why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other
why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other
Simple explanations are often wrong. Also, this theory builds purely on evidence that we can experience ourselves, by making the Dark Matter assumption redundant. I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.
why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other
Simple explanations are often wrong. Also, this theory builds purely on evidence that we can experience ourselves, by making the Dark Matter assumption redundant. I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.
Really really good work. I think this trumps Flat Earth Theory in every way.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13382.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13382.0)
I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.The time zone problem has been addressed in the standard FE model, which is different from your model. I asked how your model explains time zones. You show the sun passing below the flat Earth at night, which means that it would be dark everywhere on the Earth at once. This is clearly counter to reality, which seems to me to be a fatal blow for your model.
I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.The time zone problem has been addressed in the standard FE model, which is different from your model. I asked how your model explains time zones. You show the sun passing below the flat Earth at night, which means that it would be dark everywhere on the Earth at once. This is clearly counter to reality, which seems to me to be a fatal blow for your model.
I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)
The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading depending on where I was in the world, it still wouldn't explain why my internal body clock differed so greatly from the solar time in China.
If you remove that part of the hypothesis, then this model becomes almost identical to the standard FE accelerating upward model, in terms of observables. Almost but not exact because there would be a coriolis force, but if we assume a very large radius, this force could be made arbitrarily small, and therefore undetectable. (Conversely you could confirm this model by observing such a coriolis force, but I doubt you will.)
There would of course be a small coriolis effect by the rotation of the sphere, but this would be offset by the rotation of the earth itself, as illustrated. The result could very well be that close to the center of the earth there is a rightward coriolis effect, and a left one further out towards the edge. This is exactly the sort of opposite effect that can be measured in what in RET terminology is referred to as the northern and southern hemisphere.No, that doesn't work, because if the rotation of the sphere imparted a measurable coriolis effect, and the Earth was also rotating, the the magnitude of the coriolis force would be time dependent. At a specific location, when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the same direction as the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be stronger, and when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the opposite direction of the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be weaker. This does not explain what we observe as coriolis force. (For example with a Foucault pendulum, the rate at which the pendulum precesses is not time-dependent.) So the coriolis force owing to our motion about the sphere, if it exists, must be extremely minor so as not to conflict with these observations.
I guess my model could actually explain these oposite coriolis effects, if we assume that the "southern hemisphere" is located at the edge of the earth.
No, that doesn't work, because if the rotation of the sphere imparted a measurable coriolis effect, and the Earth was also rotating, the the magnitude of the coriolis force would be time dependent. At a specific location, when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the same direction as the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be stronger, and when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the opposite direction of the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be weaker. This does not explain what we observe as coriolis force. (For example with a Foucault pendulum, the rate at which the pendulum precesses is not time-dependent.) So the coriolis force owing to our motion about the sphere, if it exists, must be extremely minor so as not to conflict with these observations.
I have an idea! Why don't you make in the center of the earth's movement a giant sun? And then make the earth more round, like a sphere like shape?
Doesn't explain gravity between objects.
I am saying this model does not explain that experiment.
I am agreeing with you. I am saying flat earth in a sphere does not prove that. lol
I have an idea! Why don't you make in the center of the earth's movement a giant sun? And then make the earth more round, like a sphere like shape?
Well that's just impossible... :P
why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the otherTroll within a troll...
I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)
The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading
I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)
The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading
I have decided to alther my theory slightly by deleteing the sun under the horizon, as depicted below, in order to resolve the time zone problem. Hence I assume standard FET with respect to the sun.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3g3Vi2hrltQ/S1xWGb7uAgI/AAAAAAAAAD4/_2T0FWLDW8s/s800/EarthInSphereNoSun.png)
Well, it does not have to be a giant turtle. I allow for the possibility that there is some other elevating object. It might not even be a gigantic animal at all! It is just not possible to know what lies beneath. If the lettuce problem is considered a major drawback here on this forum though, I am willing to alter the model here too, since it has not impact on the models ability to explain the world as we experience it.
I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.The time zone problem has been addressed in the standard FE model, which is different from your model. I asked how your model explains time zones. You show the sun passing below the flat Earth at night, which means that it would be dark everywhere on the Earth at once. This is clearly counter to reality, which seems to me to be a fatal blow for your model.
Well, if you prefer we can delete the sun under the earth, and use the standard FET explanation. Alternatively, we can attribute this to a conspiracy. After all it is impossible for a person to be at two places at the same time to verify time zones. He has to rely on devices prone to manipulation (telephone, tv, clock etc.). In any case, I do not see this as a fatal blow, but rather as an interesting input for further development of the theory.
So when my best friend went to Asia for the past month, and when I talked to him every other day, and he confirmed it was day when it was night here..... he was being manipulated by The Conspiracy?Yes, that might very well be. After all you ar only hearing your friend (or seeing him on a screen if you use skype or other video conference software), your were not able to touch him so that you could verify that it was really him. I don't doubt that you had some sort of conversation with him, but the time difference could be manipulated.
Well, it does not have to be a giant turtle. I allow for the possibility that there is some other elevating object. It might not even be a gigantic animal at all! It is just not possible to know what lies beneath. If the lettuce problem is considered a major drawback here on this forum though, I am willing to alter the model here too, since it has not impact on the models ability to explain the world as we experience it.
I was just kidding with you.
