The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: joffenz on February 08, 2006, 02:19:42 PM
-
Alright, quite a lot of threads are questions from people wanting to find out more about the flat earth theory. Quite often they're repeated or unanswered, so I thought I'd make a sort of "FAQ" thread.
Basically ask questions about the theory and any Flat-Earthers should answer (or round-earthers, since this is not a debate thread). Do not debate the answers given here, if you want to do that then start another thread.
When someone answers a question I'll edit it onto this post so people don't have to search the whole thread.
Terminology:
FE (theory/model): Flat Earth (theory/model), a theory which states that the Earth is flat.
FE'er: Flat Earther, someone who believes in the FE theory.
RE (theory/model): Round Earth (theory/model), a theory which states that the Earth is round.
RE'er: Round Earther, someone who believe the RE theory.
Q: "Is this site for real?"
A: This site is real. There are people who seriously believe the Earth is flat. However, there are also people on this site who do not.
Government
Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"
A: It's a conspiracy.
Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"
A: NASA are part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.
Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture."
Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"
A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead
Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"
A: The motive is unknown.
Q: "How are the world governments organised enough to carry out this conspiracy?"
A: They only appear to be disorganised to make the conspiracy seem implausible.
The Earth in space
Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"
A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.
In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.
The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"
A: When you look at these celestial bodies, even with a telescope, they're entirely two-dimensional.
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"
A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.
Q: "What's underneath the Earth?"
A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.
Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.
The force causing everything to accelerate is Dark Energy.
A2: Gravity comes from an external source (to be discussed)
Q: "Isn't this version of gravity (A1) flawed? Wouldn't planes/helicopters/paragliders crash into the Earth as the Earth rises up to them?"
A: No. If that were to happen, then no planes could fly right now as gravity would pull them into the Earth. The reason that planes do not crash is that their wings produce an upthrust which, when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, and so their altititude does not change.
The same thing happens if the Earth is moving up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.
Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be travelling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"
A: From any relative frame of reference in the universe, the Earth is travelling below the speed of light.
The theory of relativitity states that no observer in an inertial reference frame will ever measure the speed of a massive body to be greater than or equal to that of light."
Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"
A: You would enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped. The Earth would continue accelerating upwards past you at a rate of 1g, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space.
Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"
A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. Also, I'm not sure what FE's stance on the age of the world is, but it's plausible that it's a younger estimation than the RE claim.
A2: There is a counter-mass which pulls the Earth back into a disc shape.
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Geography
Q: Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?
A: Circle, like in the UN logo
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.
Antarctica as a continent does not exist.
Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"
A1: Global warming is melting the ice wall, but the government isn't doing anything because cutting carbon emissions would damage the economy, and they only care about making money.
A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and it's counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasse" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
Q: "What about tides?"
A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
Q : "Why is the North pole colder than the equator?"
A: The sun orbits over the equator, not the North pole
Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"
A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds it's way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard
Q: "What about time zones?"
A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"
(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
Religion
Q: "Are most or all FE's Biblical literalists, who feel like their religious belief system would be threatened by a round (i.e. spherical) earth, or are there any atheists/agnostics who are FE's as well?"
A: Not all FE's are biblical literalists. This poll has more details: Poll (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1300&highlight=believes)
-
I want to know stuff about the stars, the sun and moon. How far away are they? Where the planets fit in the FET (Flat Earth Theory). Are the stars painted on a background just behind the moon or what? What is beyond that?
-
In the FET article it says:
(2) The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.
No mention of the stars I'm afraid.
-
Well, all facts are open to debate if they are stated wrong.
-
Well please post the correct information then.
-
The only issue I take with the "no-debate" stance is that we want the FAQ to be authoritative, I expect, so debate along the lines of "that's not what flatEarthers believe" or "that's not what Newtonian mechanics states" or whatever should be allowed, no?
Also I suggest the FAQ be of the form:
1) FE evidence for a FE, RE objections, and FE respones.
2) FE counterevidence for a RE, RE objections, and FE responses.
3) 1 and 2 with FE and RE swapping roles.
Right?
-Erasmus
-
Yes it should be authoratitive so debating what the FE's exactly believe is fine.
But it's meant to just be answers to Q's about FE, not where FE's asks RE's questions and vice versa. Eg, if the question was "Why hasn't anyoned fallen off the Earth?" and the response was "There's an ice wall" then that would be fine.
But then asking "How come no one has seen it?" is more of a debate. That's attempting to point out the flaws in the theory, rather than what the theory actually is. Although if they give an answer like "It's a government conspiracy" then that should be acceptable as it's stating a fact (well, they believe it's fact)
The idea behind this thread is so that someone can go in and get the basic ideas of FE theory, so that they can then agree or argue against them in another thread.
Perhaps there should be an RE FAQ thread too?
-
Well please post the correct information then.
The earth is spherical, hence why people call it the "Globe"
-
Well please post the correct information then.
The earth is spherical, hence why people call it the "Globe"
Not approrpiate discussion for this thread.
-Erasmus
-
Yes it should be authoratitive so debating what the FE's exactly believe is fine.
But it's meant to just be answers to Q's about FE, not where FE's asks RE's questions and vice versa. Eg, if the question was "Why hasn't anyoned fallen off the Earth?" and the response was "There's an ice wall" then that would be fine.
But then asking "How come no one has seen it?" is more of a debate. That's attempting to point out the flaws in the theory, rather than what the theory actually is. Although if they give an answer like "It's a government conspiracy" then that should be acceptable as it's stating a fact (well, they believe it's fact)
The idea behind this thread is so that someone can go in and get the basic ideas of FE theory, so that they can then agree or argue against them in another thread.
Perhaps there should be an RE FAQ thread too?
Okay, I see. I still think that in that case the form should be Question - Answer - Rebuttal; otherwise round Earthers will keep raising the same tired objections to the flat Earth theory.
As for an RE FAQ thread -- somewhere there's a "This is the Flat Earth Society believes about the world" article, and in it presumably is a "These are what the Flat Early Society believes to be flaws in the RE theory" section. I think that's sufficient; probably we don't need a whole FAQ for it here. However, the FE FAQ should probably point to such an article -- "Q: What are the FE objections to the RE theory? A: See blahblahblah."
-Erasmus
-
Ok we'll use your format then since you seem to be a wise master of knowlege :)
Any questions for the FE's?
-
Just so that this FAQ can avoid being a total waste of time, I move that no Flat Earth answers be permitted to contain "I don't know" or any variation of that response.
