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

Logician Magician in other words is another way of saying, a logical illusion, instead of optical illusion.

Magicians do that stuff you know. They want people to believe as to how it is seen, and not by how it is done. They are very strong believers too, that I might add. I dunno but that's just me from reading his name.

I'm not going to disagree with Del or Logician Magician. There is just no need to get upset or serious to deny or clarify it's truth. When you know you guys don't have to believe. It's all in the matter of an individual's perspective of what they see in reality.

I'm actually not upset about it.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Shrukin89]

The most surprising part of the thread has been the amount of outright hostility it has generated. Shocks me, to be honest. I don't get upset when people talk about some far out ideas, but mention a flat earth and out come the wolves. The best part is when the wolves don't understand anything about physics and then try to explain round earth, really.
There have been some excellent questions/points brought up by participants, but an overwhelming number of them have been nonsense.

eI think the hardest part for people is that the complete concept contradicts everything we were ever taught. Not everybody really knows about physics, astronomy, or science in general and they just take the scientists' word for it. That's the real problem is people just assume that truth is engraned in what they have been taught and never questioned. Science itself has many definitions to many people but my definition is that it is this..

Science is never exact because sometimes new discoveries are made which challenge the status quo. As our scientific understanding of the universe progresses some theories or concepts which, in the past, were considered factual are eventually proven false. This means that science is simply what we think we know at any given time.

That being said, Some really good points have been brought up in the thread which counter flat-earth theory. Some people just attack it (without understanding astophysics/astronomy/or physics in general) just because it contradicts the status quo. But others have really remained objective in bringing up points which are extremely valid and applicable.. Things like

-Ship navigation and naval exploration through the centuries pointing to a spherical earth

-The fact that earth's electromagnetic fied and gravity field are both also spherical and have been mapped with satellites and high altitude aircraft

-During a lunar eclipse the earth's shadow is spherical which means that a physical object is blocking out that light (the earth being spherical it explains it very well)

-Planets and stars form over millions of years through the complex actions of gravitational accretion which, eventually, inevitably forms spherical bodies because of the very nature of gravity not being flat.
(planets and stars are spherical while some galaxies are flat because galaxies form under very different circumstances. Almost all galaxies have a black hole at their centers which seem to be very important to galaxy formation and also could be one explanation as to why some galaxies are indeed flat and rotating. We know very little about galaxy formation however. We understand the fundamentals of accretion much better. but let's also not forget that some galaxies which form through very normal means are eliptical)

-Our time zones only possible with a spherical earth

-The bending of light seemingly only explainable with a spherical gravity field (hence a spherical planet)

-And any others I have forgotten or didn't mention..

The fact of the matter is that a flat(ish) planet is possible. But not under normal circumstances. This website depicts earth as it would when the angular momentum of earth's rotation is increased to 20 times what it is currently.
www.josleys.com...

There is a quicktime video which illustrates it very well, but these are the images from the website that build up to the final result. This is McLaurin's theory from 1742:

MacLaurin shows that, as the angular momentum increases, the Earth will get ever more flat. The shape is an ellipsoid with two equal axes, rotating around the short axis. The ellipsoid becomes a disc with an ever increasing radius. The rotation speed first increases, but the speed reaches a maximum and will then decrease. As the radius of the disc continues to grow and tends toward infinity, the rotation speed will tend toward zero: L can be expressed as L=ω.I, where I is the moment of inertia. For a constant mass, the moment of inertia of any object will get larger and larger as the object takes on a shape where a radial dimension becomes larger and larger. Therefore the rotation speed ω must go to zero for a finite L and an ever increasing radius.

It is possible but not under the current conditions of our planet. The result in the final image is a flat planet approximately 800km pole to pole.

With regards to flat earth theory, while it is an interesting theory to speculate about as well as an interesting experiment in human psychology, the fact is that everything we observe and have observed over the centuries all point to a spherical planet. I have yet to really see any convincing scientific evidence which would even suggest a flat planet. But I have seen counter-arguments to the status quo which can be explained by both spherical and flat-earth models (like the seasons for example).