Actually, I wonder how this would work with UA theory?
i think, that if you are willing to believe that the earth is flat. you may as well believe that there is a flat earth in a sphere. the two are much the same really. all things considered.
by the way. have any of you flat earth people seen what is at the edge of the world? been there to see it for yourself and all that.
if you have, next time you go, would you mind taking me along with you. im terribly keen to see what the edge of the world really looks like.
Please review the forum rules. Contentless posting is not allowed here.i think, that if you are willing to believe that the earth is flat. you may as well believe that there is a flat earth in a sphere. the two are much the same really. all things considered.
by the way. have any of you flat earth people seen what is at the edge of the world? been there to see it for yourself and all that.
if you have, next time you go, would you mind taking me along with you. im terribly keen to see what the edge of the world really looks like.
+1
i think, that if you are willing to believe that the earth is flat. you may as well believe that there is a flat earth in a sphere. the two are much the same really. all things considered.
by the way. have any of you flat earth people seen what is at the edge of the world? been there to see it for yourself and all that.
if you have, next time you go, would you mind taking me along with you. im terribly keen to see what the edge of the world really looks like.
This person is obviously a stupid bollock
Buzz, please read what the report abuse is for.
It isn't so you can tell us thatQuoteThis person is obviously a stupid bollock
Buzz, please read what the report abuse is for.
It isn't so you can tell us thatQuoteThis person is obviously a stupid bollock
Please, if you want to make an arguement, please for a start make sense. Please.
Thank you.
i am new here so what i dont get is what is the reason the conspiracy exists at all, i mean what does anyone gain over misleading people about the shape of the planet ???
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3g3Vi2hrltQ/S0SlOmNyWBI/AAAAAAAAAC8/eor2Tf4iJhk/s800/ErthInAASphere.png)Where does the moon go?
i am new here so what i dont get is what is the reason the conspiracy exists at all, i mean what does anyone gain over misleading people about the shape of the planet ???
Once again, the FAQ and lurking will help you a lot.
In short, there is great monetary benefits to faking space flights.
i am new here so what i dont get is what is the reason the conspiracy exists at all, i mean what does anyone gain over misleading people about the shape of the planet ???
Once again, the FAQ and lurking will help you a lot.
In short, there is great monetary benefits to faking space flights.
Err, okay... ??? So, what was their motivation for this conspiracy in the years before space flight?
i am new here so what i dont get is what is the reason the conspiracy exists at all, i mean what does anyone gain over misleading people about the shape of the planet ???
Once again, the FAQ and lurking will help you a lot.
In short, there is great monetary benefits to faking space flights.
Err, okay... ??? So, what was their motivation for this conspiracy in the years before space flight?
You'll never get a logical or rational response to that question.
It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.
It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.
It's also quite likely that there is no conspiracy since spaceflight.
Since you belive that the Earth is not flat, you reason from a false premise. Fail.It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.
It's also quite likely that there is no conspiracy since spaceflight.
If the Earth is flat it's a near-certainty.
Since you belive that the Earth is not flat, you reason from a false premise.It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.
It's also quite likely that there is no conspiracy since spaceflight.
If the Earth is flat it's a near-certainty.
It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.Then tell me what was the motivation and what was so compelling about thinking that the Earth is round? It has been properly established long before Galilei's time (the oldest-known spherical globe dates a few years before Columbus' renowned journey), so taking into account of your claim that there was, in fact, no conspiracy present at the time, all evidence brought up in that era cannot have been maliciously intended (i.e., there was no motivation to make such evidence false).
It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.Then tell me what was the motivation and what was so compelling about thinking that the Earth is round? It has been properly established long before Galilei's time (the oldest-known spherical globe dates a few years before Columbus' renowned journey), so taking into account of your claim that there was, in fact, no conspiracy present at the time, all evidence brought up in that era cannot have been maliciously intended (i.e., there was no motivation to make such evidence false).
So why are you all denying it? It's right there in front of your faces. It's been peer reviewed and examined by hundreds and thousands of scientists since its inception. The "theory" (for lack of better words, of course) remains consistent with all scientific findings since the 1600s. And you come to tell us that it's wrong, without peer reviewed and properly analysed "evidence"?
Listen to me: if you all had some basis, scientists would have taken much more interest in the FET. Because believe it or not, our species is bent on knowledge and truth. We've depended on it to get to where we are now. To think that we would abandon this crucial pillar of our character for CAPITALISTIC GAIN is completely absurd.
It seems likely that there was no conspiracy before spaceflight.Then tell me what was the motivation and what was so compelling about thinking that the Earth is round? It has been properly established long before Galilei's time (the oldest-known spherical globe dates a few years before Columbus' renowned journey), so taking into account of your claim that there was, in fact, no conspiracy present at the time, all evidence brought up in that era cannot have been maliciously intended (i.e., there was no motivation to make such evidence false).
So why are you all denying it? It's right there in front of your faces. It's been peer reviewed and examined by hundreds and thousands of scientists since its inception. The "theory" (for lack of better words, of course) remains consistent with all scientific findings since the 1600s. And you come to tell us that it's wrong, without peer reviewed and properly analysed "evidence"?
Listen to me: if you all had some basis, scientists would have taken much more interest in the FET. Because believe it or not, our species is bent on knowledge and truth. We've depended on it to get to where we are now. To think that we would abandon this crucial pillar of our character for CAPITALISTIC GAIN is completely absurd.
