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

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Hey Logician, if the Earth is flat, then why does it not look flat when you stand on the top of a mountain?

When you're on a mountain you can see everything else... and it looks pretty curved and the like.

Sure, it looks curved - and if you look at a convex mirror or stand in front of one of those "fun house" mirrors, everything looks curved too.

The mirrors cause light to be bent and reflect it outward. I believe I've already explained in this thread how gravity effects light and causes the illusion of a more curved surface the higher you get up from the disc.

Think of it like this:

Look straight down and what do you see? A flat surface.

As you gain altitude, the surface appears to curve in on itself and looks like a sphere.

As you move further away from the illusory sphere, it curves in on itself so much until it beings nothing but a point, and then finally, it becomes an optical singularity.

Originally posted by jkrog08
OMG,come on is this still going?Anyways I thought I would drop by so maybe people who think the Earth is flat will take a look at the Astronomy 101 thread to help them understand.

Hey, if we all still appealed to authority and tradition then people would still be burnt at the stake for going against the church.

Now we're just burnt on the virtual stake of insults when we go against authority.

Originally posted by JacobNH
So what do you say about standing on the "edge" of the Earth?
If you on the edge, how does your vision bend round the whole of the "flat" earth to see infront?

Crazy fool.
Jacob


But i must say you did a good job at making the model

I believe the theory goes that on the edge of the earth, light is bent around to the center mass of the disk, in both directions, by gravity. As it goes, the rotation of the disk and the Coriolis force offset any perceived straight line of travel so as to feed the illusion that you are traversing the outside of a sphere.

As I've said before, there are many variations of the theory, and hardly any experts. The open-source scientific community usually anonymously contributes discoveries and insights of logic and reason to describe how exactly the earth is a flat disk - lest we be ridiculed. Just like in the dark ages, nobody wants to publish the theories with their own name because of the scrutiny and allegorical burning at the stake which still goes on - except now, it's not our bodies that our burned: It's only our careers.

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jkrog08
OMG,come on is this still going?Anyways I thought I would drop by so maybe people who think the Earth is flat will take a look at the Astronomy 101 thread to help them understand.

Hey, if we all still appealed to authority and tradition then people would still be burnt at the stake for going against the church.

Now we're just burnt on the virtual stake of insults when we go against authority.

Are you for real?

Is this thread for real?

48 pages of discussion on whether the earth is round or not.

It's crap like this that is making me visit here less and less
although I do love the 'FARCE' in block capitals in the thread title.

Originally posted by king9072
When I am standing in a house, I don't know its shape. When i go outside, stand on the lawn and look at, I can clearly see its shape.

When astronauts are standing on the ground, they don't know the earths shape. When they leave the earth, stand in space and look down, they can clearly see its shape.

Quit being an attention seeking troll, and everyone else, quit feeding the damn troll. Your theory was proven wrong 10 million times before you even wrote this thread, so stop demanding people ask original questions.

So, you are saying that you can every side of the house at the same time?

... and when they get so far away, they can't see the planet at all.

What is your point, besides the point that the planet becomes when you are very far away, and before it becomes an optical singularity?

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by jkrog08
OMG,come on is this still going?Anyways I thought I would drop by so maybe people who think the Earth is flat will take a look at the Astronomy 101 thread to help them understand.

Hey, if we all still appealed to authority and tradition then people would still be burnt at the stake for going against the church.

Now we're just burnt on the virtual stake of insults when we go against authority.

Are you for real?

Is this thread for real?

48 pages of discussion on whether the earth is round or not.

It's crap like this that is making me visit here less and less
although I do love the 'FARCE' in block capitals in the thread title.

This is a place to deny ignorance, so I can see why you are coming here less and less.

Conclusive statements of disbelief such as "Are you for real?" have no intellectual merit and only show the breadth of one's ignorance.

Originally posted by logician magician

This is a place to deny ignorance, so I can see why you are coming here less and less.

Conclusive statements of disbelief such as "Are you for real?" have no intellectual merit and only show the breadth of one's ignorance.

No intellectual merit is required when it comes to a no brainer
of a topic such as whether the earth is round or not.

How ironic that you should accuse me of such ignorance.
We should be denying ignoramuses like yourself access to
a computer when you want to put forward such illogical
notions such as these.

