The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: flyingleaf on February 23, 2006, 12:28:37 PM

Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on February 23, 2006, 12:28:37 PM
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/test1.jpg)

Is this an acceptable picture of the Flat Earth model of the universe?  Anything too big?  Too small?  Should Antarctica even be there?

The Sun and Moon are both 16x their supposed size because you'd almost not be able to see them if they're only 32 miles in diameter.  Their trails are not concentric so the two can be differentiated.

It's not complete yet.  I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult to get a small lightsource so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.  The earth disc has almost no thickness right now.  There are no stars, no sky-dome, and I think I'm also forgetting something important...

Oh and a 150ft wall around the perimeter is impossible to see at this scale.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: joffenz on February 23, 2006, 12:55:17 PM
There is no Antarctica but there is an ice wall, so just say the snowy part is the ice wall.

I can't see the Great Wall of China :P

The rest looks good. Apart from the fact that the Earth's not flat, it's still good.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on February 23, 2006, 03:50:28 PM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"
The Sun and Moon are both 16x their supposed size because you'd almost not be able to see them if they're only 32 miles in diameter.


But I assume you're still lighting the surface with them as though they were 32 miles in diameter?

Quote
I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult


-- some might say, "impossible" --

Quote
to get a small lightsource so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.


Turns out this is pretty strong evidence against FEism.  Of course, FEers will deny any claims about the area of the Earth that is lit at any point in time.

Anyway, very cool rendering... I am most impressed :)

-Erasmus
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: JesusFreak03 on February 23, 2006, 07:49:12 PM
It looks a little too... strechy.

I would suggest going up to the ISS and getting a good picture of the Earth to work with first. Now that I'm thinking about it... and maybe I should start a new thread, but it looks like you hav plenty already.
 
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=international+space+station&btnG=Search

Man those Photoshop loving government agents have a lot of time on their hands.

How exactly do flat-earthers explain things like satellite images
(google maps for example), the massive amounts of scientific data collected by space stations and NASA operations, GPS, satellite TV, the MIR, etc?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that that the incredibly vast complex nature of this conspiracy, which you have no evidence for, makes it a statistical impossibility. At some point doesn't Occum's Razor slice open your throats and bring forth the gushing flow of truth?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Flatearthersareretards on February 23, 2006, 08:50:28 PM
I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that not one scientist in modern times has ever found scientific proof of the flat earth and then jsut spread the truth through the media. There is no way every government and media source on the planet is in on this, a conspiracy of that scale defies all logic and knowledge of the worlds political situations makes itimmpossible.

Also the 150ft ice wall, how can no one of ever seen it. I Also jsut thought of another error in your theory. Flying from Australia to South America should take days via the antarctic route, it doesn't.

Look at your flat earth map and tell me where is the south pole? you knwo the place all those antarctic travelers try and trek to. How can all those ships traveling around antarctica do it in any kind of responable time with that much distance to cover. The flat earth theory is self defeating by it's very nature. The dimensions it immposes on the world can be disproven by anyone who buys a seat on a flight that goes somewhere via the antarctic coast.

And yes there are flights that do that my friend flew to Africa from Australia via that route and sent me photos of the Antarctic coast.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: 6strings on February 23, 2006, 09:21:05 PM
Flatearthersareretards, I've decided that you're a government shill, spreading lies and discontent in the ranks of the beievers, and thus anything you say is invalid.  "Friends" flying from Australia to Africa through "Antarctica", psssh, your imaginary words don't fool me.

However, on the note of Occam's Razor; nice metaphore (analogy?).  There are only specific instances in which you can apply Occam's Razor, it only  comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power.  Otherwise I could say the following:
There are two theories as to how people live:
A) We are kept alive by a complicated system of veins, nerves, organs, etc.
B) Magic
Ergo, by Occam's razor, people are kept alive by magic
Granted this isn't a great example, but I think it kinda gets the point across.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on February 24, 2006, 06:24:14 AM
Ok I like the rendering. Very good example of computer skills I don't have. That said, I have a few things to add.

1) There has been 1 thing that has consistently bothered me about this conspiracy. In order for it to work, you would have to get Israel And the rest of the Middle East working together. Personally I just can't see that happening. Ever.

2) The thing about Antarctica is that as well as being a great big lump of Ice, It also generates weather for most of the "southern" Hemisphere. It cant do that if you eliminate about 70% of it.

3) The orbits for the sun dont come anywhere close to representing the 24 hour daylight, either at the north or south pole.

