, and tie the other end of the string to a small hanging scale, and swing it around over your head. Measure the reading, then use a longer piece of string and do the same thing, and at the same approximate RPM. The weight increases. Gradeschool stuff.

Actually, it wobbles. That accounts for the tides.


Uhhh no. The moon accounts for the tides, but good try.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by IchiNiSan
reply to post by _Del_
 


no the mapis only to show a few direct flight routes, you can check out the flight duration byyourself. And answer and explain my questions why it take shorter to Argentina with a direct flight from Australia than to UK.


A combination of time dilation and planes travelling faster could account for this under flat earth theory.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
If the earth is a circular disk and not a sphere,then why do we have a horizon? Why do snipers need to take the Coriolis effect into their adjustments? When standing on the beach why does the tallest point of a ship always come into view before the rest of it? When the sun is setting and the disk has already passed the horizon,then why does the sunlight still reach the upper atmosphere illuminate the clouds,or tall mountains?


Why do we have a horizon? Do you expect to see for ever? Air diffracts light. The rest of your question was already answered in a previous post



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Well, since you keep discrediting the people who have seen the curve of the Earth, I'll have to see what I can do.
You talk about how all sattilites are fake, as well as the ISS since according to your model they aren't possible.
All well and good, except on a clear night you can actually see the reflection of the sun off of the sattilites, and the ISS. It's hard to keep them in view with a telescope due to their speed, but it is possible, so they can be made out to manmade constructs. The fact that they can be continuosly obsevred by any group of watchers in contact with each other, keeping the schedule that the sattilites stick to, would show they do not land or change paths.
This isn't a theory so much as a lack of comprehension. Similar to how people can't comprehend time more than a few hundred years, some people also can't comprehendsize. Sure, it doesn't seem round, that's because its so incredibly large.


You can certainly see the reflection of the sun off of something yes. Why do you assume it is something in perpetual free fall around a round earth? That certainly seems silly at face value. Isn't a highflying aircraft just as likely?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by YarlanZey
I have to admit that I did enjoy reading this.

If there is a wall of ice at the edge of the earth disk, what happens when this all melts due to climate change? Is there anything beyond this to keep all the melted ice from pouring over the side?

If the earth is flat, then why is this a secret and who does it benefit to make us believe that it is round (apart from raking in money for fake space flights and probes, which are really CGI)?


In flat earth theory, the loss of the first ice wall would mean little. The second ice wall is nearly as tall as the atmosphere. I suspect that global warming is tied to the heat island effect and little impact would be made. Assuming a large scale atmospheric heat up the ice would melt from the top, letting the top and hottest part of the atmosphere spill over. The removal of this layer is an example of evaporative cooling thereby self regulating the temperature of the earth.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
So got any pictures of the bottom of the Earth? what does that look like?

Noone can say with certainty what is on the bottom. Most people think just rock. Some people think four elephants standing on the back of a turtle.



Edit to add: OH and before I forget, the reason we don't perceive the earth curcature is as follows: Imagine being in a gigantic circular tunnel, much like the Large Hadron Colider, it will appear the tunnel is straight, but it's only because the curve is inperceivable.

That is certainly possible if the object is big enough. Why start with the assumption of a round earth? Wouldn't occam's razor suggest the earth IS in fact flat?



Satelites have come down and they have been observed, explain to me why meteors come down if space travel is impossible, meteors travel through space, what about comets?

[edit on 4/20/2008 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]


Satellites come down because if you shoot a rocket up, eventually it will run out of fuel and slow. The earth and the solar system continue to accelerate upward at 9.8m/s^2. Meteors and comets pass through space all the time in paths of their own, not neccesarily bounded to the path of the solar system. Please note observations suggest not all objects in space are on the same path. I'm not sure why you would assume that.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
You don't know how wrong your premis is!

The earth is not flat, it is cylindrical.

All Mercator maps are based upon a cylinder. You can verify this for yourself. I defy you to prove this incorrect!
.


Why would you assume your mercator projection more accurate than the flat earth map? There is only one magnetic pole. It is north. But you are correct the earth is cylindrical. We live on the flat face on the "top" (or "bottom" if you really wanted to be unconventional)



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


First, as I said, the sattilites and the ISS can be seen with the telescope, but they can only be seen by the naked eye as spots of light. Take a good telescope and keep it in focus and you will actually be able to see them. A high flying jet would need fuel, need to land.

And, actually, a orbiting artificial sattilite makes sense to me. Ever played with magnets? Take two magnets, don't have to be equal in size, though it works best if they are spherical.
However you want to do it, make them move close together, but at a speed, with one moving a bit slower.
For this experiment, magnetism will simulate gravity. As one of the magnets gets closer, one will start to spin around the other, before getting pulled in. While the sattilites and the ISS don't have sufficient mass to keep orbit, they instead move very quickly around the planet, useing boosters to make course corrctions.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

forgive me if this has been covered;

what would a cross section of your earth look like ?

how does your earth rotate around the sun ? if it is always facing the sun, there would be no darkness anywhere on earth, and if it does rotate like a coin spinning, the entire earth would be in darkness/light at the same time


This has been answered, but because it is a frequent question we will summarize again.

The cross section of the cylindrical earth would look much like the cross section of a spherical earth.
The moon and sun circle the earths magnetic north pole. Earth does not rotate around the sun.
i42.photobucket.com...