Flat earthers, if you can't explain something with your model of the earth, it's flawed, so you must come up with a theory explaining any phenomena the round earthers come up with.
That said, my question is this:
What force is acting upon the earth such that it is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2?
Also, why does gravity vary with altitude?
-
I've added links to the discussion on each point, starting with gravity.
Flat earthers, if you can't explain something with your model of the earth, it's flawed, so you must come up with a theory explaining any phenomena the round earthers come up with.
That said, my question is this:
What force is acting upon the earth such that it is constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2?
If the big bang made the universe, then how do you explain the fact that planets seems to be slowing down and will eventuall go the other way?
-
Because space isn't a vacuum, so there's friction. Plus there's the theory that there's a giant black hole at the middle of the universe. Although I thought we were discussing flat earth theory.
-
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you. Very slight, but more the closer you get.
The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
As for the issue with the Big Bang. We can't tell the planet is slowing down. IF it is, there is less force acting on people. This may explain why people are generally getting taller. The further the Earth slows, the taller people will get. Eventually, I think they would just stop in place. And anyway, the other stars gravity will cause those little balls to eventually crash into the planet. Craters about the size of a house are to be expected.
-
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you. Very slight, but more the closer you get.
The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
As for the issue with the Big Bang. We can't tell the planet is slowing down. IF it is, there is less force acting on people. This may explain why people are generally getting taller. The further the Earth slows, the taller people will get. Eventually, I think they would just stop in place. And anyway, the other stars gravity will cause those little balls to eventually crash into the planet. Craters about the size of a house are to be expected.
Can one of our resident FE'ers verify any of this charlatanry?
-
Q: "What force is acting on the Earth to make it accelerate?"
A: "
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"
A: "
Q: "What about tides?"
A: "
Q : "Why is the North pole colder then the equator?"
A: "
I would like to add one more:
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is way SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?" Yes, there ARE regular flights direct from Buenos Aires to Auckland. Aerolineas Argentinas does this with an Airbus A340 in about 13 hours and 40 minutes. This is LESS than the travel time from Buenos Aires to New York (same plane, 14 and a half hours). How do you reconcile that with your map?
-
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you. Very slight, but more the closer you get.
Why do you assume that the earrth generates no gravity? If we're using the traditional definition of gravity, then how thin would you estimate the earth to be so that it generates no noticeable gravitational pull?
-
Why do you assume that the earrth generates no gravity? If we're using the traditional definition of gravity, then how thin would you estimate the earth to be so that it generates no noticeable gravitational pull?
At least as thin as GunStar's reasoning, I expect.
-Erasmus
-
Do you mean no gravity or very little?
Because if it is none then you need a scientific explanation as to why the Earth does not generate gravity.
Very little...well, that would mean the Earth is quite thin then, which would contradict the previous answer of "Quite thick".
So could any FE'ers verify this?
-
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you. Very slight, but more the closer you get
Now then, are we throwing out all of classical physics? If the Earth is travelling upwards at 9.81 m/s, then everything on it will ALSO be travelling upwards at the same velocity. Yes/No?
Now imagine you jump up at a velocity of 5 m/s RELATIVE TO THE EARTH. You now have a velocity of 14.81 m/s. Thus, you will actually move AWAY from the Earth, as you are travelling faster than it.
-
But the Earth will increase it's velocity to 9.8 so your effective velocity is 5 m/s and therefore the distance between you and the Earth is no different from a round Earth.
But you shouldn't be discussing that here, this is for info only, not debate.
-
a minor thought; if the earth is ACCELERATING AT 1G, the earth cant be more than around a year old. the speed of light?
-
a minor thought; if the earth is ACCELERATING AT 1G, the earth cant be more than around a year old. the speed of light?
You're right, that needs to be in the FAQ too.
-
You ppl have absolutlly no Idea of what ur talking about!!!
-
You ppl have absolutlly no Idea of what ur talking about!!!
I want to start believing in FE, just so these people don't get to be on my team anymore.
-Erasmus
-
WTF does that have anything to do with the fact that u believe that the earth is flat!! you ppl are fundamentally flawed in the way you think about the earth and science in general! Also the earth is not accelerating at 1G, as a G is a measurement of force acting in a given direction. Which would mean that the earth its self is exerting a force, ergo nullifying ur arguement entirely
-
WTF does that have anything to do with the fact that u believe that the earth is flat!! you ppl are fundamentally flawed in the way you think about the earth and science in general! Also the earth is not accelerating at 1G, as a G is a measurement of force acting in a given direction. Which would mean that the earth its self is exerting a force, ergo nullifying ur arguement entirely
If you are seriously interested in a discussion on this topic, may I suggest you acquire the necessary background by searching for the fifty or so extant posts that discuss it at length; the search function will answer admirably for this purpose. If you are still confused, come back and we'll talk.
Otherwise, don't bring this up again.
-Erasmus
-
What makes the sun shine?
What is the sun made of?
What are the stars made of?
Please explain the red-shift seen when analyzing starlight vs. sunlight.
-
What makes the sun shine?
What is the sun made of?
What are the stars made of?
Please explain the red-shift seen when analyzing starlight vs. sunlight.
I'm not sure that these questions are addressed by the accepted FE model... no?
-
The first two could be combined into one question. I haven't been here long enough to know if the last question is frequently asked or not.
A FAQ should be as concise and short as possible, IMHO. You can't expect people to read through a 20-page FAQ.
-
The last question is certainly a new one, it should definately be a new thread.
-
According to FET, the Earth is flat and circular. What are the circumference and diameter?
-
The diameter of Flat Earth is roughly the circumference of Round Earth: 24,900 miles
This puts the circumference of Flat Earth at ~78225 miles.
I think I could model a 3-D picture of the flat-earth model of the universe. Would that be a good thing to have?
-
The diameter of Flat Earth is roughly the circumference of Round Earth: 24,900 miles
Do you have a source for this, or are you inferring it? Don't forget that the "equator" in FE is a circle centered on the north pole whose radius is half that of the Earth...
If however you got this from some FE article, it's fine with me (one more bullet in the head of FE frankly).
I think I could model a 3-D picture of the flat-earth model of the universe. Would that be a good thing to have?
Yeah, that would be neat. Maybe you could have little arcs indicating the trajectory of the sun, and arrows indicating the acceleration, lines for the equator, etc.
