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: 26
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mindping
 


HAHAHA.....bad question to ask him,he will come with some straight BS.

EDIT to add:I think he's been smoking to much Salvia Divinoruim(sp?)

[edit on 4/22/2008 by jkrog08]




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
OP....if I wanna sail away with my beloved to the end of the world, what would the outermost country be?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Skyfloating]


It's hard to take your questions seriously if you haven't bothered to look at the flat earth map. Clearly by looking at the map if you wanted to get to the edge you have to go away from the middle. The middle is the north pole.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by logician magician
 


Alright. Thanks for the precise answer.

May I ask one more?

What was the purpose of brainwashing billions of people into believing the earth is round?


Money. This has been covered. You're also right about hollow earth. If hollow earth is found at the bottom of the "globe" (antarctica), then perhaps the hollow earth is simply the other side...



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I belive in Hollow Earth-lol,but not this..............hollow earth is likely and the physics agree,aswell as many discoveries.But hey I guess the Reptoids and Illuminati live on the OTHER side of this flat earth,uh?


Where is hollow earth's entrance? Do you think it's a coincidence that it sit exactly where the earth's edge is? Wow, you ARE open minded...



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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


Other planets, are not flat. Hence they are not really PLANEts (planus, planum-flat) at all. They are heavenly globes.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:19 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

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

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


Of course the other "planets" are round. It's observable. Why does earth HAVE to be round because the others are. Cows have horns, therefore all animals have horns. Apples are red, therefore all fruits are red. Earth supports life, all other planets should support life. Galaxies are discs therefore all heavenly bodies are discs, oh wait....



[edit on 22-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
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?


Excellent question. The reason that "gravity" is weaker at alititude is that the stars, sun, moon and planets may have a very small gravitational pull on earth.




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 on 22-4-2008 by Tuning Spork]


The Saturn would continue to race away from earth as long as it was accelerating faster than 9.8m/s^2. Once it slowed down it would head back to earth. It is possible it was shot off the side of the disc to disappear forever into space. Further 3000 miles downrange does not equal 3000 miles up.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I think your are trying to demonstrate that anything and everything is open to dispute, since it is impossible to conclusively disprove any scientific hypothesis.

You are just adding a new claim each time we tell you our reasons for believing in a round earth. (government conspiracy, satelites are blimps, earth is special etc)

You can just add new unprovable claims forever, and dismiss everything we tell you. Its not a single fact we give you that you cant dispute in some way.

All together, the more claims you come with, the more unrealistic it becomes to believe in, even though one cant disprove the claims. But in the end reasonable people should concede taht it would make a lot more sense to agree that the earth is indeed round.

If a theory "can't be disproven" doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct.




EX1:
If you climb higher, you can see further. On top of a mountain or
lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground.

For example, if you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see the Sun again.

It is hard to explain why you can see further when you
climb higher unless the Earth's surface curves downward away from you
wherever you stand.




EX2:
When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly
overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away:

Sun's rays are parallel because the Sun is very far away.

If you were to put a stick in the ground sticking straight up at noon
in New York City, then telephone a friend in Chicago to ask him to
also put a stick in the ground sticking straight up, he would see a
shadow, and you would not. This is hard to explain unless ``straight
up'' (away from the Earth's surface) points in different directions
when you are at different places on the Earth's surface. That is, the
Earth is not flat.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknownfrost
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.


You can't see the entire plane because air diffracts light. This is demonstrable.
This FET model doesn't include flips. So I can't address it.
You're clearly mistaking flat for square. There is no problem circumnavigating a flat disc. You're making yourself look silly.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
The reason that "gravity" is weaker at alititude is that the stars, sun, moon and planets may have a very small gravitational pull on earth.
....
The Saturn would continue to race away from earth as long as it was accelerating faster than 9.8m/s^2. Once it slowed down it would head back to earth. It is possible it was shot off the side of the disc to disappear forever into space.