4) As I understand it, the Earth's magnetic field is caused by currents in the Earth's Iron rich Mantle. This magnetic field causes the effects known as Aurora Borialis and Aurora Australis (the northern and southern lights) this magnetic field also causes the Van Allen belt. There is no way that this can work with a flat Earth.

5) Assuming you have lit the Earth as if the sun was 32 miles in diametre, it seems that there are places on the Earth that never get sunlight. From looking at this model, one of those places is Tasmania (in Australia), and another is the tip of south America. So why is it green?

6) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this.

7) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, and yes that still bugs me.

8) If the orbit for the sun is correct, why is it that I see the sun high in the sky at midday when im along way North or South? Shouldnt it follow a long path to my right or left?

9) A note on Occam's Razor: If all things are Equal, (which in this case they aren't, given the mountain of evidence against the flat Earth) which is more likely? A spherical Earth? or A massive multi-Government conspiracy which has gotten bitter enemies to work seamlessly together, to create, for no purpose, the illusion that the Earth is round when it is in fact flat?
That first bit is important.
 Which is more likely, that human beings are kept alive by a network of blood vessels and organs, especially when we have good evidence (The various methods of instituting the death penalty come to mind) or Magic?

10) Even if Sun set and Sun rise are illusions, why dont we continually see their light whereever we are on Earth?

11) Explain for me this: The Antarctic food Chain. Whales Migrate to Antarctia in the summer to feed and Calve. What do they Eat? Krill. Its basically a shrimp that lives in the cold waters of the southern ocean. What does the Krill Eat? Plankton. Most plankton are single cell plants that photosynthesise. By this model there is no sunlight down there (down being relative) So there is no photosynthesis. So what do The Krill eat? Answer: Nothing. In this model they starve. So what do the Whales eat? In this model, Nothing. They Starve. So what the hell is the Japanese whaling fleet doing down there? (in the protectected waters of a Marine park I might add). Playing Poker? Blackjack? Charades?

12) in this model the sun and the moons paths differ slightly. I'll assume this is to create eclipses. Thus the sun and the moon have different "orbital" speeds. So why does the sun never eclipse the moon?

13) Phases of the moon. We all know what they are. In this model those phases occur over the course of one night. If they are part of the conspiracy, why have they been observed since the dawn of man? Think up something creative to rebut this one.

14) The moon is only 3000 miles away. Ok then, why did it take 3 days for the Apollo Astronauts to get there? It would make no difference to the "conspiracy" if it took them 3 hours.

15) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.

16) Satellites. More particularly, comunications satellites. How do they orbit the Earth? And why does every big telecommunications BUSINESS spend millions of dollars each year keeping them running? on a flat Earth, they Arent necessary, so why waste the cash? And Why are there parts of Australia without mobile phone service. It would be good business for telstra to say "we serve 100% of Australians", yet they dont. Why not? given all you need is line of sight for those services, it should be easy enough.

17) Has Anyone ever asked how far backwards in Time this "conspiracy" would have to reach? Well backwards of Galilleo, Methinks. so the United states and the united nations have been executing a massive coverup since before they were ever dreamed of? Yeah, right, sure, whatever. Maybe the flat Earthers could come out with a timeline of the conspiracy?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on February 24, 2006, 08:20:18 AM
Quote from: "6strings"

However, on the note of Occam's Razor; nice metaphore (analogy?).  There are only specific instances in which you can apply Occam's Razor, it only  comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power.  Otherwise I could say the following:
There are two theories as to how people live:
A) We are kept alive by a complicated system of veins, nerves, organs, etc.
B) Magic
Ergo, by Occam's razor, people are kept alive by magic
Granted this isn't a great example, but I think it kinda gets the point across.


I'm not sure that there's any point in *insisting* that Occam's Razor only be used in this way.  I could get around it by constructing a larger theory of "everything else"; i.e., a theory of, say, physics at everyday human scales that nevertheless doesn't explain how organisms stay alive.  Then I could add both your Anatomy and Magic hypotheses, realize the redundacy, and then try to determine which one to remove by seeing which leaves behind a simpler subtheory with equivalent predictive power.

In any case, I'm pretty sure I can interpret Occam's Razor so that it's useful for comparing two hypotheses, rather than only deciding whether to accept to reject an addendum to an existing theory.

-Erasmus
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on February 24, 2006, 01:36:11 PM
I'm working on the next version, which will have a little more details, if people would agree to the validity of the following:

The current FET should use a modified "geocentric" universe in that the center of the universe is an invisible point above the North Pole, except that the Sun also has an epicycle of North-South drift, creating seasons and 24-hour days in the Arctic circle (unfortunately not so for the Antarctic, but since it doesn't exist, nobody's hurt).

