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

By the way, as I suggested before, let's keep this going in the direction of you and OP attempting to debunk the spherical earth theory. It'll be more interesting.

Originally posted by logician magician

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.

If you read the whole thread you will realize that there are many significant, objective arguments based on real data that suggest something other than some enormous optical illusion of visible light. There are many examples that argue as to why flat earth theory is false. I have yet to see a valid argument which acknowledges these points and explains them using the flat earth theory. visible light is one thing, but when you look at ship navigation, aircraft navigation, the fact that the gravity feild of earth is , itself, spherical, as well as the fact that the planets and stars were created through gravitational accretion of matter from all direction over millions of years, it is very easy to explain why the earth is spherical and not flat. There were also other very compelling arguments made in response to the op's "model" that illustrate a spherical planet and not a flat one. Please prove to me that the earth is flat because I would love to see that information.

The "model" that was posted by the OP might even semi-accurately illustrate how an optical illusion takes place but it in no way proves in any way, shape, or form that the earth is indeed flat. Far from it. If the earth is really flat then there should be some kind of scientific data that supports the theory. The fact is that there is none, at least none that makes any sense.

Edit:Here's another argument I just thought of. How is the earth flat when a circular shadow of earth is cast on the moon during a lunar eclipse. The moon doesn't care what shadow is cast. If what humans are seeing is a sphere instead of a flat earth due to some kind of bizarre optical illusion then how can you explain the fact that the shadow of the earth itself is not flat but circular (also supporting that the earth is spherically shaped). This proves that visible light is being blocked by a physical object (the earth).

Also, in order for the optical illusion to be possible wouldn't you need a symmetrically shaped planet? We know that the earth is not perfectly spherical but is actually slightly pear shaped and irregular. There are just so many reasons, too many to think of, which point to the earth being spherically shaped and not flat.

-ChriS

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by _Del_


The point I'm making is that the world on the UN Logo is actually not an accurate way to represent the earth as being flat in any way, considering it relies on Latitude and Longitude lines, as seen in the example I just provided you with. So your use of the UN Logo as evidence in anyway way is basically invalid. And actually, the Azimuth Equidistant Projection appears exactly as your flat earth model appears, minus your Antarctica being conveniently placed between russia and north america and the Icewall you propose replacing the real Antarctica of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection! If anything those defending the flat earth model as proposed by your original picture, Del, are creating something out of nothing! Using the UN Logo and placing something in the middle of the earth that doesn't even belong according to the AEP! The UN Logo cannot possibly used by you as a reference for convenience when you place a block of ice at the middle of the flat earth.

Speaking of that block of ice (AKA Antarctica in your eyes, even though AEP clearly disproves that) Could you explain exactly how the projection of the sun affects different regions of the world in the flat earth model? We all know from studying books and watching the discovery channel how certain regions of the world vary greatly in temperature from others, so the path of the sun in the flat earth model should follow a path that keeps those conditions the same. Explain away please.

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
reply to post by _Del_

 

The point I'm making is that the world on the UN Logo is actually not an accurate way to represent the earth as being flat in any way, considering it relies on Latitude and Longitude lines, as seen in the example I just provided you with.

I think you are trying to say that the UN logo includes a mercador projection of the spherical earth. It is not a representation of a flat planet, but it is a representation of what the spherical earth would look like if you maintain the perpendicular lines of latitude and longitude.

-ChriS

dbl post. disregard

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Hey _Del_, think anyone here's noticed your first post on this thread?

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by indierockalien
Have you ever been in an airplane before, or seen video from the spacewalks? You can see the curvature, if only very slightly.

The Earth is very round. How can you get to China from LAX without falling off into space? unless you mean to say that it's like an old videogame where if you run off one side, you appear on the other side magically...

No, you would travel on the disc to China. You're being silly. The earth isn't a square. Not I'm not an advocate of this theory, I'm just saying you're not addressing a real concern of Flat Earth Theory.

As such, I'm going to try to be as mature as possible and consider this as a purely hypothetical argument. You could also argue that the round earth is just as hypothetical, just better established. but for the time being, let's keep this up, i want to see if established science can beat your arguments down.

as long as they're scientific, keep those arguments coming.

reply to post by BlasteR


The UN Logo does not contain a Mercator Projection....it is an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, look at the link I posted earlier and compare to the UN Logo...exact match, and it's actually been explained that way by the UN itself I believe. Sorry If I confused you in anyway though, I'm typing as thoughts flow and sometimes I jumble ideas together.

reply to post by hackbart


You are aware, of course, that the moon and sun are both visible at the same time during several lunar eclipses, right?

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
reply to post by BlasteR

 

The UN Logo does not contain a Mercator Projection....it is an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, look at the link I posted earlier and compare to the UN Logo...exact match, and it's actually been explained that way by the UN itself I believe. Sorry If I confused you in anyway though, I'm typing as thoughts flow and sometimes I jumble ideas together.