It's interesting actually, this isn't the first time I've heard of a conspiracy like this. It is of course scientifically impossible. How does a flat object manage to be dark and light at the same time? It's surely impossible. If you take a CD, try and make the same side both hot and cold, dark and light and all points in between. It can't be done, try and do the same to a ball and suddenly it is possible. Next you will be telling us that the sun circles the earth.

The flat-earth theory of the planet being a disc can be proven false quite easily. Simply get a satellite photo of the South Pole showing Antarctica as one landmass surrounded by water.

Oh wait, they don't trust satellite photos. But they do trust aircraft. The reason planes fly routes in arcs is because this is the shortest and most efficient route on a curved sphere. Simply show that the distance/fuel consumption between two points in the Northern Hemisphere is roughly the same as between two points in the Southern Hemisphere.

For example, the distance between Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town is 3775 miles, and the distance from New York to London is 3470 miles. If the disc theory was correct, it would be something like 4x as far between the Southern Hemisphere cities, since you'd have to traverse the two points further from the center of the disc (ie the North Pole). Mr Davis can even fly the plane if he wants!

But, I forgot, logic has already failed people like you. Why should this be any different?

Originally posted by pmexplorer

No intellectual merit is required when it comes to a no brainer
of a topic such as whether the earth is round or not.

That's precisely what I'm saying. You don't need intellectual merit, or a brain to believe that the Earth is round.

How ironic that you should accuse me of such ignorance.
We should be denying ignoramuses like yourself access to
a computer when you want to put forward such illogical
notions such as these.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm merely illustrating the facts.

How does a flat object manage to be dark and light at the same time? It's surely impossible.

There exist something called a surface to light ratio. You can easily prove that you can make a flat object dark and light at the same time with a simple experiment. I've drawn a picture of it for you because it can get complicated if you don't understand the theory behind the phenomenon.



If that isn't enough proof, I've illustrated another experiment for you:



And, to refute your implied theory that a sphere can be dark on one side and light on the other, I believe I only have to point out one simple fact:

A SPHERE ONLY HAS ONE SIDE.

If you take a CD, try and make the same side both hot and cold, dark and light and all points in between. It can't be done, try and do the same to a ball and suddenly it is possible. Next you will be telling us that the sun circles the earth.

You obviously don't have any clue as to what you are talking about.

The flat-earth theory of the planet being a disc can be proven false quite easily. Simply get a satellite photo of the South Pole showing Antarctica as one landmass surrounded by water.

How about a satellite photo of the flat earth?

Oh, wait, you don't trust satellite photos? How ironic. You can go ahead and keep believing that NASA is giving you REAL pictures of THE EARTH, THE MOON, THE MARS, and THE OTHER PLANETS if you want to live in delusion - especially when we already have real photographic evidence of the flat-earth.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
The reason planes fly routes in arcs is because this is the shortest and most efficient route on a curved sphere. Simply show that the distance/fuel consumption between two points in the Northern Hemisphere is roughly the same as between two points in the Southern Hemisphere.

Actually, the reason planes fly in arcs is because the earth is flat. Please view the evidence.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Are you for real?

Is this thread for real?

48 pages of discussion on whether the earth is round or not.

It's crap like this that is making me visit here less and less
although I do love the 'FARCE' in block capitals in the thread title.

He's not for real. He ignores posts and diverts points that directly prove a round earth. He makes doing so difficult by attempting to construct an unfalsifiable theory that can neither be proven nor disproven (thereby doing an end run around the usual arguments for a round earth) and then tries to shift the burden of proof, but his argument still has holes which he intentionally ignores.

Speaking of which, if there are no real satellites and therefore no space travel, how did deep impact slam into comet tempel 1? Amateur astronomers observed the impact:
www.oldstarlight.com...
www.wvi.com...
Watch as he ignores more contradictory evidence.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Are you for real?

Is this thread for real?

48 pages of discussion on whether the earth is round or not.

It's crap like this that is making me visit here less and less
although I do love the 'FARCE' in block capitals in the thread title.

He's not for real. He ignores posts and diverts points that directly prove a round earth. He makes doing so difficult by attempting to construct an unfalsifiable theory that can neither be proven nor disproven (thereby doing an end run around the usual arguments for a round earth) and then tries to shift the burden of proof, but his argument still has holes which he intentionally ignores.

