It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 45
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:25 AM
Flat ridiculous nonsense that doesn't even deserve a thread dedicated to it.

It is clear that the earth and most bodies in space are orbs.

Or maybe Earth is borne aloft on 4 elephants riding a space turtle

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:33 AM
Del - I have a question. This wouldn't work/make sense with a round earth, but would seem to work under your flat earth model.

Under your suggested model, the sun is very small and only heats a small portion of the earth. The stars are even smaller, being specks just a few hundred miles further away than the sun. This suggests to me that there is very little light or cosmic radiation outside the ice barrier, suggesting that space rests at absolute zero, or very close to it.

So here is my question - What keeps the ice barrier from melting away as it should be turning into a Bose Einstein Condensate? It should turn into a condensate and fall off the edge of the world. I acknowledge that while thermal convection would carry the suns heat across the world towards the ice barrier slowing this process, it would seem inevitable that our atmosphere would freeze, condense, and fall away. While this seems very illogical to me it would seem to work because you claim the earth has no gravity.
For those that don't know, when matter approaches absolute zero, it becomes a "superfluid" with curious properties.

Del I need you to explain this one for me. Either space is warmer than your model allows, or the ice wall should be encroaching closer and closer to the earth's mainland, as our atmosphere grows thinner and thinner.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

That's a new one to me. The ice barrier is a mountainous range covered in ice. I would suspect that the area outside of direct radiation would be rather cold, but even in a round earth model areas of remote space aren't represented as reaching (or nearly reaching) absolute zero. From what I remember of the Bose-Einstein condensate it has never been observed or theorized in nature. It has to be cooled using lasers.
You could also say that you have no idea what is under the disc and the dark energy propelling the earth would also heat the regions around it. Or there may be other energy sources below the disc.
Or it might be that matter well off to the side of the disc is in such a state. Or that such a state would cause the matter to adhere to the discs edge, not fall away.
Because the question obviously involves the hypothetical and not the observed, I don't really see a major challenge to the flat earth model.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Extralien

Dude, your post makes total sense! To an outside observer (outside the galaxy) the earth would appear flat due to the distortion of the supermassive black hole at the center. To us it looks normal because we are also distorted. Weird but sensible! This, unfortunately, is not the arguement our friends are making here. But it does make sense.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:24 PM

The first picture here merely looks like a round object, but it is obviously fake because it only shows part of the landmass - an obvious hint that there is a conspiracy cover up.

LOL Why would there be a conspiracy? What would anyone have to gain by covering up the true shape of the Earth? What...triangles and squares couldn't handle the truth?

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:36 PM
well its obviously round because there are pictures of the earth on all sides of it, and none of them show the earth flattened.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link making it flat actually complicates things!

This is wrong for so many

Round is our friend...round is good.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:35 AM
Terrestrial Gravity: Galileo Analyzes a Cannonball Trajectory

From the earliest times, gravity meant the tendency of most bodies to fall to earth. In contrast, things that leaped upwards, like flames of fire, were said to have “levity”. Aristotle was the first writer to attempt a quantitative description of falling motion: he wrote that an object fell at a constant speed, attained shortly after being released, and heavier things fell faster in proportion to their mass. Of course this is nonsense, but in his defense, falling motion is pretty fast—it’s hard to see the speed variation when you drop something to the ground. Aristotle most likely observed the slower motion of things falling through water, where buoyancy and fluid resistance dominate, and assumed that to be a slowed-down version of falling through air—which it isn’t.

Galileo was the first to get it right. (True, others had improved on Aristotle, but Galileo was the first to get the big picture.) He realized that a falling body picked up speed at a constant rate—in other words, it had constant acceleration (as he termed it, the word means “addition of speed” in Italian). He also made the crucial observation that, if air resistance and buoyancy can be neglected, all bodies fall with the same acceleration, bodies of different weights dropped together reach the ground at the same time. This was a revolutionary idea—as was his assertion that it should be checked by experiment rather than by the traditional method of trying to decipher what ancient authorities might have meant.

Galileo also noted that if a ball rolls without interference on a smooth horizontal surface, and friction and air resistance can be neglected, it will move with constant speed in a fixed direction—in modern language, its velocity remains constant.

He considered the motion of an object when not subject to interference as its “natural” motion.

Using his terminology, then, natural horizontal motion is motion at constant velocity, and natural vertical motion is falling at constant acceleration.