Of course any geocentrism has problems, but let's not discuss it here.  This rendering is meant to be the defining picture of FET.  An accurate rendition of something flawed is obviously going to contain the flaws, and perhaps magnify them.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on February 24, 2006, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"
An accurate rendition of something flawed is obviously going to contain the flaws, and perhaps magnify them.


Which, let's admit it, is a big motivation for putting together this rendering in the first place...
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on February 25, 2006, 06:40:35 AM
Here's something that has been bugging me about this model: Eclipses.

Look at it from the flat Earth's point of view. No matter where you are on the Earth, looking up at an eclipse, you will never actually see one. All you can Possibly see is the sun and moon side by side. The orbits of the sun and moon mean they CANNOT pass in front of each other relative to the earth, thus no eclipses.

And another thing: the flat Earthers haven't made any attempt to come up with anything to dispel my other 17 points.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Sharky on February 25, 2006, 06:45:13 AM
Hmmm... I wonder how you got to render that picture... Oh wait a minute, from the pictures we get from our satellites
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: fuzzy901 on February 27, 2006, 12:04:39 AM
These renderings have me wondering, do FE'ers believe that the map, as accepted today (shape notwithstanding, obviously, but with 7 continents, 5 oceans, etc.) is accurate? If the globe is wrong, why not the continents on it?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on February 27, 2006, 09:34:31 AM
Quote from: "fuzzy901"
These renderings have me wondering, do FE'ers believe that the map, as accepted today (shape notwithstanding, obviously, but with 7 continents, 5 oceans, etc.) is accurate? If the globe is wrong, why not the continents on it?


Because the United Nations flag shows all the continents (except the fictitious Antarctica) and oceans.  Don't ask; just thinking about the astronomical degree of stupidity required for this sort of reasoning makes me nauseous.

-Erasmus
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Flatearthersareretards on February 27, 2006, 10:01:27 PM
Just a second.

*Goes to phone the research bases in Antarctica to tell them it isnt real, and proceeds to contact the families of those who have reached the south poles and tell them that they are liers.*

The south pole and Antarctica exist you stupid flat earthers, shut up and jsut accept facts ok. Jesus how can anyone be as dense as a flat earther, it's insane.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on February 28, 2006, 10:34:17 PM
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/model.jpg)

Updated picture: note the high-lighted ice-wall on the left, epicycle for the sun, and crust thickness.  Both Sun and Moon are at about 40x their supposed size so they can be seen.

This should answer some FAQs.

[edit 1]Crap-on-a-stick, the gamma is too low (turn your screen brighter to see the details).  I'll fix it in a few days.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Flatearthersareretards on March 01, 2006, 12:18:45 AM
The light to the southern most regions of the earth is still to little, you've jsut made it more erratic.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on March 01, 2006, 01:23:03 AM
ok... so the sun and the moon are flat now? I'd just like to be absolutely certain of this before I attack it.

On another note, this still does not explain 24 hour daylight in Antarctica at the south pole

Also, in this flat earth model, the Magnetic South pole and does not exist. It Has to exist, as there is a Magnetic north pole. Try this: take a bar magnet and cut along the line that divides the north pole from the south pole. What you will find is that instead of creating 2 lumps of metal, one totally positive and 1 totally negative, you will have created two smaller magnets each with a north and south pole.

Given the thickness of this model, we obviously have no molten core of iron in the earth. Fine, Then the Earth has no magnetic field. In this case, there are no southern or northern lights. Or compasses. And in the Absence of A magnetic field, we all cooked about 4.5 billion years ago due to the stellar radiation produced by the sun.

I'm still mystified as to why the sun and the moon orbit as they do. Gravity isn't a toy people. You cant just play around with it till it suits, you actually have to give a reason. If you had been paying attention in science classes you'd know this.

So about this big conspiracy. When Captain Cook went on his 1st voyage to observe the transit of venus, he was in on this conspiracy as well? It sounds to me like that a conspiracy this large would have to have every single person on Earth in on it for it to work, including flat Earther's.

And the fact remains that every modification of this theory has been holier than the popes swiss cheese.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Flatearthersareretards on March 01, 2006, 04:57:44 AM
The fact is anyone with a telescope and a calculator can disprove the flat earth theory. Anyone with a telescope a calculator and a mild understanding of phsycis and astronomy aan blow it out of the water.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on March 01, 2006, 08:40:48 PM
Quote from: "Flatearthersareretards"
The light to the southern most regions of the earth is still to little, you've jsut made it more erratic.