Speaking of which, if there are no real satellites and therefore no space travel, how did deep impact slam into comet tempel 1? Amateur astronomers observed the impact:
www.oldstarlight.com...
www.wvi.com...
Watch as he ignores more contradictory evidence.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Thank you.

I thought as much.

His reply to my post above was sufficient and just as I expected.

Must be rather disappointing to see FARCE at the top of the page everytime
he logs in mind.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Are you for real?

Is this thread for real?

48 pages of discussion on whether the earth is round or not.

It's crap like this that is making me visit here less and less
although I do love the 'FARCE' in block capitals in the thread title.

He's not for real. He ignores posts and diverts points that directly prove a round earth. He makes doing so difficult by attempting to construct an unfalsifiable theory that can neither be proven nor disproven (thereby doing an end run around the usual arguments for a round earth) and then tries to shift the burden of proof, but his argument still has holes which he intentionally ignores.

If you feel that way, it is rather ironic and self defeating that you frequent a message board where nearly every single theory is unfalsifiable and has laughable evidence and fanatic supporters.

At least my theory is ages old and has plenty of evidence. I can't say the same for the bulk of "speculation theory" that I read here.

Speaking of which, if there are no real satellites and therefore no space travel, how did deep impact slam into comet tempel 1? Amateur astronomers observed the impact:
www.oldstarlight.com...
www.wvi.com...
Watch as he ignores more contradictory evidence.

Speaking of which, if giant koalas tackled the world trade centers, where is all the hair?

... what thread have you been reading to get some an absurd idea?

Page one, I said this:

Orbiting the earth is just moving around the disc at a higher altitude, the perception that it is round comes from the fact that the force of gravity decreases with altitude, so the higher you are, the light in your frame of reference is not being bent to the degree of that nearer the surface. A place flying around the disc is essentially doing the same thing that spacecraft do, but spacecraft do it at a higher altitude.

You're obviously making up absurd premises in an attempt to discredit me.

It shows you have no courage of real debate.


[edit on 23-4-2009 by logician magician]

Originally posted by logician magician
If you feel that way, it is rather ironic and self defeating that you frequent a message board where nearly every single theory is unfalsifiable and has laughable evidence and fanatic supporters.

The theories I address here are completely falsifiable.

... what thread have you been reading to get some an absurd idea?

Page one, I said this:

You also said there were no satellites, just high altitude balloons. If you're going to tell me that spacecraft are real, you've now contradicted yourself.

the force of gravity decreases with altitude,

The difference in gravity between sea level and low earth orbit (leo) is measureable but miniscule. The energy needed to stay 300km over the ground and traveling at mach 25 indefinately would be truly impossible to achieve if the earth were flat - you can't fight against gravity forever if you aren't falling around a round earth. Your engines would have to be firing at 1g constantly, I have never witnessed ISS firing her engines, nor have I witnessed the same for the shuttle while its on orbit.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by logician magician
If you feel that way, it is rather ironic and self defeating that you frequent a message board where nearly every single theory is unfalsifiable and has laughable evidence and fanatic supporters.

The theories I address here are completely falsifiable.

I agree. Any real science experiment or hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered science.

You also said there were no satellites, just high altitude balloons. If you're going to tell me that spacecraft are real, you've now contradicted yourself.

If you have to resort to lies in your argument to prove something that you contend is a no-brainier.. it really says a lot about your intelligence and integrity.

In fact, I challenge you to give a link to the post where I said that.

I would demand an apology, but I know you're above apologies.

The difference in gravity between sea level and low earth orbit (leo) is measureable but miniscule. The energy needed to stay 300km over the ground and traveling at mach 25 indefinately would be truly impossible to achieve if the earth were flat - you can't fight against gravity forever if you aren't falling around a round earth. Your engines would have to be firing at 1g constantly, I have never witnessed ISS firing her engines, nor have I witnessed the same for the shuttle while its on orbit.

I agree that it would be impossible if and only if the flat earth were not accelerating upward at 1g. We know this to be false since gravity exists.

It would not be impossible. Here is why: As the flat earth disk accelerates upward at 1g, it moves through what is called the higgs-field (the field responsible for mass, one of many experiments most scientists are sure to be proven by the LHC).

As the flat earth mass accelerates through the higgs field, the mass of the earth experience what is illustrated as an event where the higgs-bosons of the field "attach" themselves to the earth mass. As this happens, the earth becomes more massive due to inertia. The extra mass accumulates nearer the part of the disc closest to the acceleration and creates a bend in space time per the Einsteinian model, but with one difference - it's the inverse!

