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

Once again you let yourself fall into your own arrogant pitfall. First of all, if I can't claim you seem sure of your theory than certainly the title of this thread will prove to anyone who enters this particular part of the forum that you have, according to you, the ORIGINAL POSTER, that your model is proof! Bravo my arrogant friend! And how dare you accuse me of not putting together a coherent logical debate! I raise questions using a source and you fire back with "It's propaganda!"?! That is evasion of my proposed debate if anything.

But if it means anything to you, I am sorry if I have offended you in anyway by posting questions and logically stated material by degree holding Physics instructors and graduate students. I just thought that maybe you could have responded a bit better considering your claims thus far.

By the way, tell me how you can deny proof if your title says proof please, I stated within this post already. I realize it also says FARCE, which doesn't really help you at all I'm sure.

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
Once again you let yourself fall into your own arrogant pitfall. First of all, if I can't claim you seem sure of your theory than certainly the title of this thread will prove to anyone who enters this particular part of the forum that you have, according to you, the ORIGINAL POSTER, that your model is proof! Bravo my arrogant friend!

Do you understand anything about Newtonian mechanics in their relationship to quantum theory? I'm sorry, friend, but your knowledge is severely lacking and I find it increasingly difficult to have a coherent exchange with you.

By the way, tell me how you can deny proof if your title says proof please, I stated within this post already. I realize it also says FARCE, which doesn't really help you at all I'm sure.

Again, Netwon's theory is proof of the macroscopic and QM is proof of the microscopic. String theory is proof of the planck scales. My Proof is merely one version of the Flat Earth theory. It is a model. That means it is an interpretation of observed effects. I've said before that there are other versions, each logically consistent in and of themselves. String Theory has 5 versions that are consistent in and of themselves, but they are not yet consistent with each other.

Try thinking of how a mobious strip is set up. It is a plane, yet its apparent geography would peg it as a sphere if one were to traverse it. When you look at it from 3 dimensions, you can see why. Extra dimensions that we are not aware of, as consistent with string theory, may be able to explain why we can interpret the Earth as a sphere.

Another idea is a fractal earth that alternates between north pole centered and south pole centered, and what is seen is merely a collapse of the disc wave function into what we experience as a sphere.

Look, as I've said before I don't have all the answers and do not pretend to be an expert. You are welcome to do your own research if you wish, but please stop ridiculing me with ad hominem attacks.

I am not omniscient, and it is absurd to imply that I should have a response to every one of your questions.

reply to post by logician magician


Look, I don't mean to "attack" you, but when you put proof in the thread of your title, yet consistently lack said proof, then obviously...it's not proof. On top of that, I only ridicule you because so far I have seen you pass off support for a spherical earth as mere propaganda time and time again! I know I'm not the only one who has seen you do this, and I have read through much of the thread contrary to what you believe (I guess you would know that since you are in fact the same person as I am...except not really).

Back on topic though. Would you mind mathematically explaining string theory to me.

And as far as you not pretending to be an expert. I reserve the right to laugh at that statement if I so choose. If you are not an expert, then you are in absolutely no place whatsoever to claim the sphere model as a fallacy produced by massive scientific corruption by the government (like that's feasible).

Anyways, as I asked in a previous post, and I hope you can set our feud aside to answer this, as you ignored it before:

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?

Also:

From what I've been told, newtonian mechanics cannot explain the truly macroscopic, like outer space - that's the realm of relativity. So I'm confused as to if you know what you're actually talking about.

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
And as far as you not pretending to be an expert. I reserve the right to laugh at that statement if I so choose. If you are not an expert, then you are in absolutely no place whatsoever to claim the sphere model as a fallacy produced by massive scientific corruption by the government (like that's feasible).

See, I equated expert earlier with omnicient. You are obviously not even reading what I type. I challenge you to find someone who knows everything there is to know about QM theory. You obviously do not even understand the clear premise behind scientific discovery.

From what I've been told, newtonian mechanics cannot explain the truly macroscopic, like outer space - that's the realm of relativity. So I'm confused as to if you know what you're actually talking about.

Again, when addressing laymen who pour logical fallacy after logical fallcy into their posts, it is easier to simplify.

You are IGNORED from here on out.

I am figuratively, and literally crying. In all of those posts, I did in fact propose answers to you, and you failed to answer A SINGLE ONE! To me, and as it should be for most others viewing this, that is proof enough to not believe your theory in the slightest. You back it up by refusing to answer and by being arrogant and then trying to place the blame on propaganda and me...for asking questions! You claim I lack even basic understanding, yet when I ask you to explain that basic understanding you don't! Why is that? Maybe you're a hypocrite, I don't know, I won't take it that far...yet. Your choice to ignore me is respected, as it is your personal choice, however, in my eyes that is also your choice to avoid logically answering me, in my opinion because you lack the ability.

