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

Originally posted by die_another_day
reply to post by logician magician

 

What the hell is this? Catholic propaganda? Why should I believe that the Earth is flat when I've been high enough in the sky to see that the Earth is actually round. I've actually went up to 80,000 ft before in a commercial tourist plane.


[edit on 4/20/2008 by die_another_day]

You may have gone high enough to see the edge of the disc. I'm far from certain this is what you were actually seeing. Eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate. Perhaps the windows distorted the light and it simply seemed like a curve.

Originally posted by tombangelta

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by Toy_soldier
reply to post by _Del_

 

You can walk on ice, dude.

It's an ice wall several hundred feet tall.

The governments of the world won't let you get that close to it anyway.

in the words of peter Andre this is insania.

will you please stop refering to your flat earth modol as scientific proof.

its a model!

the government wont let me go round the world. because of the 100 feet ice barrier.

what a joke.

You would have no problem circumnavigating the globe. One could easily sail from New York to England, through the Med, across the Indian Ocean, to the far east and back to North America. This happens all the time. Perhaps you should study geography.
The government won't let you go to the "south pole". How many people want to go to the south pole anyway?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by tombangelta

its a model!

the government wont let me go round the world. because of the 100 feet ice barrier.

what a joke.

First, you must drop all vague notions that the Earth is round. You only believe this, and you must empty your cup of tea before you can taste mine.

A model, yes, but so is the round Earth theory; however, the round earth does not take into consideration recent scientific revalations about spacetime, gravity, and relativity. The Earth only appears curved from far away because as your altitude increases, the disk appears to curve in on itself. This is impossible, and is only the result of an optical illusion concerning light, gravity, and refraction.

about flight into the heavens.

this is a greater mystery given / aware to the americans ; prevelant in the past/altered presence of now expressantconsciousness by nations like.., kmt/ta mera. as well as (pertaining heavenly traversal in form )by/who seem/ed as a portion or expresssion of an edge of consciousness being on "another" side shall i say, of a "frame" as i were, of reality: called to/as present/now azteca/tolteca/olmeca/maya/teotihuacan .

Originally posted by _Del_
The space shuttle can reach space, but then must return to earth as soon as it's fuel is exhausted. I have seen rockets launched as well. Did you see them staying up in space? Did you go to space?

I like this. It definitely is an exercise alright. But not in critical thinking.

If you or the OP want any of us to take this theory seriously, - first- learn where Los Angeles is on a map. Your spot is somewhere in Central America. Or is that where the government hides LA?

Second of all, one of you says the Moon is the back side of the flat sun. Thats how the OP explains seeing the moon during the day. Get it together please. I understand YOU didn't post that Del, but please, enlighten the OP why this is incorrect. Because your theories are clashing.

The OP says no government will let anyone near the edge. But you say this ice wall is too high, and extends to far for anyone to make it to the edge. But in your model it appears to be (comparing it to other continents ect) at best a 2,000 mile trek to reach the edge, once you are on the top of this wall. A sherpa team could easily do that on Flat ice/snow.

-and please....., enough of this, "Have you ever been in space"?, have you ever been to Antarctica"? Should I believe that Europe does not exist simply because I haven't been there?

Del, in your model of the flat earth, sun, and moon, I would like to see the rest of the solar system (the planets in particular, because, I see how the sun and moon would appear round to us in your model, as they are directly overhead), but how I can look through a telescope and see Round planets, not the sides of thier flattened discs. Or is that also light makeing a flat object "appear" round?

I know you already said you don't subscribe to this theory, but please your helping the OP out too much, if not for you, this thread woulda been long since debunked.

Interesting to say the least though. I'm glad you didn't start this thread Del, and already admitted you don't believe in this theory. Can you tell us Your reasons for not believing in it, maybe we can put this one to bed? You seem well versed on the subject, well everything but where Los Angeles is on the map.