Elaborate, please.  The sun should only light ~1/2 of the earth's area at any given moment, and most of that lit area is lit at severe angles.  The shape of the lit area isn't quite correct, I have to admit.  That's sort of due to limitations on light placements in my rendering software.

Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
so the sun and the moon are flat now?


Well, if the earth is flat, why should any other celestial body be spherical?  I seem to remember somewhere claiming they could be flat.

Quote
this still does not explain 24 hour daylight in Antarctica at the south pole


No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?

Quote
Also, in this flat earth model, the Magnetic South pole and does not exist. It Has to exist, as there is a Magnetic north pole.


Exactly.  But if Magnetic North Pole is near the center of this disc, then it effectively makes the entire edge the Magnetic South Pole.  It's the same effect as if you're near the Mag. N. pole: anywhere away from it is "South".  The electromagnetic field will work just fine to produce Aurora Borealis (but not Aurora Australis, but even astronomers say the southern lights are rarely seen).

When some one who knows FET by heart tells me why the sun and moon orbits like that, I'll put it in the picture.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Malrix on March 01, 2006, 09:01:47 PM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"


No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?


My dad spent 2 years in Deputatski (little settlement beyond the arctic circle in Russia) He sais it is dark for half a year and light for half a year. Would that count?

And, I, myself, spent 2.5 years in Saint-Petersburg (Russia) where, around May for a month or so, never gets completely dark (it will dim for about 2 hours and will be light again it is called "White Nights"). How does you model explain such phenomenon?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Flatearthersareretards on March 01, 2006, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"
Quote
this still does not explain 24 hour daylight in Antarctica at the south pole


No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?


By that logic the US doesnt exist because there are more people who have never seen it then there are who have seen it. In fact by your logic there are more people who believe the earth is round therefore flat earthers are wrong.

Quote
Also, in this flat earth model, the Magnetic South pole and does not exist. It Has to exist, as there is a Magnetic north pole.


Exactly.  But if Magnetic North Pole is near the center of this disc, then it effectively makes the entire edge the Magnetic South Pole.  It's the same effect as if you're near the Mag. N. pole: anywhere away from it is "South".  The electromagnetic field will work just fine to produce Aurora Borealis (but not Aurora Australis, but even astronomers say the southern lights are rarely seen).

When some one who knows FET by heart tells me why the sun and moon orbits like that, I'll put it in the picture.[/quote]

The Southern lights are rarely seen because there is no city southern enough to see them. If Mcmurdo research base was a city we would have many more reports of seeing the lights.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on March 01, 2006, 10:31:08 PM
Malrix, you misunderstand me.

Quote from: "Malrix"
How does you model explain such phenomenon?

Perpetual daylight near or in the Arctic circle is eazily explained in FET:  When the sun is in the innermost point of the epicycle, its light shines over the Arctic during its entire daily cycle around the North pole.  Millions have experienced the Arctic 24-hour-daylights, while considerably less have done so in the Antarctic.  I was referring to that group of people as small.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: fuzzy901 on March 02, 2006, 01:32:18 AM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"
I was referring to that group of people as small.


Since when does it matter how many people witness or observe something? In flat earth theory, thousands, if not millions, of people have to be silent about the true shape of the earth. Whether or not you have 10 liars or 1,000,000 liars, FE relies on them.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on March 02, 2006, 01:44:11 AM
Quote
But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.


Well, if we are going to work on that basis, almost nothing exists, as there are guaranteed to be more people who haven't seen it than those who have.

 
Quote
But if Magnetic North Pole is near the center of this disc, then it effectively makes the entire edge the Magnetic South Pole. It's the same effect as if you're near the Mag. N. pole


But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Quote
The electromagnetic field will work just fine to produce Aurora Borealis (but not Aurora Australis, but even astronomers say the southern lights are rarely seen).


Rarely seen. RARELY seen. But they are seen. They exist then. so the point stands. And where's the center of Antarctica anyway?

Quote
When some one who knows FET by heart tells me why the sun and moon orbits like that, I'll put it in the picture.


Don't hold your breath.

Quote
Well, if the earth is flat, why should any other celestial body be spherical?


Well the sun should be spherical. at 32 miles wide and flat, it lacks the mass for  stellar fusion to take place. In other words, there is no sun. So there never were any plants. then there never were any animals. Or people. Or the internet. Or this forum.

Anyone who can see the sun can prove its not flat. if you live a ways to the south or north, take a look at the sun (use some common sense relating to safety here). notice how its round . if the sun were flat, looking at it from that angle, it should appear as an oval which gets thinner the further north/south you go.  

Quote
No it doesn't. But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society. Who's to say who is wrong?