...but where you seek that knowledge and truth (and evidence) will be key to your understanding.
What I belive is irrelevant.
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?
See? Case in point.
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?
See? Case in point.
Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?
See? Case in point.
Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.
It's substantiated enough to be worthy of discussion.
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?
See? Case in point.
Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.
It's substantiated enough to be worthy of discussion.
Anything is worthy of being discussed. The FET is not worthy of being taken seriously because it's unsubstantiated.
What I belive is irrelevant.
I find that the word "irrelevant" is oft-used in the FET vocabulary. Are your statements so ambiguous to the point where people are going off-topic?
No. I think people tend to go off-topic because they don't take the topic seriously.
Haha, well that's a given. What else do you expect when trying to disprove centuries-old knowledge, replacing it with this pseudo-science?
See? Case in point.
Subject hasn't gone off-topic in relation to your comment, therefore I fail to see what you're pointing out. But yes, we don't take the topic seriously, because as I said, it's unsubstantiated.
It's substantiated enough to be worthy of discussion.
Anything is worthy of being discussed. The FET is not worthy of being taken seriously because it's unsubstantiated.
If it's worthy of being discussed, it's worthy of being taken seriously. It is not unsubstantiated.
And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point. Google it, it's available for free online.
Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.
lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point. Google it, it's available for free online.
Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.
And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point. Google it, it's available for free online.
Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.
"Some books are truly great because they have been carefully researched, verified and contain deep truths that can change your understanding of this world forever. This is not one of these books; in fact, it is as far as it gets from one of these books. Basically, this is a work of one man who started out with an assumption -- namely, that the Earth is flat -- and then picked some things that seem to support this assumption, completely ignoring the vast amount of evidence against it.
So what makes this book great? It is charming in the same way an Ed Wood movie is -- so unbelievably sloppy and amateurish that it is quite hilarious. The basic assumption is just so laughable and unbelievable that you can fully appreciate the depth -- or lack thereof -- of the evidence and reasoning. Basically, the main body of evidence is some experiments that the author has conducted. He looked at objects from great distance, they did not disappear, therefore the Earth must be flat. As simple as that! As an additional bonus, he threw in some carefully selected data about lighthouses that could be seen from a longer distance than would be possible if the Earth was round (ignoring the majority of data that does not fit in his theory).
And just about the best thing about the book is the fact that it is still relevant today. We still have people who use the very same methods -- carefully selected data, sloppy research and loud statements -- to prove all sorts of things. We have people who believe that Earth was created 6000 years ago, we have people who say that global warming is not really happening, we have people who claim that smoking is not really that bad for you -- using the very same kind of reasoning, that is, starting with an assumption and then picking evidence to support it. This book is so blatantly wrong that it serves as a nice and safe training tool -- when you understand what is wrong with this book, it is easier to see what is wrong with the other claims. And that is the greatest strength and value of this book."
lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point. Google it, it's available for free online.
Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.
I've never seen anything that proves that the Earth is round. Until such evidence is presented, it's only right that the default position is considered.
Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point. Google it, it's available for free online.
Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.
I've never seen anything that proves that the Earth is round. Until such evidence is presented, it's only right that the default position is considered.
Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.
Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.lurk moar. There are plenty of posts of concrete evidence of a round Earth. Try the search feature.And yes, it is unsubstantiated until you provide concrete evidence to render it substantiated. Otherwise it remains a claim. An unsubstantiated claim.
Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham aka Parallax is an excellent starting point. Google it, it's available for free online.
Now, I'd like to see some concrete evidence of a round Earth.
I've never seen anything that proves that the Earth is round. Until such evidence is presented, it's only right that the default position is considered.
Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.
Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.
So what makes this book great?
Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.
Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.
???
Pardon?
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.
Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.
???
Pardon?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocateIn common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.
Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.
No I'm not. You're the one claiming the world is round. Show the proof that my senses are deceiving me.
Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.
???
Pardon?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocateIn common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.
I must be incompetent, because I don't see how devil's advocate applies.
Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.
No I'm not. You're the one claiming the world is round. Show the proof that my senses are deceiving me.
Why do you think that your senses are deceiving you? What should your senses tell you that the surface of a 7900 mile diameter sphere looks like?
Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.No I'm not. You're the one claiming the world is round. Show the proof that my senses are deceiving me.
QuoteSo what makes this book great?I never said it was great. But it is a book with purported evidence that the Earth is flat.
Argh, the default position doesn't change according to one's opinion. In modern science, the default position is that the Earth is round. If you want to change the default position, you have to provide evidence.The default position is what our own regular experience tells us. Just because you've been indoctrinated to be sure that the Earth is round despite the observable evidence to the contrary doesn't necessarily mean it is.
Okay, since you're too lazy to search or lurk, please reference: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf (http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf)Whoa, you're the one making a positive claim; don't turn the table and make a negative one until you properly prove your positive.
No I'm not. You're the one claiming the world is round. Show the proof that my senses are deceiving me.
Why do you think that your senses are deceiving you? What should your senses tell you that the surface of a 7900 mile diameter sphere looks like?
Unfortunately, if the Earth is flat, as it appears to be, such speculation is pure science-fiction. The Earth looks flat. Prove it's not.
By the way, I love the little side argument.
Just to clarify, Roundy believes that the Earth is round.
???
Pardon?Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocateIn common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process.
