The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Benjamin1986 on November 08, 2006, 09:14:57 PM
-
Alright, let's get this straight. The Earth is a flat disk, North Pole at the center, with the sun at moon more or less above the equator, moving North and South with the seasons and traveling East to West around the entire globe once per day. Pretty decent model that explains the days and seasons.
Now, let's include the facts.
Phases of the moon. The half moon is easy to demonstrate (moon and sun about same altitude), as are the 3/4 moons (sun lower than the moon), and crescent moons (sun higher than the moon). However the full moon would require the moon to be much higher than the sun (to get illumination on its entire surface). If the full moon was further away, then it would be significantly smaller. The sun must be stable or we would observe massive monthly temperature fluxuations (I'm talking 20-50 degrees C). Therefore, it must be the moon which moves. However, the full moon is not noticably smaller than the lesser moons. This problem was what led Aristotle to first propose the round Earth concept (it was not Columbus, who merely debated the size of the Earth).
The setting sun. The sun on the horizon appears larger than the sun overhead. The Flat Earth proposal is that the sun goes so far away that it appears to set. However, that would involve a shrinking sun, not a growing one. The round Earth explanation for this is that the longer atmosphere (due to the angle) expands the sun's position like a flashlight farther from the focus. Also, more of the yellows and higher spectrum colors are absorbed, causing the red hue. In the flat Earth explanation, one would expect a different effect, where the sun expands and then shrinks below the horizon, not a continuously growing sun which sets.
The conspiracy. The number of people involved are truly enormous, involving every sailor, navigator, and pilot south of the equator for the past three hundred years at least. It is impossible to hide the fact that a trip from South Africa to Australia takes over half again as long as a trip from Vietnam to Algeria (comparing the radii from the North Pole). In fact, the accepted round earth theory says that the Algeria-Vietnam trip will take longer due to being at the equator. Thus, this conspiracy will also have to include every scheduling manager on the planet, many of whom have a vested interest in NOT following it. If it takes X amount of time to ship something from South Africa to Argentina, then it should take 1/2 X to ship something from New York from London. That means, to keep the round-earth conspiracy alive, they must deliberately and knowingly moving across the Atlantic at half speed. Slowing down service is not condusive to profit, so anyone who broke the unwritten rule would immediately snap up huge shares of business in the busiest shipping markets (US to Europe and US to China) on the planet, quickly becoming too public for the government to shut down. Therefore, the conspiracy of people who know or are consciously ignoring the truth must number in the billions
In short, these are the reasons why the Flat Earth Model Fails. Explanations?
-
According to the FE, the moon emits light I think.
-
According to the FE, the moon emits light I think.
Then how does it change phases?
-
Don't ask me :?
I have no clue. I just know that FAQ says the moon emits cold light.
-
Alright, let's get this straight. The Earth is a flat disk, North Pole at the center
I was considering this last night.. FE says that your compass always points at N as the center of the world and as it happens, South is always on the other side. Sounds simple enough. I propose to have a FE'er go to the South pole walking a straight line and cross over magnetic South and watch the magic as the compass flips direction. As South is no longer in front of them it's direct evidence that the Earth is round.
Perhaps ask these guys to do it while they're there:
http://tinyurl.com/y44twa
-
Go ahead. I will await your return.
-
Go ahead. I will await your return.
Sluffing off a pefectly valid experiment seems unnecessary. Unless we say that a right handed person is going to walk in a counter clockwise circle and therefore invalidate results. I don't see any reason to throw it away. Heck, take a lefty and a righty, that should balance them out.
GPS info is fabricated.. use string or a laser to guide you.
-
Go ahead. I will await your return.
Wouldn't matter if he went, though, would it? You would just claim that he is lying, and ask for pictures. Then when he hands you pictures, you would claim that he edited them, and that he is really part of the conspiracy.
-
I won't go for the same reason you guys won't go: Why waste time and money to prove something I already know to be true?
-
I won't go for the same reason you guys won't go: Why waste time and money to prove something I already know to be true?
I think what you are going through is called "denial".
-
I won't go for the same reason you guys won't go: Why waste time and money to prove something I already know to be true?
