The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: RoundEarthorNOEarth on April 02, 2014, 02:52:21 PM
-
If the earth is indeed flat, then why don't we have photos have the edge of the earth, what happens at the edge of the earth? Does the water fall off? where does it fall? How do we get new water?
-
Nobody has been to the edge of the earth. The temperature is -278 and nothing can survive. At this temperature water freezes. You can do a simple experiment to prove that water freezes at this temperature: take some water and freeze it to -278. This is further evidence that the earth is flat.
-
to my best knowledge, only Andrea Barnes has been to the edge, but never returned, she photographed it, but alas, the film was exposed to sunlight. It is possible others have been to the edge but no one has reported it, or lived to return.
-
You could probably look down and see Atlas holding it up.
-
The FE'ers don't know so they make up theories. Maybe this or maybe that... They take bits of pieces of the laws of physics and make up things like: "It is so cold there nobody can go and take pictures, or the air is so thin people can live there.
-
At least we admit it when we don't know something.
-
At least we admit it when we don't know something.
If that happened it would be the first time.
Usually if you don't know something you either scream that it is a conspiracy theory, complain about low content posts, move the thread, or make something up on the spot to try to support your point.
-
How do you know FEers scream when they type about the conspiracy? Who told you?
-
At least we admit it when we don't know something.
Who is we? You maybe but other just ramble on and on.
-
Fappenhosen / Iwanttobelieve...Are you for real? Such laaaaaame reasonings and pathetic arguments. Sounds like a 5 year old trying to quickly make up something on the spot. "its minus 276 degrees and impossible to go to" "only 1 person ever did but the film was exposed to sunlight". So ridiculous it's laughable!
-
The inner rim is ice due to the distance it is way from the sun. If you were to walk to the outer, you are walking further away from the sun, meaning it will become colder and colder until your body will cease to operate due to extreme cold and difficulty in breathing.
If you went further in by using a vehicle equpiied with oxygen and heat, you could maybe make it many more miles towards the outer edge until your vehicle seizes up and you then super freeze, being frozen in time for as long as it stays frozen.
If you could go any futher even in imaginary mind, you would soon come up against a higher and higher build up of frozen elements until you reach the ice dome which by then would be like glass, so you would basically see nothing as the ice would be against a vacuum of black, so effectively you are blind until a reflection of Earth penetrated, which would not happen low down, but will happen if you were to be in some light, then you would see the reflections of what Earth is and what's inside, in a fashion, depending on your sight or telescope.
-
I would love to find a reference to that, especially since I was working with rock samples from Antarctica yesterday. Oh, sedimentary rocks from when Antarctica was warmer and had liquid water. Unless of course penguins are just a conspiracy theory.
-
The inner rim is ice due to the distance it is way from the sun. If you were to walk to the outer, you are walking further away from the sun, meaning it will become colder and colder until your body will cease to operate due to extreme cold and difficulty in breathing.
Even if I wore a coat?
If you could go any futher even in imaginary mind
I should think "imaginary mind" would be the only way to get there.
, you would soon come up against a higher and higher build up of frozen elements until you reach the ice dome which by then would be like glass, so you would basically see nothing as the ice would be against a vacuum of black, so effectively you are blind until a reflection of Earth penetrated, which would not happen low down, but will happen if you were to be in some light, then you would see the reflections of what Earth is and what's inside, in a fashion, depending on your sight or telescope.
Well, that makes an awful lot of sense - can't believe I didn't realise this before.
-
The inner rim is ice due to the distance it is way from the sun. If you were to walk to the outer, you are walking further away from the sun, meaning it will become colder and colder until your body will cease to operate due to extreme cold and difficulty in breathing.
If you went further in by using a vehicle equpiied with oxygen and heat, you could maybe make it many more miles towards the outer edge until your vehicle seizes up and you then super freeze, being frozen in time for as long as it stays frozen.
If you could go any futher even in imaginary mind, you would soon come up against a higher and higher build up of frozen elements until you reach the ice dome which by then would be like glass, so you would basically see nothing as the ice would be against a vacuum of black, so effectively you are blind until a reflection of Earth penetrated, which would not happen low down, but will happen if you were to be in some light, then you would see the reflections of what Earth is and what's inside, in a fashion, depending on your sight or telescope.
