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: 22
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Someone said that this is obviously a joke and that anyone who takes this thread seriously is a nut. Well, there are some nutty ideas proffered at this site. That said, I usually chuckle to myself at some of the nuttier stuff said here...This, HOWEVER, should not be tolerated, even as entertainment. This thread is an example of the idiocy that permeates modern culture. And Del, are you for real? I can't tell if you're the straight man to the OP's wacky personality, or if you ARE the OP, or if you--God help you--really support this "hypothesis."




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Please read my first post in this thread. First page. This should clear up any misunderstandings we may have.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Wouldn't Captain James Cook have noticed, when he circumnavigated Antarctica is the 1770s (long before NASA was founded), that his trip took a lot longer than it should have?



[edit on 21-4-2008 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Tuning Spork
 


I loved your depiction. I even laughed- out loud. A star for the boat. Please note that Cooke would have traveled below the tip of South America. You can see a small concave section of the ice. It is theorized that friction between the air and the ice wall caused his compass to malfunction and he returned via the same route, confused by the readings. Weather is notoriously poor near Antarctica and navigation by more traditional (sexton) would be impossible to rely on. Further much of the sea around the ice pack is simply littered with ice bergs making the area very disorienting as there are no real landmarks to be found. Also note that Cooke died under somewhat suspicious circumstances on the return from an expedition. Captain Clerke who took over then died before the trip back as well. It is suspected the Bavarian Map Makers Guild had planted an agent among the crew to ensure news of the ice wall would not spread. Notably, Cook's sailing master (later captain) Bligh was nearly killed in a mutiny event. He was later deposed as Govenor in New South Wales. He appears to have been sufficiently intimidated into silence about the ice wall.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Oh my goodness, this thread is still up and running? DOes the op still get his nice ats points for all this even though its a farce? sure hope not. this thing needs to be closed.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Please read my first post in this thread. First page. This should clear up any misunderstandings we may have.


Checked it. Check. And though you said that you were not an ADVOCATE of this theory, neither did you say that you think it is inane. In fact, considering your subsequent posts I'm inclined to believe that YOU do believe this notion holds water. So why don't you clear it up for me. Are you the OP, do you support the
OP, or are you a confederate aiding in the continuation of this idiocy?

You said you don't advocate this theory, yet you commit your posts to perpetuating the OP's premise? Do YOU even know what you believe? Excuse me while I go vomit,



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
It's a challenge and a game that people like to play "Devil's Advocate" Whether he believes in this philosophy based junk doesn't matter. It's good for intellectual stimulation. It's like which came first the egg or the chicken. It's not a theory that has been scientifically tested and I don't see any pilots, astronauts, ship captains coming forward to say the earth is flat. The earth is a sphere and gravity pulls everything to the center. To many false answers to the flat earth conspiracy and an overwhelming scientific and more practical answers to the sphere theory. I say Sphere wins by a long shot!



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall
Checked it. Check. And though you said that you were not an ADVOCATE of this theory, neither did you say that you think it is inane. In fact, considering your subsequent posts I'm inclined to believe that YOU do believe this notion holds water. So why don't you clear it up for me. Are you the OP, do you support the
OP, or are you a confederate aiding in the continuation of this idiocy?

You said you don't advocate this theory, yet you commit your posts to perpetuating the OP's premise? Do YOU even know what you believe? Excuse me while I go vomit,


I'm fairly secure in my world view, yes. So far in the thread, I've spent much less time defending Flat Earth Theory and much more time arguing against nonsense questions that assume (or presume) a predetermined outcome.

There have been two, maybe three, strong criticisms of the Flat Earth Model. In however many pages this is now. 2. Maybe three. I've also said more times than I can count that I don't believe it and flatly that it isn't true, but noone actually reads the thread, they just come in here to point and laugh. It doesn't bother me, but it doesn't really disprove a flat earth either. You get mad that the OP posted and decide the thread should be locked. Are we going to apply the same standards to everythread? It doesn't seem fair that some of the more wacky theories out there aren't locked on the same basis. Especially when there is valid argument to support the FET. Is it true? No. Is the evidence enough to overturn the body of evidence for RET? No. Everyone who has taken a logic class back in college would know that truth doesn't dictate the strength of an argument. You can argue for things that are true poorly. Or have a well constructed argument about something not true. If people treated it as an exercise they might find the arguments that are both strong AND true to debunk the Flat Earth Theory. Most people just chime in to say, "that can't be it flies in the face of everything we know" If that is the basis for truth or fiction, then a round earth would never have made headway to be the body of knowledge "everyone knows." It would've been rejected outright as inconsistant with everything we knew.
Most of the people who have had good arguments against it have received a u2u with a good job. Many people have sent u2u's saying they enjoyed the exercise for what it was. If you really don't like it that much. Don't visit it. It says "Farce" in the title. It should probably read "satire" if I had tagged it. If you can't see a thousand other threads inside this one, then you're not looking.
As to the OP, I have no idea if he really believes in a flat earth or not. You should ask him.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
It's a challenge and a game that people like to play "Devil's Advocate" Whether he believes in this philosophy based junk doesn't matter. It's good for intellectual stimulation. It's like which came first the egg or the chicken. It's not a theory that has been scientifically tested and I don't see any pilots, astronauts, ship captains coming forward to say the earth is flat. The earth is a sphere and gravity pulls everything to the center. To many false answers to the flat earth conspiracy and an overwhelming scientific and more practical answers to the sphere theory. I say Sphere wins by a long shot!