I'd say that more than 2000 people have seen an Antarctic Winter. Given that exploration there goes back a while. Not to mention you have all the Antarctic Bases. Australia has three, last time I checked, Casey, Mawson and Davis. America has McMurdo. Also lets not forget the "little America" bases of the sixties. There were six I think. there are also ones from a whole host of other countries. This means that at any given time, the population is around 1000. So in 3 year years, more people will have seen the Aurora Australis than believe in a flat Earth. These sort of numbers have existed for around 30 years.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on March 02, 2006, 08:49:58 PM
Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
Well, if we are going to work on that basis, almost nothing exists, as there are guaranteed to be more people who haven't seen it than those who have.

Excellent point.  So we agree that the "more people have seen [so and so phenomenum], therefore Earth is Round" is not a valid argument against any Flat Earth opinion?

Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field?  It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.

Quote
And where's the center of Antarctica anyway?

Huh?  The RE continent Antarctica?  Or the "ice wall" of Flat earth?

Quote
Well the sun should be spherical. at 32 miles wide and flat, it lacks the mass for  stellar fusion to take place.

Good point.  Though, I'm not too sure a 32-mile wide spherical sun has enough mass for stellar fusion either.

Quote
I'd say that more than 2000 people have seen an Antarctic Winter.<snipped> more people will have seen the Aurora Australis than believe in a flat Earth. These sort of numbers have existed for around 30 years.

Well, as you said, numbers of people on one side or the other don't really make a point any more or less valid.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on March 03, 2006, 11:43:19 AM
Quote
Excellent point. So we agree that the "more people have seen [so and so phenomenum], therefore Earth is Round" is not a valid argument against any Flat Earth opinion?


This argument is valid because the flat Earth Theory is mired in blatant stupidity. But seriously, if you dont go out and do an experiment, can you say that it isn't valid because you haven't seen it to be true?

Quote
Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field? It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.


But there isnt anything underneath the crust, is there?
 
Quote
Huh? The RE continent Antarctica? Or the "ice wall" of Flat earth?


the geographic south pole. And I may have stated this elsewhere, but Antarctica generates weather for a good portion of the "southern" hemisphere. It cannot do this with 70% of its mass missing. And where do all those drilled ice cores from this missing area come from? They do exist even if this is a conspiracy.

Now about this conspiracy. Given the time it has to have been going on and its breadth, it seems that every man and his dog must have been in on it since the dawn of time. So given that we are all united in a single purpose, why isn't there world peace?

So what happens when we apply things like Kepplers law of periods to a flat Earth? It, along with every other piece of physics breaks down. It ceases to provide rational answers. So when these things are applied to actual observations they work, but when applied to your theoretical model they break down. In most areas, this would force a theory to be rewritten. yet it hasn't happened here. Why? Could it be because that no matter how much you change it, it still fails? Most theory's would be scrapped at this point, but not this one. Why?

the current orbit for the sun might solve a few problems, but it creates a whole lot more. If you watched its course during the day from somewhere like Egypt, you would probably wonder what you had been smoking. Try to imagine it and you'll see.

And because we might run out of material,

1) There has been 1 thing that has consistently bothered me about this conspiracy. In order for it to work, you would have to get Israel And Palestine (more particularly HAMAS) and the rest of the Middle East working together. Personally I just can't see that happening. Ever.

2) The orbits for the sun dont come anywhere close to representing the 24 hour daylight, either at the north or south pole. The new orbit of the sun does not represent 24 hour daylight for 6 months of the year, followed by continual night for another 6 months.

3) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this. Now its even more eratic, as there is even less reason.

4) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, yes that still bugs me, and yes gravity is still not a toy.

5) Even if Sun set and Sun rise are illusions, why dont we continually see sunlight whereever and whenever we are on Earth? The light from the sun will still exist.

6) The moon is only 3000 miles away. Ok then, why did it take 3 days for the Apollo Astronauts to get there? It would make no difference to the "conspiracy" if it took them 3 hours. And why could they only land on the moons equator? the moon is flat now. They could have landed anywhere. And how did they orbit it?

7) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.

8) the phases of the moon. They have been observed for thousands of years before anyone could have faked them with lights. And they still don't occur over the course of a single night.

9) so why is the atmosphere staying in proximity to the earth? You have no gravity, so it should diffuse out into space.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingleaf on March 04, 2006, 12:19:53 AM
Being that this thread is about the picture and whether it fits into the FET model, and as much not about the validity of the FET model, I'll only answer the related questions and the few other points I mentioned before:

Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
Quote
Excellent point. So we agree that the "more people have seen [so and so phenomenum], therefore Earth is Round" is not a valid argument against any Flat Earth opinion?

