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: 36
9
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
IF the earth is revolving around the sun (not to mention rotating) and one's frame of reference is constantly changing, why do stars always appear in the same spot in relation to each other?
For example: I close one eye and I look at two trees, one being ten feet away and one being twenty, the trees appear to have moved in relationship to eachother. If I observe them first, then move two steps to the right, the same effect is more pronounced. If the earth is travelling large distances around the sun, why do stars always appear to have the same spatial relationship? Would they not in fact, move (relative to each other) assuming they are not the same distance away?


If you're looking for more of an astronomical reason I can tell you. It is primarily because the vast distances between these stars is so unfathomably huge (by our standards) that even though we are moving, the stars are moving, etc., movement is relative. What we are seeing are stars, nebulae, galaxies, all moving at extreme speeds with regard to one another. The problem is that the distances between these objects is so incredibly huge that it doesn't matter. The reconfigurations of stars within the constellations takes very long to occur (at least from our perspective).

How can we honestly say we can begin to fathom the size of the universe when that is blatantly false. It is far beyond our ability to fully comprehend.

I just found this on wikiAnswers.com and it pretty much agrees with my statements I guess.
wiki.answers.com...

And this from the educational nasa website "spaceplace.nasa.gov"


The stars move along with fantastic speeds, but they are so far away that it takes a long time for their motion to be visible to us. You can understand this by moving your finger in front of your eyes. Even when you move it very slowly, it may appear to move faster than a speeding jet that is many miles away.

Even the fastest stars take a long time to travel a noticeable distance. A faint star named Barnard's Star moves the fastest through our skies. Still, for it to change its position only by an amount equal to the width of the moon would take about 180 years. The constellations surely change shape, but seeing the changes would require superhuman patience!

The person who discovered that the stars move was the great British astronomer Edmond Halley, who also has a famous comet named after him. Almost 300 years ago he noticed that a few stars in charts made by Greek sky watchers were not in quite the same location anymore. Those charts were more than 1600 years old then, and even over that time, the bright stars Sirius, Arcturus, and Aldebaran had shifted position only slightly. Still, it was enough for Halley to realize that those stars must have moved.

--Dr. Marc at The Space Place.





posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Your answer is correct. It's called stellar parallax. But the answer presumes the distance involved with the stars. Yet isn't the data open to more than one interpretation? It's interesting to me that the Greeks considered and rejected stellar parallax in favor of a more "conventional" interpretation.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


OK, smarty pants. Then just answer me this. How does the Borg Cube
go so fast?! Yea, just answer that, if you know what your talking bout.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


The same way the sun and moon are the same size (real or apparent): MAGIC!!



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Oh, I completely forgot the Borg cube! And we all know that shows such as ‘Star Trek’ is based ‘purely’ on science fiction. But look at where we are now if these progressive, sci-fi writers hadn’t come up with anything possible like those hand-held ‘triquarters’, which strangely enough resembles our modern cellphones with limited functions, of course.

If science fiction could pave our future, I don’t see why MAGIC too could influence how the whole universe operates. We all know that magic is but an illusion, whether supernatural or not. And illusions can be reversed. Who cannot prove that the current spherical shape of our planet ‘Earth’ is but an illusion as well?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Well, I've certainly been trying to make the case for it in this thread...

Why are the sun and moon both visible during some lunar eclipses? I thought the moon was in the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse...



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Why are the sun and moon both visible during some lunar eclipses? I thought the moon was in the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse...


Because there are partial eclipses and total eclipses. Partial eclipses are, of course, more common.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by shiman

Originally posted by _Del_
If the earth was really spinning around in a tight circle while orbiting the sun while speeding through the universe wouldn't you feel dizzy as well?


No, our bodies evolved to be used to this. Also, as one of newtons laws go, we dont even notice the spin of the earth. The gravity created by the immense size of the earth would help us not get flung off of the sphere. If the earth stopped spinning, there would be more gravity than usual.

If the earth was flat the way your model shows, we would just spin off the world.


Haha. They did? There wouldn't be more "gravity" because gravity is not real, but entirely ficticious, and we've already discussed why.

If the Earth stopped spinning, we would all get thrown around 700km/h into the nearest object under so many G forces that you would die instantly, and your remains would go for a hell of a ride before you were obliterated under a pile of everything else that was not very securily attached the the surface.


OK then, try this experiment. Go grab an object that you can hold in your hand. Toss it up.