Roundabout reasoning.. the clincher to the FE theory. I don't happen to be independently wealthy and could not afford the trip but I'd certainly love to go.
You're basing your view of the ice wall solely on theory. You don't know any more than I know that Antarctica exists as a continent.
-
Alright, let's get this straight. The Earth is a flat disk, North Pole at the center
I was considering this last night.. FE says that your compass always points at N as the center of the world and as it happens, South is always on the other side. Sounds simple enough. I propose to have a FE'er go to the South pole walking a straight line and cross over magnetic South and watch the magic as the compass flips direction. As South is no longer in front of them it's direct evidence that the Earth is round.
Perhaps ask these guys to do it while they're there:
http://tinyurl.com/y44twa
Why do you assume that the southern edge is the opposet charge of the center? What if the "North Pole" is like a bar magnet pushed through the disk, and the underside has the magnetic south pole?
-
Why do you assume that the southern edge is the opposet charge of the center? What if the "North Pole" is like a bar magnet pushed through the disk, and the underside has the magnetic south pole?
Considering the magnetic poles are very well documented and a recordable (viewable) phenomena I'm not assuming anything, I'm reciting from factual evidence. We also see evidence of pole reversal in geography, it's not an unknown mystical force.
This goes against the idea that magnetic South is simply the opposite of magnetic North on a compass. If the force only goes one way then tabletop magnets wouldn't function either.
Edit: Also, perhaps a more direct answer to your question... The experiment would help to prove FE if, in fact, your compass never does swing around. Either that, or when it did swing around you just successfully navigated to the underside of the world, congrats.
-
This goes against the idea that magnetic South is simply the opposite of magnetic North on a compass. If the force only goes one way then tabletop magnets wouldn't function either.
Magnetic fields are directional. They only go one way.
-
Magnetic fields are directional. They only go one way.
So you're saying that there is no way to prove that if you were looking for a Southern magnetic orientation that it doesn't exist?
-
I'm not saying that at all. I am simply letting you know that magnetic fields are directional.
-
In the Flat Earth model of a circular Earth, the field lines would be from the outside of the planet in. There couldn't be a magnetic south without having massive distortions on the other side of the globe. I can't draw on ASCII and don't have time to draw a jpeg, but it is impossible to have a southern magnetic pole (aside from the rim of the planet), where the field goes even approximately straight north. However, there have been numerous documentaries on the magnetic south pole, therefore it must exist. Such a pole on a flat Earth would cause tremendous magnetic disruption, making compasses useless on the other side of the planet.
-
The magnetic south pole would be located near geographic north, then the lines would radiate outwards from there, going to the icewall.
-
I'm not saying that at all. I am simply letting you know that magnetic fields are directional.
Good then, so the experiment is still valid and would be a great way to provide factual evidence.
-
That makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it. There is a proven, done on TV a hundred times, irrefutable North magnetic pole and South magnetic pole on physical land. Unless you are suggesting that all the TV cameramen, actors, announces, pilots, and everyone else who did these documentaries and science TV shows are in on the conspiracy, you have a problem.
You have the southern pole where all the magnetic lines begin, and the northern pole where all the magnetic lines end. Draw lines between them that go from North to south without noticable variations and I will accept it.
If you say that the southern magnetic pole is merely one variation in an otherwise perfect north pole to ice wall continuum, then you have a problem, why don't we see massive bending of the compass lines east and west of the straight pole to pole field line? It would be immediately obvious if the compass didn't point North along a certain latitude.
I'm sorry if I'm getting technical, but this is high-school level electrical physics that is being ignored here.
-
You are not getting techincal, you are just not making any sense.
why don't we see massive bending of the compass lines east and west of the straight pole to pole field line?
Why would the field lines bend east or west?
-
The magnetic south pole would be located near geographic north, then the lines would radiate outwards from there, going to the icewall.
And, again, if FE is correct then you couldn't navigate to the South pole as there would be no physical way to get to it without going to the underside of the Earth over the ice wall. This is a great example of a fairly simple way to test this. If you can't or won't go that's fine but I want you to accept that the experiment is sound.
It's become quite evident that a valid retort isn't forthcoming. Seems it's easier to pick out simple textual mistakes to force me to submit to the Engineer than to find flaw in this simple experiment that would be quite performable on a RE.
