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: 33
9
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Cpt. Monty
 



When a theory can be disproven by actual scientific data isn't it disproven? In that case we should really put this to bed. In alot of different ways flat earth theory has been proven false by lots of posters including me. Some people may still believe but some people also believe aluminum foil helmets will prevent aliens from scanning your brain. Some people you just can't sway regardless of the facts you present. There is a difference between true skepticism and the inability to accept the facts based on your personal beleifs..

-ChriS


[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 

Those ballon pics prove nothing. The earth curves left and right in those pics, that is obvious but you will never see it curve away from you b/c of Line of Sight.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Try it yourself.

How to measure it



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Amazing that this thread is still going, I'm still wondering if the op really believes this himself, since he complains about [FARCE] in the title, and has yet to go back and correct the problem.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Raistlyyn
 


I've seen the sunset more than once on several different occasions when flying. In flat earth theory it is explained as a matter of perspective, not the curvature of the earth. Further I can use the same experiment to show how far away the sun is, and have.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
and this IS NOT a model as stated in the thread topic.


It is lame photoshoping/editing combined with a bunch of nonsense text that isn't backed up by supporting evidence of any kind whatsoever which has been made even more clear by people in this thread citing the actual scientific reasons why there is no optical illusion creating a round earth when it is actually flat. All of our scientific data contradicts this "theory" which is loosely grounded in reality.

-ChriS

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
why are we using gravity as an explanation? gravity can not bend light it is too weak one the best examples of this is that we are able to move around. that is over coming gravity, so how is it that we can overcome gravity but light cannot?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Threadfall
 


I can't be sure about LM, but I know that personally I'm ignoring you because of your childish outburst earlier.

Best regards,

Del


Well that's one method to avoid answering someone's questions. I was not even asking you a question, but good thinking in giving LM an out.

Best Regards, Threadfall.


As I was reading through I could not help but notice this response to your posts Threadfall. I was met with the same arrogance and hostility by Logician Magician (not Del yet, but judging by his increasing animosity, it shouldn't take long). I'm assuming that they have no actual evidence or support other than the theories they have that are ill explained to us to prove the earth is flat. Also the fact that LM says he didn't claim he proved the earth was flat, yet has titled this thread using the phrase, "Proof in model" certainly isn't very straight forward of him. Can a mod seriously close this topic at this point, just due to the fact that the OP is not actually encouraging debate so much as stating his one sided argument while claiming others in favor of the sphere model are simply using propaganda and lies to prove their point?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Raistlyyn
 


I've seen the sunset more than once on several different occasions when flying. In flat earth theory it is explained as a matter of perspective, not the curvature of the earth. Further I can use the same experiment to show how far away the sun is, and have.


When you watched the sun set did you see it move in such a way that it would pass over the ice wall and around to the other side of the earth? Or did it just curve in the sky magically so it could start illuminating its way to the other parts of the earth currently under darkness? The sun should technically move in circles above us in your flat earth theory. Otherwise we would have days of complete darkness worldwide if I'm envisioning this correctly.

Under a flat earth model we would see the sun curve in the sky, and it would not appear to move from east to west, as it appears to.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by Cpt. Monty]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
As I was reading through I could not help but notice this response to your posts Threadfall. I was met with the same arrogance and hostility by Logician Magician (not Del yet, but judging by his increasing animosity, it shouldn't take long).


I assure you that if you had read Threadfall's post before it was entirely removed by a mod you would not make that comparison. It was far beyond, "I'm right and your wrong." I'm not sure why you are advocating closing the thread, but whatever floats your boat.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
As I was reading through I could not help but notice this response to your posts Threadfall. I was met with the same arrogance and hostility by Logician Magician (not Del yet, but judging by his increasing animosity, it shouldn't take long).


I assure you that if you had read Threadfall's post before it was entirely removed by a mod you would not make that comparison. It was far beyond, "I'm right and your wrong." I'm not sure why you are advocating closing the thread, but whatever floats your boat.


I'm advocating closing this thread because I have yet to be answered in a mature and logical way by the OP, who has claimed, thus far, that everything I've said was propaganda and insulting, despite the fact it is just the counter argument to what he is saying. That's arrogance.

However, you Del, are quite alright in my opinion, as you have actually made great attempts at explaining the theory. Unfortunately LM is making this much harder for your side of the "debate."



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
When you watched the sun set did you see it move in such a way that it would it would pass over the ice wall and around to the other side of the earth? Or did it just curve in the sky magically so it could start illuminating its way to the other parts of the earth currently under darkness? The sun should technically move in circles above us in your flat earth theory. Otherwise we would have days of complete darkness worldwide if I'm envisioning this correctly.


The sun continues west. I does follow a circular pattern in the sky, but it would be imperceptable to a viewer on a large disc like the earth. If you look at a flat earth model then you will see what I mean. West is simply perpendicular to north and prescribes a circle.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
So you're saying that if I were to follow the sun as it moved I would be moving in a giant circle around the coasts of every continent one at a time, and not go from say, the West Coast of North American and find myself near the East Coast of China?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
If you look at the UN logo and leave from where ever your initial point is, then follow the sun west: yes. You travel in a circle. You ALSO travel from the west coast of the US to the east coast of China. It's right there in PLANE [sic] sight.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
If you look at the UN logo and leave from where ever your initial point is, then follow the sun west: yes. You travel in a circle. It's right there in PLANE [sic] sight


So you're using a global government conspiracy to answer this question rather than any sort of scientific evidence?