Would you have the same thing at the north pole?
-
Would you have the same thing at the north pole?
No. It would be extremely cold on the outer ice mass but as you moved closer you would be pushed into a vortex. Basically you evaporate, if it were possible to get there, which it wouldn't.
Your body would simply start to disintegrate.
-
Would you have the same thing at the north pole?
No. It would be extremely cold on the outer ice mass but as you moved closer you would be pushed into a vortex. Basically you evaporate, if it were possible to get there, which it wouldn't.
Your body would simply start to disintegrate.
Heheheh . You make no sense. Does the sun shine more at the north pole than the south pole?
-
to my best knowledge, only Andrea Barnes has been to the edge, but never returned, she photographed it, but alas, the film was exposed to sunlight. It is possible others have been to the edge but no one has reported it, or lived to return.
Meanwhile, Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole of the spherical Earth and came back with photographs that didn't evaporate.
-
Did he come back with photos of ice? Could you not get photos of ice in Greenland or Canada? Or, was this ice special in some way?
-
to my best knowledge, only Andrea Barnes has been to the edge, but never returned, she photographed it, but alas, the film was exposed to sunlight. It is possible others have been to the edge but no one has reported it, or lived to return.
Meanwhile, Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole of the spherical Earth and came back with photographs that didn't evaporate.
Do you have the ships logs that prove "Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole". If so post them here. Until then you have no proof that the earth is round.
-
to my best knowledge, only Andrea Barnes has been to the edge, but never returned, she photographed it, but alas, the film was exposed to sunlight. It is possible others have been to the edge but no one has reported it, or lived to return.
Meanwhile, Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole of the spherical Earth and came back with photographs that didn't evaporate.
Apart from proof from pictures, use of satellites, measurements...
Do you have the ships logs that prove "Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole". If so post them here. Until then you have no proof that the earth is round.
-
How do you measure a ship's log?
-
to my best knowledge, only Andrea Barnes has been to the edge, but never returned, she photographed it, but alas, the film was exposed to sunlight. It is possible others have been to the edge but no one has reported it, or lived to return.
Meanwhile, Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole of the spherical Earth and came back with photographs that didn't evaporate.
Do you have the ships logs that prove "Roald Amundsen went to the South Pole". If so post them here. Until then you have no proof that the earth is round.
Fappenhosen, you really do have the worse arguments i have ever heard. I am debating wether flat earthers are just internet trolls trying to wind smart people up. Kind of like the small cult of Americans that believe the apocalypse is coming and lock their families in shelters for 16 hours a day to get them ready for the apocalypse.
you question a round of theory but come back with pathetic answers for a flat earth theory "we believe that its minus 276 degrees and theres an ice dome there, bla bla bla" "no one has been to the edge of the earth and lived to tell the myth"...surely a rocket could fly 1,000 miles above the earths surface and zoom into the edge of this "flat earth" and get photos? If we can put man on the moon and a rover on Mars then surely we can put a thermal jacket on a camera with wheels and send it to the edge? Or is that another impossible way of proving your logic?
-
Nice, the temperature at the south pole is -278, when, you know, absolute zero is -273.15...
-
Nice, the temperature at the south pole is -278, when, you know, absolute zero is -273.15...
Even if he got it right where do you think he got it? He was told by the "evil scientist" people that rules the world.
-
Nice, the temperature at the south pole is -278, when, you know, absolute zero is -273.15...
You would not make it any where close to seeing that temperature, even with a tick coat and a sweater. The gasses in the air would turn to liquid or solids and fall out of the sky long before you reached the edge.
-
You don't get it... -273.15 is THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE, nothing can go lower than that, it's absolute zero, 0K...
-
Nice, the temperature at the south pole is -278, when, you know, absolute zero is -273.15...
You would not make it any where close to seeing that temperature, even with a tick coat and a sweater. The gasses in the air would turn to liquid or solids and fall out of the sky long before you reached the edge.
Do you agree that -278 is wrong?
-
You don't get it... -273.15 is THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE, nothing can go lower than that, it's absolute zero, 0K...
