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

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
So everything in the universe formed perfectly flat and with the known sides facing the flat sun....ya okay.


You need to think more about it - nobody has implied that. You are only saying that because it gives you a reason to reject the flat earth by reconciling it with the perception that the earth is round.

"So everything in the universe formed perfectly spherical with the sphere rotating around a spherical sun.... ya okay."

Your reasoning shows signs of dogma. Open your mind, friend. Explore the possibilities and accept the mystery.




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
Light travels at 186 million miles per second, the amount of gravity needed to bend light enough to create this illusion would be so great, we ( life ) would not exist. ( even taking into account the 23% of refraction of atmosphere ) Light would have to be able to bend 180 degrees; In other words, back upon it's self. ( lightsabre technology ) Otherwise there is no other way to take a 2 dimensional world and make it look 3 dimensional.

Another point of contention, perspective, how convenient that ALL the moons and stars are oriented with the "flat" side to the earth. not one out of alignment in the (Carl Sagon) "Billions and billions of galaxies" . ( some of these have no atmosphere )


Also measurements have been made with lasers from both the north,south and equatorial regions of earth bounced off the moon, different latitudes have different measurements consistent with a sphere.


In my theory the earth has no gravitational field. It doesn't bend light. There may be millions of other stars facing the other parts of the cylinder earth. Why would you assume they are only in front of us? If the moon is only 3000 miles away, I doubt that the data collected and distributed through NASA is accurate, don't you?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
the gravity and power of human nature is also a factor in differing views of the "earth".



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Out of utter amazement... WOW! That's not a good wow... seriously.

The most basic way I can think of this is:

When a bit of liquid is put into a zero-gravity situation, it propagates itself ito the form of a sphere, or a form resembling a sphere. In 'space', the earth would have done the same thing.

seriously, Explain how there is no edge? Flat indicates that there should be an edge somewhere. I'm seriously just utterly confused by the vague logic in OP.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
First off, the curvature of the earth. there are two easy examples of this. First of all, the numerous pictures taken from space of all faces of the earth, and from high-altitude aircraft, all of which show curvature, if not the various parts of a sphere itself. Second, when watching a ship leave port, you will notice that the bottom of the ship is the first to disappear, followed by the top parts of ship. the only explanation is the curvature of the earth.


Because sustained space flight is not possible (how would a space ship float above earth?) we can hardly claim that photo evidence from space is a smoking gun. Clearly NASA fakes pictures to show a round earth.
The bottom of the ship disappears first because the atmosphere is thicker at the surface and thins at altitude. When seen through many miles of atmosphere, the air at the horizon is thick enough to diffuse light so it "disappears" That is why you still see the top through the thinner atmosphere.




Second of all, the idea of night and day doesn't really hold up. the most compelling argument I've heard is, I believe, from you, saying that it is a result of constructive and destructive interference. Very eloquent. the problem lies in the fact that to have localized destructive interference, one would have to have uniform light waves inverse only in their periods. as it stands, the radial light rays emanating from both the moon and the sun are too jumbled to actually create noticeable sections of destructive interference, mostly because the sun's rays are much more intense than those of the moon. Even if the rays were equal in their amplitude, the pattern of radiation from the sources would create a curved checkerboard patter of interference. (think of a wifi symbol superimposed on another facing the other way.)

The interference is the cause of lunar eclipses and only happens very rarely. The sun and moon circle the north pole roughly half way between the pole and the ice wall. The sun is small and only shines on part of the discs surface.



Third, travel wouldn't really work in the sense that satellites wouldn't be able to orbit the earth North-South, and explorers of the south pole trying to find the pole would be baffled by a strip of ice millions of miles long. and speaking of, how does the south pole even exist? or the north pole, for that matter.

Satellites don't orbit the flat earth. The south pole does not exist. It is a figment of the round earth. The north pole is the center of the disc. It is easy to circum navigate the world. It happens almost daily. Perhaps you are familiar with the great circle route.

i42.photobucket.com...





Also, how would the flat model of the earth account for people in the US seeing certain stars in the summer, while at the same moment, people in South america (presumably on the same plane/frame of reference) see a completely different part, and how would it account for the seasonal change of the night sky?


This is the best question so far and is explained by the fact that stars are rather small and are relatively close, much like the sun and moon. In fact they are only a few hundred miles beyond them.