Have fun with your experiments and the such, but I'm afraid We will all still see the Earth as it is, a Sphere.

no offense logician, but i think he has a point. relativistic effects change the nature of physics on spacial scales, and newtonian physics have no place in space.

Also, for the sake of argument, could either you or _Del_ explain to me what is more feasible about the flat-earth theory than the round-earth one? I'd just like to sort of re-energize the debate if possible. for 30 pages pundits have tried and failed to debunk your flat-earth theory. so now, just assume that you had to debunk the round-earth theory once and for all. how would you do so?

Del, i'm a girl (you referred to me as he).

If gravity suddenly vanished, the earth would fall apart; nothing would hold it together.
You trying to disprove gravity would defy the laws of physics, and even though many people have concluded that inertia, acceleration, speed, velocity, levers, and many other formulas work -- all are dependant upon the concept of gravity.

Plus, if this world or the stars (whatever) rotated, it would be about an axis, and gravity is the cause of things rotating upon their axis'.

Not to mention, the sun and moon, in your theory, revolve about eachother for some reason, and this orbiting phenomenon is attributed to gravity.
If gravity didn't exist the sun and moon would fall on earth. If gravity did, then the sun would have to revolve about earth, not by itself on a similar plane as the moon has, right BY the moon.

You still have not answered how seasons would occur. Is the earth half of the time closer to the sun and moon, and then further away the other half? What would cause that, being as we go straight down, firmly planted. We wouldnt rotate if gravity were nonexistant -- that is WHY we rotate, regardless if we have an axis or not.

If light is so easily bent on earth, then merely placing a sattelite up on a higher region wouldn't work, as the radiowaves would so easily be bent and misplaced as well.

The bigger planets and objects are, the heavier things on them weigh. That is why on the moon, we weigh lighter than we would on Jupiter.
If Earth went forever downward, we would weigh tons MORE than we do now.

Your theory does not explain Global warming, for if there were really a round earth containing greenhouse gases, then the gas would be enclosed in. Yet if the earth simply spilled over into rocks, then the carbon dioxide wouldn't be polluting the atmosphere, and the ice on antarctica would be melting.

Del, if the north pole was the center of our flat earth, then the aurora would not exist, as no particles would be seen skimming the surface AROUND earth.
Plus, were the earth flat, then the problem of months of daytime and months of night woud not exist in the colder extremeties.

Del if you really believe this, you probably believe that humans are extremely illogical, for a flat earth would also not explain volcanos and earthquakes, being as we literally have no "center" we have just deep, deep down, and no circular circulation, lest you think the underground just bubbles under us.


I wish i could talk to you on the phone or something to explain, because you are reading this wrong.
A Spherical-earth map would work, where i to follow it, and not a compass. If i were to get in a plane and point it in one direction, say from hawaii straight to london VIA ASIA (westward) . If i were, at the START to point my plane towards london, and fly, I'd reach there, not changing course with a compass. Just not turning the plane. It would work IF I FOLLOWED A SPHERICAL EARTH MAP, it would work.
Yet were i to follow this illogical map you have, at the beginning, point myself in the direction (westward) of reaching london from hawaii VIA the middle of asia, same way, It would be a failed EXPERIMENT. I'd end up in Antarctica. Your map failed, the other worked, the one with longitude and latitude. The proven one, the real one. Yours does not work. You would have to dramatically turn the plane, in spite of your effort to reach london from hawaii without turning the plane at all. The thing which you, in real, practiced, everyday life, wouldnt have to do.
WITHOUT TURNING.

ah, a learned response! how rare!

..a woman on the internet? even more astounding!
only joking. well worded.

reply to post by lively


As Blue_Seven said, well put. Nice use of logic to prove your point (Unlike me, who apparently lacks logic, even though I ask questions with sources to back them up...I receive no answers though! How sad...)

You wouldn't happen to know anything about any of the theories Logician Magician used to back his claims up would you? I didn't get a straight answer out of him at any point in this entire thread, so I wonder if you or anyone else could possibly explain them to me. If possible, mathematically.

Originally posted by coop039
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"?

Sure they could be round. There isn't a diffferent set of physics. You obviously haven't paid attention to the thread. Galaxies can be discs (even in round earth models). Do they have a seperate set of physics?It's hardly like Flat Earth theory is the only model for a finite universe. In fact most models (including round earth models) assume a finite universe. That's why we say the universe is expanding. If it was infinite it couldn't expand, it'd be infinite. You're question therefore does not make sense.