You don't get it. He may have been off by a couple of degrees, and that is what you want to focus on. You don't address the main issues, which is that gasses will condense in to liquids (and freeze into solids) at very cold temperatures. There would be no air near the edge, assuming that the edge is far enough away to be that cold.
-
You don't get it... -273.15 is THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE, nothing can go lower than that, it's absolute zero, 0K...
You don't get it. He may have been off by a couple of degrees, and that is what you want to focus on. You don't address the main issues, which is that gasses will condense in to liquids (and freeze into solids) at very cold temperatures. There would be no air near the edge, assuming that the edge is far enough away to be that cold.
The real issue is that a fighter jet would have no problem flying there.
Also, if there's no pressure, at most they would liquefy, the wouldn't solidify...
But also a bigger issue here is the fact that it's impossible for the sun's radiation NOT to reach every part of the earth if it were a disk, since we know it's luminosity and energy output per second...
-
How would a fighter jet fly when there are no gasses to fly through for lift? Also, CO2 does not have a liquid state. It probably just falls to the ground as ice crystals.
-
How would a fighter jet fly when there are no gasses to fly through for lift? Also, CO2 does not have a liquid state. It probably just falls to the ground as ice crystals.
Uh, ever heard of propulsion? How do you think rockets work?
-
Can a jet fighter fly in space? No, it needs a gaseous medium for lift. If there is no gas for it to fly through, it will have no lift. Not to mention that the jet engines require air to function. No oxygen, no combustion. Maybe you should pick up a physics book or two once in a while.
-
Since we are talking about temperature, I would like to understand something about FE theory regarding the distance between Earth and the sun. Apparently FE theory says the sun is around 3,000 miles from Earth. I would like to know how this distance was determined.
-
Thanks for asking. Modern Mechanics did an article on Wilbur Voliva that explains his calculations. There is an illustration on page 4 of the article.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/ (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/)
(http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/10-1931/globe/xlg_globe_3.jpg)
-
I can see that will be torn apart. You should start a new topic on that one.
-
I can see that will be torn apart. You should start a new topic on that one.
Oh boy, let me start:
-The sun isn't big enough, not enough gravity to start the fusion reaction
-If it did start somehow (magic) it will last less than 1 day.
-The sun should collapse on the earth at that minuscule mass.
-There's nothing stopping the sun's rays from reaching further, unless the atmosphere would absorb a few hundred times more solar energy.
-If the atmosphere would absorb more energy to not allow the light to reach further, we would all be scorched.
-The sun doesn't act like a spotlight, no matter how much you try to make physics fit this conception.
-If the stars were a dome over the earth, apart from actually seeing the same stars from almost any points using a good enough telescope (contrary to what they said), it would mean that you would see the same stars if you looked at the sky with a telescope during the day, and during the night. Clearly not the case.
-The comment about the airplane pilot is just flat out retarded xD
I think modernmechanix just wanted to have a few good laughs at this idiocy xD
-
Read page 6 where they agree that actual distances in Australia cause a bit of a problem for their theory...
-
I can see that will be torn apart. You should start a new topic on that one.
Oh boy, let me start:
-The sun isn't big enough, not enough gravity to start the fusion reaction
-If it did start somehow (magic) it will last less than 1 day.
-The sun should collapse on the earth at that minuscule mass.
-There's nothing stopping the sun's rays from reaching further, unless the atmosphere would absorb a few hundred times more solar energy.
-If the atmosphere would absorb more energy to not allow the light to reach further, we would all be scorched.
-The sun doesn't act like a spotlight, no matter how much you try to make physics fit this conception.
-If the stars were a dome over the earth, apart from actually seeing the same stars from almost any points using a good enough telescope (contrary to what they said), it would mean that you would see the same stars if you looked at the sky with a telescope during the day, and during the night. Clearly not the case.
-The comment about the airplane pilot is just flat out retarded xD
I think modernmechanix just wanted to have a few good laughs at this idiocy xD
Once again, you are having trouble separating what you think you know about a big sun with what a small sun would be like. Maybe you could stop being a smart @ss and start opening your mind. Don't worry, you don't have to convert. Just try accepting that a flat Earth is different from what you have been told about a round Earth.
-
I can see that will be torn apart. You should start a new topic on that one.