Thank you, for recognizing it for what it is (I have posted it several times, but it gets lost in the clutter). Sphere is only winning because it has the unfair advantage of being true
Not because of the merit of the argument for it (with rare exception)...



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall
[Checked it. Check. And though you said that you were not an ADVOCATE of this theory, neither did you say that you think it is inane. In fact, considering your subsequent posts I'm inclined to believe that YOU do believe this notion holds water. So why don't you clear it up for me. Are you the OP, do you support the
OP, or are you a confederate aiding in the continuation of this idiocy?

You said you don't advocate this theory, yet you commit your posts to perpetuating the OP's premise? Do YOU even know what you believe? Excuse me while I go vomit,


I don't think that he is me, but I do think that he is open minded enough to adopt the idea for sheer theory's sake. If you think about it, it would be pretty absurd if he and I were the same person. Perhaps you can ask the moderators if we have the same IP address. I actually hope that he is not me, or else I and he might prove to be crazy persons who don't realize we are the same person.

Everyone else's problem is that they can not adopt the idea, when it is perfectly adoptable by the sake of supposition.

What we are seeing is that _Del_ is perfectly able to assume the role as a believer of this theory without believing it himself. He/she is an exemplification of what it means to be an open minded, tolerant, and reasoning individual.

Everyone else is an intolerant person with strong opinions who can not prove that the earth is round.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Okay. Then you do know that particular theory was made up by a fantasy writer yes? Also, what possible gain would any conspiracy have by claiming that the world is round? That doesn't make any sense, then again this is Skunkworks.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 21-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
[quote of the above Mannered post removed]

I can't disprove that, and I do find it intellectually displeasing that that is the best (in)direct insult you could come up with, and that you would attempt to think that it would effect me as a human being.

You should probably be moderated for such a shrewd, unintelligible, and immature remark. I suppose, that, in the end, you will only have to answer to yourself for being such a twit.

edit: as has it is, you have.




[edit on 21-4-2008 by logician magician]


[Mod Note: While like kind response May seem the way at times...]
A reminder...
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Not true. Flat Earth is falsifiable. You don't have to prove the earth isn't Flat or isn't round. You should be arguing that the earth is round and why. Or the areas that flat earth fails to adequately explain the world around you and why round earth is better. You on the other hand clearly have asked to prove a negative, which can't happen. You also appear to be a drip. Are you afraid of flat earth theory? Are we doing that good of a job that you're insecure in your round world? Or are you a plant from the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild?! Are you spreading disinfo attacking posters instead of the post?!

Deny ignorance, indeed....



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
reply to post by _Del_
 


Okay. Then you do know that particular theory was made up by a fantasy writer yes? Also, what possible gain would any conspiracy have by claiming that the world is round? That doesn't make any sense, then again this is Skunkworks.


We already covered motive. NASA has a huge budget. Which is cheaper: to send a craft to another "planet" "millions of miles away" or faking pictures? Where does the extra money go? Sounds like motive. Also the Bavarian Map Makers Guild is rumoured to use their wealth to influence world governments and government organizations.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I am not gullible but I am open minded.

I just may be wrong even though the chance is slim.

I gotta keep an open mind to all possibilities.

the most logical would be a sphere since the alternative is just not adding up with the laws of gravity and physics...



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Other Planets, which are not planets really, only earth is a PLANEt (planus, planum --flat). They are spherical, like the sun moon and stars.
If the solar system formed as you say from a DISC of gas, why can't a planet be formed in that shape. Why did the solar system not form in a spherical cloud of gas? Why are spiral galaxies largely planar? Wouldn't that be impossible by your logic?


That avoids the real point I was getting at. Accretion is the main reason for the shape and size of the earth. Through the process of accretion a spherical body is formed because gravity itself permeates 3-dimensional space and time all around the material not just in one dimension and in one direction. Gravity is a direct result of matter and to what extent depends on density of that matter. If the earth was really flat the gravity feild would not be spherical.