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...

First, Newtonian "gravity" is almost universally accepted as fictitious. It doesn't exist. Unless you want to argue with Einstein and Hawkings, they are quite smarter than I. Second I used the same Eratosthenes experiment to "prove" how close the earth is to the sun. Feel free to refer to it. It is in this thread.

reply to post by lively


LOL,don't instigate a girls wrath........


I can't believe this thread is still going,I HERE BY PROPOSE THAT NO ONE ELSE RESPONDS TO THIS RIDICULOUS THREAD.


**By the way I added you as a friend.

reply to post by lively


Apologies madam. "Gravity" as a force is fictitious. This is accepted even by most round earth models. Nothing falls apart in round earth models for the same reason as in a flat earth model. I assure you that "gravity" does not exist. There is gravitation which bends space time, but that is a distinction with a difference when we talk about mechanics and how they relate to relativity.

The sun and moon being roughly the same size do orbit one another more or less concentric-ly with the pole in a flat earth model. The sun and moon are both accelerating upward at 9.8m/s^2.
Seasons work when the sun's orbit increases in diameter around the pole. It becomes smaller in the north's "summer" and larger in the north's "winter" You can spin or rotate without gravity or gravitation.
If the earth went forever downward, we would weigh significantly LESS not MORE than we do now.
Global Warming hasn't been clearly demonstrated even in round earth theory. I'm not clear what you are trying to address in the rest of the question.
The aurora is visible at the center of the earth, and the outside of the disc most likely because of the magnetic field around the earth. I have shown how the day and night problem is resolved in flat earth theory; it uses the same mechanism that describes the orbit in "seasons"
I'm not sure why you think a flat earth cannot produce magma under pressure. Evidence suggest it will.
You have (and this is not a slight) clearly not flown a plane. You cannot simply fly in one direction without modifying the planes path. Further, on a flat earth you would arrive where you wanted if you used a flat earth map. This would be a great experiment, if it was possible to perform.

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
Also, for the sake of argument, could either you or _Del_ explain to me what is more feasible about the flat-earth theory than the round-earth one? I'd just like to sort of re-energize the debate if possible. for 30 pages pundits have tried and failed to debunk your flat-earth theory. so now, just assume that you had to debunk the round-earth theory once and for all. how would you do so?

Here is my first experiment: Stand on a chair. Step off chair. Observe earth accelerate toward you at a steady 9.8m/s^2. Note lack of apparent distortion of space-time.

Here is a second: Go out side and observe the earth. Does it appear spherical or flat to you? Record results.

Your acceleration question was an excellent question, but I already showed how an object can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light.

Originally posted by _Del_
You cannot simply fly in one direction without modifying the planes path. Further, on a flat earth you would arrive where you wanted if you used a flat earth map. This would be a great experiment, if it was possible to perform.

Lively is correct. Here is the globe with straight flight lines. (From this view, to go from London to Los Angeles would describe an arc, as shown in my oh so sloppy free-hand. But the vertical, horizontal and diagonal lines accurately describe the flight paths.)





Using the above image for reference, if we plot those same straight paths on a flat Earth map, they neccessarily must describe arcs.





According to the flat Earth map, the shortest distance between New York and Sydney, Australia would be a route over northern Alaska. But airliners opt not to take that route for the simple reason it would be a tremendous waste of time and fuel because the Earth is, of course, a sphere.


[edit on 23-4-2008 by Tuning Spork]

Thanks you guys. This stupid theory kept me up all last night, just because I keep trying to find ways it would work and ways it can't. It's crazy. lol at least i have a really-debatable random subject to bring up for fun now.
"Hey, did you guys know that the earth is really flat?"
Thanks to you Del, I'll have all the comebacks. jk


Del, there would be no possible means of navigation as you have just expanded the world's southern latitudes. Not to mention the longitudes would be stretched further apart like a hand-drawn sun's rays.

So navigating flat earth wouldn't be possible.