Quiz.
What is the force that brings the object back down?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
It is the earth accelerating upward towards the object at 9.8m/s^2. There is no newtonian force attracting the two objects of mass. We have already established, firmly, that "gravity" does not exist according to Einstein. I'm not just making up that gravity doesn't exist.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I am reminded of the astronauts training in the centrifugal machines and passing out (but not close to death) from the massive G-force, if any. If we are to stay glued to the planet, then by this example of mine we are being pulled against the surface or rather the earth is going ‘up’ against an object. Stopping the earth from spinning ever so ‘slowly’ would not kill us (as would a person in those coaster rides) 'under' anything, since there is nothing ‘above’ us but ‘outer’ space, right?

[edit on 2008-4-25 by pikypiky]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by _Del_
Why are the sun and moon both visible during some lunar eclipses? I thought the moon was in the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse...


Because there are partial eclipses and total eclipses. Partial eclipses are, of course, more common.


Also during a lunar eclipse the shadow of the earth that we can see on the moon is also, you guessed it, spherical. Not flat.

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by _Del_
Why are the sun and moon both visible during some lunar eclipses? I thought the moon was in the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse...


Because there are partial eclipses and total eclipses. Partial eclipses are, of course, more common.


Also during a lunar eclipse the shadow of the earth that we can see on the moon is also, you guessed it, spherical. Not flat.

-ChriS



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
dbl post

[edit on 25-4-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
It is the earth accelerating upward towards the object at 9.8m/s^2. There is no newtonian force attracting the two objects of mass. We have already established, firmly, that "gravity" does not exist according to Einstein. I'm not just making up that gravity doesn't exist.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by _Del_]


Hmmm. Im surprized to find that there is more than one definition for "gravity". Thank you.

The definition i follow is that gravity can be created by, well, ill say it this way. If you have a cup of water, beer, liquid, and you swing it in a full circle as fast as you can. It doesnt fall out because of a gravity created by a centrifuge type effect. So your theory of the reason we dont float off of a flat earth fits my description of gravity.





btw what is the white thing in the center of your avatar?

[edit on 26-4-2008 by shiman]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


You don't find it odd that you can see the sun and moon at the same time?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by BlasteR
 


You don't find it odd that you can see the sun and moon at the same time?


Do you?

This "Phenomenon" only happens when the object being circled is a "sphere".



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
If I can see the sun and the moon, how is the moon in the earth's shadow? Unless the earth is flat and it's not the shadow...


[edit on 26-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I just did my experiment with two, unopened perfumed soaps – one white representing the moon and one yellow representing the sun. I laid those out on the bed with the white moon soap closer than the yellow sun soap and walked around as if I was a flat earth not spinning on its axis.

My brain couldn’t calculate how I could see both sun and moon and decided to hold up the two bars of soap in my hands. Then I thought about the astronauts spinning in the centrifugal machine, which is personified by the spinning sun in the center with the earth as the astronaut.

And, lo and behold, I came up with some sort of inner earth theory: We are located inside the earth, on top of an open bowl or a container and not on top of a sphere where we would get flung off into space if the earth stopped spinning.

Later, I received an impression that perhaps the earth is not orbiting the sun but rather swinging back and forth like a ‘pendulum’. This could possibly explain the tidal phenomenon of Earth’s ocean on certain parts of the world – the tide on one side rises while the other side falls.

As for the moon, it too is being swung back and forth by the 'sun' at a different rate. This could probably explain why earth could only see ONE side of the moon.

So far, my quick interpretation of this particular universe supports the belief of: ‘Turtles all the way down' or infinite space beyond our world as a bucket full of water. The original version may have been from the Indian myth of how our world was formed.

(It’s late. I better stop thinking out loud. Good night y'all!)

[edit on 2008-4-26 by pikypiky]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Experiment:
Needed

  1. Beach Ball
  2. flashlight
  3. tennis ball



Place beachball (earth) on flat surface top side (shown below in white) up. Position flashlight (sun) so that at least part of the top (represents observers location on round earth) is being directly illuminated This ensures a line of sight from our observer's location to sun. Then attempt to place tennis ball (moon) in shadow of the beachball (earth) without placing it below the height of the beach ball (because it has to remain visible from observers location or white spot/top on earth/beachball).




[edit on 26-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
If the Earth is flat, Maybe on the underside there could be aliens? Maybe thats where they come from(USO)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join