Oh boy, let me start:
-The sun isn't big enough, not enough gravity to start the fusion reaction
-If it did start somehow (magic) it will last less than 1 day.
-The sun should collapse on the earth at that minuscule mass.
-There's nothing stopping the sun's rays from reaching further, unless the atmosphere would absorb a few hundred times more solar energy.
-If the atmosphere would absorb more energy to not allow the light to reach further, we would all be scorched.
-The sun doesn't act like a spotlight, no matter how much you try to make physics fit this conception.
-If the stars were a dome over the earth, apart from actually seeing the same stars from almost any points using a good enough telescope (contrary to what they said), it would mean that you would see the same stars if you looked at the sky with a telescope during the day, and during the night. Clearly not the case.
-The comment about the airplane pilot is just flat out retarded xD
I think modernmechanix just wanted to have a few good laughs at this idiocy xD
Once again, you are having trouble separating what you think you know about a big sun with what a small sun would be like. Maybe you could stop being a smart @ss and start opening your mind. Don't worry, you don't have to convert. Just try accepting that a flat Earth is different from what you have been told about a round Earth.
Or maybe you could provide PROOF that a small sun, apart from even being possible, would work on totally new physics.
And your comments don't really make any sense. It doesn't matter if the sun is big or small since our observations and calculations apply to the sun AS WE OBSERVE IT, if it were indeed a small sun, it would still run on hydrogen fusion because THAT'S WHAT WE OBSERVE.
Logic isn't really your strong suit, is it?
-
You observe the fusion at the core of the sun? Why do you make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence?
-
You observe the fusion at the core of the sun? Why do you make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence?
Like i said earlier you know nothing about fusion.
-
I can see that will be torn apart. You should start a new topic on that one.
Oh boy, let me start:
-The sun isn't big enough, not enough gravity to start the fusion reaction
-If it did start somehow (magic) it will last less than 1 day.
-The sun should collapse on the earth at that minuscule mass.
-There's nothing stopping the sun's rays from reaching further, unless the atmosphere would absorb a few hundred times more solar energy.
-If the atmosphere would absorb more energy to not allow the light to reach further, we would all be scorched.
-The sun doesn't act like a spotlight, no matter how much you try to make physics fit this conception.
-If the stars were a dome over the earth, apart from actually seeing the same stars from almost any points using a good enough telescope (contrary to what they said), it would mean that you would see the same stars if you looked at the sky with a telescope during the day, and during the night. Clearly not the case.
-The comment about the airplane pilot is just flat out retarded xD
I think modernmechanix just wanted to have a few good laughs at this idiocy xD
Once again, you are having trouble separating what you think you know about a big sun with what a small sun would be like. Maybe you could stop being a smart @ss and start opening your mind. Don't worry, you don't have to convert. Just try accepting that a flat Earth is different from what you have been told about a round Earth.
So Jroa, you actually believe that sun sun is a mere 3,000 miles from Earth? (basically the same distance between London and New York). The sun must be no bigger than the size of a small country based on your theory then? Yet it has enough energy to light/heat this planet for untold billions of years...
-
Hers is one way it is measured.
http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun (http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun)
-
So Jroa, you actually believe that sun sun is a mere 3,000 miles from Earth? (basically the same distance between London and New York). The sun must be no bigger than the size of a small country based on your theory then? Yet it has enough energy to light/heat this planet for untold billions of years...
It does not take as much power to heat the Earth when it is closer.
-
Hers is one way it is measured.
http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun (http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun)
That assumes a round Earth model to begin with. Of course you are going to get a round Earth measurement.
-
Hers is one way it is measured.
http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun (http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun)
That assumes a round Earth model to begin with. Of course you are going to get a round Earth measurement.
But it is a REAL measurement. What is your REAL measurement for the flat earth?
-
If we assume a flat Earth, then it is 3000 miles. Once again, the shape of the Earth determines the distance to the sun, not the other way around.
Also, Starman, your post have been starting to feel a little boring lately. It is like you are not even trying. Are you doing OK?
-
You observe the fusion at the core of the sun? Why do you make stuff up and try to pass it off as evidence?
It's really tiresome to have to tell you the same things a third time, so why don't you just read up?