The theoretical shape of the Earth has been studied by mathematicians over the past 4 centuries (although the interest has waned the last 40 years or so). The list of people who have contributed to this topic sounds like an all-time hall of fame of mathematicians: Newton (1689), Huygens (1690), Cassini (1701), Maupertuis (1732), Clairaut (1733), Euler (1740), MacLaurin (1742), D'Alembert (1756), Lagrange (1759), Laplace (1772), Legendre (1784), Monge (1787), Poisson (1811), Gauss (1813), Cauchy (1815), Jacobi (1834), Dirichlet (1857), Dedekind (1860), Riemann (1860), Poincaré (1885), Darwin (1906, the son of Charles Darwin), Jeans (1917), Cartan (1924), Chandrasekhar (1960), and others.

It was Isaac Newton who first claimed that the Earth is not spherical, but "oval". Newton imagined two wells going down to the center of the Earth: one drilled from the North Pole, and one drilled from the equator, both filled with water. The water in the equatorial well is subject to the centrifugal force, and the water in the Polar well is not. For the two columns of water to be in equilibrium, it follows that the equatorial well must be longer..

from:www.exo.net...

The Pear Shape of the earth
The first satellites measured the shape of the earth's sea level.
They discovered a small pear shape.
This is the third harmonic term. P3(q) = (5sin3q - 3 sin q)/2
r = J0 (1 + J1/J0 P1(q) + J2/J0 P2(q) + J3/J0 P3(q))
J3 is 1000 times smaller than the equatorial bulge, with a height of about 10 m. The pear shape pokes up at the north pole and dimples in the south.

-ChriS

[edit on 30-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by BlasteR
I think the hardest part for people is that the complete concept contradicts everything we were ever taught. Not everybody really knows about physics, astronomy, or science in general and they just take the scientists' word for it. That's the real problem is people just assume that truth is engraned in what they have been taught and never questioned.

Science is never exact because sometimes new discoveries are made which challenge the status quo. As our scientific understanding of the universe progresses some theories or concepts which, in the past, were considered factual are eventually proven false. This means that science is simply what we think we know at any given time.

That being said, Some really good points have been brought up in the thread which counter flat-earth theory. Some people just attack it (without understanding astophysics/astronomy/or physics in general) just because it contradicts the status quo. But others have really remained objective in bringing up points which are extremely valid and applicable..

Excellent post

Especially liked the parts I quoted above.

reply to post by Raistlyyn


Yeah. Well, but this is so

Once i thought ATS is all about finding out the truth about things.
Well, i dont anymore T_T

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by Toy_soldier
reply to post by _Del_

 

What would be on the other side?

Is the moon and the sun and all the other planets in our solar sytem flat too?

I thought that all the heavenly bodies and other natural things like atoms, etc. were spheres because that is the easiest shape for matter to form into.

The sun and the moon is are just different sides of the same light disc, and we can see the moon during the day (the back of the sun) precisely because the world is a disc. If it was not a disc, it would not be possible.

Atomic particles aren't actualyl spheres. There are some point particles that take up no space at all, like a photon, and the rest are wave functions of energy that only collapse when measured.

you gotta be kidding me?


sometimes early in the morning if it isn't too bright outside, you can see the sun and moon. so they must seperate in half too huh?

what about all the pictures of all planets, including earth? all fake? maybe we're all just on one big continent like pangea, and the pictures you used to make flat earth aren't even earth?

Originally posted by Legendary Smoker

you gotta be kidding me?

sometimes early in the morning if it isn't too bright outside, you can see the sun and moon. so they must seperate in half too huh?

what about all the pictures of all planets, including earth? all fake? maybe we're all just on one big continent like pangea, and the pictures you used to make flat earth aren't even earth?

I'm pretty sure you can see both of them during mid-day too.

Why do you think all of the planets are fake? That is an odd conclusion to come up with. It really doesn't make any sense at all.

One continent? That's a good theory, but there is obviously ocean (or at least a really big lake) between land masses. That can be verified easily on a flat Earth or a round Earth.

I'm not really understand what you are getting at.... fake planets, one continent, seperate-half moon/suns...

... and you say a flat Earth doesn't make sense?

Man, you might want to go back to bed.

Proof of the flat earth. I believe my life is in danger by posting this up here.
uk.youtube.com...

reply to post by ANTHONY33


That's clearly from a motion picture. You should maintain a better grip on reality as opposed to believing every fantasy you hear...

ROFL The Truman Show!! I have to admit that sometimes I wonder if each of us is really experiencing our own reality. Sometimes i wonder if I am alive or dead in a different universe or parallel universe? What would my family think of me and would they miss me? It's odd to think about but maybe in some far off parallel universe lost in time we are all Truman and have our own TV show. If there really are infinite universes and infinite possibilities then why not? I don't really get why you posted that but I kind of see your point...