-Erasmus
-
And don't forget the giant sign saying "this is wrong, flat earthers are silly"
-
Here's a question:
the Flat earth has no gravity, because it is flat, And the moon Has gravity, because it is round (this is stated as fact, because we know it influences the tides). Here's My Question. Why is the moon round and the Earth flat? What law of cosmic existence decided that this must be so?
Heres another Question:
if the sun is only 34 miles wide (or was it 32?) and 3000 miles away, how do you account for their size in the night(and day) sky? Shouldnt they be tiny points of light?
Also a follow up:
How hot is the sun? since you haven't challenged how the sun functions in producing light and heat, I'll assume you won't. If you haven't challenged these, I'm assuming the mass is the same. by your theory, the volume is
1210.560369 miles cubed (6dp). what will happen when a mass of
1.9891 x10^30 kg is packed into it? something similar to a black hole I assume. Assuming you believe in black holes.
And Finally: if the Earth is not infact 8.31 light minutes from the sun, but a mere 3000 odd miles, and the temperature of the sun is the same,then why arent we living under water. scratch that, why are we living at all. To put it another way, what happens when you place a massive, long lived, thermonuclear explosive some 3000 miles from a massive amount of ice. Whatever happens, I doubt it results in an Ice wall.
-
Spaghetti, good questions but they're not commonly asked, they're also challenging the theory which means you should make a new thread for them please.
-
The diameter of Flat Earth is roughly the circumference of Round Earth: 24,900 miles
Do you have a source for this, or are you inferring it? Don't forget that the "equator" in FE is a circle centered on the north pole whose radius is half that of the Earth...
If however you got this from some FE article, it's fine with me (one more bullet in the head of FE frankly).
An FE article from somewhere actually says 23,000 miles. I'll try to find it. Using circumference of RE is inferred: If North-South distances are accurate, and only East-West distances are under the conspiracy, then the surface distance from North Pole to South Pole is accurate for both FE and RE. In RE, it's half the circumference of Earth (roughly, ignoring the "squashed"-ness). But in FE, it's the radius of the disc. Therefore, circumference of RE is diameter of FE.
I think I could model a 3-D picture of the flat-earth model of the universe. Would that be a good thing to have?
Yeah, that would be neat. Maybe you could have little arcs indicating the trajectory of the sun, and arrows indicating the acceleration, lines for the equator, etc.
-Erasmus
Thanks. But I'm not too sure about the acceleration arrow. It might confuse people as arrows are used for so many common things. Right now I'm struggling with how to make the sun and moon look like spotlights...
-
Do you guys want me to sticky this thread?
-
Actually, I'd suggest you make an entirely new FAQ thread, post the FAQ's and their answers (editing out our debates deciding them), stiky it, and lock it so that only you can make changes, and then of course, make changes as necessary.
Just my opinion though.
PS. I was worried you had lost your moderator powers since your name was removed from the list of mods. Promotion?
-
Actually, I'd suggest you make an entirely new FAQ thread, post the FAQ's and their answers (editing out our debates deciding them), stiky it, and lock it so that only you can make changes, and then of course, make changes as necessary.
Yeah, it's a good idea. For now though we might as well collect all the information here so that it can be compiled and put into the FAQ.
-Erasmus
-
Another question that I've got....how does global warming affect the ice wall and are we all doomed to fall off when it melts?
-
Flying Leaf wrote:
The diameter of Flat Earth is roughly the circumference of Round Earth: 24,900 miles
According to the flat Earth Theory, the Earth cannot be circular and have a diameter more than 6000 miles. Why? because twice a day, a very large star aka the sun, and a very large rock, aka the moon, would hit the sides of it. Let's see your ice wall survive that. It would have to be smaller again, to avoid the sun and the moons affect on the tides.
If you have a maximum of 6000 miles to fit all of the northern hemisphere on.... Then How big is England? Wouldnt it be microscopic to scale down the correct size to fit the rest of Europe and America on? And wouldn't that scale down be reflected in the population density, as well as the size of, say, a house? or indeed a room?
Thus the easiest way to settle this theory. take what the accepted dimensions of anywhere are, and work out how big they'd be when scaled down. then compare that to actuality.
-
Well, no, the flat earth model that the Flat Earth Society uses is not exactly the same as the Middle Ages model.
In this newer model, the sun and moon flies in a circular orbit above the flat earth, never under it.
So that's why the flat earth diameter can be 29,400 miles.
-
the sun and moon flies in a circular orbit above the flat earth
so the sun circles above the surface of the Earth? Is that what you mean? Because if the Sun circles above the Earth where we live, whats this night thing I keep seeing? you know, the time of the day when the sun disappears below the horizon. if the sun circled solely above the Earth, then WHY ISNT'T IT ALWAYS DAY? Shouldn't the sun continuously shine on one Hemisphere?
Though to be Fair, that would explain 24 hour daylight at the north pole.
In addition, the light from the Sun would obscure the moon. And this doesn't even come close to explaining eclipses.
Lastly, I'm pretty Sure objects will orbit round a center of Gravity, not somewhere that is convenient to you're theory.
-
*shrug* I'm just relaying the info. I gathered from other threads. I think the nights are explained by some sort of atmosphere distortion for sunrise/sunset coupled with something about the atmosphere being very foggy so light doesn't travel that well.
-
Any atmospheric fogging would be universal, so if that be the case, then there are plenty of nights, just no days...
Also, if the only thing causing a sunset was an atmospheric disturbance, then while we would see an abscence of the sun, we would still see its light.
Given that neither of these things are true, then what can we say about this theory?
-
Even if atmopheric foggyness could explain it then tehre sould still be no sunset, we would jsut see the sun shrinking into the distance but still being rather high in the sky. Sunet shows the sun shrinking over the Horizon, now if you believe the flat earth model tahts jsut not possible.
-
Hello, I am new to this forum and have some questions for FE's that I don't see in the FAQ:
1) If the earth is in fact flat, how thick is it?
2) If the earth is always "catching up to people", then wouldn't this mean that the earth is always moving further and further up everytime a person, animal, or object jumps or falls, so that the earth would always be moving up closer and closer to the sun, moon and stars, or does the earth fall back down after it "catches up to people"?
3) Why would there be a "conspiracy" against the "flat earth theory" if it is, in fact, true? I can understand the motivation behind making everyone think people really landed on the moon; obviously by being the first to land on the moon, America demonstrated that they were the most powerful nation on earth, but in theory, who really cares if the earth is in fact flat or round (I actually prefer to say the earth is spherical, as a flat earth would be round too)? I mean the FE theory vs. the RE theory are NOT like two competing religions or something, or that the RE's are saying there is no G-d. If I found out tomorrow that the earth was in fact flat, it would NOT change my life so much, if at all.