Dar, A & Shaviv, G (1996) 'Standard solar neutrinos', ApJ 468:933-946
Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jorgen (1997) 'Helioseismology and solar neutrinos'
Christensen-Dalsgaard et al (1996) 'The current state of solar modeling', Science 272:1286-1292
Bilenky & Giunti & Grimus (1998) 'Neutrino mass spectrum and mixing from neutrino oscillation data' Talk presented by S.M. Bilenky at the Ringberg Euroconference "New Trends in Neutrino Physics", 24-29 May 1998, Ringberg Castle, Tegernsee, Germany
Ahmad et al (SNO)(2002a) 'Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions inthe Sudbury neutrino observatory'
Eddington, Arthur Stanley (1920) The internal constitution of stars, Nature 106:14-20
Eddington, Arthur Stanley (1924) On the relation between the masses and luminosities of the stars Mon Not R Astr Soc 84:308-322
Fukuda et al (Super-Kamiokande)(1998a) 'Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos', Phys.Rev.Lett. 81 (1998) 1562-1567
Gough et al (1996a) 'Perspectives in helioseismology', Science 272:1281-1283
Guenther, D B & Demarque, P(1997) 'Seismic tests of the sun's interior structure, composition, and age, and implications for solar neutrinos', ApJ 484:937-959
Hathaway et al (1996) 'GONG observations of solar surface flows', Science 272:1306-1309
Normile, Dennis (1998a) 'Heavy news on solar neutrinos', Science 280:1839
Pastor, Sergio (1998) 'New tests for neutrinos in low-energy solar experiments'
Petrera, Sergio (1998) 'Experiments at large undergound detectors', Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 70 (1999) 399-408
Stix, M (1998) 'Solar Models ', in Proc 4th Ringberg Workshop
Thompson et al (1996) 'Differential rotation and dynamics of the solar interior', Science 272:1300-1305
There are more, they all converge on the same thing. Until you have a library even a quarter this size, all your claims are weightless.
Hers is one way it is measured.
http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun (http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun)
That assumes a round Earth model to begin with. Of course you are going to get a round Earth measurement.
Wrong, it doesn't assume a round earth. This illustration will show you why:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2u9kehh.jpg)
The Venus-Earth distance was known through radio signals, as it clearly says there, and the distance to the sun is calculated trigonometrically using (distance of Sun-Earth) = (distance of Earth-Venus)*(cosine(angle)), as it clearly states there. You only have to wait until the angle Venus-Earth-Sun is 90 degrees.
-
If it is so tiresome, then stop telling me the same thing over and over. I asked you a question, and you refuse to answer it, because you know a truthful answer will make you look dumb. 'Nuff said.
-
If we assume a flat Earth, then it is 3000 miles. Once again, the shape of the Earth determines the distance to the sun, not the other way around.
Also, Starman, your post have been starting to feel a little boring lately. It is like you are not even trying. Are you doing OK?
Don't worry about me I am here many hours day. The is very few FE'ers here to respond to. Besides you are diverting the subject.
-
If it is so tiresome, then stop telling me the same thing over and over. I asked you a question, and you refuse to answer it, because you know a truthful answer will make you look dumb. 'Nuff said.
And your response to the method of measuring the sun is what?
-
If it is so tiresome, then stop telling me the same thing over and over. I asked you a question, and you refuse to answer it, because you know a truthful answer will make you look dumb. 'Nuff said.
So I take it you're not intellectual enough to read a few scientific papers? Understandable, not everybody can be an academician. But on to the main problem:
You're asking the same stupid question I've already answered a few times: Mainly solar neutrinos, and also some x-rays and gamma radiation.
If you want even MORE evidence, try helioseismology...
Hers is one way it is measured.
http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun (http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aaawiki/doku.php?id=what_is_the_easiest_way_to_measure_the_distance_between_the_earth_and_the_sun)
That assumes a round Earth model to begin with. Of course you are going to get a round Earth measurement.
Wrong, it doesn't assume a round earth. This illustration will show you why:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2u9kehh.jpg)
The Venus-Earth distance was known through radio signals, as it clearly says there, and the distance to the sun is calculated trigonometrically using (distance of Sun-Earth) = (distance of Earth-Venus)*(cosine(angle)), as it clearly states there. You only have to wait until the angle Venus-Earth-Sun is 90 degrees.