-
Is anyone going to actually address the points made in the original post?
This happens way to often.
-
The magnetic south pole would be located near geographic north, then the lines would radiate outwards from there, going to the icewall.
And, again, if FE is correct then you couldn't navigate to the South pole as there would be no physical way to get to it without going to the underside of the Earth over the ice wall.
The actual magnetic north pole, yes, it would be very hard to get there.
However, you could get to what you thought was the 'south' pole at the ice wall.
-
The actual magnetic north pole, yes, it would be very hard to get there.
However, you could get to what you thought was the 'south' pole at the ice wall.
Perhaps I'm not following but wouldn't the North pole in FE be easily attainable compared to the ice wall?
Sorry phaseshifter (and of course Benjamin), I took a point from the post and kind of ran with it.
-
Geographic North/Magnetic South would be easy to get to. The actual magnetic North would be hard to get to.
-
Basic field mechanics, nothing exists in a vacuum.
If you have a large magnetic field and stick a smaller magnet, it doesn't just affect the local area. The field lines are is noticably bent along the entire path. For example, on the diagram below, the south magnetic pole is an X and the field lines are shown by the \|/ characters with periods for spacing. Now, these lines should normally be parallel (woe to the limits of ASCII drawing). However, the south magnetic pole causes bending of the lines inward. In reality, this would be a smooth bending of the lines, and due to the relative strength of the southern magnetic pole (to completely override the rest of Earth's magnetism), the bend would be noticable for hundreds of miles in all four directions.
.|...|....|....|...|.
.|...|....|....|...|.
.|...\....|.../....|.
..\..|...|...|..../..
...|..\...|../...|...
...|...|..X.|...|...
...|../...|..\...|...
../..|...|...|....\..
.|.../....|...\....|.
.|...|....|....|...|.
.|...|....|....|...|.
That's what I'm meaning.
-
So...How does that apply to the earth?
-
You do understand that the outer rim of the Earth is the South Pole right? and the centre the North? Exactly like the "speaker" configuration i brought up in another thread.
-
Alright, let me break it down for you.
Fact: There is a single magnetic south pole on physical land.
Fact: If there was a continous North pole to "Ice Wall" magnetic field, the magnetic south pole would massively and noticably disrupt the Earth's magnetic field so that compasses north, south, east, and west would be obviously deflected for hundreds of miles.
Fact: There is no such deflection.
Therefore, the flat-earth model fails to explain the magnetic south pole.
Now, is anyone going to try and explain the phases of the moon, the setting sun, or why no one has broken the conspiracy as mentioned in my first post?
-
Now, is anyone going to try and explain the phases of the moon, the setting sun, or why no one has broken the conspiracy as mentioned in my first post?
You'll probably get something arbitrary as answer for the conspiracy. But it would be nice if the moon phases were addressed.
-
I've asked about the moon phases many times. If it's not addressed they don't have a theory for it.
-
Alright, let me break it down for you.
Fact: There is a single magnetic south pole on physical land.
Gotcha. It's near the geographic north pole. So far, so good...
Fact: If there was a continous North pole to "Ice Wall" magnetic field, the magnetic south pole would massively and noticably disrupt the Earth's magnetic field so that compasses north, south, east, and west would be obviously deflected for hundreds of miles.
...and we were on a roll. You are saying that there are actually two magnetic fields from the FE? Where did you get that idea?
-
he doesn't know all that much about magnetic fields...
-
Alright, you caught me in a slip up. Yes, the "magnetic south pole" is near the north, since north ends of magnets point north (and thus the north geographic pole is the south magnetic pole).
However, what about the "magnetic north pole" in Antarctica which is on solid land. It is as indisputable as the Arctic magnetic pole. To stop the magnetic field, getting the "all directions are North" effect would require a large magnetic field eminating from the Antarctic pole, which is obviously NOT on the edge of the Earth as humans have visited it countless times.
Therefore, to explain this on a flat Earth, there MUST be two magnetic fields,one going from the edge of the Earth to the north pole and one eminating from the Antarctic magnetic pole going in all directions to who knows where (probably also the Arctic magnetic pole) which would create the magnetic distortion I explained in my last few posts.