This argument is valid because the flat Earth Theory is mired in blatant stupidity. But seriously, if you dont go out and do an experiment, can you say that it isn't valid because you haven't seen it to be true?


I take "experiment" to mean an experiment to prove the Earth to be Round and not a survey of believers, which is not an experiment, just a poll.  Anyway, we're not talking experiments here, just validity of arguments and populations.

The stupidity of your opponent does not make your argument any more valid.  What I'm saying is that just because more people believe in one thing does not make it automatically true.  If that were so, then the Roman Catholic idea of God is the true God and all other believes are absolutely false.

Quote
But there isnt anything underneath the crust, is there?

The FET doesn't say what's underneath the crust, so I left it empty.  Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I just made a picture and wanted it to be agreeable to FET.

Quote
the geographic south pole. And I may have stated this elsewhere, but Antarctica generates weather for a good portion of the "southern" hemisphere. It cannot do this with 70% of its mass missing. And where do all those drilled ice cores from this missing area come from? They do exist even if this is a conspiracy.

You should bring up another thread for this.  I don't think this line of argument has been properly discussed.  However, I think you might get "Near North Pole" as the answer to the origin of the ice core samples.

Quote
2) The orbits for the sun dont come anywhere close to representing the 24 hour daylight, either at the north or south pole. The new orbit of the sun does not represent 24 hour daylight for 6 months of the year, followed by continual night for another 6 months.

I'll have to make an animation to show this, but the Arctic 24-hour days/nights is very possible in this model.

Quote
3) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this. Now its even more eratic, as there is even less reason.


I still don't understand what you are referring to as "eratic"?  The orbit?  The lighting?

Quote
4) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, yes that still bugs me, and yes gravity is still not a toy.

Well, I am able to think like an FEer to make the picture.  Now I challenge you to do the same and make a reasonable hypothesis to answer your own question.  Besides, I can only act stubborn for so long...

Quote
7) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.


They would have regular orbits and epicycles, except that Mercury and Venus's epicycles are inclined so they some times are in front of the sun.  Basically take the old Ptolemic geocentric model and translate all spherical coordinates to cylindrical: theta => theta, R*phi => r, r => h
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on March 04, 2006, 01:47:30 AM
Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
3) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this. Now its even more eratic, as there is even less reason.


Man, this is wrong in so many ways.

First off, deserts are not deserts because they are closer to the sun, just like the tops of mountains aren't deserts because they're closer to the sun, just like the summer isn't hotter because the Earth is closer to the sun in the summer (cuz it isn't, get it?).

Second: Antarctica, assuming you believe in it, is a big, cold, desert.

Third: If on a flat Earth the sun orbits in an imaginary cylinder whose intersection with the Earth is the circle we call the equator, then the sun shines overhead on the equator, so being over the equator makes it hotter.  So the FE model does go a little ways of explaining "deserts".

Quote
4) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, yes that still bugs me, and yes gravity is still not a toy.


Really good point, but I would note that RE theory is not free of such issues.  The question of why the various parameters of the laws of nature have the values they do is pretty much a mystery.

Quote
5) Even if Sun set and Sun rise are illusions, why dont we continually see sunlight whereever and whenever we are on Earth? The light from the sun will still exist.


FE model says that the sun and moon work like spot lights, not spherically symmetric point sources.

Quote
6) The moon is only 3000 miles away. Ok then, why did it take 3 days for the Apollo Astronauts to get there? It would make no difference to the "conspiracy" if it took them 3 hours. And why could they only land on the moons equator? the moon is flat now. They could have landed anywhere. And how did they orbit it?


FE theory asserts that the space program never happened.

Quote
7) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.


Irk?  Not mentioned by FE theory I think.

Quote
9) so why is the atmosphere staying in proximity to the earth? You have no gravity, so it should diffuse out into space.


FE model does have gravity, remember?  We had huge lengthy discussions about it.

All that said, I would like to echo flyingleaf in re:

Quote from: "flyingleaf"
Being that this thread is about the picture and whether it fits into the FET model


and thus apologize (in ernest) for interruption of the flow in conversation with my improperly-placed comments.

-Erasmus
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on March 05, 2006, 03:30:26 AM
Quote
I take "experiment" to mean an experiment to prove the Earth to be Round and not a survey of believers, which is not an experiment, just a poll. Anyway, we're not talking experiments here, just validity of arguments and populations.


