Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
so my post are more along the lines of a perception in planar interaction with "earths" surface spiritualy and in some ways metaphysically that defy what has been told to me of my interaction physically. when i say planar that does not imply that my movement is just in a cross fashion or that i am moving across the plane in an ankh fashion; but between the two being my movement.




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


So, explain Lava to me... what is it, where does it come from?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
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.


Why would you tell others to stop responding when you're clearly unable to keep away yourself? It's clear you are threatened by a shifting paradigm. Have no fear, we will let you keep whatever view point you are comfortable with.




Did you just time travel from the middle ages?


That is a form of chronological snobbery, wherein instead of addressing the concerns you assume a position is not valid because it is old. Further, I have no reason to believe flat earth theory in its current form reflects middle age belief.




Simple physics totally DESTROY your bogus theory.


Then please contribute to the thread.



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.


I do not know that it is impossible. Seems pretty dogmatic.



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

This has already been explained atleast three times in the thread, so I'll assume you're incapable of reading comprehension or you haven't actually looked at the theory you are so brilliantly thrashing.



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.

Again, high altitude balloons and blimps are more than capable of bouncing signals back to your tv, phone or gps.



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


Perhaps you are a disinfo agent? They seem to flood the forums in droves. If you don't think they are capable of that, what are chemtrails? Didn't they "implode" the World Trade Center?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
logician magician, I'm sorry, but your theory doesn't hold up with the theories of special relativity. We take measurements in accordance with the frame of reference of the earth, and therefore we perceive the earth to be the only stable object in the universe. in fact, one of the big ideas to come from relativity was that there was no one central reference frame from which to measure anything in space. that measurement of 1g acceleration could be from any one arbitrary frame of reference, and can't really be taken seriously. Also, if all of the other stars are moving at the same rate, you can't explain the red shift in the light given off from stars, suggesting that they are moving away from us at a constant rate. you also can't explain a constant acceleration, because at a certain point the velocity of the earth would exceed that of light, which in itself is inconceivable. you can't just pick and choose from physics. either accept all or none of it.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


The Earth is accelerating upwards....because of what? God pulling the strings of every planet and star? There would need to be a force for that and I'm unaware of one. Of course since, as EarthScum said, we are a ball of iron and molten rock we do generate a gravitational field that would keep an airplane stabilized in the same way your vague statement there proposes...except the spherical earth theory would make more sense in that way. By the way OP, I'm just wondering why you have to bring in the NWO/UN and NASA conspiracy into every other one of your posts. To me, you seem to be preaching that this is a government secret rather than a scientific argument. Del's arguments are more valid than yours, if not simply because you are saying that a "giant ice wall" is being kept secret from us. On that note, wouldn't one of the many not so rich, not so well-off, men or women working in the shipping industry maybe have spotted this "giant ice wall" that encircles the flat earth by now? Or has the government killed/paid them off?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
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.


Great example, I was trying to think of something along these same lines!

I was thinking about density and gravity and the way that the earth would just fold in on itself if it was flat, but that is as good a question as any.

I am still trying to work out if I was supposed to take this seriously though as it has drawn a rye smile on my face.

My advice? save your pocket money, buy yourself a rocket and go and look for yourself.

Regards S_G



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
reply to post by logician magician
 


So, explain Lava to me... what is it, where does it come from?


I don't see how this relates to a flat Earth. It comes about the same way as it would on a spherical earth. Heat and rock.

What is it that you don't understand? Maybe you should take a Geology class.

en.wikipedia.org...

You really seem to have some weird programming.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
about physics have you applied it to a 3d model? serious question



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
_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.

I would pose that the radiation measured and classified as "the Van Allen Radiation Belts" are the source of electro magnetic radiation required to produce said rotation.



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?

The earth is not the other planets. It is unique and special. You might as well ask why dogs did not form as cats. Or why apples do not taste like oranges.



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 (and the rest of our solar system) is constantly accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8m/s^2.
Einstein postulates that gravity does not exist but is simply a manifestation of curved space time. I have no reason to dispute that gravity is a "fictitious force"



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
OMG

Can a mod please step in and end this thread its getting to the point of no return.

This thread has reached 7 pages already and the OP has given no 'real' evidance of what is being proposed and constantly dances around the questions from others by producing "suspect" data to back him/her up.

I find it so hard to even comprehend how these people can think like this when cold hard facts are screaming at you from every scientific angle that you are wrong.

So please, will a mod please put an end to this trolls thread.

On another note, i've just noticed that the logician magician
and _Del_ seem to be quite new and have joined within days of each other ...... im now starting to wonder ... with the way that they seem to be backing each other up if they are the same person.





posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
As blatantly dumb as the topic is, and as much as I actually think this thread is a joke for someones amusement, I'll post. When we have earthquakes and test nuclear weapons, we can track the seismic wave as it goes through the Earth. We have P (primary) and S (secondary) waves. P waves will travel through the mantle, the liquid outer core, and the metallic inner core at different speeds. S waves will travel through the mantle, are bent by the liquid outer core, and do not penetrate the iron core. We have mathematical models in place so we can analyze these signals when they occur, monitored from the 1000's of seismic detectors that are in place all a'round' the world. The computation of these events is so accurate, that scientists have mapped the outer edge of the iron core, and it has dimples, just like a golf ball. Also realise that these seismic events are triangulated from hundreds of positions. How does that work if everything is flat? Well, it doesn't does it?