I must be incompetent, because I don't see how devil's advocate applies.
Roundy (at least appears to) argue for a position that he does not necessarily believe. What's so hard about that to understand?
I'm confused as to where this applies. I don't see where he is playing devil's advocate.Roundy regularly makes statements that he does not believe. He argues that he's not being dishonest, just a devil's advocate. However, I find your concerns quite adequate to reject the DA role for him.
The topic (between you and I) has always been that you made a positive claim that there is evidence to support the fact that the Earth is flat. You've given me a controversial book accused of using primitive techniques to reach a conclusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, said the wise Carl Sagan.
That wasn't the point of the review. The point of the review was that the methods used to reach the conclusions laid out in the book are flawed.
Indoctrination is not synonymous with reading the factual evidence and possible stances, to confirm my stance on the subject.
You want examples of indoctrination? Religious adherents are chock full of them.
So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
Unfortunately, if the Earth is flat, as it appears to be, such speculation is pure science-fiction.
So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
I see no obvious bias, but I fear that FEers and the FEDAs might be so paranoid as to conclude that everyone else is out to get them. Professionals in the mental health field can assist those with paranoia.So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
They present in a style to try to make any model of the Earth that isn't round seem ridiculous. Just look at the first page. Obvious bias.
The extraordinary claim here is that the Earth is round. That's what requires extraordinary evidence.
So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?
Most people don't seem interested in doing that.
I fully agree.
Good. I was beginning to think that most FETists were blind followers of the Bible. I'm glad to find out I was wrong.
I see no obvious bias, but I fear that FEers and the FEDAs might be so paranoid as to conclude that everyone else is out to get them. Professionals in the mental health field can assist those with paranoia.So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
They present in a style to try to make any model of the Earth that isn't round seem ridiculous. Just look at the first page. Obvious bias.
I didn't think you could argue that there was bias. It's good to see you fail there again. I have expressed no personal fears, so your next point seems to miss the mark. Perhaps you should give up for the night. You seem to be failing more with each post.I see no obvious bias, but I fear that FEers and the FEDAs might be so paranoid as to conclude that everyone else is out to get them. Professionals in the mental health field can assist those with paranoia.So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
They present in a style to try to make any model of the Earth that isn't round seem ridiculous. Just look at the first page. Obvious bias.
Your inability to see bias only shows your incompetence. Your personal fears are irrelevant and do not belong in scholarly discussion. Do pay attention.
I have expressed no personal fears
I fearAh, yet another contradiction. You're setting new standards right there!
I didn't think you could argue that there was bias. It's good to see you fail there again. I have expressed no personal fears, so your next point seems to miss the mark. Perhaps you should give up for the night. You seem to be failing more with each post.I see no obvious bias, but I fear that FEers and the FEDAs might be so paranoid as to conclude that everyone else is out to get them. Professionals in the mental health field can assist those with paranoia.So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
They present in a style to try to make any model of the Earth that isn't round seem ridiculous. Just look at the first page. Obvious bias.
Your inability to see bias only shows your incompetence. Your personal fears are irrelevant and do not belong in scholarly discussion. Do pay attention.
I have expressed no personal fears
I fear
Way to place a quote out of context. You're setting new standards right there!I have expressed no personal fearsI fearAh, yet another contradiction. You're setting new standards right there!
I stand corrected. I did use the phase "I fear" as a rhetorical instrument. I still don't see how my concerns are irrelevant.I didn't think you could argue that there was bias. It's good to see you fail there again. I have expressed no personal fears, so your next point seems to miss the mark. Perhaps you should give up for the night. You seem to be failing more with each post.I see no obvious bias, but I fear that FEers and the FEDAs might be so paranoid as to conclude that everyone else is out to get them. Professionals in the mental health field can assist those with paranoia.So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
They present in a style to try to make any model of the Earth that isn't round seem ridiculous. Just look at the first page. Obvious bias.
Your inability to see bias only shows your incompetence. Your personal fears are irrelevant and do not belong in scholarly discussion. Do pay attention.
If I were to right an article about the French and the strength of their victories, and on the front page I had a humorous animation of the french running away, would you not assume bias?
Also, you completely fail here.I have expressed no personal fears
Notice how just a post earlier you said:I fear
I stand corrected. I did use the phase "I fear" as a rhetorical instrument. I still don't see how my concerns are irrelevant.I didn't think you could argue that there was bias. It's good to see you fail there again. I have expressed no personal fears, so your next point seems to miss the mark. Perhaps you should give up for the night. You seem to be failing more with each post.I see no obvious bias, but I fear that FEers and the FEDAs might be so paranoid as to conclude that everyone else is out to get them. Professionals in the mental health field can assist those with paranoia.So you're going to blindly trust somebody else's opinion? Why don't you try judging its methods for yourself instead of pointing to an obviously biased review?Please support your claim that the review is obviously biased. Or are you just making things up again?
They present in a style to try to make any model of the Earth that isn't round seem ridiculous. Just look at the first page. Obvious bias.
Your inability to see bias only shows your incompetence. Your personal fears are irrelevant and do not belong in scholarly discussion. Do pay attention.
If I were to right an article about the French and the strength of their victories, and on the front page I had a humorous animation of the french running away, would you not assume bias?
Also, you completely fail here.I have expressed no personal fears
Notice how just a post earlier you said:I fear
You don't understand what bias is. If after reviewing a work, I characterize it with comical, that is not bias.
