Originally posted by JPhish
not a lower orbit, no flipping involved, flat circular earth, sun closer, earth moving faster through space.
still wouldnt work no matter how fast the earth travels a lower then geosyncrinous orbit will travel faster, following the equator its going to travel
from one end to the other of our little circle, then flip or have to double back around the circumferance both lead to a loss of visual telemetry so
the ateleites would only be useful 1/2 of the time
unless you turn the center of the disk as north but tht then causes all sorts of problems with ya knowthe sun comming up and going down
No, but we shouldn’t consider something a universal law if it is only a terrestrial law.
its not only a terrestrial law thoguh is
it
i works with a fair degree of accuracy through out much of the universe, general relativity breaks down primarily around blackholes where everything
fails not just general relativity
The problem is. Gravity is like a wolf. Sure you can coerce it to do certain things, because by its nature it does them. That’s easy,
what’s hard is taming the wolf so that you can use it for other purposes.
why would we want to use gravity for anything or then doing what gravity does?
what a terrible argument
becasue we cant use gravity to make expresso ....
what else would we use gravity for anyway? excpet for doing a halflife2 gravity gun
grvities a weak force by comparrison so its use is limited for other things
if the M hypothesis is correct gravity gets to be a lot more interesting and has another posibble use as a bizzare seti style
if we did not question the world around us, science would be static. It is the nature of science to explore all possibilities; even ones that
might not be agreeable to our belief system.
yes it is but that has nothing to do with the extremly weak 'its only a theory' argument when you obviously know enough about science and how it
works to realise using that is absurd in the way you did use it
as if to write off a theory as just an idea someone had and thats a far as it went
question yes, explore yes, claim somthing is wrong while not bothering to find conflicting evidence NO, claim its only a theory so worthless NO
I don’t presume to know much
but you appear to know how science works which would indicate a knowledge of peer review leading to an
understanding of a hypothesi becomes a proven hypotheis then moves on to become a thoery if all goes well
it not an easy process, it not somthing someone can do on thier own
which is why the its only a theory i perticularily offensive it writes of several peoples hard work thats been scrutinised by others in the field(who
really wanted thier work to be right) then usually undergoes several discuissions at large scale science meetings which then if all goes well get
accepted as a theory
to go through that, and thats just the stuff after first proving thier hypothesis right, and pretend it no more valid then the people who start off
thier posts with 'i have a theory' here on ats
and when your world view consists of only a few hundred mile of wilderness with scattered towns and cities within it the ability to see much
of that world while stood on a tall mountain in good conditions could lead to the conclusion the world is in fact a big disk
personally, it’s
not a conclusion that I think I would have ever come to without some sort of coercing. Most things by nature are spherical. Aristotle also pointed
this out.
even knowing more of the world exists out side of sight the abiltiy to turn in a circle and see the world spreading out into a circular horizon
it doent take a great leap of faith to expand that circle in your mind to fit the known world and consider it nothing but a big disk with terrain
poking out of it
true, but inferences from nature should help you deduce the overall nature of the earth and the universe. Celestial bodies
are spherical like most things. Aristotle figured this out without satellites and NASA photographs.
Yes almost the same, but the 2 circumferences are slightly different as we’ve been told.
you didnt answer the question ...
can a circle have both a north/south and east/west circumferance at the same time?
excuse me, it’s an, ellipse
sorry what is? the flat earth is an ellipse rather then a circle?
still doesnt get around the north/south and east/wet circumferance problem
the flat earth now has to be at least 2 flat earth disecting each other through thier central point at 90 degree's
rhetorical question?
pretty much
Yes, u can do that in my model, and it would appear that your moving in a strait line across the equator, and you would be able to do
so.
but that model fail terribly when you do the north/south repeat
also sirrius wouldnt behave the way it does, if you have to change vast chunk of our solar system and galaxy to make your model work chances are your
model doesnt work
Yes it would be. Look at the logo for the UN to get a better idea of what I’m talking about. I’d send you my model, but it’s not on my
computer.
the distorted comment was before i got to the central hub for north model
which falls apart with the rising of the sun, or repeating the east/west plane trip on the north/south axis
Like I said, the only thing I know of that can refute this flat earth model is the movement of the stars as an observer traverses the earh.
Particularly polaris. Maybe not polaris anymore though, we have a new north star a I believe.
a simple sunrise rising in the east collapses
the model as east west become clockwise/anti-clockwise
a flat earth like the map gets around the sunrise issue, the hub point model doesnt
all possible on a flat earth.
not really, it could have been possible until you throw in the north/south geometry and plane trip to
confirm
equator in africa up to the north pole onwards to the south pole ..... then how do you get from there to africa again without doing the same as the
satelites flip underneath and fly along back to the other end or travel around the circumferance until your at a point 180 degrees opposite where you
hit the edge
you could never travel across the antartic youd hit the end of the planet or travel round in a circle forever
they really don’t
they really do two axis's of cricumferance and the plane trip to check them alone detory both the flat earth map
view and flat earth hub point north model
the sun rise also does a fantastic job of this
not following you here
example of spliting somthing down into multipoints to attack them rather then the whole thing
macro evolution is not micro evolution. However, you are goal shifting now.
micro change with individuals a species or breeding
population, macro change between species or breeding populations
if micro exists then so does macro, it the same process taking place in two species or breeding population at the same time, where a micro only
focuses on whats happening in the one
not goal shifting, just showing how your tactics are similar
no, not at all, in my model the sun is extremely close to the earth, it rises and sets the same as it does in our current model.
doesnt matter how close the sun is for it to rise in the east and set in the west on a flat earth of anyshape with north bieng the central point its
impossible for the sun to rise in the east everywhere
not without multipul small suns hovering directly over specific areas with some form of shielding to prevent more then one sun at any time bieng
visable and even that still has massive problems
No, you don’t know the specifics of my model, so I don’t see how you could claim this.
its based on a disk, dont need the details
as long as it based on a 2 dimensional shape it fails at sunrises
a cone kind of works, or a semi-sphere but a flat disk wont, not one with a hubpoint bieng north for some of them it rises in the south, some the east
some the west and some the north
what aren’t that different?? if the sun is closer than we’ve been told, that’s a big difference.
but wont make a flat earth
feasable
if the sun is closer then it is were a lot warmer and getting iradiated, that is unless you shrink the sun to a balance it out which mean it may as
well have stayed where it was the decrease in mass leads to a decrease in intesity stopping it cooking earth but also lowering its ability to generate
gravity
so youve brought the sun closer and altered its ability to generate gravity and heat
now how do you fix its paralax shift? changing the size wont make a differnance ...
You can’t prove that it isn’t happening right now, even with polaris taken into consideration, it only proves that the earth is curved, not
a sphere.
not with the north/south and east/west geometry coupled with the confirmation plane trips
for it to have circumferances on both an x and y axis rules out the possability of a flat earth, it is 3 dimenional and continuos if you are able to
travel all the way around on both axis's from a point on the equator
the sun screw it up, moving it closer or further away wont fix the problem, moving it closer or futher away then screws up its paralax shift so now
you have to break algebra to make the sun closer but appear further away
what ever flat earth model the standard flat map layout or a north hubpoint everytime you fix one thing to make it possible you break at least another
1
without seeing the actual model its hard to com up with model specific faults butthe ones above are just generalied for ANY flat earth
[edit on 2/2/09 by noobfun]
dam that really is funny 