By the way, those circles you see do not represent the sun or its movements in anyway. Whoever told you that is a fool.

www.progonos.com...

visit that link and it should explain what the premise behind it really is. By the way, the shape of the world in the UN Logo uses Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. It's on the page in the link I gave you, and the picture of the Earth seen under that projection matches the UN Logo. So obviously, it says nothing about how the sun would seem to move around the earth.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cpt. Monty
 


Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting that is the actual map. Only that the layout would be roughly the same as a flat earth map. If you head west or east you travel in a circle. The UN map is a convenience reference because everyone knows what it looks like. Does the UN know about flat earth? I have no idea...



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Del,



this is the EARTH casting a shadow on the moon. This is definate proof that the sun is not orbiting above the "flat" earth simultaneously with the moon.

Then consider the round shape of the moons own shadow:



I made a short animation with 3dmax's light tracer, to show the difference between a spherical moon's shadow and a flat moon's shadow.

Spherical moon:



Flat moon (the pin is there to show that the light is calculated accurately, otherwise you would just see how it gets brighter):



This proves that the moon is in fact a sphere, or at least half a shere, but definatly not flat. Which should lead us to the conclusion that the earth must have a similar shape.

Now you both say it's gravity, which makes the earth and the moon appear as a sphere because it bends light. But wouldn't that require a spherical gravitational field? The answer is: Yes, it definatly would!
So why should the gravitational field be spherical shaped, but the matter in this field is compressed to a disc shaped structure? Any explaination for this paradox?

[edit on 24-4-2008 by hackbart]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I have returned! I'm sure you're all thrilled.

First - the sun's path in the sky. You said yourself that the earth has no gravity, and only a large amount of mass can distort light, so no planetary lensing excuses. Were the earth flat, there would be nothing to keep you from seeing it move in a curve, no lensing effect by the atmosphere (ok, maybe if the earth was actually a dome, as opposed to truly flat).

Second - logician - Xeno's arrow paradox is not, as has been proved by relativity, feasible or reliable unless we're dealing with speeds far less than the speed of light. Find the muon decay proof at this website Relativity

also, it might just be me, but could you please explain your terms in the equations you provided:

"

S=[(x,y,z) epsilon R^3| x^2+y^2+z^2=1

F sub app is apparent force, F sub fict is ficticious force.

F_app= m(d^2x_b)/(dt^2) = m(d^2x_a)/dt^2 - m (d^2x)/d^2 = F_true - m(d^2x)/(dt^2)

(d^2x)/dt^2 is the acceleration of one frame(sub a and sub b) relative to the other (i.e. the car seat and you)

with -m(d^2x)/dt^2) being F_fict

so,

F_apparent = F_true + F_fict.

"

i know, i know. no making fun of me. it seems as though you already explained the terms but i still don't get them completely. if there's a helpful link, could you provide it? thanks.


Third - _Del_ - I retain that any body moving through space acts the same as if it were standing still. If you are part of the same system of momentum, movement would not matter. True, if gravity is present (or inertia for that matter) then the entire system in question would feel a push or pull or what have you. however, because you have already said that there is no gravity, and it has been proved that effects involving inertia and gravity cannot be distinguished from one another, rendering your explanation of "acceleration" upwards to explain gravity irrelevant. (were it explainable, it still does not hold up, because we are measuring everything from this frame of reference.)
Also - about your personal experiments. your first about stepping off a chair can be explained by acceleration, but upwards acceleration would not account for minute changes in acceleration measured when experiments similar to this one are tried at different altitudes. (the force of gravity decreases in an inversely proportional manner to the square of the distance between the two masses)
the second experiment - you are right, the earth appears flat. this can be explained away in several ways, but for now, for the sake of argument, i'll believe my eyes. so in this case, we'll say it's flat.

also - gravity has not been completely discarded as an explanation for natural phenomena. it is simply explained as curvature in space-time by the theory of relativity.


I'm listening to Belle and Sebastian, so I'm in a mellow mood. you know, just to counteract the effects of physics.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
As I was reading through I could not help but notice this response to your posts Threadfall. I was met with the same arrogance and hostility by Logician Magician (not Del yet, but judging by his increasing animosity, it shouldn't take long).


I assure you that if you had read Threadfall's post before it was entirely removed by a mod you would not make that comparison. It was far beyond, "I'm right and your wrong." I'm not sure why you are advocating closing the thread, but whatever floats your boat.


If you don't think that this has been disproven in many ways by many people then you haven't read the whole thread.. As I stated before, there is a difference between true skepticism and the inability to accept the truth based on your own beliefs. Myself and others have pointed out multiple reasons why flat earth theory is false yet no significant counterpoint has been made (because there is none that makes any sense).

The entire concept that this is some kind of new study or major scientific release is also fake. The entire thread was originally based upon, according to the thread topic, "Proof in Model". There is no model. There is a really lame image of the planet earth which has been photoshoped/edited and a bunch of text attached that makes absolutely no sense. There is absolutely no supporting evidence for "flat earth theory" because the theory itself is just that..a flat theory that doesn't make sense when compared to real science and real data. Therefore, flat earth theory cannot be quantified or qualified as anything that is even based in reality.

-ChriS



[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
and this IS NOT a model as stated in the thread topic.

there is no optical illusion creating a round earth when it is actually flat. All of our scientific data contradicts this "theory" which is loosely grounded in reality.

-ChriS



:yawn:

Tell that to the guy who won the nobel prize in physics 7 years ago or read a book or two by Michael Talbot. You can argue with them all day about how "your scientific data" contracts that their theory that the Earth is not only flat, but it is 2 dimensional plane that exists on the barrier of the universe.

For me, I'm going to ignore your childish antics.

Welcome to my Flat Earth ignore list, you roundy.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join