It does not matter if the use is comical. In fact this reinforces the idea of the bias. All it shows is that the author wishes to present the opposition in a comical way. It would be an appeal to ridicule.It cannot reinforce what has not been shown. You claim bias, but fail to show bias.
I frankly don't see how your fears would be relevant to this discussion. Further, if your statement were not a statement of your personal fears, it would be an unwarranted personal attack on FE'ers here which also is has nothing to do with the discussion.
It cannot reinforce what has not been shown. You claim bias, but fail to show bias.
All it shows is that the author wishes to present the opposition in a comical way. It would be an appeal to ridicule.
When you suggest others go to rif.org during a debate topic is that an unwarranted personal attack?
You remain unable then to show bias. Ridicule is not a form of bias.It cannot reinforce what has not been shown. You claim bias, but fail to show bias.
See:All it shows is that the author wishes to present the opposition in a comical way. It would be an appeal to ridicule.
People don't often use fallacies against themselves. Therefore the author is actually a FE'er that is ridiculing himself, or a RE'er that is trying to besmirch the opposition. The latter shows bias.When you suggest others go to rif.org during a debate topic is that an unwarranted personal attack?
It absolutely is. I won't deny it.
Way to place a quote out of context. You're setting new standards right there!I have expressed no personal fearsI fearAh, yet another contradiction. You're setting new standards right there!
Do explain how it is out of context. Clocktower said "I fear" and then proceeded to talk about his fears.
EDIT: Lol at the delete.
You remain unable then to show bias. Ridicule is not a form of bias.It cannot reinforce what has not been shown. You claim bias, but fail to show bias.
See:All it shows is that the author wishes to present the opposition in a comical way. It would be an appeal to ridicule.
People don't often use fallacies against themselves. Therefore the author is actually a FE'er that is ridiculing himself, or a RE'er that is trying to besmirch the opposition. The latter shows bias.When you suggest others go to rif.org during a debate topic is that an unwarranted personal attack?
It absolutely is. I won't deny it.
Do you consider yourself a hypocrite for using unwarranted personal attacks while calling me for the same?
I disagree. Ridicule after reading a 'book' does not demostrate bias, which, by definition, must exist before reading the 'book'. The claim of 'obvious' bias is unsupported.You remain unable then to show bias. Ridicule is not a form of bias.It cannot reinforce what has not been shown. You claim bias, but fail to show bias.
See:All it shows is that the author wishes to present the opposition in a comical way. It would be an appeal to ridicule.
People don't often use fallacies against themselves. Therefore the author is actually a FE'er that is ridiculing himself, or a RE'er that is trying to besmirch the opposition. The latter shows bias.When you suggest others go to rif.org during a debate topic is that an unwarranted personal attack?
It absolutely is. I won't deny it.
Do you consider yourself a hypocrite for using unwarranted personal attacks while calling me for the same?
If re-read what I posted, you'd find that while it in of itself is not bias, it can, and did, betray the author's bias.
Also, it would only be hypocritical to call you out only if I with with held treatment for myself. I do not.
I report myself each time I do it. ;)
I disagree. Ridicule after reading a 'book' does not demostrate bias, which, by definition, must exist before reading the 'book'. The claim of 'obvious' bias is unsupported.You remain unable then to show bias. Ridicule is not a form of bias.It cannot reinforce what has not been shown. You claim bias, but fail to show bias.
See:All it shows is that the author wishes to present the opposition in a comical way. It would be an appeal to ridicule.
People don't often use fallacies against themselves. Therefore the author is actually a FE'er that is ridiculing himself, or a RE'er that is trying to besmirch the opposition. The latter shows bias.When you suggest others go to rif.org during a debate topic is that an unwarranted personal attack?
It absolutely is. I won't deny it.
Do you consider yourself a hypocrite for using unwarranted personal attacks while calling me for the same?
If re-read what I posted, you'd find that while it in of itself is not bias, it can, and did, betray the author's bias.
Also, it would only be hypocritical to call you out only if I with with held treatment for myself. I do not.
I report myself each time I do it. ;)
What evidence do you have to support your outlandish claims? Also, I never said it existed after reading the book. It existed when the author was writing it. It is reflected in his book by his appeals to ridicule.Let's go slowly as you've seemed to have lost it. Bias is prejudice, such as deciding on how to judge a book before reading it. You, actually Roundy first, claim that the review was 'obviously' biased, but have failed to support that claim. Ridiculing an author, Rowbotham, after reading his 'book', EnaG, is not bias, rather only an expression of an opinion. You claim that the bias existed when the author was writing the review. That while writing about the 'book' the reviewer held a negative view of the 'book' does not in any way demonstrate that the reviewer had a bias, which by definition had to be before his reading of the 'book', EnaG. Please pay attention.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_3g3Vi2hrltQ/S1xWGb7uAgI/AAAAAAAAAD4/_2T0FWLDW8s/s512/EarthInSphereNoSun.png)Where does the moon go?
Then tell me what was the motivation and what was so compelling about thinking that the Earth is round? It has been properly established long before Galilei's time (the oldest-known spherical globe dates a few years before Columbus' renowned journey), so taking into account of your claim that there was, in fact, no conspiracy present at the time, all evidence brought up in that era cannot have been maliciously intended (i.e., there was no motivation to make such evidence false).