4) Are most or all FE's Biblical literalists, who feel like their religious belief system would be threatened by a round (i.e. spherical) earth, or are there any atheists/agnostics who are FE's as well? I, for one, happen to be a devout Jew who takes the Pentatuech (Five Books of Moses) as the word of G-d and the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") as written by man, but divinely inspired by G-d, yet I have no problem with the earth being round (i.e. spherical) and see no contradiction between the Bible and evolution and other faily recent scientific discoveries for that matter....
-
1) and 3) are in the FAQ but no exact thicknes for 1) has been given.
To answer number 2) the Earth keeps accelerating up, and I'm fairly certain the sun and moon accelerate up as well.
4) Is something you should ask on a seperate thread, as it's not really about the theory itself.
-
1) and 3) are in the FAQ but no exact thicknes for 1) has been given.
To answer number 2) the Earth keeps accelerating up, and I'm fairly certain the sun and moon accelerate up as well.
4) Is something you should ask on a seperate thread, as it's not really about the theory itself.
2) So everytime I jump I am not only causing the earth to accelerate up but the sun, moon and stars to accelerate up as well?
4) I disagree; the "conspiracy" is NOT about the theory itself either, but it is on the FAQ, so I think it is perfectly acceptable for this FAQ....
-
2) So everytime I jump I am not only causing the earth to accelerate up but the sun, moon and stars to accelerate up as well?
No. Neither is this what would happen if the accelerating-Earth hypothesis were true, nor is it what the flat-Earthers claim.
-Erasmus
-
2) So everytime I jump I am not only causing the earth to accelerate up but the sun, moon and stars to accelerate up as well?
The Earth constantly accelerates regardless of whether you jump or not.
4) I disagree; the "conspiracy" is NOT about the theory itself either, but it is on the FAQ, so I think it is perfectly acceptable for this FAQ....
Your question is about the theorists themselves, but I'll add it anyway.
-
Thanks for adding it; incidentally, I have another ?
If someone was to come to the "end of the earth", climb this ice-wall and then jump off to the other side, what would happen to him?
-
2) So everytime I jump I am not only causing the earth to accelerate up but the sun, moon and stars to accelerate up as well?
No. Neither is this what would happen if the accelerating-Earth hypothesis were true, nor is it what the flat-Earthers claim.
-Erasmus
Well, according to the Flat Earth Society's home site:
http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
the earth is NOT constantly accelerating either, which is what the "accelerating-Earth hypothesis" claims....Here is a paragraph from the above link provided (click on heading "Why a flat earth?" and read about the "ethel factor") explaing why, according to Flat Earthers, the earth is NOT moving at all:
"The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory."
So, which is it Flat Earthers? Is the earth constantly accelerating upwards at 1G or is the earth still and the center of the universe? Let's get this settled once and for all, so I can understand the "Flat Earth Theory" just a tad better....
-
I'm fairly sure that site is a sppof because they ask you for your "Favourite jellybean" when you sign up for it...
-
Isn't the whole "Flat Earth Theory" a spoof at this point or are there REALLY people who actually believe in it....
It seems pretty suspicious to me that the only ones participating in this FAQ thread (posting questions and answers, as well as asking questions and answering them) are non-FE's....
If there is anyone here who REALLY still buys the FE theory I would love for him/her to fill in the answers in the FAQ that are blank (and there are a lot of them!!)....
-
So, which is it Flat Earthers? Is the earth constantly accelerating upwards at 1G or is the earth still and the center of the universe?
Hmm... I'm not sure if the link you posted is the same flat-Earth theory as the one that Charles Johnson proposed; the latter being canon for this website.
-Erasmus
-
Isn't the whole "Flat Earth Theory" a spoof at this point or are there REALLY people who actually believe in it....
There are people who believe it, but there are many more RE'ers so you don't see as many of them.
So, which is it Flat Earthers? Is the earth constantly accelerating upwards at 1G or is the earth still and the center of the universe?
Hmm... I'm not sure if the link you posted is the same flat-Earth theory as the one that Charles Johnson proposed; the latter being canon for this website.
-Erasmus
Perhaps they'll need to create separate models. Something which I think is inevitabel anyway given the amount of conflicting 'theories'.
-
Well, according to the Flat Earth Society's home site:
http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
I'm pretty much positive that that is a spoof site, when I first started researching the FLT that was the first site I found, and I'm almost sure it's a fake.
-
Hi all. I just have one question. If the earth/sun/moon is at a constant movement, how come that helicopters, airplanes and such don't slam into the earth? I've learned about something called "escaping force" in my psychic class (I'm from Norway, so I'm not quite shure what the english word for it is). It is how much force and how high speed i.e. a rocket would have to escape from earths orbit.
And the sun does have a temp. at 5 780 K at the surface, and in the middle, it is 1,36 * 10^7 K.
Now, if the sun is 3000 miles above us, how come we don't get burned up?
-
Hi all. I just have one question. If the earth/sun/moon is at a constant movement, how come that helicopters, airplanes and such don't slam into the earth? I've learned about something called "escaping force" in my psychic class (I'm from Norway, so I'm not quite shure what the english word for it is). It is how much force and how high speed i.e. a rocket would have to escape from earths orbit.
The same question could be asked if the Earth was round. "If gravity is pulling us down, why don't helicopters crash into the earth?"
The answer is that the helicopters produce an upwards force that keeps them from crashing. The word you are looking for could be 'upthrust', I suppose.
Flat Earthers do not believe in gravity so there is no need for anything to escape the Earth's orbit.
And the sun does have a temp. at 5 780 K at the surface, and in the middle, it is 1,36 * 10^7 K.
Now, if the sun is 3000 miles above us, how come we don't get burned up?
That should be in a seperate thread. This thread is for finding out what the Flat Earth theory is, not finding out the problems in it.
-
Maddoc wrote:
And the sun does have a temp. at 5 780 K at the surface, and in the middle, it is 1,36 * 10^7 K.
Now, if the sun is 3000 miles above us, how come we don't get burned up?
FE's claim that the sun has a mere diameter of 32 miles (52km), so that the heat effects on us are still the same.
