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

reply to post by lively


I'm willing to bet I'm in on the secret with that "propaganda" that I posted earlier...although I yet to see my government pay off!


Anyway, I really don't see why anyone is still debating in this thread, I pretty much proved (Although according to a recent post by the OP nothing can be proven, yet his title claimed proof....I do believe he is a hypocrite at this point) that Logician Magician, not necessarily Del, has yet to give substantial supporting evidence for his model. In fact, instead of answering a single question that I have personally proposed to him, he chose to ignore me after we went back and forth for a few posts because I "attacked him." I'm assuming he means I attacked his ego, because he let it get the better of him consistently. The OP has next to no evidence or support in of any kind to prove his model, and the claims he has made are so vague that anyone could have made them without doing a single experiment to begin with! Del, on the other hand, has made a few valid points, yet he has clearly stated he does not believe in the flat Earth theory!

Honestly, What is there to discover in this thread?

reply to post by _Del_


1)
You say earth appears round when you get high in the air, because gravity bends light. Well thats why the moon and sun and other planets look round too then. But they would also most likely be flat, if earth is.


2)
If everyone that has been to the great icewall surrounding earth are in on the conspiracy to keep it hidden from public knowledge, then how do you know it is there? if you mean that it is there then show pictures of it, good ones. The governent cant keep anyone away from going there. They cant keep track of an area that huge.


3)
If NASA fakes every pic, then how about all the other pictures humans have taken? Fake too? Many others have sendt things up to space too.

oh dear...

I held off replying to this thread multiple times, but seriously guys - a flat Earth?

If the earth was flat why do we use three different 'North' points (True, Magnetic, Map)?

This thread was purely made in the attempt to accumulate points in my view (and unfortunately I have helped by replying).

Absolute farce in my view. Although it was the best laugh of my day!

This thread is not all laughs actually, it makes you think. How can you be sure your senses are correct, even with the tools we have today we can't still be sure because all the tools have limits.

Q: In zero gravity, what shape does water make when its left to coalesce?

A: Sphere

Q: When the earth was forming the friction caused heat which melted the rock, since anything thats liquid or semi-liquid will act the same as water in zero gravity what shape does that make the earth?

A: Sphere.

hmmm, what about the corioulous effect?

Originally posted by scepticsRus
Q: In zero gravity, what shape does water make when its left to coalesce?

A: Sphere

Do you really think that there is no gravity in space?

Q: When the earth was forming the friction caused heat which melted the rock, since anything thats liquid or semi-liquid will act the same as water in zero gravity what shape does that make the earth?

A: Sphere.

That conclusion is obviously at odds with the Flat Earth models.

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by coop039
Ok. So if life exists on other planets, and other planets could be round, are saying that there is a second set of phyics that apply to these planets?

If the universe is finite, the what happens when you reach the edge? Whats on the other side? And more importantly, if we are in a constant state of upward motion (as you state), what happens when we reach the "ceiling"?

Sure they could be round. There isn't a diffferent set of physics. You obviously haven't paid attention to the thread. Galaxies can be discs (even in round earth models). Do they have a seperate set of physics?It's hardly like Flat Earth theory is the only model for a finite universe. In fact most models (including round earth models) assume a finite universe. That's why we say the universe is expanding. If it was infinite it couldn't expand, it'd be infinite. You're question therefore does not make sense.

My question makes sense. As you and LM have stated that current physics are incorrect. So the laws that govern a flat planet cant apply to a round planet.

So whats in the space around this finite universe? What are we expanding into? Space!

Still no proof that the earth is flat.

Originally posted by scepticsRus
Q: In zero gravity, what shape does water make when its left to coalesce?

A: Sphere

Q: When the earth was forming the friction caused heat which melted the rock, since anything thats liquid or semi-liquid will act the same as water in zero gravity what shape does that make the earth?

A: Sphere.

But you have forgotten, gravity is a hoax! It doesnt exist according to them, so anything that relies on gravity will still be met with the whole you have no proof claim.
So who is thats giving away $5000 for proof the earth is round? I suspect they would answer questions the same as OP and del, so no proof that is given will ever be enough. Every thing is faked, or your math is wrong, physics is wrong, its all a lie, so no money for you!
Maybe we are all living in a locker at a bus station. Anyway to prove we're not? Nope!

Originally posted by lively
Time dilation?
Climate change is a conspiracy?
Gravity is non-existant?
So... who else besides NASA is in on this secret? Maybe the airforce and Pres. Bush, and soon another president, and every astronomer to study the skies.

Where is your source please?

