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: 31
9
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tuning Spork
 



Also concerning aviation, wouldn't your plane have to drop altitude as the earth curves away from it to maintain level flight? Why don't we observe these drops? Flying straight south from any point on the map will get you the same place as a round earth. It is the other directions (E,W) that would require adjustments. These adjustments are made constantly in flight.
I maintain it is impossible to fly a straight route without deviating, and thus purely hypothetical.


[edit on 23-4-2008 by _Del_]




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
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.



This is an area that pioneering Flat Earth Scientists are doing current testing. Many believe that Einstein missed a critical aspect of reality in his creation of relativity. Namely, the connection between light and time. We call this dimension light-time (similar to spacetime), however it has it's own unique properties. It is a 5th dimension that we can only interact with by photons and time, but not with space matter as a photon has zero mass and it merely a point particle of pure energy. It's effects can be observed a few ways. Firstly, the parallax effect shows the relation between two frames of reference. You can hold your thumb out and alternate between opening and closing one eye at a time to see the effect of light-time. You can also view it when you notice that the further you appear to move from an object, it becomes smaller. If you get far away enough from a large building, you can appear to be able to pick it up with something as small as a pair of tweezers. This is the lighttime dimension. Some refer to it as lightspace, but there has been no agreed upon determination.

It has long been known that there is no absolute frame of reference to measure from, and it is equally valid to say that you are moving toward someone, or that they are moving toward, or away from you. It is valid to say that the road is moving relative to your car when you are driving, and from your own frame of reference, you are not moving at all.

Xeno's Arrow paradox illustrates this by using an arrow.



The arrow paradox

You cannot even move.“ If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. ”

—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

In the arrow paradox, Zeno asks us to imagine an arrow in flight. He then asks us to divide up time into a series of indivisible nows or moments. At any given moment, he argues, if we look at the arrow, it has an exact location, so it is not moving. Yet he continues that movement has to happen in the present; it cannot be that there is no movement in the present yet movement in the past or future. So throughout all time, he concludes, the arrow is at rest, and thus, motion cannot happen.


This paradox effect is reconciled by the lighttime/lightspace dimension of Flat Earth theory, in that there is no real movement, but only apparent movement in a dimension that we can not directly interact with. It is interesting to note that mainstream science has not been able to resolve the paradox. Simply stated, the further you appear to relatively increase the distance from the Earth disc in the light-time/space dimension, whichever is your central point above the disc, you witness the disc converge with itself in lightspace/time so that it appears to curve at a horizon or into a globe. You are not however actually moving at all beyond your own personal consciousness area that you exist in much like the arrow. The effect will probably later be able to explained in more detail by advances in string theory.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


well to completely dismiss what i said about liquids is foolish, liquids follow the same laws that gas does, so why does it not mean anything? to use novas is also foolish as they are exploded stars, considering how much gas is actually in a star you cant possibly expect to see it all form into its spherical shape after just a couple of years. it would take several thousand to see those kinds of results. To say the earth is the only flat planet is also very very foolish, stuff doesnt just happen on its own it follows the same laws as the rest of the universe so we can not be the only flat planet its either all or none.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO
Oh my! I guess somebody had to say it


It really was all that was left to be said. We have officially gone off the deep end.


For Real! The OP is either a time traveler from the past, is joking, (I hope) , or actually believes it may be a possibility. ... It's kinda like saying that there are little creatures inside the atom, preventing it from caving in on itself, & that the electrons are not passing through parallel dimensions.




[edit on 23-4-2008 by Time=Now]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
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.



This is an area that pioneering Flat Earth Scientists are doing current testing.


Can you name any of these "pioneering Flat Earth Scientists" so that others here could maybe seek to learn about them, their credentials, etc.?
Or should I just take your word for it? Also where is this testing being done? And who is providing the funding? Can you please give us some/any of these details?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


I simply said that other things form in discs (like galaxies). Nebulas also exist in non-spherical form. To throw away galaxies and nebulas because they don't fit your model is foolish. Earth may not be the only flat planet, but it may be. It's certainly the only one I've seen.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


how have you seen it? I have explained that nebulas and galaxies both, In Time, form into spheres. i did not throw it out at all, and they do form into spheres.
nebulas take thousands of years to form into a new star, and galaxies all become part of the super massive black hole at the center.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by caballero]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


How do I know it's flat? Have I seen it? Have you? Go outside real quick and give me a quick status report on earth. Did it look spherical to you? It doesn't near me, and I don't live far enough northward to be effected by the oblate spheroid distortion. Maybe the earth will form into a sphere one day, how do I know? We're not debating the future shape of the earth, but the current.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Thats it!!! Enough!! Del, Logician Magician. I did go back and read your responses and all they told me is that if I haven't been there then how can I be sure of it or don't believe NASA or Light is being distorted by gravity blah blah blah. Did you read the link Proof of the Earth being a Shpere ?

I can see that this is an exercise in debate and that you don't really believe what you are talking about as you make up different defenses to make a point that things may be different to what we are led to believe. You even said it was an exercise in critical thinking on page 3!

Del you replied "Most of your questions don't address the model I'm advocating here. So I can not address them" Didn't you post this i42.photobucket? Well you didn't address the question of the distance it would be to circumnavigate Antartica . Not only that, all distances in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) are out (or do we magically travel faster in planes in the SH?) . "Fifth, the number of people believing something is not a reflection of somethings truth." No, I agree and this can be seen with the whole climate change concept of the IPCC Consensus.


Mate if you are still stuck on the flat earth problem after all this debate I'm afraid there is no hope for you. There are much more interesting astrophisical debates to be had besides this one. Like the possibility of many universes (multiverse) or climate change conspiracies. But if you 2 are still stuck on the Earth is Flat I suggest you stop playing with magnetotrons before you blow yourselves up!