Just in the interest of argument, please explain the concepts of day and night, seasons, and orbital satellites more clearly.

Good arguments, btw. keep them coming.


There is already a diagram showing the seasons and solar/lunar position in this thread. For the last time Satellites can not float, so they do not orbit. Some functions we think are performed by satellites are actually performed by high altitude blimps.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
_Del_ - you seem like a smart guy. So here are some questions for you.

How does the flat earth model account for changing of the night sky and seasons?

What is the structure of the sun, and how, if it's only a sort of spotlight, does it still reflect light off of the moon while still lighting only portions of the sky? to work as we know it, the sun would have to project a triangular beam of light with a vertex constantly at or aligned towards the north pole.

How can the sun and moon revolve around the earth if it has no gravitational field, and even if it was because of something like the magnetic field, how could they conceivably rotate and constantly stay over the center of the earth?


Thanks.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
When a bit of liquid is put into a zero-gravity situation, it propagates itself ito the form of a sphere, or a form resembling a sphere. In 'space', the earth would have done the same thing.

seriously, Explain how there is no edge? Flat indicates that there should be an edge somewhere. I'm seriously just utterly confused by the vague logic in OP.


Are you suggesting the earth is a liquid? I'm somewhat confused by your unorthodox position, but I'm willing to listen.

There is an edge to the earth. You obviously have not viewed the map.

i42.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I was not talking about NASA, but the Military, I was on ship when the measurements were taken, I sent the msg about our findings, it was my Job in the military as a communications specialist.

Measurements are taken annually, for accuracy reasons.

Edit to add, explain the eclipse (lunar and solar) again? and retrograde motion of planets?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by thedigirati]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


Im not even going to finish reading this RIDICULOUS thread..........are you just trying to get points?I call for no one to star or flag your post-and further more to stop responding.

I mean ARE YOU SERIOUS??



Did you just time travel from the middle ages?

Simple physics totally DESTROY your bogus theory.


If the Earth was flat--------wow...........I cant believe Im discussing this in the year 2008.You do know it is impossible for a body in space to form in a flat form right?Gravity compresses everything into a shperical shape.

Oh and you see the moon and sun athe same time sometimes due to the orbit of the moon and earth.


Please someone show me ONE known example of gravity forming a flat shape in space.JUST ONE.


I suppose the stars are holes in heaven right?

OMG.........WHAT ARE YOU ON?


No,I didnt fly up to space and "see for my self"but I know my cell phone,satillite tv,gps...........etc work just fine.

If you really think NASA or the gov. would lie about that,or could cover it up...............you are totally out of reality.


I will not even waste my time saying anything else....................ROFLMA
I want to say so much,but I will just shut up now.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
_Del_ - you seem like a smart guy. So here are some questions for you.

How does the flat earth model account for changing of the night sky and seasons?

What is the structure of the sun, and how, if it's only a sort of spotlight, does it still reflect light off of the moon while still lighting only portions of the sky? to work as we know it, the sun would have to project a triangular beam of light with a vertex constantly at or aligned towards the north pole.

How can the sun and moon revolve around the earth if it has no gravitational field, and even if it was because of something like the magnetic field, how could they conceivably rotate and constantly stay over the center of the earth?


Thanks.


The sun circles the north pole. Summer in the north means it is a smaller circle, summer in the south, a larger circle.



The sun and moon circle the magnetic north pole they do not revolve around the earth because the earth has no gravitational field. It is assumed the poles of the sun and moon somehow interact with the earth's north pole.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
but to say there is heaven as well is also not false and to say that the suns locationn points in a direction similar to where its force is emenating is also a thought relative.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Earthscum
When a bit of liquid is put into a zero-gravity situation, it propagates itself ito the form of a sphere, or a form resembling a sphere. In 'space', the earth would have done the same thing.

seriously, Explain how there is no edge? Flat indicates that there should be an edge somewhere. I'm seriously just utterly confused by the vague logic in OP.


Are you suggesting the earth is a liquid? I'm somewhat confused by your unorthodox position, but I'm willing to listen.

There is an edge to the earth. You obviously have not viewed the map.

i42.photobucket.com...