If the Earth was flat how would that affect daytime and nighttime? I mean as far as I know we have day and night because the Earth rotates in such a way that any given time about half of the Earth faces the sun and the other faces away from it. So I don't see how day and night could exist on a flat Earth, the rotation just wouldn't make any sense. And if there wasn't a rotation of a flat Earth, then it would either be night for all of existence or day....which it clearly is not.

if/when/as consciousness shifts again and "we" as in the aware aspects of my vassal ; takes a variable and attaches it to a people/s being and force the law uppon the constitution of that being : due to or in part of perception stemming from or proceding to projection of that being or its emmenating vassals

this aside being truth;

you could walk to the other side by going over a percieved mountain; maybe i should liken this mountain to some of the other mountains i have come to spiritually know.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by Ausar]

This is a great read. But Ausar...what are you talking about? You've had three or four posts and I don't see how they relate to anything they are talking about? I was just curious as to what it is you're talking of.

Originally posted by Nola213
Second of all, one of you says the Moon is the back side of the flat sun. Thats how the OP explains seeing the moon during the day. Get it together please. I understand YOU didn't post that Del, but please, enlighten the OP why this is incorrect. Because your theories are clashing.

The theories are not clashing as much as you think. For instance, to explain QM to lay persons, we speak of wave-particle duality. This is not the case however. There is really no duality. The same goes for the model of atoms as being spheres. This is very far from the truth, but is only used to appease the general population.

What a wonderful place this morning. Beer is cheaper than gas and the Earth is flat. Only on ATS!

First person to flag this thread, takes out the garbage for a year. Oops, somebody already did

i suppose im replying with my thoughts and am liking the thread as how far it has progressed.

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
If the Earth was flat how would that affect daytime and nighttime? I mean as far as I know we have day and night because the Earth rotates in such a way that any given time about half of the Earth faces the sun and the other faces away from it. So I don't see how day and night could exist on a flat Earth, the rotation just wouldn't make any sense. And if there wasn't a rotation of a flat Earth, then it would either be night for all of existence or day....which it clearly is not.

You are thinking too spherically. This is how seasons and day/night would work. My model of the day/night cycle was very simplistic, so maybe you can reconcile it with this model.



If you can imagine the possibility of taking the sphere that you believe earth to be, and turning it into a flat surface, you may begin to see the reality.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

What a wonderful place this morning. Beer is cheaper than gas and the Earth is flat. Only on ATS!

First person to flag this thread, takes out the garbage for a year. Oops, somebody already did

Can you prove that the Earth is indeed a sphere?

I didn't think so.

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.

reply to post by Cpt. Monty


The speed of light is actually rather slow. So, when the sun rises over the edge of the disc it takes a few hours for it's light to reach the far edge .... This is readily demonstrated by the way it doesn't immediately turn from day to night but instead we have a gradual transition as more and more bits of light make it down to the flat disc of the world.

btw how does anyone know that the space shuttle has ever been into space? We only have NASA to believe (and when have they ever told us the truth?) and we all know how good computer graphics are these days ....

So everything in the universe formed perfectly flat and with the known sides facing the flat sun....ya okay. Now I'm convinced since you explained things I already knew but didn't tell you because they were indeed so simplistic that I thought you had something more to add...

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.

That is not true as light clearly bends around the perceived curvature of the Earth. If it did not, the Earth would actually appear to be flat, as the photons would hurdle off into space from the flat Earth disc. The Earth is only perceived to be curved due to the gravitational interaction between photons and gravity. We only assume that Earth's gravity is not powerful enough to bend light because we perceive it to be spherical.

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 )

This is not true, and also not at all at odds with a flat earth.

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.

Gravity bends light.

Right _Del_. An exercise in critical thinking? I'll concede that. Now let me try to put your mind at rest, even though you've already confirmed that you don't support this theory.

This information has probably all been posted before, but let me try to put them together in some sort of cohesive argument.

First off, the curvature of the earth. there are two easy examples of this. First of all, the numerous pictures taken from space of all faces of the earth, and from high-altitude aircraft, all of which show curvature, if not the various parts of a sphere itself. Second, when watching a ship leave port, you will notice that the bottom of the ship is the first to disappear, followed by the top parts of ship. the only explanation is the curvature of the earth.