Aah but, my corner-painting friend, wouldn't the same gravitation that the moon effects on higher altitudes also effect the Saturn V? If the Saturn V took three minutes to travel 3,000 miles down range, should not the command/lunar modules have then taken LESS than a three additional minutes to complete the trip to the moon?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
I think your are trying to demonstrate that anything and everything is open to dispute, since it is impossible to conclusively disprove any scientific hypothesis.

You are just adding a new claim each time we tell you our reasons for believing in a round earth. (government conspiracy, satelites are blimps, earth is special etc)

You can just add new unprovable claims forever, and dismiss everything we tell you. Its not a single fact we give you that you cant dispute in some way.


Congradulations, Daniem. You got it! This thread is pegged a "FARCE" for a very good reason. (I have no idea what the OP believes, but _Del_ is doing exactly what you think he is: providing an exercise in critical thinking and, at times, sophistry all to make that very point.

Rather than react emotionally to strange claims, we must hone our reasoning and decifering skills and actually AGRUE the case. Conclusions will be drawn, but let them be drawn from the evidence/argument presented.

Now, come on ATS. Let's continue in that spirit.



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



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
EX1:
If you climb higher, you can see further. On top of a mountain or
lighthouse, or in an airplane, you can see things that are invisible
-- below the horizon -- when you are on the ground.

For example, if you watch the Sun set, and at the very moment when the Sun is just below the horizon you climb quickly up a hundred feet, you will see the Sun again.


This is because the atmosphere refracts and diffracts light. The atmosphere is a gradient. Higher up you are looking through less "air" diffracting less light.



EX2:
When the Sun is directly overhead in any place, it is NOT directly
overhead at the same time in any place a few hundred miles away:

Sun's rays are parallel because the Sun is very far away.

If you were to put a stick in the ground sticking straight up at noon
in New York City, then telephone a friend in Chicago to ask him to
also put a stick in the ground sticking straight up, he would see a
shadow, and you would not. This is hard to explain unless ``straight
up'' (away from the Earth's surface) points in different directions
when you are at different places on the Earth's surface. That is, the
Earth is not flat.

Thank you.

The sun is only 3000 miles away (approximately). You cannot assume that the suns rays are parrallel and the curved earth as the basis of your argument for round earth. I used the same Eratosthenes experiment to show how far away the sun was in this thread. Feel free to find it.


"Its not a single fact we give you that you cant dispute in some way. "

I could say the same thing about you and the round earth model. Should we throw away the round earth model?


[edit on 22-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by _Del_
The reason that "gravity" is weaker at alititude is that the stars, sun, moon and planets may have a very small gravitational pull on earth.
....
The Saturn would continue to race away from earth as long as it was accelerating faster than 9.8m/s^2. Once it slowed down it would head back to earth. It is possible it was shot off the side of the disc to disappear forever into space.


Aah but, my corner-painting friend, wouldn't the same gravitation that the moon effects on higher altitudes also effect the Saturn V? If the Saturn V took three minutes to travel 3,000 miles down range, should not the command/lunar modules have then taken LESS than a three additional minutes to complete the trip to the moon?


The rocket did not have continual thrust. It could not have made it to the moon. The gravitation of a 32 mi wide body is minimal. Occam's razor suggests we shot it over the edge of the disc and let it fall away. I find it unlikely that we spent all that money to send man to a 32 mi wide body in space. More likely that someone shot a rocket and pocketed the rest of the cash.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
A few days ago I viewed a commercial on cable of an artist airbrushing miniature representations of our solar system. In the background in one of the scene, there appeared to be an astronaut, which I assume could be from one of the moon landings (i.e. the Apollo mission). I am wondering if the media is hinting something to us viewers about never landing on the moon and that the current model of our solar system as being an illusion.

Now I come across this topic and find some valid points regarding the flat Earth as believable. A giant wall of ice does seem to explain why we could never ‘go off the deep end’ (pardon the expression) of this flat planet. I’ve read elsewhere on another ATS topic that perhaps the sun is a ‘spaceship’ and that it moves around the earth instead of the other way around as programmed into us by the generally accepted scientific explanation of a round world.