Of course, we don't experience the increase in mass at all because it's been happening as long as the earth has been accelerating upwards. We would only notice a difference if the earth slowed down or sped up in it's acceleration - an event that would surely lead to mass structural failures and nothing short of hell on earth. Some actually predict that as the earth reaches the galactic center in 2012 that the earth will either begin to slow down or speed up.

I drew a quick model to illustrate how the inverse bend in time might look, as compared to the bend in space time from the standard model:

Originally posted by logician magician
If you have to resort to lies in your argument to prove something that you contend is a no-brainier.. it really says a lot about your intelligence and integrity.

In fact, I challenge you to give a link to the post where I said that.

Would you please not confound the quote brackets? Thanks. I mistook you for del when he said:

OR NASA is simply feeding you images it wants you to see. Perhaps they never put a satellite in orbit but have mastered the art of bouncing signals off high altitude blimps

So you didn't contradict yourself, my bad. How you think a satellite can exist in your theory should be "interesting" though.

I would demand an apology, but I know you're above apologies.

Maybe you shouldn't be so assuming.

I agree that it would be impossible if and only if the flat earth were not accelerating upward at 1g. We know this to be false since gravity exists.

Whether the earth is accelerating up at 1 g or gravity exists per the standard model, in either case it's impossible to keep the ISS positioned some 300 km over the earth indefinately; the earth is accelerating towards ISS at all times in your model.

The extra mass accumulates nearer the part of the disc closest to the acceleration and creates a bend in space time per the Einsteinian model, but with one difference - it's the inverse!

So you're saying gravity is actually repelling all objects? If that's the case, how come spaceshipone fell back to earth with an acceleration of 1g, or any other suborbital flight? By your model we should expect that the acceleration towards the earth they feel becomes rapidly lessened as they get higher. This should be plainly obvious as a very late return time, if return is even possible given spaceshipone's initial lack of any orbital maneuvering capability whatsoever. It would also have profound implications for any probe unfortunate enough to get too far away from the earth's "anti-gravity" well. Except within a narrow range of altitude, the inverse space bending shouldn't perfectly offset the earth's constant upward acceleration. Also, why don't we feel this inverse effect on earth?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by logician magician
If you feel that way, it is rather ironic and self defeating that you frequent a message board where nearly every single theory is unfalsifiable and has laughable evidence and fanatic supporters.

The theories I address here are completely falsifiable.

I agree. Any real science experiment or hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered science. I wouldn't have it any other way but to present falsifiable arguments. This is science, after all.

You also said there were no satellites, just high altitude balloons. If you're going to tell me that spacecraft are real, you've now contradicted yourself.

I challenge you to give a link to the post where I said that.

You can not, because you are attempting to discredit me by giving false accusations concerning absurdities. Look, if you don't want to debate me like an intelligent human, without resorting to childish antics and lies then you are free to leave the thread. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.


The difference in gravity between sea level and low earth orbit (leo) is measureable but miniscule. The energy needed to stay 300km over the ground and traveling at mach 25 indefinately would be truly impossible to achieve if the earth were flat - you can't fight against gravity forever if you aren't falling around a round earth. Your engines would have to be firing at 1g constantly, I have never witnessed ISS firing her engines, nor have I witnessed the same for the shuttle while its on orbit.


I agree that it would be impossible if the flat earth were not accelerating upward at 1g.

1) It has been proven that acceleration produces g-forces.
2) We experience 1g on the surface of the Earth
3) Gravity is a fictitious force (as I have explained in detail previously)
4) G.R. dictates that a stationary surface in an inertial frame of reference in a downward motion is equivalent to a surface accelerating upwards in the absence of gravity.
5) Free-fall is defined as being 0g inertial motion. Relative to a non-inertial observer, there is no acceleration.
6) "Outer Space" is the same "space" as the "space" inside our atmosphere, only one is closer to the surface of a planet and contains more molecules.
7) As long as something is accelerating toward you, you will accelerate toward it: every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Now with these facts in mind, picture this scenario:

A skydiver, on the surface is experiencing 1g. He gets into a plane, which must overcome the 1g force of upward acceleration of earth, or "break the gravitation attraction" of the earth. To stay at a constant altitude, the plane requires a constant acceleration of 1g , plus some, in order to "break the attraction" of the earth. If there is no constant acceleration upward, then what happens?

