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: 25
9
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Yes absolutely. I deny the hollow earth theory but I accept the existence of tunnels and hollows and maybe even people inside earth.




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Im glad a mod is in on this post,you dont see them get into post to much.


I guess it serves as a physical representation of ATS-giving his opinion.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Im glad a mod is in on this post,you dont see them get into post to much.


I guess it serves as a physical representation of ATS-giving his opinion.



Well, Im posting as a member here not as a Mod...much less representative of ATS.

As for the Hollow Earth: Ants can crawl into the ground. Us being the size of ants compared to the earth we can surely crawl inside earth somewhere (caves).

To the OP: What about all the other planets? Also flat?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I see this scale from 1 to 10...1 representing the MAINstream and 10 representing the OUTERMOST fringe.

You will find that neither 1ers nor 10ers are truly open minded.



Your theory would peg me as a 5er. You are a 3er, and everyone else is probably close to a 7er.

In other words, arbitrariness does not suit you - nor reality.

You are entirely off topic.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Agreed...............I wasnt aware the Hollow Earth theorists think the ENTIRE planet is hollow.No I dont think that at all.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
To the OP: What about all the other planets? Also flat?


How should I know? I've never been to other planets to make measurements. Have you? They most certainly could be round, or flat.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Your theory would peg me as a 5er. You are a 3er, and everyone else is probably close to a 7er.

In other words, arbitrariness does not suit you - nor reality.

You are entirely off topic.


Not at all. "Mainstream" and "Fringe" are defined by the number of people believing something (without any implication of "right or wrong").

That makes you a 10er.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

You are entirely off topic.


Oh I see. Then I better be on my way and quit challenging what the logician. Bye. Be well flatlander.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by logician magician

Your theory would peg me as a 5er. You are a 3er, and everyone else is probably close to a 7er.

In other words, arbitrariness does not suit you - nor reality.

You are entirely off topic.


Not at all. "Mainstream" and "Fringe" are defined by the number of people believing something (without any implication of "right or wrong").

That makes you a 10er.


No, that is a false dichotomy. Mainstream is connotated with being right, while the fringe element is perceived as being wrong.

As such, my flat Earth theory is viewed as being wrong - even on a fringe conspiracy site that is viewed wrong by the mainstream. The theory is on the fringe of fringes.

So, it would make me a 10er in this relative reality; however, that does not make the theory wrong, nor invalid. It just shows your relative accepence of the theory as being futher from the truth than you can imagine or accept.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


"How should I know? I've never been to other planets to make measurements. Have you? They most certainly could be round, or flat."


Dude-you just shot yourself in your face with that one.


So are you saying that ONLY the Earth in flat?How is that possible-surely your theory understand everything in nature in created on the same design

Example-All planets are ROUND,all stars ARE ROUND,all atoms ARE ROUND....etc.....................etc


So for your theory to have ANY type of fact to it,you would have to postulate that ALL plaentary bodies in space are infact FLAT.


Maybe you didnt answer that question because you knew it would destroy your whole bogus theory.

Funny cause earlier you stated "we have to get observations of the Earth from further out to see the effects of gravity dissappear and see the flat shape"I even corrected some grammer for you in that quote



Well-we DO have observations from REALLY FAR OUT..........Mars,Venus,Jupiter,Saturn...........should I continue?I think not-Ill save you the embarresment.


All those planets are KNOWN AND PROVED-BY EVEN YOUR STANDARDS TO BE INFACT A SHPERE.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
And eclipses would be explained...how?

Exactly, if the sun is rotating above our disk..where is mercury?

By your diagram it is clear that the dimension of the sun are way smaller than that of the earth...or is it me just taking it too closely apart?


The modern uses of telescopes have enabled us to view the outside of the universe. However, if we were to imagine what we can see of the universe, it is like TWO CONES, coming out of the earth. The areas outside the cones are invisible, for they are out of our range. How would you explain that?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Maybe you should stop picking fights with a mod and do some research before bringing anything else like this up EVER AGAIN on ATS.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08

So are you saying that ONLY the Earth in flat?How is that possible-surely your theory understand everything in nature in created on the same design


No. Please read the thread.



Example-All planets are ROUND,all stars ARE ROUND,all atoms ARE ROUND....etc.....................etc


What? Read the thread.




So for your theory to have ANY type of fact to it,you would have to postulate that ALL plaentary bodies in space are infact FLAT.


No. Read the thread.



Maybe you didnt answer that question because you knew it would destroy your whole bogus theory.


Why are you ignoring evidence? Have you only read the last few pages of this tread? I'm trying to entertain you, but it is become absurd. I should probably just ignore you from now on!




Funny cause earlier you stated "we have to get observations of the Earth from further out to see the effects of gravity dissappear and see the flat shape"I even corrected some grammer for you in that quote




What is "grammer" ? I looked it up in the dictionary and couldn't find the word.



