More land & more life on the flat earth: worlds beyond the poles

a reply to: ZosimoS22

you do realise that the pressure gradient between earths atmosphere at sea level and the inside of your car tyres is greater than the that of the moons surface and the inside of a EVA suit // the apollo lander - dont you ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape
The guys making an honest effort to learn, nothing wrong with that.

I remember when I was a young kid and I learned the earth rotated.

I wondered why you couldn't just go up in a helicopter and have the world spin beneath you.

I wondered why you couldn't just collect the exhaust fumes from your car and recondence them to gasoline.

All of life is about learning, reason why many of us ask the questions we do in the forums.

Some are stubborn, however some are actually willing to learn from others.

a reply to: ZosimoS22

the visceral response is weird isn't it?

it's almost like mr smith takes over...

a reply to: TerryDon79
I think you should take a look into this topic. I was the same but there is something there for sure.

1. No measurable curve.
2. Horizon is always at eye level. This is impossible on a ball. Based on the size of the earth you should start seeing curve and the horizon just start following away below eye level at 30,000 ft but it doesn't. It also doesn't at 80,000 ft or at 118,000 ft - it is however perfectly flat. This is shown on various weather balloon and independent rocket flights not CGI.
3. The moon creates it's own light. It is NOT reflecting the sun.
4. The earth is stationary.

SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS showing the earth is stationary. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle. [emphasis BiblicalScholarship.net]

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

I will add that the magical force called Gravity answers a long list of questions that arise once considering a geocentric or "flat earth" model but after all gravity is just a theory.

a reply to: BudoisOne

You're back again?

3. The moon creates it's own light. It is NOT reflecting the sun.

Hogwash.

4. The earth is stationary.

More Hogwash
Foucault Pendalum

The earth is endless.. because it's round... circles have no end.

a reply to: toysforadults

The guy wrote a whole book about land which continues endlessley from the earth into the heavens from the north and south pole , you'd think he would have went to the trouble to travel their as in explore it himself , and take pictures etc!

he then quotes admiral byrd, but byrd claimed to have travelled inside the earth not into the heavens onto the continuous landspace!

this book is nothing more than a fantasy , if there were celestial sky spaces which humans lived on , dont you think there would have been some statues or temples or something to indicate this on our planet made by civilisations ?
dont you think we would have explored it and reported it ?

Or did the whole of the human species swear an oath to not speak of this ever ?


The book then goes on to describe the celestial bodies as illusory optical effects to do with lense error

Worlds Beyond the Poles


However science has advanced since then and we no longer rely solely on direct imaging to discover new planetoids
and have several methods to detect new planets and they all are reportedly spheroid in shape

this book plays on the ignorance of the general populace when it comes to scientific method and enquiry.

THere is nothing in the book in the form of hard evidence to show this continuous infinite earth.Surely you would have investigated it personally if you wanted to write a book about it , I mean how hard can it be to actually go there ?

Can we end this once and for all and ATS all do a go fund me to pay for a crack team of skeptics, believers and science nuts to go out to the poles and prove this # once and for all !

end this pathetic discussion on alternate theories on the shape of the earth and stop this folly , for it flies in the face of all those who have worked so hard to bring us discoveries based on the fact that the earth is spherical oblate in shape!

I mean for # sake if the earth really was flat then why arent there more independent scientists who claim that ?
surely they would hold us all account for being stupid and saying its spherical when its not , but you dont see any real scientists arguing this until they are blue in the face because its not the truth

a reply to: BudoisOne

Why did the catholic church kill Galileo then if he was lying , surely it would have been easier to out him as a crack pot opium smoking nut job with too much time on his hands than just kill him I mean if the earth is the centre of the universe why bother killing him ?

originally posted by: dbarnhart
If the earth were flat then cats would have long ago knocked everything off it.

Oddly enough, this comment wins to me and is, as far as I'm concerned - definitive proof.

Although we could all be wrong....earth could be...a...

Triangle Earth Facebook Page

That's right, it could be a triangle.

You all only thought it was a sphere. psshaw.

Still though, the cat thing makes a lot of sense. I think I'm gonna need to ponder this over more coffee.

a reply to: sapien82

Psssst.

The church didn't kill him. He ended up being sentence to house arrest for the rest of his life. He died in 1642 at the age of 77.

His health began to really fail in 1638, and the church let him travel to see medical specialist (er...well, if you could call them that back in 1638) in Florence.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

I always thought he was sentenced to death, house arrest is still # though.

It seems that alot of stuff you are told about science and the church is always portrayed as being really heated and the church always killing people.

Seems they had a no bad relationship actually until a protestant reformation that didnt agree with Galileo

Copernicus even had a decent relationship with the church.

Well you learn something new eh!

thanks

Proof the world is a sphere
www.theflatearthsociety.org...

Flat earth theory is for the ignorant, or those pushing a hoax. Sorry.......

a reply to: Thanatos0042

It's got my vote. Triangles preserve. In fact... The word TRIANGLE has no root. They don't know where it derives from. Defintely not from the greek.

originally posted by: PillarOfFire
a reply to: Thanatos0042

It's got my vote. Triangles preserve. In fact... The word TRIANGLE has no root. They don't know where it derives from. Defintely not from the greek.

Are you sure it's not just an amalgam of the Latin word Tres and Angulus meaning Three and Angle?

whats the difference between the night sky on the north pole and on the south pole anybody know

originally posted by: toysforadults
whats the difference between the night sky on the north pole and on the south pole anybody know

180 degrees and around 20,000 kilometers?

a reply to: D8Tee

oh right incapable of having a conversation forgot

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: D8Tee

oh right incapable of having a conversation forgot

You'd have to be more specific with you question if you expect an answer. Whats the difference between the sky really doesn't mean much? In relation to what?

a reply to: D8Tee

I became curious as to what constellations are visible on the north and south pole..

odd I know but I was randomly thinking about that

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: D8Tee

I became curious as to what constellations are visible on the north and south pole..

odd I know but I was randomly thinking about that

There's a free program you could try out.
Stellarium link