It's not the temperature that matters, but how much mass there is. If you were to stand a certain distance from a campfire that is 100 degrees Celcius and has a mass volume of X^3 and then move and stand the same distance away from another campfire that is the same temperature, but has a mass of only 0.1X^3, you would definately feel less warmth standing the same distance away from the second campfire, than the first.
-
It's not the temperature that matters, but how much mass there is.
.... because heat = mass x temperature.
-
Hi all. I just have one question. If the earth/sun/moon is at a constant movement, how come that helicopters, airplanes and such don't slam into the earth? I've learned about something called "escaping force" in my psychic class (I'm from Norway, so I'm not quite shure what the english word for it is). It is how much force and how high speed i.e. a rocket would have to escape from earths orbit.
The same question could be asked if the Earth was round. "If gravity is pulling us down, why don't helicopters crash into the earth?"
The answer is that the helicopters produce an upwards force that keeps them from crashing. The word you are looking for could be 'upthrust', I suppose.
Flat Earthers do not believe in gravity so there is no need for anything to escape the Earth's orbit.
Yes, but they claim that it is the world that catches up to us, not a force that keeps us down.
But another thing, if it is so that when we jump, it is the earth that cathces up to us, why is it not so that we would be pressed down, due the huge pressure, and crawl... I mean, if we shoot up a platform at a speed equal to the speed they claim the world is moving, we would be pressed downwards to the surface of the plattform...
Just my thoughts... I am way out of your league in psychics... I am mostly at this forum because I learn a lot from reading what you guys post.
-
Yes, but they claim that it is the world that catches up to us, not a force that keeps us down.
But another thing, if it is so that when we jump, it is the earth that cathces up to us, why is it not so that we would be pressed down, due the huge pressure, and crawl... I mean, if we shoot up a platform at a speed equal to the speed they claim the world is moving, we would be pressed downwards to the surface of the plattform...
Just my thoughts... I am way out of your league in psychics... I am mostly at this forum because I learn a lot from reading what you guys post.
Ah, you've made a simple misunderstanding.
Yes, but the acceleration produced by gravity (9.2m/s-2) is equal to the acceleration of the Earth moving upwards (9.8m/s-2)
The reason that you feel pressure when you jump is because gravity is pulling you down. When there is no gravity, there is no pressure.
Sorry to point out your spelling, but it's "physics" not "psychics". :)
Yes there is a lot of intelligent discussion on these forums, but there are also a lot of mindless ramblings (omg! conspiracy!) But if you learn something, then it's can't be all bad.
Oh, there is another thread on gravity here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=905&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
-
Yes, but they claim that it is the world that catches up to us, not a force that keeps us down.
But another thing, if it is so that when we jump, it is the earth that cathces up to us, why is it not so that we would be pressed down, due the huge pressure, and crawl... I mean, if we shoot up a platform at a speed equal to the speed they claim the world is moving, we would be pressed downwards to the surface of the plattform...
Just my thoughts... I am way out of your league in psychics... I am mostly at this forum because I learn a lot from reading what you guys post.
Ah, you've made a simple misunderstanding.
Yes, but the acceleration produced by gravity (9.2m/s-2) is equal to the acceleration of the Earth moving upwards (9.8m/s-2)
The reason that you feel pressure when you jump is because gravity is pulling you down. When there is no gravity, there is no pressure.
Sorry to point out your spelling, but it's "physics" not "psychics". :)
Yes there is a lot of intelligent discussion on these forums, but there are also a lot of mindless ramblings (omg! conspiracy!) But if you learn something, then it's can't be all bad.
Oh, there is another thread on gravity here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=905&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Ok, thanks. Just trying to get a better hold of physics. (Thanks for correcting me in such a polite way ;)) Now I understand why we would not be pressed down to the ground.
I told my physicsteacher about this site, and he wants me to make a 10 min pressentation about how the world can be flat and what theories that can possible back up the subject. So far, most of the evidence is "conspiracy" and such things, but it is quite interresting.
-
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is an (approximately 150ft) ice wall that stops water running off.
if this is true why does the water that the " ice wall" is stopping not overflow there is more than 150ft of water if piled on top of each other ?
-
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is an (approximately 150ft) ice wall that stops water running off.
if this is true why does the water that the " ice wall" is stopping not overflow there is more than 150ft of water if piled on top of each other ?
I would imagine that the height of the ice wall is measured from the sea level, so the ice wall is 150ft above the sea. Unless somehow enough water was added to the oceans to raise it's level 150ft, which incidently would put most of the world underwater, then it wouldn't overflow.
If you mean that there is already 150ft of water, then remember that oceans are still as deep as they are on a round earth.
However, you should discuss things like that in a seperate thread. This is for finding out things, not trying to find the problems in it.
-
Well, according to the Flat Earth Society's home site:
http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
This comes up often enough that maybe it should be included in the FAQ as a spoof site.
-
Well, according to the Flat Earth Society's home site:
http://www.alaska.net/%7Eclund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
This comes up often enough that maybe it should be included in the FAQ as a spoof site.
done.
-
Which FE site/s is/are for "real"?
-
FAQ updated with some more commonly asked questions.
Which FE site/s is/are for "real"?
I guess we'd have to get someone to look at each individual site and see.
-
Think bullhorn would go for it? He seems to be the only real FEer who's all that active around here.
-
Let's go bullhorn :!: , bam bam bam bam bam, Let's go bullhorn :!: bam bam bam bam bam
We've got the spirit, yes we do, we've got the spirit, how 'bout you :P
-
Ok there's been no updates for a while, so how about we explain satelites by saying signals come from a radio tower and time zones by saying the sun is a point light source? I know it's not perfect but at least they'd be explanations?
-
how about we explain satelites by saying signals come from a radio tower
I like....
and time zones by saying the sun is a point light source?
But it's quite obviously not a point light source...
-
and time zones by saying the sun is a point light source?
But it's quite obviously not a point light source...
if I understood the word(s) "point light source", I would say "could be"
-
But it's quite obviously not a point light source...
if I understood the word(s) "point light source", I would say "could be"
A point light source is a glowing speck. No real light sources are point sources, but some things -- like stars and lasers and what-not -- come very close, so we approximate them as point sources.
Things that appear to have some size -- the sun takes up an area of your visual approximately one degree (or maybe a half, or two... can't remember) in diameter -- are obviously not point sources, because they don't look anything like points. The sun looks like a big yellow dime. Because of this, light from the sun comes from more than one direction. It's one of the reasons shadows' boundaries are fuzzy.
Basically, the sun *cannot* be a point light source.