Well-we DO have observations from REALLY FAR OUT..........Mars,Venus,Jupiter,Saturn...........should I continue?I think not-Ill save you the embarresment.

All those planets are KNOWN AND PROVED-BY EVEN YOUR STANDARDS TO BE INFACT A SHPERE.


The further one exceeds from an apparent sphere, the more likely it is to be perceived as a point particle.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


HAHA.,Grammar.......................


Anyways,I HAVE READ(AS PAINFUL AS IT WAS)YOUR POST.You came back with no counter-argument besides........."No"


"Point particle'?Do you understand anything in quantum physics?

Face it you disproved your whole theory with that post.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I asked a few questions that I'd like the OP to answer. I'll add two more:

1) Flat Earth theory says that the Earth is accelerating through space at 32fps^2 which accounts for what we call gravity. This would require that gravity at all points on the flat Earth would measure at 32fps^2.

But we know that gravity is not uniform throughout the **ahem** globe. It is weaker and stronger at various sea level locales and is weaker at higher altitudes. How does FET account for this?

2) FET says that the moon is about 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth. The Saturn V rocket took only a few minutes to get 3,000 miles down range after lift-off, yet the command-lunar modules took four additional days to reach the moon. How does FET account for this?

Edit to add: Logical Magician, you can see my other posts, if you missed them, by clicking the "thread" button at the bottom of this post.


[edit on 22-4-2008 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Tuning Spork
 


All he is going to say is it's a lie (saturn v)or the math is wrong.He argues that al of our known and proven physics are FARCE.............lol



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dienekes
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


1-We are still learning more about Saturn's Rings from cassini but there are theories that don't include flat planets.

2-The earlier solar system was filled with many small bodies, some of which accreted into larger bodies with more gravity, which would then accrete more and more material, etc. Astronomers believe that asteroids, and comets, are leftovers from this early period in the solar system's formation when these small bodies were much more common. Over the years the gravity of these gas giants like jupiter and Saturn captured some of these objects which then remained. It is also possible that it happened later on. We just don't know. The point is that we have one possible explanation and it has nothing to do with flat planets.

3-What you are referring to in an explosion is dispersion of energy in all directions from a single point. That's because this is 3 dimensional reality governed by very specific laws of physics which we may not fully understand but do to at least some degree. Just as a supernova expands in all directions, a planetary nebulae, etc..etc..

Accretion, which forms suns and planets, is also governed by the same laws of 3 dimensional reality/physics/etc. Gravity permeates all of this 3 dimensional reality which then causes the gravitational forces on any body to surround the object in a more or less spherical shape. that is why accretion forms circular shaped bodies over long periods of time. The gravitational forces on a body that, fundamentally, cause accretion are pulling in material from all directions at once. This is why the earth is more or less spherical (though the earth isn't a perfect sphere nor is it perfectly symmetrical). A spherical gravity feild is evident here on earth not just because gravity permeates 3-dimensional space/time in all directions from the source of the matter (All or, at least, most matter in our universe has gravity), but also because the earth itself is a spherical shaped body of compacted matter which formed through accretion.

If the earth were flat and we just didn't see it that way due to some flipped out coincidence of photonic light reflecting here, being interpreted by our brains here, etc... Then how can you explain the other factors that are not even light related which all point to the earth being spherical? It's like having multiple pieces of convincing evidence and one of them being contradictory. Which do you believe?

This link has an animated quicktime video of what happens to earth when the angular momentum of the earth's rotation is increased up to 200 times what it currently is:
www.josleys.com...

The result in the final image is a disc that is approx 800 km pole to pole with a diameter of 50,000 km. This is a hypothetical animation but it goes to prove that earth cannot be a disc unless the angular momentum of earth's rotation is somehow 200 times what it is now.. That is if the earth were even capable of remaining intact at all due to the stresses and loads on the earth's surface caused by such an increase in kinetic energy.

Here are 4 pics from the site in sequence which illustrate this (if you can't watch the movie):
www.josleys.com...
www.josleys.com...
www.josleys.com...
www.josleys.com...

-ChriS

[edit on 22-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 22-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


Well said...................starred,it doesnt matter the OP will still try and come up with something to counter your statement(that is based on proven theories)



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
Have you ever been in an airplane before, or seen video from the spacewalks? You can see the curvature, if only very slightly.

The Earth is very round. How can you get to China from LAX without falling off into space? unless you mean to say that it's like an old videogame where if you run off one side, you appear on the other side magically...


Exacty. If it wasnt for the curvature, you could literally see for hundreds of miles. But since there is a curve, You can only see for about 10 miles or so.

Also, the fact that the earth 'flips' doesnt work. If it was so, how can it be night on one side, and day on the other?

On top of this, you can go around the earth just fine. Unless something like what indierockalien is true, the end of the earth is just one gigantic teleport, and we can't tell the difference.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 



How do you explain when I, being in Arizona, Can see the Moon And the Sun, in 2 different locations in the same sky, at the same point in time.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join