In the late 15th century cartography was entering an exciting new time. New lands were being found. Previously uncharted islands, indeed even continents, were being added to world maps. The BGMG found a splendid way to find massive amounts of Royal funding (commissions). If you convince burgeoning world powers that their maps are completely inadequate and only a globe can accurately depict the earth, you're in for a lot of commissioned work. Add to that the fact globes became a status simple in vogue among the wealthy of the period and you have an enormous cash cow.
But this ignores (or only scrapes) the actual depth of the plan. The goal of the BGMG was not map-making or wealth from it. The goal was power. To gain influence at court led to all sorts of potential for abuse of such power. This was an age where the court was the center of power; "scientists" vied to have their ideas heard. The difference between living in obscurity and becoming a household name was a "discovery" away. Further, it was the Age of Discovery, where untold wealth might be a ship's journey away for a kingdom -- indeed this was the genesis of European imperialism. Map makers invented (http://www.bl.uk/learning/artimages/maphist/deception/fictitioushome/fictitious.html) islands and continents to attain funding for expeditions. The closer you find yourselves to the strings of power, the more opportunity for corruption.
Back to the original topic, I immediately see many flaws in this theory.
1. How would satellites work?
2. How do you explain the other planets?
3. How did all of this come to be in the first place?
4. Why can we not see this sphere?
5. If the sphere was constantly rotating at a rate that would give us enough force to remain on the earth, airplanes would easily be overtaken by the rotation of the sphere.
I'm sure someone will post a ridiculous answer to all of these, but it was worth a try. :P
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_3g3Vi2hrltQ/TQFarNJkujI/AAAAAAAAAEg/tiwz6DppEtY/s512/EarthInSphereWithMoon.png)
So if the Earth is this disk inside a giant sphere, and is somewhere toward the inside wall facing toward the center... How exactly does the sphere spinning cause gravity on inner facing side of this disk?
Your arrow says the disk is accelerating towards the middle of the shere. Is the whole sphere supposed to be moving in that direction? Rolling like a ball along a flat surface?
Back to the original topic, I immediately see many flaws in this theory.
1. How would satellites work?
2. How do you explain the other planets?
3. How did all of this come to be in the first place?
4. Why can we not see this sphere?
5. If the sphere was constantly rotating at a rate that would give us enough force to remain on the earth, airplanes would easily be overtaken by the rotation of the sphere.
I'm sure someone will post a ridiculous answer to all of these, but it was worth a try. :P
Firstly let me say that I don't know if I accept this model yet, but it is very interesting and I have been researching something similar recently, but haven't reached any conclusions as yet. Nevertheless some of these points apply to standard FET so I will attempt to explain them:
1. They don't. They don't work in standard FET either, the signals we receive are from broadcasting towers or high altitude aircraft. The FAQ has more on this issue if you are interested.
2. I can't answer on behalf of the OP, but in my personal view the other planets move about the sky just like the sun. Their motions are explained by the Ptolemaic epiycle model.
3. Who can say? In RET we don't know what caused the big bang, nor can we know. It was the beginning of the universe as we know it and we can't conclude anything about what was before it, or even if there was a "before it". I don't believe any FE model has yet explained the origin of the universe, just as RET hasn't. Sure, we have the big bang model which explains how the universe came to be as a result of essentially a giant explosion of energy and matter (though the formation of our universe after this is not without some theoretical problems, but that can be discussed another time). RET cannot explain what caused this explosion which formed the universe, just as FET does not explain the origin of the universe.
4. Again, I cannot answer on behalf of the OP but in my research into the issue I was leaning toward what is called in physics a perfect black body, it absorbs all electromagnetic radiation falling on it an therefore appears as pure black despite having the sun and stars to illuminate it. Actually the perfect examples from physics class practically never find their way into real life, but it wouldn't need to be strictly perfect, a close approximation would do. Perhaps it reflects / radiates a small amount of energy back, this would explain the cosmic microwave background nicely.
5. Straightforwardly false I'm afraid. The rotation of the sphere in this model is at such a speed as to account for gravity by centripetal acceleration, planes would fly the same way in this model as they do in the standard FE model, which is the same way as they fly in RET. There is always some confusion over this issue when gravity and UA are brought up in threads, people just need to remember the equivalence principal. Essentially, gravity causes things to accelerate towards the earth, UA and the centripetal force proposed here cause the earth to accelerate towards those things instead, but the effects, to an observer here on earth, are the same. Think of filling a bucket with water and swinging it over your head rapidly. The water does not fall out because centripetal force keeps it in. If you left the bucket on the ground, the water would not fall out because the centripetal force keeps it in. The result is the same either way because the forces are equivalent despite having different causes. In this model, a plane flying would be traveling with the earth and would therefore experience the same centripetal acceleration. Just like in RET when a plane takes off, the earth does not suddenly disappear out from underneath it despite the earth rapidly traveling around the sun.
So if the Earth is this disk inside a giant sphere, and is somewhere toward the inside wall facing toward the center... How exactly does the sphere spinning cause gravity on inner facing side of this disk?
Your arrow says the disk is accelerating towards the middle of the shere. Is the whole sphere supposed to be moving in that direction? Rolling like a ball along a flat surface?