What I'm getting at is that you might be able to prove that light bending might play some trick with the eyes and people might believe you because people don't really realize that all you see in your entire life is reflected light anyway. The problem is that you might say that but you can't disprove a spherical gravity feild using the same principle because visible light and gravity work on different laws of physics altogether. If the gravity feild is spherical (which cannot be a trick of light) then you can't use the light bending concept to explain the earth as being flat. Not in the larger sense of astrophysics and gravity in general. If you can then please explain.

Just to answer your question about the disc of gas and dust I was talking about, The main premise is that this disc of gas and dust was left over from when the sun was formed..


FROM WIKIPEDIA..
A protoplanetary disk (or proplyd) is a rotating disk of dense gas surrounding a young newly formed star, a T Tauri star or Herbig star. The protoplanetary disk may be considered an accretion disk because gaseous material may be falling from the inner edge of the disk onto the surface of the star, but this process should not be confused with the accretion process thought to build up the planets themselves.

Protoplanetary disks around T Tauri stars differ from the discs surrounding the primary components of close binary systems in their size and temperature. Protoplanetary discs have radii up to 1000 astronomical units and are rather cool. Only their innermost parts reach temperatures above 1000 kelvin. They are very often accompanied by jets.

Protostars typically form from molecular clouds consisting primarily of molecular hydrogen. When a portion of a molecular cloud reaches a critical size, mass, or density, it begins to collapse under its own gravity. As this collapsing cloud, called a solar nebula, becomes more dense, random gas motions originally present in the cloud average out in favor of the direction of the nebula's net angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum causes the rotation to increase as the nebula becomes smaller. This rotation causes the cloud to flatten out - much like forming a flat pizza out of dough - and take the form of a disk. The initial collapse takes about 100,000 years.




-ChriS

[edit on 21-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 21-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The more I think about this thread, the more I think it is a good idea.

I'm amazed at the amount of times this comes up in a search of the Internet. The best thing I've found is on Bad Astronomy.

I can't do this here because it is too light at night now, due to the Earths being tilted on its axis and whatnot
, too photograph or even see stars.

If someone in Florida and someone say in Canada or a northern state in the same time zone would shoot a picture of the northern sky the two pictures combined would offer the proof.

Take the photos at the same time and compare the stars positions.

If this has been mentioned I apologize. Just too many pages here to find time at work to read them all.

[edit on 4/21/2008 by Blaine91555]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
This post is very interesting indeed. What's the explanation for Saturn's Rings? Moons of other celestial Bodies like Jupiter? What about explosions? The rapid expanding of energy/mass in an outward manner (explosion) typically represents somewhat of a sphere. According to Newton's laws, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so the earth being pulled inward by way of gravity (to represent the opposite of an explosion) also represent somewhat of a sphere? Also, Theoretically based on your diagram of the disc, we don't truly travel in a straight line. A simple test with an airplane, calculate as close to the exact curvature around the disc that your supposed gravity would create in the flight pattern. Take that calculation and turn the plane to the right measurement to cancel out the curvature and travel far enough to see if we fall of the Earth. Adding meteorology into the picture. As a Citizen of Cheyenne, WY. I'm quite familiar with the wind. The Earth's wind patterns are are caused by the uneven heating of the Earth. If the Earth's main heat source was also a disc (like you mentioned earlier) It doesn't seem logical that the earth would be heated unevenly. Also the fact that you are able to dig down into the Earth proves the fact that there is height involved with this flat disc. So technically it would be considered a cylinder. If it's a cylinder, it would have sharp edges or corners at some point (maybe on a larger scale where it doesn't appear sharp to our eyes) proving inconsistencies in Gravity itself. If they aren't sharp corners and in fact more round, you're leaning more towards the direction of spherical. Not trying to be aggressive to your argument, just trying to gain insight because I think this is a great thread. Mental stimulation that was talked about earlier. Plus, we need something to challenge our way of thinking to discover errors or perfections in our theories which allows us to expand our knowledge.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Dienekes]

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Dienekes]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


So galaxies are allowed to accrete in discs, but not earth. For some reason a galaxy can break these rules, but not earth. Why is that? Perhaps it's that the "rule" is not really a rule. Perhaps conditions can arise where things do accrete in discs. We've seen one example, perhaps there are others. Further, if gravity causes accretion in spheres it would be hard to argue this cause against a model of earth that doesn't produce gravity. The OP said earth's gravity caused light to curve around the earth, not me.


[edit on 22-4-2008 by _Del_]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join