By experiment I mean getting up from the computer and climbing (or driving) up a mountain and taking a look at the horizon line. you can see the earth is curved. Or taking a plane somewhere and looking out the window. If you are worried about the window distorting your view, get your own plane and switch the window for one you make youself. Bit impractical I realise, but you can do it. Or going out to somewhere where it is flat (like the nullabor plain in Australia) and again looking at the Earths curve yourself. Alternatively, there are a number of scientific Experiments suggested on this site you can do.

Quote
The stupidity of your opponent does not make your argument any more valid.


The comment being refered to was intended in jest, not to be argued over. I dont think getting into an argument over it would be pertinent to this thread.

Quote
I just made a picture and wanted it to be agreeable to FET.


You could have saved alot of time by stating this a while back

Quote
You should bring up another thread for this


Will do.

Quote
However, I think you might get "Near North Pole" as the answer to the origin of the ice core samples
.

You cannot drill a verticle 3 km ice core at the north pole and find rock underneath, because neither is there 3 miles of ice, nor is there rock.

Quote
but the Arctic 24-hour days/nights is very possible in this model.


But not Antarctic 24 hour nights/Days. Do we have to go into that again?

Quote
I still don't understand what you are referring to as "eratic"? The orbit? The lighting?


The orbit, but I'll explain further down

Quote
Now I challenge you to do the same and make a reasonable hypothesis to answer your own question.


for the RE or FE?

Quote
They would have regular orbits and epicycles, except that Mercury and Venus's epicycles are inclined so they some times are in front of the sun. Basically take the old Ptolemic geocentric model and translate all spherical coordinates to cylindrical: theta =>theta,R*phi=>r,r=>h


Thank you. I am no longer curious.

Quote
FE model does have gravity, remember? We had huge lengthy discussions about it.


The earth Accelerating at 1g? I thought we agreed there were several problems with this and that it needed revision. Or maybe my memory on this is fuzzy.

Quote
FE theory asserts that the space program never happened.


Well if there's no space program there aren't any GPS satellites, but I think this belongs elsewhere.


Quote
Really good point, but I would note that RE theory is not free of such issues. The question of why the various parameters of the laws of nature have the values they do is pretty much a mystery.


There are less issues with gravity on a RE than a FE.

Quote
Man, this is wrong in so many ways.


Actually Erasmus, Here you're wrong.

Quote
First off, deserts are not deserts because they are closer to the sun, just like the tops of mountains aren't deserts because they're closer to the sun, just like the summer isn't hotter because the Earth is closer to the sun in the summer (cuz it isn't, get it?).


 As light travels through the Atmosphere it gets scattered by the particles in the atmosphere, in effect weakening it. At the equator, the sunlight has the least distance to go to the earth through the atmosphere, making it hotter at the equator. At the poles, the light has to travel through more of the atmosphere, which weakens it, making the suns light colder. Thus the equator is hotter because it is closer to the sun.

To clarify why deserts are where they are, lets use a case study, Africa. If we observe Africa from north to south, we will see a band of desert, the sahara, a band of jungle, and then another band of desert, the Kalahari. The band of Jungle is located at the Equator, with the deserts of either side. The air around the equator is always on the move. its circulation is caused by the suns heat, which as mentioned above, is greatest at the equator. Hot air at the equator rises, spreads north and south, cools and sinks again. As it moves over the land, back towards the equator, it heats up and picks up moisture, keeping the land dry. As it rises over the equator, it releases this moisture as rain. Thus the greatest deserts in Africa lie to the north and south of the equator.

I said that deserts exist where they do because they are closer to the sun. You said they didn't. It is fact that they exist where they do because of there proximity to the equator, and thus they exist where they do because they are closer to the sun. 8-)

And have you ever actually climbed any of the world's big mountain's? it gets pretty hot up there. And barren. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is a desert.

On a flat Earth, this difference does not exist, as all points are much closer to the sun. and Becasue of the Suns Orbit, it does not maintain a position above the equator. If you read the above, You will see what the problem is.

secondly Antarctica is considered by most to be the worlds biggest desert, as a desert is defined as an area that gets less than 10mm or rain per year.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on March 05, 2006, 11:28:30 AM
Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
As light travels through the Atmosphere it gets scattered by the particles in the atmosphere, in effect weakening it. At the equator, the sunlight has the least distance to go to the earth through the atmosphere, making it hotter at the equator. At the poles, the light has to travel through more of the atmosphere, which weakens it, making the suns light colder.


There's no logical connection between the above paragraph, and the following sentence:

Quote
Thus the equator is hotter because it is closer to the sun.


What you said in the above paragraph is that there's less atmosphere between the Earth's surface and the sun.  That has nothing to do with the fact that the surface is closer to the sun.