I was going to say the same thing. There is an edge, but It it surrounded by an ice wall (or not, I've never been there), but it is more likely that an icewall exists to keep the water from falling off the side, and the coriolis effect dictates that you will advance toward the center of the disk when walking in a perceived straight line. This would make walking around antarctica forever impossible as you would eventually come to the shore and perceive that you had come upon some barrier - the shore.

You can basically see the truth of the situation if you look at the United Nation's logo (i.e. prototype NWO). Hidden in plain sight, like everything else. :@@



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
torsion fields and rotations that move fast enough to cause spherical allegory to an encompassing life sphere large enough for quantities of ankh based life as well as cross based forms would also be along a thought pretense to this topic. these would be akin to a being witnessing a galaxy by todays scientific perspective.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by _Del_
 


I was not talking about NASA, but the Military, I was on ship when the measurements were taken, I sent the msg about our findings, it was my Job in the military as a communications specialist.

Measurements are taken annually, for accuracy reasons.

Edit to add, explain the eclipse (lunar and solar) again? and retrograde motion of planets?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by thedigirati]


Since sustained space flight is not possible, how would we place reflectors on the moon? I really have no reason to believe lasers were bounced off the moons surface. Even if you were able to, have you considered the moon might be an Einstein Bose concentrate that slows the speed of light, trapping it before releasing it? Couldn't the difference in time be accounted for by the moon's curvature?
In a solar eclipse the moon travels in front of the sun. In a lunar eclipse, the from the sun reflects of the moons surface like normal. The earth also reflects the sun's light onto the moon. Under certain rare conditions the trough of the light wave from one, meets the peak of the other cancelling eachother out.
Planetary motion (retrograde or otherwise) is accounted for by the same physics round earth theory uses.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
_Del_

to rotate in the way they do, the sun and moon would have to be rotating around a center of magnetic "gravity" that is some thousands of miles above the north pole. this is technically conceivable, I'll grant you, but it needs further investigation to be proved.

furthermore, how is it that the earth is the only planet that was formed as a flat disc? why did all the other planets form as spheres?

and if the earth has no gravitational field, how is there any gravity on earth? any object with mass, no matter how minute, has a gravitational field, it's a fundamental assumption of physics.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Another thing I thought of is, as youget farther from the "center" of your flat earth, the distance to travel 1 degree becomes greater. My friend lives near Adelaide, S. Australia. She has also lived in the united states. According to her, AND the maps I look at, she only has to drive about half an hour to get to the beach. By your model, she actually has a COUPLE THOUSAND KM's to drive! Explain that one to me. I know she doesn't have a vehicle that can do that kind of speed... unless you are suggesting that she's in on the conspiracy as well.

Logic tells me that there are too many fantastic things that have to happen in order for the earth to be flat. One is that things would have to speed up and become larger as the reach the outer edge in order to make up for the difference in percieved size and distance. If gravity is lessened, I don't grow larger. I can definitly say that when I jump up in the air I don't grow larger or taller in that moment when gravity has a lessened effect on me.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
They used to laugh and spit at people who said the earth was round, now they laugh and spit at people who say the earth is flat.

I guess they laugh and spit at anyone who believes different than the rest.

Unfortunately this is no good news for those who believe the earth is hollow



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
and if the earth has no gravitational field, how is there any gravity on earth? any object with mass, no matter how minute, has a gravitational field, it's a fundamental assumption of physics.


The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.

The reason that planes do not crash is that their wings produce lift, which, when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, causes them to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is moving up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Are you suggesting the earth is a liquid? I'm somewhat confused by your unorthodox position, but I'm willing to listen.

There is an edge to the earth. You obviously have not viewed the map.

i42.photobucket.com...


What spews from a volcano?

YES, that is exactly what I'm saying... our earth is a liquid ball of iron with a crusty top... just like a cheese casserole! ...only resembling a sphere instead of sitting in a dish.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum

Originally posted by _Del_
Are you suggesting the earth is a liquid? I'm somewhat confused by your unorthodox position, but I'm willing to listen.

There is an edge to the earth. You obviously have not viewed the map.

i42.photobucket.com...


What spews from a volcano?

YES, that is exactly what I'm saying... our earth is a liquid ball of iron with a crusty top... just like a cheese casserole! ...only resembling a sphere instead of sitting in a dish.


Lava has nothing to do with the Earth being round or flat. It is quite funny that you would magically transform a casserole into a sphere, however. The same magical transformation happens the further we leave the surface of the Earth.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join