-
Considering the magnetic poles are very well documented and a recordable (viewable) phenomena I'm not assuming anything, I'm reciting from factual evidence. We also see evidence of pole reversal in geography, it's not an unknown mystical force.
And the evidence is??
Look, if the earth were a disk, and what we call the North pole was one end of a magnet, and the underside, the south pole, how would it behave differently without going to the south pole, which the FE's claim is the icewall wich noone not in on the conspiracy can get to.
This goes against the idea that magnetic South is simply the opposite of magnetic North on a compass. If the force only goes one way then tabletop magnets wouldn't function either.
I am not claiming that there is a magnetic monopole, read Larry Niven for that sort of stuff. A standard Bi-polar magnetic field, with the "Lines of force" extending below the edge of the earth to the other side would effectively act like the spherical earth model.
-
REers need to stop proposing experiments that are impossible to carry out. Nobody is seriously going to voyage to the south pole simply to determine whether the earth is flat or round. If you can't prove that the earth is round using experiments that can be easily performed, you might as well just hang up your hat and stay home.
-
REers need to stop proposing experiments that are impossible to carry out. Nobody is seriously going to voyage to the south pole simply to determine whether the earth is flat or round. If you can't prove that the earth is round using experiments that can be easily performed, you might as well just hang up your hat and stay home.
Wy would they need to travel to the south pole when they could just use a satellite?
-
I seem to have misplaced my satellite, can I borrow yours?
-
I seem to have misplaced my satellite, can I borrow yours?
Sorry, I let a friend borrow mine and I never got it back.
-
I seem to have misplaced my satellite, can I borrow yours?
Sorry, I let a friend borrow mine and I never got it back.
I'll give it back next week, I promise kupo.
Now, is anyone going to adress the actual topic?
-
REers need to stop proposing experiments that are impossible to carry out. Nobody is seriously going to voyage to the south pole simply to determine whether the earth is flat or round. If you can't prove that the earth is round using experiments that can be easily performed, you might as well just hang up your hat and stay home.
Easy for who? That is quite relative from person to person. Someone that has the resources and initative to do it wouldn't find it that difficult at all. As I said earlier, if I was capable of such a trip I'd in fact carry it out. If only to bring some proof to this forum. If I get shot down by the ice wall guards then we'll know FE is all good I suppose.
Experiments with gravity and the question of a round Earth are rather hard to do on your kitchen table, many of the experiments and theories are on a much bigger scale. This forum seems to be solely a mental exercise anyway, why not propose experiments on a grand scale?
-
I won't go for the same reason you guys won't go: Why waste time and money to prove something I already know to be true?
I think what you are going through is called "denial".
BURN.
-
I think what you are going through is called "denial".
BURN.[/quote]
So tell us then Rossk, why won't you go to Antarctica?
-
However, what about the "magnetic north pole" in Antarctica which is on solid land. It is as indisputable as the Arctic magnetic pole. To stop the magnetic field, getting the "all directions are North" effect would require a large magnetic field eminating from the Antarctic pole, which is obviously NOT on the edge of the Earth as humans have visited it countless times.
Fact: There is a single magnetic south pole on physical land.
I am but an egg, but I think you have failed to engage with the premises of the FE theory you are interested in contesting. One premise of note is that Antarctica, a relatively small continent which contains a bit of land which we call the "south magnetic pole" (even tho it's actually a north pole, in physics jargon), which is uncontested in RE theory, does not exist in this form in FE theory. So asserting its existence, or the existence of this "south magnetic pole" (in geography jargon), and even adding the word "Fact", doesn't make it a sound basis for discussion of problems with FE theory.
Regarding the certainty of this "fact", I think that you could entertain some doubt. The entire continent of Antarctica is clearly substantially less well-travelled than the Arctic regions. There is no native human population, and only a relatively small number of explorers and scientists (and military personel) have a good personal experience with its geography. (Yes, some cruise ships go there, but my feeling is that passengers on ships are not really doing cartography to make sure the boat is going where it says it is.) It really would be relatively easy to have a worldwide conspiracy about what's in Antarctica, given sufficient motivation.