The plane will begin to "fall" if it has not leveled out at 1g (to beat "attraction"). Think of "attraction" as "upside down gravity" and it might become more clear that the Earth is actually "falling toward" the plane.

Now remember, the "space" in "outer space" is the same as the "space" near our planet except for air molecules. It is not somehow magically different otherwise. It is still "space". The only reason the plane can accelerate upward at a rate of 1g to stay level with the surface of the earth is because of the lift provided from the wings+thrust of the aircraft. Planes can not fly in "outer space" on the same principles.

When an aircraft "climbs away from the surface" (i.e. accelerates upward faster than the earth, it experiences more than 1g which again proves that an upward acceleration produces downward g-forces.

Further, as the flat earth disk accelerates upward at 1g, it moves through what is called the higgs-field (the field responsible for mass, one of many experiments most scientists are sure to be proven by the LHC).

As the flat earth mass accelerates through the higgs field, the mass of the earth experience what is illustrated as an event where the higgs-bosons of the field "attach" themselves to the earth mass. As this happens, the earth becomes more massive due to inertia. The extra mass accumulates nearer the part of the disc closest to the acceleration and creates a bend in space time per the Einsteinian model, but with one difference - it's the inverse!

Of course, we don't experience the increase in mass at all because it's been happening as long as the earth has been accelerating upwards. We would only notice a difference if the earth slowed down or sped up in it's acceleration - an event that would surely lead to mass structural failures and nothing short of hell on earth. Some actually predict that as the earth reaches the galactic center in 2012 that the earth will either begin to slow down or speed up.

I drew a quick model to illustrate how the inverse bend in time might look, as compared to the bend in space time from the standard model:

Are other planets flat too in your opinion?

But HOW is the Earth flat? Just how? How thick is this flat earth if it's not a circle? I don't even understand how people can honestly believe this anymore, I mean damn, are you trolling us or what? There are so many things YOU yourself can do on Earth to find out that the earth is indeed round and NOT flat.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Are other planets flat too in your opinion? [/quote

I don't know, I've never been on the surfaces of the planets to see if they were flat. The pictures of Mars from the rover do show a flat surface, though, and the planet does appear to be a globe from space as you would expect from the effects of gravity bending photons inward toward the surface like on Earth.

Other planets could be flat, too, I'm sure. Believe me though, I do believe that it is possible for a planet to be spherical - just not Earth... and probably not mars. I think it's all relative to size, per Einstein's relativity. I believe he got it right that speed and mass are all relative terms, but I believe he missed one important observation: Shape is also relative to size.

It's rather absurd, after all, to believe that one could enter a relativistic space-time where time slows down from the observation of an outside observer... and not believe that objects may not actually be in space-time, but also a dimension of shape-size. If you look at a 3D rod, from "far away" enough (i.e. a relative shape-size dimension) it simply becomes a 2D line. Even though science has recognized that matter does indeed curve light, there appears to be an unrecognized phenomenon in the general scientific community.

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina 42
But HOW is the Earth flat? Just how? How thick is this flat earth if it's not a circle? I don't even understand how people can honestly believe this anymore, I mean damn, are you trolling us or what? There are so many things YOU yourself can do on Earth to find out that the earth is indeed round and NOT flat.

Perhaps it's all just a Hologram? There is a theory called the "Holographic Universe" which states that everything is merely a reflection of 2D events on the edge of the universe. I don't really know. There

HOW is everything a reflect of 2D events?

Who knows. HOW do you breath air and not expand until you explode?

HOW does a square exist?

Obviously, the laws of physics allow these things to exist, just like they allow planets to be flat, light to be affected by gravity, and 2D events to project images from the edge of the universe.

Has there every been an experiement where a perfectly flat object was layed down upon the earth, and any gaps measured where the earth was flat?

I think not.

Has anyone every walked off the side of the earth-sphere? If you hold a basketball up in the air, and get a friend to place a ping pong ball on the top.. what happens?

The ball falls off into space!

HOW is the earth round?

The Earth and other planets are round because they just are, that's all there is to it. I can't believe that anyone still decides to believe in a flat earth, it's really ridiculous to do so, that's like not knowing who the president of the USA is, just really really ignorant.