The sun and moon are not to scale on the map above, but are larger to facilitate learning.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hackbart
Before i start wasting my time with the most illogical and crude nonsense i've ever come across, providing you hundreds of flaws in your simple minded theory, i have a question for you:

How can earth cast a shadow on the moon, if it's a flat disc with the sun and moon hovering above it?


The earth never casts a shadow on the moon. Unless the finger of God or something similarly bright were to appear behind the cylindrical earth. Seems pretty unlikely.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jesuscarwash
explain the 6 months of darkness/daytime by the poles then.


and dusk and dawn?
[edit on 21-4-2008 by jesuscarwash]


img.photobucket.com...

A smaller circle towards the middle leaves the outer disc un-illuminated. While a larger circle brightens the outside of the disc, but leaves the area surrounding magnetic north pole dim.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by _Del_
 


First, as I said, the sattilites and the ISS can be seen with the telescope, but they can only be seen by the naked eye as spots of light. Take a good telescope and keep it in focus and you will actually be able to see them. A high flying jet would need fuel, need to land.


The aircraft could be solar powered or blimp-like. Or they could take shifts. It's not impossible.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Thanks for ignoring everything I said. Proof logic trumps conspiracy every time.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple
Thanks for ignoring everything I said. Proof logic trumps conspiracy every time.


I'm sorry, there are alot of posts. What did I ignore? Thanks...



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
To Del and the Logician, you guys are awesome, thanks for defending the flat Earth theory here at ATS. Most people can't even entertain such new/old ideas. If people can't wrap their heads around flat Earth, let's try the Heliocentric model.


"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has NO physical significance." –Astronomer/Cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle


Did you know astronomers still haven’t found the center or the edge of the universe? Since we don’t know where the center or the edge of the universe is, we cannot accurately make statements like “the planets revolve around the Earth” or “the planets revolve around the Sun.” In fact, all celestial bodies are revolving around each other and where you measure from is completely relative. Therefore the modern heliocentric theory and the ancient geocentric theory are equally valid. One could even argue that the geocentric model is a more natural, relevant, and accurate representation for Earth-dwellers to use. If we lived on the Sun, a heliocentric model of planetary motion is certainly the most natural, relevant and accurate from that perspective. But living here on Earth, an Earth-centered model is more appropriate. Astologers to this day still use the geocentric model and assume its validity.


“Nicholas Copernicus displaced Mother Earth from the center of the universe and replaced her with Father Sun.” -Leonard Schlain, “The Alphabet Versus the Goddess”



“This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire scheme of astronomy!” -Martin Luther


Why do the Illuminati love the Sun symbol? They’ve propagated a religion based on personifying it as the Son. They’ve changed our calendars from the old Moon based 13 month to Sun based 12 month. They’ve also promoted Galileo and Copernicus’ idea that the Sun, not the Earth is the central celestial sphere in the cosmos. Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and many others wrote extensive mathematical and astronomical treatises describing the motion of celestial spheres around the Earth. Modern astronomers to this day have not discovered the center of the universe nor its boundary. Therefore the assumption of our Sun being the center of ANYTHING at all, is just as true or false as the Geocentric theory of Earth being the center.

Think about this: During an eclipse the Moon and the Sun are shown to be exactly the same size as viewed from the Earth. We are told that the Sun is this really huge sphere very far away and the Moon is much smaller and closer.

What are the odds that, as seen from our perspective on Earth, the Moon and Sun would appear to be EXACTLY the same size? 1,000,000,000 to 1 maybe?

Does it feel like you're on a huge sphere spinning around at tens of thousands of miles per hour? Why do you suppose NASA spends so much money on children's programs? They have Space Camp which every kid dreams of going to and learns how the Earth is round and the Moon has been conquered. If NASA isn't a propaganda mechanism for a round Earth, why such a focus in our schools? Remember, the first director of NASA (Von Braun) was a NAZI imported via CIA Operation Paperclip and almost every astronaut who's been in outer space was a high degree Mason.

Werner von Braun never admitted the Moon landing hoax, but just before he died in an interview with Carol Rosin, he said that in order to sustain the military-industrial complex, first they had created the “Cold War” threat. Once that veil was lifted, a false “terrorist” threat would be created and propagated to the public. Once that was seen through they would create a false asteroid threat to be dealt with in an “Armageddon” military-industrial manner. Then their last card is to stage a fake alien invasion using their classified anti-gravity “UFO” technology.


“Think about it. If you wanted an excuse to globally centralize all government, finance, military, police and other institutions, you would need a threat to the planet as a whole. What better way than to kid the people they are being invaded from space? You would have a global problem, a global demand that ‘Something must be done’ and an opportunity to offer a global solution: a world government and army to meet this ‘threat’. That is the plan we are now being prepared for.” -David Icke, “The Biggest Secret” (483)



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Wow, there are so many ignorant things in the post above. I don't even know where to begin. Sad. Really sad.




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Well Del, thanks for answering our question, you seem patient enough to explain it but I don't think I will be able to perscribe to it unless I actually fly up to space.

In your theory, how did we sent spaceships to mars? or is that all a farce along with the moon landing etc?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I'm so glad so many of you have chosen to celebrate 420 with me. Party
responsibly my friends!!!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join