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: 29
9
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
HAHA, The closet thing to FLAT is the Hard Disc Platters inside your hard drives. The Earth is not Flat, maybe the Dry Salt beds are flatter than the whole of the Earth... - HAHAA, I can't stop laughing.

If you were to take a Hard Disc Platter and make it the size of a state, let's say the size of Texas, the hills and valleys would be no taller than a sheet of paper. Now that's Flat! And if you were to take that Flat object and measure it up to the horizon you'll see with your own little eye that the Earth is Not Flat.

The Earth however is NOT Flat, If you need more proof than what's on this thread then you need to invest in an airplane, a glider, maybe you should get on the Space Shuttle, They do need another 7 astronauts.




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniem
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.

Thank you.


Not true. This theory has been disproved for reasons I have pointed out in my earlier posts. It actually wasn't that hard.

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
That makes your side look a lot clearer. But in your theory, why is earth the only one that is flat and everything revolves around it? Isnt that a little egotistical?

If earth was moving up at a rate, wouldnt the shuttle and the ISS and all of the other sattelites up there have fallen off already? Or, because i have just forgot newtons laws, wouldve seent he other side already?

Oh and whats on the other side then?


One doesn't know that the earth is the only thing flat. As I've stated most galaxies appear flat. You are correct, that sustained space travel is impossible under the flat earth model, however.
Noone knows what's on the other side. Four elephants standing on the back of a turtle seems to be a popular theory, but for my money, I say just rock.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Is the Moon flat too?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WoMaNfIsH
 

haha, no it's a little more egg shaped, depending soley on how the light is reflecting off of it. haha... Basket Balls are flat to!



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Ah! My Ego! it's disintegrating....

What an error to make. Well, at least I shall acknowledge it. Nevertheless, you have to admit, that even with the lorentz transformations taken into account, the acceleration becomes irrelevant because everyone who is taking measurements is on the earth, because there is no sustained space flight. based on the earth's frame of reference the acceleration cannot be proved and would not be relevant at any rate.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by coop039
I dont think this has been asked yet:

Do you (Del and LM) believe in life on other planets?
Do you believe in a infinite universe?


Life on other planets is possible. It'd probably be much smaller than one might expect with a round earth model.
The universe is finite. Just big. There is a model that explains flat earth as an infinite plane, but I don't advocate that theory here. By and large (pun) it's the same as the model I'm presenting however.


Ok. So if life exists on other planets, and other planets could be round, are saying that there is a second set of phyics that apply to these planets?

If the universe is finite, the what happens when you reach the edge? Whats on the other side? And more importantly, if we are in a constant state of upward motion (as you state), what happens when we reach the "ceiling"?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Don't you guys get it yet?? Everything is flat! Just like pancakes!


I'm honestly surprised to see this thread still alive. I still don't think any explanations of the flat earth model have made enough sense to prove it, as the title of the thread suggests. The theories proposed have been just that, theories, which are most likely false. We've had experts in fields of research that cover this question discover that the Earth is in fact, a sphere, I'm sure of it. Also, the fact that this theory doesn't even matter because of the fact that we are alive on the Earth, regardless of the shape, just makes this thread, in my opinion, a bit worthless to even argue. It's much easier to just accept the way it's written in the books and stop pretending your model is the 100% correct one. I was taught the Earth is a sphere, as well as the other planets in the solar system and universe. I can accept that because it's what I've seen. I have no idea how much time you have on your hands to ignore teachings and try to disprove the spherical models, but it seems a bit ridiculous that you would even make an attempt at it considering there are far more important topics and issues to discuss than whether or not the earth is flat or a sphere. We live on this planet. We survive on this planet. We are here regardless of the planet's shape.


By the way the shape is a sphere.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Not to be unprofessional, but it's like religion - if something disproves it, deny the evidence or make up an explanation.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by yinyang23
If the earth really is flat, how is it possible to dig and dig and not get to the other side? Only reply if you have an intelligent answer, nothing off the wall totally!


To my knowledege there has never been an experiment where we have even attempted to dig "to the other side" of the disc. If you can provide me with a link to information that has shown that it is not possible to get to the other side, then by all means please do.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Hey, OP and Del, please look at this page, read through it, and prove to me once again how none of this makes sense.

www.physlink.com...



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
Not to be unprofessional, but it's like religion - if something disproves it, deny the evidence or make up an explanation.


Einstein has "disproven" Newton, and QM has "disproven" Einstein. Yet, all three theories are worthwhile in their own particular domain. String theory and the TOE are other examples of our quest for understanding.

As far as I know, there are upwards of 7 Flat Earth theories, and like all valid scientific theories and conspiracy theories they are each internally consistent in their logic; however, because of the many versions of Flat earth, Scientists are attempting to reconcile them under 1 theory of Flat Earth that is able to explain our observations - much like how mainstream scientists are attempting to unify the 5 versions of string theory under 1 single M-Theory.

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to post as much as I would like on this thread, but I am somewhat busy with current magneto-cohesion experiments that attempt to explain why there wouldn't even need to be an icewall or edge to the disc in the first place. It is all very time consuming, but I simply don't find it probably thatthat the Earth would be shaped more like a shallow bowl that holds the oceans inside the disc.

We've seen maybe three versions of the theory in this thread, but it is hard to explain to people who are constantly asking the same questions over and over again due to not reading the thread.