And I suppose you are "deleting" light-years and the soundbarrier too.

Del, there is also another flaw with your map.
With spherical Earth theory, the sun would only aim at one direct longitude line at a time, because the furthest point of the sun is reaching the furthest point of the world. Daytime thus occurs. Yet with your model, a greater amount of Earth would be heated at a time, causing longer (brighter) daylight hours.
Try this: hold an rounded light (dim light bulb, whatever) about 1ft. to an orange. See how this would demonstrate daytime on Earth.
Now hold that same dim light bulb 1ft. to a piece of paper. This results in the daylight on "earth" being formed in more of a direct circle, with more amount brighter (as more amount of earth is closer to the sun), which is not the case in today's real Earth.

I said the political movement concerning "global warming" is a hoax. I stand by that no matter what shape the earth is.
Time dilation exists per Einstein.
Einstein says there is no "gravity"
I don't think the president would need to be in on it, only a few top people at space agencies. And the Bavarian Map Makers Guild.
The suns orbit would have to expand and contract to account for the difference in seasons.

Originally posted by coop039


My question makes sense. As you and LM have stated that current physics are incorrect. So the laws that govern a flat planet cant apply to a round planet.

So whats in the space around this finite universe? What are we expanding into? Space!

Still no proof that the earth is flat.

I believe that one current theory says that the universe is finate with a slight positive Omega of around 1.01, which leads to a boundaryless finate universe, but the problem is that you can interpret that same data to view an infinite space and curvature that is 0, or almost so - meaning that there is no way to know right now. Just the same way, there is no way to know if the Earth is flat nor round because we are very limited in our observational capabilities.

For example, Flat Earth topographers can imagine the shape to be a sphere, a flat disc, or even a donut (although unlikely) because it all fits in with current observation. This is because topology deals with geometrical problems relations that do not depend on the lacking human perception of the apparent shape that we see (are we gods?), but on the way it is put together by nature and are conscious perception. The study of manifold embeddings, along with lower-dimensional topology really lets Flat Earth scientists look into what exactly the real shape of the Earth is. For example,

This is a simple formula that shows that a sphere can be treated in the same way as a flat circular disc. The sphere is merely the surface, and can be defined by R^3, here:

S=[(x,y,z) epsilon R^3| x^2+y^2+z^2=1

So it should be completely obvious that the two dimensional surface of the sphere is exactly the same as the two dimensional surface of the disc. Think of taking a flat balloon and blowing it up. It is thought that apparent shift may happen in relative lightspace/lighttime to observer who travels further from the surface of the disc, but of course not to the people who are still on the disc - according to relativity.

As explained before, it may also be that the Earth is not a disc at all, but rather a flat plane that curves in on itself in lower dimensions. You could imagine it to be somewhat of like a mobius strip.

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by _Del_

 

1)
You say earth appears round when you get high in the air, because gravity bends light. Well thats why the moon and sun and other planets look round too then. But they would also most likely be flat, if earth is.


2)
If everyone that has been to the great icewall surrounding earth are in on the conspiracy to keep it hidden from public knowledge, then how do you know it is there? if you mean that it is there then show pictures of it, good ones. The governent cant keep anyone away from going there. They cant keep track of an area that huge.


3)
If NASA fakes every pic, then how about all the other pictures humans have taken? Fake too? Many others have sendt things up to space too.

1) I didn't say that. I said if the earth appears round from high in the air it's because you're seeing the edge of the disc or the circular area lit by the sun.
members.shaw.ca...
Doesn't look round. Though you might be able to make out the outer ice wall if you squint.
balloons.space.edu...
Notice you only see the earth curving away in two directions, Left and right. Not away from us as it would in a "sphere earth"

2) I've provided pictures of the nearest ice wall, but obviously pictures of the taller one farther out would be difficult considering the protection it is under.
www.mbari.org...
www.esf.edu...
www.esi.utexas.edu...
www.exmaroffshore.com...


3) I've provided other pictures that show no such thing. Further why don't any NASA pictures show an oblate spheroid as they say exists. They show a perfect globe. Proves the pictures are doctored even according to their own theory.

reply to post by coop039


I struggle to take you seriously if you think only flat earth proponents think the universe is finite. Even a quick google search would show you tons of theories (few if any related to flat earth) that describe a finite universe. Your misplaced arrogance is laughable.

Originally posted by coop039
But you have forgotten, gravity is a hoax! It doesnt exist according to them, so anything that relies on gravity will still be met with the whole you have no proof claim.
So who is thats giving away $5000 for proof the earth is round? I suspect they would answer questions the same as OP and del, so no proof that is given will ever be enough. Every thing is faked, or your math is wrong, physics is wrong, its all a lie, so no money for you!
Maybe we are all living in a locker at a bus station. Anyway to prove we're not? Nope!