Oh, and this bit about the "proven hundreds of times on TV"? Even aside from the cheapshot I could make about "it's true if you saw it on TV, rofl?", this is a bit doubtful. Journalists can be fooled (even very wise/observant/clever ones), and I do think Antarctic journalism isn't as common as you claim. And again, if the journalist doesn't suspect the Great RE Conspiracy, why would he be on the lookout for it? Poor candy-on-a-stick journalist.
In summary, your argument that there is something that FE theory lacks, w.r.t. the south pole, is in my opinion lacking both in grand plan, and in rhetorical details. In general, I think FE theorists claim it (the continent of Antarctica as presented in RE theory) is all lies, and compared to other parts of the conspiracy, this bit seems pretty easy to take.
Now, is anyone going to try and explain the phases of the moon, the setting sun, or why no one has broken the conspiracy as mentioned in my first post?
I apologize for not addressing this. Okay, hell, I'll put something random forward. This is by no means canonical FE theory.
While we all know (those of us who troubled to read the FAQ before flaming, anyway) that the FE-theoretic moon is a spotlight, perhaps it is surrounded by a baffle, which has the shape of a sphere, half of which is transparent (and the inside of which is utterly matte, of course). This baffle revolves around the moon-spotlight (on an axis which I trust is obvious).
I think that with certain assumptions about the shape of the baffle, this generates an experiment. (Probably someone is happy about that). In particular, the way I am imagining the baffle, different parts of the world should see the moon earlier or later in its cycle, although I'm not sure how much. For all I know, maybe the RE-theoretic moon exhibits that property - I'm not much of an astronomer.
Actually, a simpler model might be that the moon is a sphere, half of it luminous and half of it dark, and it rotates on itself as it follows the already-established FE orbit above the earth's disc. Of course, it's a spotlight, so it needs a baffle. And also of course, the observable lunographic features need to be part of the baffle or something, otherwise this theory would imply they'd move in a way that they can plainly be seen to not move.
Regarding the sun getting "larger" at the horizon, I believe you're mistaken. For example, here is a quickly-googled RE-theoretic explanation of the phenomena you might observe:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_mysteries_020716-1.html
According to that article, which one will note is rife with RE bias, the actual observables are that the sun gets shorter as it approaches the horizon. This is generally something on the order of a 5:6 ratio, though, so most scaling phenomena you observe are allegedly an optical illusion. That's what those crazy RE "scientists" say, anyway.
If in fact it's true that the sun's disc gets shorter as it nears the horizon, that's potentially a good confirmation of FE theory. If a flat light-casting disc moved away from you, horizontally in a plane which you are not yourself in, it would shrink faster in the dimension that you perceive as vertical than it would in the other dimension. (I apologize for the torturousness of that sentence.) So I guess the whole sun-shrinking thing is at least someone supportive of the FE model.
I myself am a terrible empiricist, and thus must content myself to read the work of giants like Nicolaus Copernicus and Samuel Rowbotham. But if you are a truer scientist than I, you could compose some experiments to test my proposed model of the sun's behaviour, which all forum members could perform, as follows. Figure out the apparent transformation of the sun's disc under my model, in some detail, and then take measurements. I, being an indolent sloth, am doomed to ignorance.
-
what about the hollow earth model? :lol:
-
Wait, I really think I'm on to something here...
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r99/Stapler117/triangleearth.jpg
This is it... My triangular earth model. This is an acurate theory of the Earth! Everything else is a lie! FE'ers are conspirators trying to cover up the TRUTH!!
-
How interesting. Oh wait. The other one. Tedious.
-
I won't go for the same reason you guys won't go: Why waste time and money to prove something I already know to be true?
Because you are afraid of the real fucking answer.
-
No, I know the real answer. Why would I need to go?
-
I think the earth is round and I would LOVE to see it from space :D Not to prove anything, just to see it 8-)
-
Wait, I really think I'm on to something here...
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r99/Stapler117/triangleearth.jpg
This is it... My triangular earth model. This is an acurate theory of the Earth! Everything else is a lie! FE'ers are conspirators trying to cover up the TRUTH!!
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: Thanks for showing me the light!!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
-
Well obviously the Mole people live there D'uh.