The flat earth conspiracy

a reply to: D8Tee

If the earth were flat, I'd be able to see unlimited distances,

Nope, there is a vanishing point due to perspective, and you don't have infite vision in the first place because of the atmosphere, dust, water vapor etc.

Entry level stuff.

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
a reply to: Mordekaiser

But your example shows an object creating a dip in "spacetime" because of the force you refer to as gravity.

So in reality, there is something like the force of gravity below the spacetime field?

I have no idea what this means. What I am telling you is gravity is not even a force, it's merely how steep you can make the slide. A ton of mass makes steeper slides. If you escaped the gravity of the Earth, and Galaxy, and Universe but kept the mechanics, it would only make sense matter would orbit you in a similar manner in a vacuum if it and you were to scale mass to the Earth and the Sun.

Perhaps the prevalence of the flat earth theory at least warrants the consideration of possible alternative geography and cosmology.

An alternative consideration is, say, Antarctica is twice as large as thought... Just guess ~ 22000 to 24000 mile circumference...

Evidence is Jon Sanders 2 time circumnavigation of Antarctica in 1981 of ~ 48000 miles, starting in Australia.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Contrary evidence to this is it said Jon Sanders took a detour all the way to the UK during this voyage.

The contrary evidence seems ridiculous. Why would you call this voyage a circumnavigation of Antarctica if you're sailing from Australia to the UK?

Comments???

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
So in reality, there is something like the force of gravity below the spacetime field?

That is the big question -- what exactly *is* the force called gravity?

We can see its effects and what can create it. But like other forces, there isn't something as tangible. Hence why there is so much discussion on the subject currently. Or, at least there seems to be, depending on which websites you visit.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

What causes you to slide DOWN the steep slide?

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
Nope, there is a vanishing point due to perspective, and you don't have infite vision in the first place because of the atmosphere, dust, water vapor etc.

Entry level stuff.

Not entry level stuff. Wrong stuff.

If you had a powerful telescope, based on your claims, you could see the end of the earth fro a tall mountain. And we can't.

Because the earth is round(ish) and means objects disappear off the horizon.

Good lord, dude.

but I can see the moon when it is 230,000 miles away?

a reply to: AstralAvenger

If the sun is not a star undergoing nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium and releasing light and the earth does not orbit the sun then what is the sun and how does it work?

a reply to: SolAquarius

My guess is, like many others have pointed out, that it is all electromagnetic in nature.

a reply to: AstralAvenger


Energy states and mass. The force one masses dip is creating is greater than the total mass of the other. If two objects are the same size, the dips still interact and 'stick' but it's a stickynote compared to a steep slide.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

What two objects? We are talking about a single object and the dip it creates in the spacetime field.

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
a reply to: Mordekaiser

What two objects? We are talking about a single object and the dip it creates in the spacetime field.

If one object is creating the slide, but you don't have another object, there is still a description of gravity, but the phenomenon is generally speaking how one body of mass interacts with another.

If the object is small compared to the first, it is trapped to fall into it's dip, and it's own dip will have little effect on it.
If the object is the same size compared to the first, they attract each other equally, but this is a weak attraction compared to objects of different sizes.
If the object is larger than the first, the first object will begin to slide towards it.

All of these can also be true simultaneously.

a reply to: AstralAvenger
So there is no specific model for how the flat earth sun works beyond saying it's electromagnetic in nature? Thats kind of vague my microwave is electromagnetic in nature but saying that does not explain how it works

a reply to: Mordekaiser

If one object is creating the slide, but you don't have another object, there is still a description of gravity, but the phenomenon is generally speaking how one body of mass interacts with another.

The question was how and why an object of mass creates a DIP, a WELL, a DEPRESSION in the spacetime field.

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
a reply to: SolAquarius

My guess is, like many others have pointed out, that it is all electromagnetic in nature.

Electric universe meets flat earth, cool.

I'm going to start digging a hole, when I arrive in China will that prove to you the earth is round?

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
a reply to: Mordekaiser

If one object is creating the slide, but you don't have another object, there is still a description of gravity, but the phenomenon is generally speaking how one body of mass interacts with another.

The question was how and why an object of mass creates a DIP, a WELL, a DEPRESSION in the spacetime field.

I'm using laymans terms to communicate a model of what's happening. To call it a dip isn't even accurate.

Link

A 2D well is a poor representation of what is actually happening, despite being the best way to visualize it. It must be visualized as you can't model it simply. The spandex effect is 'similar' not the same.

a reply to: D8Tee

Let me know when you get there ok. Make some pics of the core while you're at it.

a reply to: D8Tee

You will never reach China because the earth is hollow inside

Might as well throw out a bizzare counter theory to flat earth at least the fringe theory of hollow earth still excepts the idea that the earth is a globe all be it a hollow one

a reply to: SolAquarius

Yeah well I said it was my guess, that's all I can give you here.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

Now it is about semantics.

First they say, "you know that 2d visualisation that science is using is not actually correct, it is actually 4d bla bla.......it is not a "dip" in spacetime, it is actually being "warped"...........making it look like a dip, well or depression........