I just had a thought that perhaps the activities of plate tectonics are nothing more than the land mass floating on the body of water called oceans. So perhaps our world is just a big Petri dish with everything living on it as the subject of a great experiment. I don’t know what to think but my feelings points to the flat earth theory as not being a ‘farce’.




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Thanks for replying to all my questions in a calm manner (minus all the antagonism encountered with others).

While I wouldnt endorse your flat-earth theory I sure would endorse your right to question the very essentials we base our worldview on.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
i dont agree with this theory at all two things i wanted to point out.

1. in areas where there is no gravity like space shuttles liquids that are released form into a sphere why would gases in the same condition be any different? Thats what planets are initially after all is gas

2. what does the rest of the universe look like if all planets are flat? If you are to claim the the earth is flat you have to think about what the universe looks like flat and it doesnt seem like it would work.

if anyone could explain that would be great.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


Why do galaxies form in discs? And because the flat earth model I am advocating doesn't believe in sustained space travel, I would dismiss your observations on liquids, though truly I wouldn't have to because by itself it does not mean anything. I can show you thousands of pictures of gas (nebulas) in space that are not in anyway spherical.
And most other heavenly bodies are not flat. The earth is the only PLANEt (planus, planum, flat).


[edit on 22-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I do apologize if this has been asked already, but I have one small question, if you don't mind my asking.

If we accept, for the moment, that the Earth is in fact flat, how do we explain the Coriolis Effect? According to this website:


Coriolis effect is an inertial force described by the 19th-century French engineer-mathematician Gustave-Gaspard Coriolis in 1835. Coriolis showed that, if the ordinary Newtonian laws of motion of bodies are to be used in a rotating frame of reference, an inertial force--acting to the right of the direction of body motion for counterclockwise rotation of the reference frame or to the left for clockwise rotation--must be included in the equations of motion.


This effect wouldn't work if we were not a sphere, now would it? If it can work that way, could someone please show me how? I'd be very interested in learning something new.



Now, my honest opinion on this:

I know the earth is a sphere, as I've traveled a bit. As we travel, the land behind us disappears over the horizon. How is this possible if we're on a flat plane? Assuming, once again that the Earth is flat, why does the Earth appear to curve?

Just wanted to post these ideas, because I didn't see them whilst looking through the thread. I do apologize again if this has been covered, because I didn't see either of these things.

TheBorg



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Gaspard Coriolis didn't predict the Coriolis Effect in weather systems before it was discovered, what he did was describe the centripetal acceleration effect in small rotating environments. Take for example in his papers: There is a bucket of water which rotates. A toy boat in the water will tend to deflect in a certain direction. This deflection of bodies in rotating systems was called the Coriolis Effect.

Later, when the rotation of wind systems were studied the mechanism for the rotation of the wind systems was attributed, without evidence, to the rotation of the earth. Gaspard didn't predict that the rotating earth would produce the effect; Gaspard didn't study meteorology. It was modern meteorologists who attributed the Coriolis Effect to the earth's rotation.

If those meteorologists had been Flat Earth proponents the mechanism for the rotating winds would probably have been attributed to the rotating stellar star systems swirling closely over the stationary plane of the earth and/or the spinning of the flat disc. Also as the air pressure near the ridge of the disc lowers (along with temperature), this may produce a similar effect.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_


And also another thing, how about stars, the earth would have to rotate, because the stars position changes with rotation?

[edit on 21-4-2008 by _Phoenix_]


Do you belive the earth rotates? or do all the stars move at the same exact
time?

How about weather changes, winter, spring, summer? how does that work with your theory?


Sorry if you have already answered, it's just that I don't have the time to read all the pages right now.

I would like to ask you, do you have any ideas or plans to prove this theory.

For example send something to the sun, to see how far it really is.

Or travel to antartica.





[edit on 23-4-2008 by _Phoenix_]




top topics



 
9
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join