-Erasmus
-
But it's quite obviously not a point light source...
if I understood the word(s) "point light source", I would say "could be"
A point light source is a glowing speck. No real light sources are point sources, but some things -- like stars and lasers and what-not -- come very close, so we approximate them as point sources.
Things that appear to have some size -- the sun takes up an area of your visual approximately one degree (or maybe a half, or two... can't remember) in diameter -- are obviously not point sources, because they don't look anything like points. The sun looks like a big yellow dime. Because of this, light from the sun comes from more than one direction. It's one of the reasons shadows' boundaries are fuzzy.
Basically, the sun *cannot* be a point light source.
-Erasmus
wow, you actually could explain it in a way I think i understood. I must say, I'm impressed.
But what if everyone who has ever seen the sun is crazy in all kinds of ways. Then the sun could be a point light source right?
-
But what if everyone who has ever seen the sun is crazy in all kinds of ways. Then the sun could be a point light source right?
No; only if everyone who has ever seen the sun is crazy in the same way, could it be the case that the sun is really a point light source.
Observations of the sun are highly, highly regular. No matter who looks at it, or when they look, it appears to be a big round thing, not a speck. Any other experiment that we can come up with that involves something other than just looking at the sun (for example, looking at things that pass behind or pass in front of the sun) also indicate that the sun is a big round thing, not a speck. Again, it doesn't matter who does the looking, or when they do it.
So if it is only a hallucination, then the true nature of the sun doesn't seem to have any affect on the rest of the universe; there seems to be no way to know it. So it's much more useful for us to believe that it's not a hallucination; we might as well believe that the sun is not a speck, and that it really is what it looks like it is.
-Erasmus
-
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you.
If the Earth is constantly moving up, shouldn't the stars be getting closer daily, then? Surely by now we would have hit them! Hahahahahaha! Incredible! Wow. This website does wonders for my self-esteem! :lol:
-
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you.
If the Earth is constantly moving up, shouldn't the stars be getting closer daily, then? Surely by now we would have hit them! Hahahahahaha! Incredible! Wow. This website does wonders for my self-esteem! :lol:
Indeed, your esteem must also be boosted by the fact that the stars could be moving up as well?
-
*bump*
To answer the question of gravity at altitude. First, the earth generates no gravity. The reason you hit the ground again is the earth catches up to you. Now, the moon and stars have gravity. As you get closer to them, they exert a pull upon you. Very slight, but more the closer you get.
So what's the deal with this crap? The link in the FAQ to "discussions on gravity" doesn't mention this idea, even though the FAQ includes this as a real answer. I haven't been able to find it anywhere.
Furthermore, much as I am loath to debate this idea in a non-debate thread, but it's clearly wrong. If it were the case, then apparent gravity would vary throughout the day as the sun goes from a position overhead (30 miles away or something) to a position overhead on the other side of the world (more like 12,000 miles away, and in a funny direction).
That is, this reasoning predicts that during the day, the sun's gravitational pull on you is going to be 160,000 times stronger ((12,000 / 300)^2) than it is during the night. You'd probably have a negative weight; the sun should be lifting people right off the ground at incredible speeds and drawing them to their fiery graves in the heavens.
So I say we take it the hell out of the FAQ unless somebody can over evidence that it's part of FE canon.
-Erasmus
-
I saw some unanswered questions in the FAQ, and some that I disagree with. So, I can't say that I speak for all FEers on these, but here goes:
Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"
A: They have been duped by the mainstream "scientists."
Which leads us into a new, certainly-to-be-asked question...
Q: "Why do the almost all the scientists say the Earth is round?"
A: It's a conspiracy.
Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"
A: The exact motive is unknown. If we knew, we'd do something about it. However, it likely involves the personal loss if they admitted their mistake. Remember, if any scientist accepted that the Earth was flat, he'd be seen as some sort of looney and no longer be believed or respected by the masses due to extensive RE indoctrination.
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"
A: Let me put it this way: Have you ever personally *seen* these "celestial bodies" in three dimensions? I think not; when you look at them, even with a telescope, they're entirely two-dimensional. Also, who said Earth was similar to these other "celestial bodies...?"
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"
A: They don't. The best they could possibly do is go in a circular pattern around the centre of the Earth, which, I suppose, they could do, and this could create a sort of "orbit" effect.
Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"
A: Perhaps I'm not speaking for all FEers on this one, but I believe the Earth generates a gravitational pull, but this only pulls things downward, not inward. (ie, a gravitational pull generating from a flat plane somewhere within the Earth, most likely at the bottom, pulling us all toward it.) I do not believe in the rapid upward motion theory, but, in the end, it would cause the same effect. (Erasmus mentioned the sun with regards to the Rapid Upward Motion theory. Remember that the whole reason behind that theory is the non-existence of gravity. Therefore, I would presume the sun has none, either.)
Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"
A: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and it's counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasse" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before. (Also an RE theory, for the record.) There's no worry there.
Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"
A: You would fall off the edge of the Earth, and into space. You'd probably get caught in the ether somewhere, since there's no force pulling or pushing on you out there.
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall (some know it as "Antarctica") that keeps the water where it is. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south (North being toward the centre of the Earth).
Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"
A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds it's way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard (granted, this makes the space smaller, rather than increasing the contents, but the effect is the same).
Q: "When travelling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
--Chal
-
So what's the deal with this crap? The link in the FAQ to "discussions on gravity" doesn't mention this idea, even though the FAQ includes this as a real answer. I haven't been able to find it anywhere...
So I say we take it the hell out of the FAQ unless somebody can over evidence that it's part of FE canon.
Hm...I think the link is just pointing to the wrong thread then.
I think we should start a new thread to discuss that answer. If no solution is found, remove it from the FAQ.
I saw some unanswered questions in the FAQ, and some that I disagree with. So, I can't say that I speak for all FEers on these, but here goes...
Thanks for that Chaltier, I've added most of your answers. For some questions I've had to put yours in as an alternative to the conventional answers given.
The one about the "plane underneath the Earth" has been discussed before but IIRC no complete working model was created, so I've put it in as a general "gravity is caused by external sources" explanation.
-
Thanks for that Chaltier
No problem. ^^
And, looking back at those, it seems I missed one:
Q: "What about time zones?"
A: Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead. All that's required for time zones is that the sun not be directly above everywhere at the same time, which we don't believe.
-
Chaltier wrote:
Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"
A: You would fall off the edge of the Earth, and into space. You'd probably get caught in the ether somewhere, since there's no force pulling or pushing on you out there.