If you eventually learn that the truth contradicts everything you have ever been taught as truthful then you would be devastated. I think that's where this ties in to that clip?

-ChriS

[edit on 30-4-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 30-4-2008 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by thedigirati
Light travels at 186 million miles per second, the amount of gravity needed to bend light enough to create this illusion would be so great, we ( life ) would not exist. ( even taking into account the 23% of refraction of atmosphere ) Light would have to be able to bend 180 degrees; In other words, back upon it's self. ( lightsabre technology ) Otherwise there is no other way to take a 2 dimensional world and make it look 3 dimensional.

Another point of contention, perspective, how convenient that ALL the moons and stars are oriented with the "flat" side to the earth. not one out of alignment in the (Carl Sagon) "Billions and billions of galaxies" . ( some of these have no atmosphere )


Also measurements have been made with lasers from both the north,south and equatorial regions of earth bounced off the moon, different latitudes have different measurements consistent with a sphere.

- this debate has officially been put to rest. excellent post thedigirati

reply to post by logician magician


There are only so many possibilities.

Either the earth is flat, it's round and solid (or partially scooped out) or it's just a bag shaped like a christmas tree ornament.

I don't see anybody proving anything. The photos I see 'taken from space' could be hoaxed changing from a concave to a convex lens or whatever.

So, what I get is we can't really know what's real and my teachers are just teaching crap they heard from somebody who had a vested interest in teaching a certain way.

Everything is false we're allowed to know so certain ones can get ahead.

Am I wrong?

reply to post by logician magician


well i find this theory very baseless. but i am not here to appoint my judgment of you.

1. I saw the external picture and notice a very peculiar picture.
The one where you show the earth with two cross lines and you state that

Straight lines don't work on spheres

OF COURSE THEY DON'T THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR DRAWING A LINE ON A FLAT PICTURE. Pictures of earth will always be flat and there is no way to see it other wise.

2. Now let's use some common logic here.
if the earth was flat we would have pretty much discovered it, PLUS if the earth was FLAT some part of the earth would have an extremely rare figure meaning by that that at the edges there would be an anomality and a very hard corner.

3. if this was to be true the gravity at the edges of the earth would be different than the center.

4. The world biggest mines would be on the verge of getting towards the other side of earth.

5. By claiming the world is FLAT you say that all planets in Space and Asteroids and all other object with some mass in space are all FLAT.

6. your theory of day and night is horrible, it is not refined and plus if you where to fly a plane and fly always straight ( same direction as the sun ) you would see slowly the shadow catching up to you There by showing that it is a sphere, IF you go faster in that plane you would be living that shadow behind . If it would be flat that would not be possible at all.



[edit on 12-5-2008 by kinglatin]

Crap. The Earth is flat? Then all the flight time calculations (which have been spot on up till now) for our corporate plane must have been wrong. The same gravity that allows the Earth to be viewed as a sphere obviously affects our math and our watches too for any of our previous trips to have gone according to plan. Crafty, that gravity is.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by IgnoreTheFacts]

reply to post by KMFNWO


WE SECRETLY LIVE ON TERRY PRATCHETT'S DISCWORLD!



....Where are all the wizards...?

eI think the hardest part for people is that the complete concept contradicts everything we were ever taught.

This is exactly why religious people, for example let's say Muslims get upset when people start bashing their religion, being a little more tolerant doesn't mean you are loosing your freedom of speech, similarly walking away from a fight doesn't mean you are loosing your right to self defence.

where you start it's where you end, it's all round and it will not bend.

If the earth is flat explain plate techtonics?

Plate tectonics is the term used describe tectonic plates (parts of the lithoplane) riding on the asthenoplane. Where these plates meet we see Convergent, Divergent or Transform boundaries.

Wow! Is this thread still alive? Okay then, a creative thought suddenly came to entertain my mind about cooking soup and how the tectonic plates are represented (or analogous) to some of the fatty stuff that floats on the top of the soup, which of course is held inside an enclosed container. And all the boiling that goes on below this soupy scum happens to be tomato chunks with carrots and such in my tasty example (or molten magma from within the bowels of the earth). I dunno: I keep ‘imagining’ the earth as being flat even though I’ve been taught that the earth is spherical in shape.