Second of all, the idea of night and day doesn't really hold up. the most compelling argument I've heard is, I believe, from you, saying that it is a result of constructive and destructive interference. Very eloquent. the problem lies in the fact that to have localized destructive interference, one would have to have uniform light waves inverse only in their periods. as it stands, the radial light rays emanating from both the moon and the sun are too jumbled to actually create noticeable sections of destructive interference, mostly because the sun's rays are much more intense than those of the moon. Even if the rays were equal in their amplitude, the pattern of radiation from the sources would create a curved checkerboard patter of interference. (think of a wifi symbol superimposed on another facing the other way.)

Third, travel wouldn't really work in the sense that satellites wouldn't be able to orbit the earth North-South, and explorers of the south pole trying to find the pole would be baffled by a strip of ice millions of miles long. and speaking of, how does the south pole even exist? or the north pole, for that matter.

Also, how would the flat model of the earth account for people in the US seeing certain stars in the summer, while at the same moment, people in South america (presumably on the same plane/frame of reference) see a completely different part, and how would it account for the seasonal change of the night sky?


Just in the interest of argument, please explain the concepts of day and night, seasons, and orbital satellites more clearly.

Good arguments, btw. keep them coming.

Originally posted by Nola213

If you or the OP want any of us to take this theory seriously, - first- learn where Los Angeles is on a map. Your spot is somewhere in Central America. Or is that where the government hides LA?

I didn't make the map. It is simply a fair representation of the sun and the moon and the orientation of the disc. I don't see where you are placing LA on the map. If you draw a line between the sun's position and the moon's on the map, you should see California/the west coast there.

i42.photobucket.com...

Second of all, one of you says the Moon is the back side of the flat sun. Thats how the OP explains seeing the moon during the day. Get it together please. I understand YOU didn't post that Del, but please, enlighten the OP why this is incorrect. Because your theories are clashing.

It really isn't fair to correct his theory if the data shows it is possible. Certainly, in the generally accepted flat earth model, that is not how the moon is depicted, but this is how science is built -- by hammering out one thesis against another and seeing which one holds more true.

The OP says no government will let anyone near the edge. But you say this ice wall is too high, and extends to far for anyone to make it to the edge. But in your model it appears to be (comparing it to other continents ect) at best a 2,000 mile trek to reach the edge, once you are on the top of this wall. A sherpa team could easily do that on Flat ice/snow.

The government has a vested interest in keeping you away from the ice wall. YIncidentally there are two theorized walls. One lower one which scientists call glacial or ice shelves and surround "antartica" If you were to travel far enough to the edge of the disc, you would probably find the higher theorized wall that keeps the atmosphere from spilling over the edge.

-and please....., enough of this, "Have you ever been in space"?, have you ever been to Antarctica"? Should I believe that Europe does not exist simply because I haven't been there?

Should you? I think the number of people traveling to and residing in Europe is much greater than those who claim to have been to space or Antartica. I, for example, have been to Europe, and if you are worried, am happy to inform you it does in fact exist.

Del, in your model of the flat earth, sun, and moon, I would like to see the rest of the solar system (the planets in particular, because, I see how the sun and moon would appear round to us in your model, as they are directly overhead), but how I can look through a telescope and see Round planets, not the sides of thier flattened discs. Or is that also light makeing a flat object "appear" round?

The planets are round and revolve around the sun, but are not as far away as supposed by round earth theory. They are also much smaller than in round earth theory. The sun and moon are 32 miles in diameter, circling the center of the disc roughly 3,000 miles high. They may or may not be discs or spheres. The stars are only about 3200 miles away.

Originally posted by Cpt. Monty
If the Earth was flat how would that affect daytime and nighttime? I mean as far as I know we have day and night because the Earth rotates in such a way that any given time about half of the Earth faces the sun and the other faces away from it. So I don't see how day and night could exist on a flat Earth, the rotation just wouldn't make any sense. And if there wasn't a rotation of a flat Earth, then it would either be night for all of existence or day....which it clearly is not.

In conventional flat earth theory, the sun and moon are only 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away. They rotate around the pole. They are like spotlights. They cannot shine on the entire disc.