Does this mean that Q-bert was a FE'r? :twisted:
Oh, I just had to....ROTFL :lol:
-
On notation: I'm thinking we should distinguish between answers that are supported by some documentation, and answers that we on these fora come up with ourselves. Maybe
A*: This is Samuel Rowbotham's answer
A+: This is the Bible's answer
A?: This is an answer proposed and not yet refuted on the FES website.
Thoughts?
-Erasmus
-
On notation: I'm thinking we should distinguish between answers that are supported by some documentation, and answers that we on these fora come up with ourselves. Maybe
A*: This is Samuel Rowbotham's answer
A+: This is the Bible's answer
A?: This is an answer proposed and not yet refuted on the FES website.
Thoughts?
-Erasmus
I agree, but even then there are multiple FE models. We really need a document describing each FE model, with a detailed response to commonly attempted RE refutations of each model plus an FAQ for each model.
The problem is finding the time to write that all up :roll:
-
I agree, but even then there are multiple FE models.
Obviously; I'm just suggesting that we annotate the FAQ so that you can easily tell which model a given answer comes from.
-Erasmus
-
Answer instantaneously and I'll never mension the consept of relativity weight or newtons again (unless referring to another topic)
What exactly do you want answered? There is one FE model which states that gravity exist, and there is another which states that the effect of gravity is replicated by the Earth accelerating upwards.
-
Yes it should be authoratitive so debating what the FE's exactly believe is fine.
But it's meant to just be answers to Q's about FE, not where FE's asks RE's questions and vice versa. Eg, if the question was "Why hasn't anyoned fallen off the Earth?" and the response was "There's an ice wall" then that would be fine.
But then asking "How come no one has seen it?" is more of a debate. That's attempting to point out the flaws in the theory, rather than what the theory actually is. Although if they give an answer like "It's a government conspiracy" then that should be acceptable as it's stating a fact (well, they believe it's fact)
The idea behind this thread is so that someone can go in and get the basic ideas of FE theory, so that they can then agree or argue against them in another thread.
Perhaps there should be an RE FAQ thread too?
Sure, why not, theres a crapload more evidence for it anyways.
-
Obviously; I'm just suggesting that we annotate the FAQ so that you can easily tell which model a given answer comes from.
-Erasmus
Indeed, it's a good idea, but I feel we need more than an FAQ now. Some sort of document which describes the theory would be best, I think. The FAQ could remain for common questions that usually crop up.
And also, what do you think of a seperate FAQ for each model?
-
I'd just like to make a few physics clarifications upon the physics described here, note the points I will bring up are not argue for or against FE, just to clarify some physics :)
Two things from the beginning:
Q: "What force is acting on the Earth to make it accelerate?"
A: Dark Energy
Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be travelling at the speed of light, which is impossible?"
A: "From any relative frame of reference in the universe, the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light.
The Earth is only travelling above the speed of light if it's velocity is measured from an absolute frame of reference.
However, the theory of relativitity states there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, therefore the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light"
You said correctly that there is no absolute frame of reference. I do not understand what you mean by a "relative frame of reference", there are only two types of frames of reference. An accelerated frame of reference, which the earth is (for both flat earth people and not flat earth people). And an inertial frame of reference, which means that the sum of all the forces on your reference frame is zero (aka jumping off the earth for flat earthers or freely floating in space far from any large gravitational body).
What I want to bring up is that in the Flat Earth model, the earth would never appear to go past the speed of light from any observer's point a view.
I will propose two thought experiments, one for flat earthers and one for round earthers.
Flat Earthers:
Imagine you hop off the edge of the earth and are now freely floating through space. Take your frame, which will be inertial, to be at rest. As you jump off you should see the earth accelerating away from you at about 10 m/s^2. So as you measure it's speed from one second to another you'll see that it will be going 10m/s after the first second, 20m/s after the third, and it will continue in this linear fasion for quite a while. As the planet's speed approaches the speed of light it will seem to you that it's picking up less and less speed, although the people who are still on earth will still feel the normal 10m/s^2 acceleration. This is a result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.
Round Earthers:
Imagine you're an astronaut in a deep space mission far away from any galaxies, completely empty space. You are outside your spaceship doing some repairs when your crew decides to pull a cruel joke on you and the ship starts accelerating at a constant 10m/s^2 away from you leaving you stranded. Then the same argument holds, (I will copy and paste here so you don't have to read if you read above) So as you measure it's speed from one second to another you'll see that it will be going 10m/s after the first second, 20m/s after the third, and it will continue in this linear fasion for quite a while. As the planet's speed approaches the speed of light it will seem to you that it's picking up less and less speed, although the people who are still on earth will still feel the normal 10m/s^2 acceleration. This is a result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.
Thus in any model, the question that "would the earth seem to go past the speed of light" is not a good one, because nothing can go faster than the speed of light (except chuck norris ;) )
-
A: "From any relative frame of reference in the universe, the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light.
The Earth is only travelling above the speed of light if it's velocity is measured from an absolute frame of reference.
However, the theory of relativitity states there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, therefore the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light"
This is from an old version of the FAQ; have a look at what it says now.
What I want to bring up is that in the Flat Earth model, the earth would never appear to go past the speed of light from any observer's point a view.
As the planet's speed approaches the speed of light it will seem to you that it's picking up less and less speed, although the people who are still on earth will still feel the normal 10m/s^2 acceleration. This is a result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.
...
Thus in any model, the question that "would the earth seem to go past the speed of light" is not a good one, because nothing can go faster than the speed of light (except chuck norris ;) )
Yay!
-Erasmus
-
Are these "models" actual models (as in a miniature Near-Universe made of clay) or are they a metaphorical way to talk about different ways the Earth could look compared to the rest of the Universe or how the Earth would act with everything else?
Is there a place where I can read about/see the different models?
-
Are these "models" actual models (as in a miniature Near-Universe made of clay) or are they a metaphorical way to talk about different ways the Earth could look compared to the rest of the Universe or how the Earth would act with everything else?
Well, neither. The models are mathematical -- they formally describe relationships between measureable quantities and adjustable parameters.
Is there a place where I can read about/see the different models?
The canonical model for a flat Earth as used in this forum was codified by Samuel Rowbotham; there's a link to his book (accessible online) in the FAQ.
For a description of the Standard Model of cosmology, I recommend Wikipedia.
-Erasmus
-
I have a q about Dark Energy.