Do you even believe in space? Or do you think our outerspace, just like earth's "physics", consists of air, and that the planets can exist without an actual something holding them together. Tell me what you believe is holding this earth together. If outerspace is a vaccuum, then how is Earth's atmosphere not breaking out into the universe? Or like I said earlier, is it like we're in some giant's bedroom (filled with air), in a little terranium box staring up at stars that no one except the government's reached (or tried to).
What holds all that together, if not gravity? If not our Earth's physics (air), even though increasing elevation consists of less pressure of it, then space? Glue?

where else to begin? oh yes

The moon:
Del, without gravitational pull, there would be no tide.
As you have sometimes seen, the sun and moon can be seen fairly close, at the same time, during day. And as I see on your map, the sun and moon's orbits are closer than the moon and earth alone are together. So if the sun has enough energy to heat the entire block of earth, (and i sure darnwell hope that you're not trying to convince us that the moon emits any heat for us), you can imagine what it would be doing to the moon, that close to it.
A flaw (maybe?) on your map shows the orbits crossing/intersectiong and at one point, the moon's orbit stands over the suns'.

If the sun and the moon were traveling at the same speed, then we wouldn't have ecplipses. Yet, as science and study and calandars have proved, it takes the moon 27.3 days to orbit whateveryouthinkit'sorbiting, and. And so, i'll use the word, "if" they are traveling at different speeds, then eventually we'd have a third total eclipse, where the moon actually stands right above the sun. This has never happened, and please don't attempt to persuade that we just can't see it because the sun is in our way. We'd know.

Have you ever flown in a plane during a sunset? You have witnessed sunsets before, and you can see that, obviously, the sun goes down. Even while flying an airplane. You can even look left and right and see stars; you don't just have to look up. No refraction there.

Another thing about the moon. Only one side of the moon is facing earth. The same side we always see. Now, despite the pictures NASA shows us of the other side, with your theory, and it's flat-earth map, we would be able to see at least 5/6 of the moon's sides, illuminated at different times, from different angles and locations on earth.

Originally posted by logician magician
[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]

My post gets removed, yet he can freely call me a twit and insult the nature of my post(s). Shrewd, immature, unintelligible? Sounds like the Moderation of this thread.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Threadfall]

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Even in round earth theory the globe is most actually described as an oblate spheriod -- wouldn't that distort the navigation on a round earth map making it impossible? I suggest that if the world was round you might be able to fly a direct route using a round earth map. Because it is not possible to travel a straight line over that distance, it is not provable.

Originally posted by lively
Do you even believe in space? Or do you think our outerspace, just like earth's "physics", consists of air, and that the planets can exist without an actual something holding them together. Tell me what you believe is holding this earth together. If outerspace is a vaccuum, then how is Earth's atmosphere not breaking out into the universe? Or like I said earlier, is it like we're in some giant's bedroom (filled with air), in a little terranium box staring up at stars that no one except the government's reached (or tried to).
What holds all that together, if not gravity? If not our Earth's physics (air), even though increasing elevation consists of less pressure of it, then space? Glue?

If the earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s^2, the atmosphere is kept in by the second giant icewall. much like your terrarium filled with water accelerating upward through the giants room..

The moon:
Del, without gravitational pull, there would be no tide.

Because Newtonian physics are not able to fully explain the tides the in the round world, it would be folly to discount the flat earth on the same basis. How do we know the temperature of the moon? I'd imagine it's warm. The sun and moon do occasionally overlap in their paths which causes the solar eclipse. Because the sun is slightly farther away than the moon this effect is not global, but regional.

Have you ever flown in a plane during a sunset? You have witnessed sunsets before, and you can see that, obviously, the sun goes down. Even while flying an airplane. You can even look left and right and see stars; you don't just have to look up. No refraction there.

The sun going down is more a matter of perspective. Things approach the horizon as they get farther away. It's called a vanishing point. Of course you can see stars, they are in the heavens above you -- even in a plane

Another thing about the moon. Only one side of the moon is facing earth. The same side we always see. Now, despite the pictures NASA shows us of the other side, with your theory, and it's flat-earth map, we would be able to see at least 5/6 of the moon's sides, illuminated at different times, from different angles and locations on earth.

Only one side or face is visible to earth at all times. For much the same reason as in round earth theory.

Originally posted by _Del_
Even in round earth theory the globe is most actually described as an oblate spheriod -- wouldn't that distort the navigation on a round earth map making it impossible?

As I recall, the difference between the equatorial diameter and the pole-to-pole diameter is only about 60 miles. For our purposes we can consider the Earth a sphere.

I also neglected to mention the effects of the Earth's rotation when traveling north-south just to keep it simple. For instance, let's say a plane takes off from New York and flies to Puerto Rico. The ground below the plane will at first now seem to move east to west. But the further south it flies, the faster the ground will pass east-west due to the greater diameter at that latitude.

If that plane keeps going and crosses the equator heading for, say, Tierra del Fuego, the ground below will again begin to pass more slowly. In a flat Earth, this would obviously not be the case. Thus, according to nearly a century of aviation, the Earth is demonstrably a sphere.