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Some believe that Earth is not actually a planet, but merely a geological ecosystem inside the disc planet called the milky way. It is obviously a disc and the distance between galaxies lends some credence to the idea that galaxy discs are the true discrete life bearing objects.

www.geocities.com... has an experiment that you can do yourself.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by logician magician]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogga
 


if it is an excercise in debate they are failing their arguments lack proof and are completely opinionated.

del and magician dont argue that you have proof because your proof is all theory. the fact is the earth is not flat but round, there is more proof to prove that.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogga
Did you read the link Proof of the Earth being a Shpere ?


I'm not sure why you are so upset. I did and answer those questions throughout the thread. I even showed how performing Eratosthenes experiment showed the distance of the sun from earth.



I can see that this is an exercise in debate and that you don't really believe what you are talking about as you make up different defenses to make a point that things may be different to what we are led to believe. You even said it was an exercise in critical thinking on page 3!

I can't speak to the OP, but I've stated many times that I don't believe it. Including my very first post. I also suggest the first post on page 4. Several others. There was also one much more recent. Then this one. Somehow this is lost through reading comprehension, or short attention span. I guess you've tumbled to my "secret"


Well you didn't address the question of the distance it would be to circumnavigate Antartica . Not only that, all distances in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) are out (or do we magically travel faster in planes in the SH?) .

I believe I explained this as a combination of effects including time dilation, heavier winds near the antarctic (also in round earth), and the great circle route effect (still valid in flat earth, but only works northward); yet, I did neglect "magic".



Mate if you are still stuck on the flat earth problem after all this debate I'm afraid there is no hope for you. There are much more interesting astrophisical debates to be had besides this one. Like the possibility of many universes (multiverse) or climate change conspiracies.

Climate change is clearly a conspiracy (as far as the politcal movement is concerned).
For other multiverse or atrophysical debates you might consider that the earth is a three dimensional (well, fourth if you count time) version of the two dimensional mobius strip. It folds in on itself and perhaps allows you to go one direction and return to your starting position.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
reply to post by Frogga
 


del and magician dont argue that you have proof because your proof is all theory. the fact is the earth is not flat but round, there is more proof to prove that.


Sure flat earth is a theory. I've said theory so many times I can't count. A model is only an attempt to explain world observations. Newtonian models, GR models, round earth models, flat earth models. All models. New models are being created all the time as we attempt to learn more about the world around us. There is no "proof," only evidence (except in math). If you can prove scientifically the earth is round, then please submit an application for the $5000 dollar prize which remains unclaimed after nearly a hundred years.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero

del and magician dont argue that you have proof because your proof is all theory. the fact is the earth is not flat but round, there is more proof to prove that.


Yes, I've mentioned that there are also several theories, and so has _Del_. I've also explained how the theories relate to current mainstream theories in their structure. The simple fact is that you can not prove that the Earth is round. There is no such thing as proof in the real world.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
Some believe that Earth is not actually a planet, but merely a geological ecosystem inside the disc planet called the milky way. It is obviously a disc and the distance between galaxies lends some credence to the idea that galaxy discs are the true discrete life bearing objects.

www.geocities.com... has an experiment that you can do yourself.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by logician magician]


This is copied from that link...

"WE ARE TOLD THAT THE EARTH IS 75% LIQUID WATER

THE POWERFULS OF THE WORLD

NASA, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE SECRET SOCIETES,

THE RICHES, THE SCIENTISTS, THE ENGINEERS, THE ARTISTS

DON'T HAVE MADE A BALL OF REAL LIQUID WATER FLOATING IN A VACUUM

BEACAUSE A POWERFUL REASON GREATER THAN ALL THEIR POWERS



IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!"

LMAO



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


only $5000 dollars!? rip off. I didnt realize your stance on the subject until i read it in your other post.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Well, at the time, that was quite a sum.

I wouldn't object to an extra five grand to my credit, even now.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
no i think dels right

i got a spirit level from my shed and put it on the road it was level!

then i drove about 20kms got out my car a put it on the road again
and behold it was still level

sry just had to laugh that this thead is still going



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by open2urideas
 


See? Direct observation. What is stronger than that? Also note that if one steps off of a chair, the earth will rise up to meet him/her at 9.8m/s^2. These are simple things you can do at home.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Time dilation?
Climate change is a conspiracy?
Gravity is non-existant?
So... who else besides NASA is in on this secret? Maybe the airforce and Pres. Bush, and soon another president, and every astronomer to study the skies.

Where is your source please?

And I suppose you are "deleting" light-years and the soundbarrier too.

I'm pretty sure you have yourself a, um, questionable model.


The world knows that the moon is not warm, as we have thermographic cameras, and can experience the lack of heat from the moon at night.
Del, with your model, we'd be able to see 5/6 of the moon's sides. If that "one specific face" we can see in Canada is the side you're referring to, then please explain the other side of the moon we could see, were we at a different position on the map. Look at your model, the moon can be seen from different angles on all parts of the map. If one were to see one side, another would see a different side (or maybe a bit of both).


Del, there is also another flaw with your map.
With spherical Earth theory, the sun would only aim at one direct longitude line at a time, because the furthest point of the sun is reaching the furthest point of the world. Daytime thus occurs. Yet with your model, a greater amount of Earth would be heated at a time, causing longer (brighter) daylight hours.
Try this: hold an rounded light (dim light bulb, whatever) about 1ft. to an orange. See how this would demonstrate daytime on Earth.
Now hold that same dim light bulb 1ft. to a piece of paper. This results in the daylight on "earth" being formed in more of a direct circle, with more amount brighter (as more amount of earth is closer to the sun), which is not the case in today's real Earth.




top topics



 
9
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join