OK so it pushes stuff up like the earth and the moon and the sun and stars:
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7821/demodel3ec.png)
now then, how does it not push up people? surely if it pushes the stars above the Earth it would push the people on it?
-
The only thing I can possibly think of is that biological organisms are immune to it's effect, but other things are not. I have no way to back this up, but unless someone can think of a better explanation, that one's the best I've found. I don't believe in the upward motion theory/assertion/whatever, either, for the record.
--Chal
-
In response to Marshy.
The claim is that a "Dark Energy" pushes the earth up. First of all I'd like to clarify another physics concept which is usually confused; the distinction between Force and Energy.
When you push something, you exert a force on it and it causes it to move. Friction is the force that causes most objects on earth to slow down to a stop. So what the flat people mean to say is that some "dark force" is pushing the earth up. The way I interpret this is that the earth is like a plate stuck to the tip of a giant rocket that is propelling it through space. So that would eliminate the need to give biological organisms a special preference since they are in turn pushed up by the earth, which is pushed up by the rocket or whatever.
Science in general doesn't deal with exceptions. Everything is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, so there would be no sensible reason as to why the earth's protons neutrons and electrons are subject to different laws of physics than those that make up organisms.
The concept of energy is a little abstract. I was going to give the example of holding a rock above your head will have a certain "gravitational potential energy" as physicists like to call it, but since certain people here disbelieve the existence of gravity, I'll use a more kosher example.
Imagine you attach a tiny pebble to a rubber band, and stretch it out a certain distance, say 1 foot. You can say that the stretched rubber band has a certain "elastic potential energy" and when you release it, it will transfer all its "energy" to the pebble, which will exhibit it in the form of kinetic energy.
So fundamentally there are only two types of energy, potential and kinetic. Potential can be seen in chemical bonds, stretching rubber bands, nuclear potential energy, and round people also have an extra one called gravitational potential energy (I'm just kidding, flat people have it too, they can just call it differently). There are a bunch more forms of potential energy but I think you get the idea.
The other form is kinetic, which is pretty much the energy of motion. So a car would have kinetic energy, as would a train, etc. What we call temperature is pretty much the average kinetic energy of the small molecules that surround us.
For those of you that saw Star Wars, you'll remember that both the Jedi and the Darth People used "The Force" to push things around and do all sorts of funky stuff, not energy. I guess the dark side of the force explains thing round people call gravity.
-
I don't think that explains why the stars didnt crash into earth a while ago.
-
Guys, can you please explain the working of seasons?
Given a flat-earth perspective, the length of time the Sun is in the sky should be the same in the UK and Australia, yet they are manifestly different. When it's Summer in the UK it's Winter in Australia, and vice-versa.
Does this mean you're going to have to expand your conspiracy theory to include anyone who has ever made a 'phone call form one location to the other and commented on the weather?
-
Guys, can you please explain the working of seasons?
Given a flat-earth perspective, the length of time the Sun is in the sky should be the same in the UK and Australia, yet they are manifestly different. When it's Summer in the UK it's Winter in Australia, and vice-versa.
Does this mean you're going to have to expand your conspiracy theory to include anyone who has ever made a 'phone call form one location to the other and commented on the weather?
You obviously havn't looked into the explanation of seasons already proposed on this site.
When reading through your Flat Earth FAQ, I got to the unanswered questions section and immediately knew the answers to many of the questions. I felt I should share them with you in the hopes of expanding your FAQ.
Q: "How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?"
A: This argument is a non sequitur, being based on the asumption that NASA is telling the truth about there being no air away from the earth's surface.
Q: Follow-up to previous question: "Then why is air thinner at high altitudes?" & "What about air pressure?"
A: This is a direct result of the earth's upward acceleration and the ice wall encircling it. Air pressure is the equivalent of the wind resistance you can experience by rolling down the window in a moving car. The ice wall helps to contain the air to prevent it from blowing off the edges as the earth moves, making the air relatively stationary across the planet while still being compressed by the air above it. This also explains why high altitudes also tend to have very high winds.
Q: "Explain the Coriolis force."
A: It has now been widely proven by scientists that the ficticious "Coriolis Effect" does not in fact exist. For proof of this claim, feel free to perform a Google search.
A: (in detail) The Coriolis Effect is a false observation based on a rotating point of reference. An object moving in a straight line above a rotating surface will appear to move in a curved line. FE Theory does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the earth spinning through space in a fashion similar to that of a spinning frisbee, which would in turn cause the appearance of the Coriolis Effect on objects moving in a true straight line. Contrary to popular belief, the Coriolis Effect has no affects on stationary objects such as water going down a drain. Again, feel free to do a Google search to verify these claims.
Q: "Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?"
This is an optical illusion caused by the lens distortion effect of the air between you and said distant ship that causes the portion of the ship below a certain height to be indistiguishable from the surface of the water to the human eye. This is why the horizon appears "fuzzy" and there is a limit to line of sight across the earth's surface.
Q: "If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last I checked a light can't contain shadows."
A1: The moon is not a perfect light, and there are some parts dimmer than others. The sun has a similar characteristic called sunspots.
A2: The moon doesn't actually create the light but functions as a large reflecter of the sun's light. Details of this answer were explained in Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"
Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.
A: All compasses point towards the North pole. There does not need to be a south magnetic pole. It is possible that the opposite poles on compasses and magnets are repelled from the earth's north magnetic pole just as two magnets of the same charge are repulsed from one another. Conversely, the entire ice wall around the outer edge of the earth could have magnetically charged elements within the ice, with some portions having higher concentrations than others giving the appearance of a singular southern pole. As yet another alternate explanation, the other magnetic pole could be located on the opposite geographic face of the planet, i.e. the bottom.
-
Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.
A: All compasses point towards the North pole. There does not need to be a south magnetic pole. It is possible that the opposite poles on compasses and magnets are repelled from the earth's north magnetic pole just as two magnets of the same charge are repulsed from one another.
Good job bumping a 6 month old thread...
You can't have a north pole without a south pole.
-
Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.
A: All compasses point towards the North pole. There does not need to be a south magnetic pole. It is possible that the opposite poles on compasses and magnets are repelled from the earth's north magnetic pole just as two magnets of the same charge are repulsed from one another.
Good job bumping a 6 month old thread...
You can't have a north pole without a south pole.
EnragedPenguin told me to.
Eh, it was a suggestion. If you'll read the rest, I offered other alternatives.
-
We really need to update this thing.