But have you forgotten, Newtonian "gravity" is a hoax! According to Einstein and GR, not according to Del! Anything that relies on "gravity" being anything other than a fictitious force (you can google that too) simply isn't compatible with MANY theories, not just flat earth. You still haven't issued an apology for your earlier refusal/inability to differentiate between the two models, and now your diatribe is really not helping convince me you have a strong grasp on the subject material.

Gravity?
Ok, I will apologize. But........Soooooooooo many theories, people, scientists, well, just about everyone, disagrees with you.




hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Newtons law of gravity
:physics.about.com...
physics.about.com...

physics.ucsc.edu...

reply to post by coop039


Gravity is a fictitious force. Gravitation is a real phenomenon and is commonly thought to be the result of geodesics and not Newtonian gravity. Were we to find a gravitron, we may well have to throw out relativity as we know it, and consider other Newtonian model options, but until then, I'll stick with Einstein.



[edit on 24-4-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by coop039
Gravity?
Ok, I will apologize. But........Soooooooooo many theories, people, scientists, well, just about everyone, disagrees with you.




hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

Newtons law of gravity
:physics.about.com...
physics.about.com...

physics.ucsc.edu...

Jeeze, kid. I'm sorry, but you are being very dense. Those links really have nothing to do with gravity, but with laws of gravity and gravitation.

I'm embarassed for you that _Del_ made it so clear, yet you come back here with those junk links as if you are going to disprove a flat Earth (or now gravity, for some ungodly reason).

First of all, it is very easy to tell if you are in an internal frame of reference because you can feel a force on your body when you are NOT in an inertial frame, but rather a non-inertial frame. This is not a real force.

Let me ask you, if you are driving in a car and slam the breaks, what magical force makes you accelerate faster than the car?

Can you feel any force on your body right now? Let me ask you, how many forces do you feel? Do you even know?

If you are at a fixed velocity relative to the Earth, then you can feel a net force, can't you? This means you are in a non-inertial reference frame. You are accelerating right now in spacetime (but probably not lighttime/lightspace as it is an entirely different dimension)

try this (I can't believe I'm doing this)
F sub app is apparent force, F sub fict is ficticious force.

F_app= m(d^2x_b)/(dt^2) = m(d^2x_a)/dt^2 - m (d^2x)/d^2 = F_true - m(d^2x)/(dt^2)

(d^2x)/dt^2 is the acceleration of one frame(sub a and sub b) relative to the other (i.e. the car seat and you)

with -m(d^2x)/dt^2) being F_fict

so,

F_apparent = F_true + F_fict.

Ok, there is your proof that gravity is ficticious.

Newton said that every force has an equal and opposite reaction. The earth is pulling you down, while the earth is being pushed up under your feet. In Einstein's view it is quite the opposite - that you are pushing down on the earth and the Earth is pushing you up. I believe that a few Flat Earth models that accelerate upward (or downward depending on how you look at it) accounts for gravity this way. In simple terms, gravity does not exist - although to explain this to laymen we sometimes submit that it does for sheer practicality's sake, because it is a waste of time for me to explain this basic stuff to you. You need to read a book or two, no offense) if you are not moving. This is true for both round and flat Earth.

Newton didn't realize this and thought mass basically comes from matter, however Einstein realized that mass and energy were interchangable and theoried that a gravity well could still have an effect on a massless photon.

Originally posted by Threadfall

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by Blue_Seven
no offense logician, but i think he has a point. relativistic effects change the nature of physics on spacial scales, and newtonian physics have no place in space.

This is an area that pioneering Flat Earth Scientists are doing current testing.

Can you name any of these "pioneering Flat Earth Scientists" so that others here could maybe seek to learn about them, their credentials, etc.?
Or should I just take your word for it? Also where is this testing being done? And who is providing the funding? Can you please give us some/any of these details?

Logical Magician, you must have missed these questions when I posted them originally, so I'll post again so you can provide us with the answers to these questions.

reply to post by Threadfall


I can't be sure about LM, but I know that personally I'm ignoring you because of your childish outburst earlier.

Best regards,

Del

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Threadfall

 

I can't be sure about LM, but I know that personally I'm ignoring you because of your childish outburst earlier.

Best regards,

Del

Well that's one method to avoid answering someone's questions. I was not even asking you a question, but good thinking in giving LM an out.

Best Regards, Threadfall.