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Logician Magician. I have a simple question for you.

Would a sea-worthy vessel not take a much longer amount of time to cross bodies of water to reach their destinations?

In the flat earth model ships would technically be passing coasts of continents that they don't actually pass when going from say, California to China. I've yet to hear a report from a cargo ship on it's way to China from California that says it saw the Horn of Africa.

Also, as we are all aware of I'm sure, in regards to flight paths, the Optimized transcontinental flight paths are curved. On a flat earth we wouldn't need to do this because a curved flight path would simply veer the aircraft off course and it would have to eventually make a turn, so that wouldn't make much sense.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


No I can read-proly better than you since I understand SIMPLE PHYSICS that have been around since the 1600's......Newtons Laws,Keplers laws............I dont know what I am talking about-I am in college and take Astronomy,but yea your prolly right I am just another disinfo agent with the Illuminati/NWO/Reptillians


I just CHOOSE not to read past the first page,since this is so RIDICULOUS.


Get back on your meds........



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
lyou also can't explain a constant acceleration, because at a certain point the velocity of the earth would exceed that of light, which in itself is inconceivable. you can't just pick and choose from physics. either accept all or none of it.


The earth and the solar system will never reach the speed of light because mass is not constant. Mass approaches infinity as it approaches the speed of light.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by Earthscum
reply to post by logician magician
 


So, explain Lava to me... what is it, where does it come from?


I don't see how this relates to a flat Earth. It comes about the same way as it would on a spherical earth. Heat and rock.

What is it that you don't understand? Maybe you should take a Geology class.

en.wikipedia.org...

You really seem to have some weird programming.


I wasn't asking for a smarta** reply. It is relevant that if we have molten rock underneath the earth, what is containing it in your flat earth model? There are more than just physics that you have to provide before saying there is a flat earth. There are also physical properties of the earth that HAVE to be taken into consideration.

As well, by what I've read so far, everything in nature mimics each other and repeats each other, EXCEPT for the earth? When a rock gets ground down in a river bed, does it not become increasingly round, not flat? This happens even if the molecular structure isn't round... but if you get in close enough, everything making up that structure is round.

IMHO, this is just 2D thinking, which I have a hard time percieving of. If you are rational and don't tell me to go learn something, then I will continue on this discussion.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
.... I'd say... This would be a Paper Mario World if you ask me. So what Logical Magician is saying this world is in 2d instead of 3d. Our bodies are actually flat, and we have really no circumference, or volume, and all of it really is an illusion performed by our lovely magician.


Okay so he says the world is flat so what, let it be if that was the case. There's really no need to care or get upset over something that was discussed and forgotten in the past.

The Earth got formed into a pancake or a hot pocket, with a ooey gooey layer of molten magma, and a thin delicious layer of crust.


We are the teddy graham crackers living on this giant pizza.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by Shrukin89]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I'll second Cpt. Monty with this.

consider optimized flight paths. the curves should, in accordance with your theory show up straight on optimized flat maps, and curved on a curved map. instead it's the other way around. on optimized/simplified maps, they show up as curves. a path from la to london shows up as a curved arc, with it's vertex closer to the north pole, because it follows the curvature of the earth, as it would if you cut the earth with an imaginary plane linking the two cities.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
You're traveling to another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound... but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land, whose boundaries are only that of the imagination... you're entering... the Twilight Zone ...

Rob Serling

OMG! please stop the bloodletting - it hurts



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I see no PROOF of earth being flat. Your explanation and pictures aren't even close to proof..



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
Also, if all of the other stars are moving at the same rate, you can't explain the red shift in the light given off from stars, suggesting that they are moving away from us at a constant rate. you also can't explain a constant acceleration, because at a certain point the velocity of the earth would exceed that of light, which in itself is inconceivable. you can't just pick and choose from physics. either accept all or none of it.


The red-shifting and blue-shifting of light on Earth is a result of a non-uniform spacetime gravitational field. Time dilation as detected on Earth is a result of a non-uniform gravitational field. The two are not possible in a uniform gravitational field. No experiment exists, which has measured red-shifting and time dilation on Earth, due to apparent gravitational influence, that can be explained with the EP for a non-intertial frame of reference.

As for exceding the speed of light, that is merely an assumption on your part. There is nothing in reality that reflects this.

The time dilation detected on Earth does not use clocks displaced along the vector of acceleration. It is true that they are sometimes briefly displaced along this vector (in the airplane-aided version of the experiments), but this displacement is not the major contributor to the dilation measured. It is a relatively brief time of displacement. The dilation primarily occurs at higher altitudes, in areas of different gravitational potential. It has nothing to do with how they got there, or even if they were moved from a different point along the gravitational vector in the first place.






top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join