It is centrifugal accelleration which causes objects to fall to the earth. You can test this yourself by filling a bucket with water and swinging it reasonably quickly over your head. You will notice that the water stays in the bucket even while it is upside down, as in this instance you have generated enough centripetal acceleration to counteract earth's gravity. In this model, objects on the surface of the earth experience the centripetal force in the same way, the earth acts as the bucket in the analogy and it's curved path is caused by the giant hollow sphere it sits inside. In fact some globularist scientists have proposed this idea to produce simulated gravity on board large space stations, the station would likely be cylindrical and the centripetal accelleration would allow people to stick to the inner walls of the cylinder.
So if the Earth is this disk inside a giant sphere, and is somewhere toward the inside wall facing toward the center... How exactly does the sphere spinning cause gravity on inner facing side of this disk?
Your arrow says the disk is accelerating towards the middle of the shere. Is the whole sphere supposed to be moving in that direction? Rolling like a ball along a flat surface?
It is centrifugal accelleration which causes objects to fall to the earth. You can test this yourself by filling a bucket with water and swinging it reasonably quickly over your head. You will notice that the water stays in the bucket even while it is upside down, as in this instance you have generated enough centripetal acceleration to counteract earth's gravity. In this model, objects on the surface of the earth experience the centripetal force in the same way, the earth acts as the bucket in the analogy and it's curved path is caused by the giant hollow sphere it sits inside. In fact some globularist scientists have proposed this idea to produce simulated gravity on board large space stations, the station would likely be cylindrical and the centripetal accelleration would allow people to stick to the inner walls of the cylinder.
Actually, if the surface of the sphere is sufficiently thick, the star holes would be cylinder shaped sending out light in a very narrow beam. In that case a given star would only be visible in certain places from the earth, and hence explain that the night sky looks different from different places. It should be noted that this is pure speculation and is not supporter in standard FET, but it could be a possibility worthwhile investigating.
So if the Earth is this disk inside a giant sphere, and is somewhere toward the inside wall facing toward the center... How exactly does the sphere spinning cause gravity on inner facing side of this disk?
Your arrow says the disk is accelerating towards the middle of the shere. Is the whole sphere supposed to be moving in that direction? Rolling like a ball along a flat surface?
It is centrifugal acceleration which causes objects to fall to the earth. You can test this yourself by filling a bucket with water and swinging it reasonably quickly over your head. You will notice that the water stays in the bucket even while it is upside down, as in this instance you have generated enough centripetal acceleration to counteract earth's gravity. In this model, objects on the surface of the earth experience the centripetal force in the same way, the earth acts as the bucket in the analogy and it's curved path is caused by the giant hollow sphere it sits inside. In fact some globularist scientists have proposed this idea to produce simulated gravity on board large space stations, the station would likely be cylindrical and the centripetal accelleration would allow people to stick to the inner walls of the cylinder.
Oh right. I wasn't looking at the model quite right. The Earth is at a fixed position inside the sphere. Big counter-weight at the opposite side I guess.
I'm guessing the other planets float around in the center area of this sphere universe, the sun does it's spotlight circle pattern thing, and the backlit 'star holes' appear in a different pattern for the southern hemisphere (outer half of the disk I take it looking at other FE models), all courtesy of bendy light?
Can you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
on your diagram at one point the whole earth is in nighttime, but in reality there is never one point where none of the earth is covered by the sunStandard FET applies
hey the unseen force/jackson
hi its AV
Can you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
Could be that, could be something else. I guess the short answer is: We just don't know.Oh i see it is a fire fox that runs around kicking up snow and setting it on fire. I mean obviously what else could it be?Can you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
Could be that, could be something else. I guess the short answer is: We just don't know.Oh i see it is a fire fox that runs around kicking up snow and setting it on fire. I mean obviously what else could it beCan you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
Could be that, could be something else. I guess the short answer is: We just don't know.Oh i see it is a fire fox that runs around kicking up snow and setting it on fire. I mean obviously what else could it beCan you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
Has there ever been a recorded sighting of the "edge" of the world
Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.
Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.
Really? My aunt personally went to Antarctica and she found no edge whatsoever. I highly doubt she is part of this "conspiracy". If you believe so, then you are basically saying the government bribed millions of people, not just ones within NASA.
Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.
Really? My aunt personally went to Antarctica and she found no edge whatsoever. I highly doubt she is part of this "conspiracy". If you believe so, then you are basically saying the government bribed millions of people, not just ones within NASA.
I'm not sure how fit your aunt is, but did she really sail all the way down there, pass all the ice, and climb up to the so-called plateau all by herself? If not I would not consider this exactly rock solid evidence. We all know that air travel to Antarctica is strictly regulated by the government. I wonder why.
I guess the wall look like the ascent to a "plateau".Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.
Really? My aunt personally went to Antarctica and she found no edge whatsoever. I highly doubt she is part of this "conspiracy". If you believe so, then you are basically saying the government bribed millions of people, not just ones within NASA.
I'm not sure how fit your aunt is, but did she really sail all the way down there, pass all the ice, and climb up to the so-called plateau all by herself? If not I would not consider this exactly rock solid evidence. We all know that air travel to Antarctica is strictly regulated by the government. I wonder why.
She was an engineer that was allowed to go there on a boat for scientific research. If there was a huge wall, why would boats go there in the first place? We already have many science bases throughout Anarctica.
Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.Could be that, could be something else. I guess the short answer is: We just don't know.Can you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
.