But he didn’t stop there—he took an important further step, which made him the first in history to derive useful quantitative results about motion, useful that is to his boss, a duke with military interests. The crucial step was the realization that for a cannonball in flight, the horizontal and vertical motions can be analyzed independently. Here’s his picture of the path of a horizontally fired cannonball:

The vertical drop of the cannonball at the end of successive seconds, the lengths of the vertical lines ci, df, eh are the same vertical distances fallen by something dropped from rest. If you drop a cannonball over a cliff it will fall 5 meters in the first second, if you fire it exactly horizontally at 100 meters per second, it will still fall 5 meters below a horizontal line in the first second. Meanwhile, its horizontal motion will be at a steady speed (again neglecting air resistance), it will go 100 meters in the first second, another 100 meters in the next second, and so on. Vertically, it falls 5 meters in the first second, 20 meters total in two seconds, then 45 and so on.

Galileo drew the graph above of the cannonball’s position as a function of time, and proved the curve was parabolic. He went on to work out the range for given muzzle velocity and any angle of firing, much to the gratification of his employer.

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation

Newton then boldly extrapolated from the earth, the apple and the moon to everything, asserting his Universal Law of Gravitation:

Every body in the universe attracts every other body with a gravitational force that decreases with distance as 1/r2.

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:37 AM
But actually he knew more about the gravitational force: from the fact that bodies of different masses near the earth’s surface accelerate downwards at the same rate, using F = ma (his Second Law) if two bodies of different masses have the same acceleration they must be feeling forces in the same ratio as their masses (so a body twice as massive feels twice the gravitational force), that is, the gravitational force of attraction a body feels must be proportional to its mass.

Now suppose we are considering the gravitational attraction between two bodies (as we always are), one of mass m1, one of mass m2. By Newton’s Third Law, the force body 1 feels from 2 is equal in magnitude (but of course opposite in direction) to that 2 feels from 1. If we think of m1 as the earth, the force m2 feels is proportional to m2, as argued above—so this must be true whatever m1 is. And, since the situation is perfectly symmetrical, the force must also be proportional to m1.

Putting all this together, the magnitude of the gravitational force between two bodies of masses m1 and m2 a distance r apart

F = Gm1m2/r2.

It is important to realize that G cannot be measured by any astronomical observations. For example, g at the surface of the earth is given by

g = GmE/rE2

where mE is the mass and rE the radius of the earth. Notice that by measuring g, and knowing rE, we can find GmE. But this does not tell us what G is, since we don’t know mE! It turns out that this same problem arises with every astronomical observation. Timing the planets around the sun will give us GmSun. So we can figure out the ratio of the sun’s mass to the earth’s, but we can’t find an absolute value for either one.

The first measurement of G was made in 1798 by Cavendish, a century after Newton’s work. Cavendish measured the tiny attractive force between lead spheres of known mass. For details on how an experiment at the University of Virginia in 1969 improved on Cavendish’s work

Cavendish said he was “weighing the earth” because once G is measured, he could immediately find the mass of the earth mE from g = GmE/rE2, and then go on the find the mass of the sun, etc.

[edit on 12-7-2008 by offtheheezay]

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 06:46 PM

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:25 PM
I've just loled all over my keyboard....

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:31 PM
I know. The fact people take Cavendish seriously is hysterical

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:03 PM
The Earth is cone shaped and every other planet and the Sun are really just heart shaped.
Just that our eyes see them as round...

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:14 PM
cmon.. everyone knows the earth is the center of the universe,, everything rotates around us. This is the year 1497 isnt it??

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:13 PM
After doing some research I discovered that our earth as well as our galaxy is actually inside a glass marble, coincidentally taking a part in a very short game of marbles before being put back into a suede like bag.

My research of course being the end of MIB the movie.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by porschedrifter]

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 11:20 PM
It looks round in the satelite pics.
So, where do we fall off at?

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 05:17 AM

Simple Example

A ship is traveling toward you coming from the horizon

What do you see first




The answer is as simple as your mind. Sails first because the Earth is curved not because of earth's small gravitational effect on the curvature of the surface.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:12 AM
Hey i dont mean no disrespect, but if we look at the simple things how do you explain things such as we can travel around the world, not off earth? Also if all the other planets are circular in shape our beautiful planet can also be??

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 08:38 AM
This is very interesting. Got me thinking, so i took a couple minutes and created my own model.

Earth Moon Sun

It's a small model, but size doesnt matter.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by kimbo7

Circumnavigation is possible in both models. You're in no danger of falling off the edge while circumnavigating the flat earth.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

What you're describing is dismissed as a horizon effect. The hull disappears into the visual horizon.

<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in