Yeah you're right it even sais it is the UN Logo here LOL:
en.wikipedia.org...

I am bad with map lingo but I have worked with mercador projections before and it looked similar when I checked out the logo on the net. That's where I got confused. Thanks.

-ChriS

[edit on 24-4-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by Cpt. Monty


Sigh... the block of ice between Russia and the United States, as any one can deduce is the NORTH pole. Not Antarctica. Unless you are going to reinvent hundreds of years of navigation. That is in part why your premise is wrong. Abandon the UN Logo, b/c apparently the analogy is a sticking point with you for some reason I cannot understand. In a flat earth map looking down at the earth toward the north pole. If a person from the west coast, say LA, left following the path of the sun west, they would travel in a circle arriving in eastern asia somewhere. As it turns out, that wouldn't be the fastest route to asia, but that's what the great circle route is for in both round and flat earth theory.

Man, I'm glad round earth theory didn't have you guys for advocates. We'd be stuck making offerings to the four elephants and giant turtle for a few more centuries.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by BlasteR


No problem, it took me a little while to figure it out myself as it was difficult to find the right mix of words to use in a search engine to find it haha. I am still waiting for an answer by anyone defending the flat earth theory to the stuff I posted about the AEP too, I'm really wondering who they plan to answer me without blaming government conspiracy.

reply to post by Blue_Seven


I'd venture, no. And I'd venture they saw none of the other SEVERAL threads where I make that admission. The whole thing has been a great learning experience about how people react to challenges and then have no idea what they're talking about, even if (by chance) they are correct.

Well, for the record _Del_, it's been fun. You are indeed a worthy opponent, I hope to meet you in debate and prove you wrong some day. For now, peace.

reply to post by _Del_


The real problem I have with this thread is the simple fact that the OP himself has failed at every possible chance to support his theory with any sort of evidence, no matter how small, or at least take the time to extrapolate on what he has given us. Not to mention he's blown off evidence against his theory as "propaganda" and "ridiculous nonsense."

You, on the other hand Del, have given life to this thread, and for that I thank you. Not for making this the flat earth theory any more feasible, but for making a great attempt at actually answering questions using somewhat feasible scientific observations when needed. And of course your original statement in this thread of your disbelief in the flat earth theory actually leaves the OP alone in his thinking, so the fact that the only person who actually argued a valid point for the flat earth theory was not the OP but and opponent of the theory itself, pretty much disproves the theory in my opinion haha.


Although you still display animosity and arrogance as much as the OP, and for that, you come off as a bit narrow minded, possibly the only complaint I have about you...thus far. And I say that because you have shown your tendency of insulting others time and time again, just like the OP did, for not making any sense TO YOU. You shouldn't berate someone for how they see something, but instead explain to them the flaw in their perception in a well-mannered way, not the way the OP, and yourself has done so in this thread.

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

The only way to tell if your earth was flat would be to figure it out yourself through other means, you can always pay for the virgin galactic. Dont forget about the medieval writings and the church. I think it is, but why debate it. Let them think it isnt if you do believe.

I thought ATS was a little more intelligent than that OTHER message board.

This picture just amazes me everytime I look at it and how it shows the curvature of the earth. I don't really care if the earth is flat or a sphere I just love my home.

reply to post by Solarskye


Ah how I miss southern florida. going to orlando in a month. dolphin games next fall!!!

Originally posted by Solarskye
This picture just amazes me everytime I look at it and how it shows the curvature of the earth. I don't really care if the earth is flat or a sphere I just love my home.

florida, florida! yesssssssssssss

To be fair to the OP, you should also reflect that several theories competing in theoretical physics are no more or less bizarre than a flat earth. The mobius strip or loop example I gave is a good model of this in action. While not mainstream that concept is hardly fringe in the field either. The presence of anti-protons and the like is certainly debated, expected, or assumed within many theoretical models as well. One reason I don't answer for his model, is I don't presume to know as much about theoretical physics as the OP does. I do know enough about it to make several round earth proponents silly, however. I suspect the OP does too. If you find my posts arrogant, I'll simply say that to my knowledge, I've only mirrored the post presented to me when I replied. When someone says, "this is stupid .... " I did reply with humour or sarcasm. At times perhaps even snarky, when the same point is argued ad nauseum and doesn't reflect the model. Ex. "How could I get to China without falling off the edge." If anything round earth proponents throwing random trivia that doesn't reflect the model(s) and insulting the OP shows more arrogance, imo. In fact, if you want to make lack of arrogance the basis of fact or decision, I submit Flat Earth is clearly winning the debate if you read the threads in toto, as opposed to selectively.

Regards,