It is likely that the unified theory needs much data from String Theory and the TOE in order to work. We certainly don't yet understand how exactly the Earth is flat, but we are close to understanding. I don't portend to know everything there is to know about Flat earth, so excuse me for not answering the more out-there questions. I think it can be safe to assume that as of now, nobody fully understands the Flat Earth, but as evident in this thread, most people hardly understand Flat Earth - yet just as it is typical human behavior, they shun that which they do not understand.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
BTW, the flat earth website has 13,717 members. I dont know if they all believe it, or if some logged in to rant, but considering how long ago science disproved the flat earth that number seems high. Given that the current population of the earth is roughly 6.679 billion, thats a pretty low number. But them people believe some crazy stuff, just read on this site.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
Hey, OP and Del, please look at this page, read through it, and prove to me once again how none of this makes sense.

www.physlink.com...


The flat Earth theory takes all of the into account. Perhaps you haven't been reading through the thread. An example of how that article is grasping at straws is that to answer the question of "How can one prove that the Earth is round" the answer given is, "the Earth is round." That should jump out clearly to anyone who has any sense of logic. It also says that, "Since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical."

Also, using clear propaganda techniques such as "... have proved absolutely conclusively that the Earth is round." is nothing more than saying, "Everybody knows." and is completely unethical.

Clearly there is no proof that the Earth is round, and that article is insulting to say the least.

We aren't forced to surmise proof, speak of it as an absolute, or result to pity antics.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
and there is one thread in here that thinks Hawkins is nuts... (amazing)



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
Hey, OP and Del, please look at this page, read through it, and prove to me once again how none of this makes sense.

www.physlink.com...


The flat Earth theory takes all of the into account. Perhaps you haven't been reading through the thread. An example of how that article is grasping at straws is that to answer the question of "How can one prove that the Earth is round" the answer given is, "the Earth is round." That should jump out clearly to anyone who has any sense of logic. It also says that, "Since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical."

Also, using clear propaganda techniques such as "... have proved absolutely conclusively that the Earth is round." is nothing more than saying, "Everybody knows." and is completely unethical.

Clearly there is no proof that the Earth is round, and that article is insulting to say the least.

We aren't forced to surmise proof, speak of it as an absolute, or result to pity antics.


Those comments coming from you, who claim we are close to concluding that the earth is flat, yet you claim within the same post you are nowhere near sure if the earth can be maintain itself in a flat model unless certain criteria (that you have no way of proving momentarily, as you have pointed out yourself) are met.

Also, you claim this is propaganda instead of answering with logic, or for that matter, intelligence. Don't let your arrogance get the best of you please.

Also another point to mention. If you the earth is flat then why does the majority of the scientific community not believe it to be so? I'm pretty sure if they found proof by now it would have been leaked. And don't answer that question with your "Oh the government keeps it a secret because they don't want people to find the giant ice wall!"...please.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Cpt. Monty]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I am still following this whole topic and the flat earth theory is still quite interesting so far for me.

This morning I had thought (to throw out from the dark again) that perhaps our current dimension might possibly be a combination of both 3D (us moving about in the x, y and z plane) on top of a 2D surface (hence the flat earth). For the sake of comparison, I’ve thought about those people moving inside the paintings hanging from off the walls in one of those movies, I think, Harry Potter, yeah.

A few minutes ago I also had another thought. How do you suppose the planet’s ocean doesn’t drip off the sides? It has edges. So our planet is shaped either like a bowl or some sort of cup-like, cylindrical container, like yer local ‘Starsmuck’ coffee, yup. Think about putting water on top of a balloon. The surface is roundish and thus the droplets would roll right off. This is based on the premise of having no gravity factored into the equation set forth by science. Hehehe!

Maybe the only way for me to believe the earth is round is to actually take my own video of launching into ‘space’ (or rather the upper atmosphere of earth due to the radiation of the Van Allen belt) above, viewing the planet below and returning with several copies of my evidence to share with the rest of the world. I am not discounting NASA’s version of our worldview but there are endless possibilities to different sets of realities.




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
_Del_: Just as a clarification, the only reason I used galilean mathematics as opposed to relativistic ones was because of your concession that we would one day reach the speed of light and be sucked into a black hole. I suppose it was my mistake to take the comment seriously



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Another thing that I feel worth bringing up:

if the government (NASA in particular) is so intent on hiding the flat earth from us, why are they allowing, even funding (www.rdmag.com...) private companies who plan to launch commercial space flights?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty

Those comments coming from you, who claim we are close to concluding that the earth is flat, yet you claim within the same post you are nowhere near sure if the earth can be maintain itself in a flat model unless certain criteria (that you have no way of proving momentarily, as you have pointed out yourself) are met.


"Sure" denotes certainty. I said we are close, which has nothing to do with being sure.



Also another point to mention. If you the earth is flat then why does the majority of the scientific community not believe it to be so? I'm pretty sure if they found proof by now it would have been leaked. And don't answer that question with your "Oh the government keeps it a secret because they don't want people to find the giant ice wall!"...please.


I don't know, but appeal to authority is a fallacy.

You continue to try and berate the thoery, but the problem is that you haven't even read the entire thread, must less my view of the theory. I don't readily accept that an icewall exists (at least not around the entire planet). You may want to ask _Del_ about the icewall.

Look, if you can not enter into an at least semi coherent logical debate, then please quit posting because I'm not making any sense of what you are saying. If I find that you make one more completely fallacious post, I will not respond to you anymore.




top topics



 
9
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join