Oh i see it is a fire fox that runs around kicking up snow and setting it on fire. I mean obviously what else could it be
Has there ever been a recorded sighting of the "edge" of the world
Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.Could be that, could be something else. I guess the short answer is: We just don't know.Can you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0)
.
Oh i see it is a fire fox that runs around kicking up snow and setting it on fire. I mean obviously what else could it be
Has there ever been a recorded sighting of the "edge" of the world
So your saying that you don't have any conclusive evidence supporting your theory? Not only is there no evidence towards a flat earth there is infinite evidence for round earth. Does anybody have an actual image of flat earth if so please post, I have not seen an actual image of flat earth ever! I have only witnesed fake artists rendition of the flat earth
Images may not be used as evidence.
Allegedly, a forum member went as far as Argentina and was not allowed to go further.Could be that, could be something else. I guess the short answer is: We just don't know.Can you explain where we get aurora borealis, it is quite simple to figure out in the round world that it comes from radiation from sun. Do you have an answer for thisSee http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18727.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.ptopic=18727.0)
.
Oh i see it is a fire fox that runs around kicking up snow and setting it on fire. I mean obviously what else could it be
Has there ever been a recorded sighting of the "edge" of the world
So your saying that you don't have any conclusive evidence supporting your theory? Not only is there no evidence towards a flat earth there is infinite evidence for round earth. Does anybody have an actual image of flat earth if so please post, I have not seen an actual image of flat earth ever! I have only witnesed fake artists rendition of the flat earth
Images may not be used as evidence.
My last thread was unfortunately moved to the nonsense section http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35416.20 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35416.20). I do however realize that the presentation of the theory could have been clearer, and I apologize for that. I have however now provided an illustration of my theory, and hopefully you will see that this is a serious attempt to explain what seems to me to be a major problem in FET.This looks like the epicycles of the geocentric model. New physics is required here.
The problem is to explain where the energy from the UA comes from. To me, attributing this to the Dark Force just does not seem very convincing. I therefore developed a theory where UA is in fact a result of centripetal acceleration. Such an explanation will increase the credibility of FET, in addition of course to being more reasonable in my mind.
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_3g3Vi2hrltQ/S0SlOmNyWBI/AAAAAAAAAC8/eor2Tf4iJhk/s800/ErthInAASphere.png)
As you see from the illustration, I believe the most likely explanation is that the flat earth resides inside on the bottom of a rotating sphere (on a giant turtle, two elephants or whatever). The rotation of the sphere then provides the centripetal acceleration that we from the inside of the sphere experience as gravity.
If we now in addition assume that the flat earth slides around, rotating, inside the sphere, and assume that stars are small holes in this giant ball, then we can explain the rotating stars in the night sky. The sun can also then be easily explained as a rolling ball inside the sphere that rolls below the horizon (end of the world) at night (assuming the flat earth is elevated in some way, possibly by giant animals).
not sure if this has been mentioned here, there were too many off-topic posts on this thread to read through, but the radius of the earth's motion in this model can be calculated from the acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2) and the angular velocity of the earth. (2pi radians / 24 hours = 7.27 * 10-5 radians per second)I like your scientific approach, but how can we know that the sphere makes a complete 2pi rotation in exactly 24 hours? It's certainly not obvious from my kitchen window.
ac = rwc2
9.81m/s2 = r * ((7.27 * 10-5)rad/s)2
r = 1.86 * 109m = 1.86 million km
So for any debates on how large the radius would be, here is your answer. Any smaller, gravity would be weaker, and any bigger it would be stronger.
not sure if this has been mentioned here, there were too many off-topic posts on this thread to read through, but the radius of the earth's motion in this model can be calculated from the acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2) and the angular velocity of the earth. (2pi radians / 24 hours = 7.27 * 10-5 radians per second)I like your scientific approach, but how can we know that the sphere makes a complete 2pi rotation in exactly 24 hours? It's certainly not obvious from my kitchen window.
ac = rwc2
9.81m/s2 = r * ((7.27 * 10-5)rad/s)2
r = 1.86 * 109m = 1.86 million km
So for any debates on how large the radius would be, here is your answer. Any smaller, gravity would be weaker, and any bigger it would be stronger.
it is in radians, so really 2 pi actually is one rotation (360 degrees)And how does that answer the question?
he asked 2 pi rotations, not 1 rotation
sorry, but i found that ambiguous, i thought you made a typonot sure if this has been mentioned here, there were too many off-topic posts on this thread to read through, but the radius of the earth's motion in this model can be calculated from the acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2) and the angular velocity of the earth. (2pi radians / 24 hours = 7.27 * 10-5 radians per second)I like your scientific approach, but how can we know that the sphere makes a complete 2pi rotation in exactly 24 hours? It's certainly not obvious from my kitchen window.
ac = rwc2
9.81m/s2 = r * ((7.27 * 10-5)rad/s)2
r = 1.86 * 109m = 1.86 million km
So for any debates on how large the radius would be, here is your answer. Any smaller, gravity would be weaker, and any bigger it would be stronger.
also, then if one were to fly in an airplane, what force makes the airplane still remain on earth?
and also, unless there is a object in the sphere that diffuses the light from the sun, everybody has day and night the same times, or when the sun is under the earth, everybody has night
and the stars would have to be a lot brighter than the sun if there is a medium in there right?
and i didnt read a explanation of sesonal changes in day/night paterns