Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina 42
The Earth and other planets are round because they just are, that's all there is to it.

Well now, that's the best argument for a round earth I've seen so far: They just ARE!

For the love of pete, please stop messing up the quote brackets!

Originally posted by logician magician
Look, if you don't want to debate me like an intelligent human, without resorting to childish antics and lies then you are free to leave the thread. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

I apologized for my confusion already, that's all you're going to get. If you don't want to let it go, you're free to ignore me altogether or leave.

1) It has been proven that acceleration produces g-forces.
2) We experience 1g on the surface of the Earth
3) Gravity is a fictitious force (as I have explained in detail previously)
4) G.R. dictates that a stationary surface in an inertial frame of reference in a downward motion is equivalent to a surface accelerating upwards in the absence of gravity.
5) Free-fall is defined as being 0g inertial motion. Relative to a non-inertial observer, there is no acceleration.
6) "Outer Space" is the same "space" as the "space" inside our atmosphere, only one is closer to the surface of a planet and contains more molecules.
7) As long as something is accelerating toward you, you will accelerate toward it: every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

All of this is why the ISS could not remain in orbit around a flat earth - you can only free fall so long before you hit the ground unless you're falling around a round earth. If your inverse bending of space nonsense were true, we'd experience the opposite of gravity, though as a probe or spacecraft climbed higher and higher it would experience less repulsion and eventually start "falling" back to earth where it would burn up. A probe in a high orbit would need to maintain some kind of constant acceleration to avoid falling back to the point where the inverse curvature perfectly offsets the disc's upward acceleration. Your model is deeply flawed.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by ngchunter]

I'm maybe a bit late in replaying to this thread but, come on.

Flat earth?

And NASA never put sattelite's in orbit?
I know we all hate NASA and all but . . . .
I can see the god damn Sattelite's in my home telescope.

You my friend need to sit down, have a break, maybe a coffee on the way, and just listen to yourself.


The earth is flat.
And i can fly.

Originally posted by -elmo-
I'm maybe a bit late in replaying to this thread but, come on.

Flat earth?

And NASA never put sattelite's in orbit?
I know we all hate NASA and all but . . . .
I can see the god damn Sattelite's in my home telescope.

You my friend need to sit down, have a break, maybe a coffee on the way, and just listen to yourself.


The earth is flat.
And i can fly.

Again, more proof that people are just getting their idea of what this thread is about based on the ideas of others who have got the wrong idea.

I have either heard or read somewhere that liquids want to be spherical. Which is believable as if you pour out drops of water out of a cup it turns to spherical droplets. Now if the creation of the planets is true. Then the hot molten “liquid” rock that would be the planet would do it’s best to form a sphere right. So the molten rock cools in the shape that it took, being a sphere. I could be wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

Originally posted by logician magician
Again, more proof that people are just getting their idea of what this thread is about based on the ideas of others who have got the wrong idea.

Considering that the flat earthers on this thread have not had a consistent theory put forth but instead each seems to bring their own version, some of which include fake satellites, his criticism is not unfounded. Your own model fails to explain how satellites and space probes are possible without introducing an antigravity effect that should repel us off the planet and cause satellites that go too high to come crashing back down.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by logician magician
Again, more proof that people are just getting their idea of what this thread is about based on the ideas of others who have got the wrong idea.

"IF" the earth was flat, how would you explain day and night on different parts of the "flat" earth?.

Surly every country should see sunrise and sunset at the same time if earth was a flat disc shaped.
Or am i missing something in your "idea"?.

No joke, i am curious.

And i do apologize if you already explained this. such a long thread, hard to keep every idea in mind.



[edit on 5-5-2009 by -elmo-]

Originally posted by -elmo-
"IF" the earth was flat, how would you explain day and night on different parts of the "flat" earth?.

It seems that the various flat earthers to visit this thread can't keep their story consistent, but the way I've usually heard it explained, the sun is actually much smaller and closer than in mainstream astronomy and acts like a spotlight as it circles the "flat disk" of the earth as if it were a record player. The same is true for the moon. Some problems with this theory include the fact that neither the sun nor moon are noticeably smaller in apparent size at setting or rising, and the fact that there should be significantly greater parallax from daily libration visible in moon images taken at rising and setting on a single day.

Doesn't the fact that people have visited the South Pole as well as the North Pole... ...kind of make the North Pole centre-of-the-world thing somewhat problematic?
And has everyone forgotten what the Skunk Works forum is for already?

Originally posted by logician magician

Yeah sure, it's easy to say "it's not this, it's not that" without actually saying what it is or why it isn't.

Each of your posts should be labeled FARCE!

You expect people to take you seriously? And i was worried people would laugh at me for theories of time travel!

Originally posted by logician magicianHey, just because someone can drive a car doesn't mean they know how it works, or the laws of physics which makes it go.

Same for your airplane. You can live in denial if you want, it doesn't bother me!

And what have you done to prove your theory? It's not based on any science whatsoever, and you are telling us about physics!? Physics itself brings down your whole "Flat Earth theory" if only you look at its laws and the relationship atoms have among themselves, what the hell is wrong with you? Have you hit your head somewhere along the way? It would explain everything ...

I have really studied this thread and given it some thought and I agree with the OP. THE EARTH IS FLAT! It totally makes sense to me now. If the earth were a sphere and you viewed it from space the light would bend inward toward the center, which is more dense, and make the earth appear smaller than it really is. It is much more likely that the Earth is flat and the light is bent to make it appear round.

I recommend the MOD's take the FARCE label off of this thread as there is no more proof that this is a farce than there is proof of a NWO, Reptillians, UFO's, speaking with Aliens through meditation, 911 Being a conspiracy, etc.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by Breifne


Sorry about that.



Seriously though, you expect me to believe that the Earth is flat? So, when you are in an aeroplane above 35,000, do you not see something that resembles a 'curviture' on the horizon? What are we then, a flat disc with every satelite (including commercial) projecting images of a 'circular' world - is there a point to this opinion / conspiracy?

Just trying to answer this makes me feel like the town fool.

Magician, yes, you'd have to be: Logician - no.

Good thread though.



Huh hum, Brei.

The Bible God states the earth is "fixed" and does not "move". The earth sits on it's foundation, and has pillars, and water beneath. We read about the 4 corners of the earth. How can this be reconciled to science? Can someone please tell me?