One of the hottest and driest places on Earth is Death Valley, which is also one of the lowest elevations on Earth, and hence, *farther* from the sun.

Quote
To clarify why deserts are where they are, lets use a case study, Africa.  ... Thus the greatest deserts in Africa lie to the north and south of the equator.

I said that deserts exist where they do because they are closer to the sun.


Yeah, and this is the point -- the closer-to-the-sun claim -- that I've taken issue with.  You haven't established any connection with the closer-to-the-sun premise, merely a closer-to-the-equator / weather-pattern premise.

Don't forget that during some of the year, the Sahara Desert (which lies on the Tropic of Cancer) is closer to the sun than the equator.

Quote
And have you ever actually climbed any of the world's big mountain's? it gets pretty hot up there. And barren. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is a desert.


Honestly I'm pretty shocked about this "mountaintops get pretty hot" claim.  When they're bursting forth with lava, maybe.

I haven't climbed any of the world's big mountains, but the area around me is heavily mountained, and they all seem to be covered with snow for much of the year, even when it's not snowing where I live.  I've also seen a few pictures of "the world's big mountains", and they seem to look pretty cold.  And barren, yes -- turns out that's because (a) it's friggin cold and (b) there's not much in the way of fertile soil and (c) there's too much erosion from the high winds.

That being said I have climed a few of the worlds not-so-big mountains, usually in the summertime, and it gets damn cold.  I have pictures of myself in shorts and t-shirt trudging through snow at a relative elevation of about 800 meters.

Turns out that being closer to the sun while you're on the Earth's surface doesn't really help you get warmer.  Mostly this is because the thing that keeps us warm is the atmosphere, which acts as a blanket that thins out as you get higher up.

Quote
On a flat Earth, this difference does not exist, as all points are much closer to the sun


Actually, it does, and to a much greater degree.  Like, on Earth, some places are maybe 1.00000005 times closer to the sun than others.  On the flat Earth, with the sun 3000 miles away, Consider a point directly underneath the sun (3000 mi) and a point, say, 4000 mi away, or 5000 mi from the sun.  The difference here is a factor of 1.4.  Wouldn't you say that's a little more significant than 1.00000005?

Quote
secondly Antarctica is considered by most to be the worlds biggest desert, as a desert is defined as an area that gets less than 10mm or rain per year.


Yeah, so, here's the counterexample to your own argument (so much for case studies), and it's in fact why I brought it up in the first place.  Antarctica, surely, is farther from the sun than either the Saharah or the Kalahari, and is farther from the equator than them, as well as being farther from the equator than where I live, which as it turns out is a rain forest.

I think you should examine your argument, which was a misdirected attempt to establish closeness to the sun with hotness, dryness, and desertness.

-Erasmus
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: flyingspaghettimonster on March 07, 2006, 02:42:41 AM
Quote
There's no logical connection between the above paragraph, and the following sentence:


Ok, see if you can follow this. If the Earth is a sphere, and Right now i'm assuming it is for these purposes (And we seem to have driven off every Flat Earther On the forum, So I'd say this point is Academic), And it is orbiting the sun, then one Area of the Earth will be closer to the sun. The only way this will not be true is if the Earth is a concave shape.

Because sunlight will weaken as it travels through more of the atmosphere, then the light traveling a direct path through said atmosphere at the equator will not have spent as much time travelling through the Atmosphere, as the distance between the edge of space and the Earths surface will be smaller.

At the poles, The distance from where the suns light hits the Atmosphere to where it hits the surface of the Earth will be greater than at the Equator. This means that the light will pass through more of the Earth's Atmosphere, making it weaker.

Thus because the part of the Earth known as the Equator is at the Equator, and is thus closer to the sun, it is hotter. As the Sun is the only non negligeble Heat Source in the solar system available to Earth, then the statement "the Equator is hotter because it is closer to the sun" is Logically connected to the argument.

Quote
Honestly I'm pretty shocked about this "mountaintops get pretty hot" claim. When they're bursting forth with lava, maybe.


I was thinking of Nepal... not alot of snow up there. Also I think we could locate some mountains that didn't have snow on them year round... But I think you are making a big issue of a small arguement


Quote
Actually, it does, and to a much greater degree. Like, on Earth, some places are maybe 1.00000005 times closer to the sun than others. On the flat Earth, with the sun 3000 miles away, Consider a point directly underneath the sun (3000 mi) and a point, say, 4000 mi away, or 5000 mi from the sun. The difference here is a factor of 1.4. Wouldn't you say that's a little more significant than 1.00000005?


I think most people have accepted that the flat Earth is dead. Under the current theory, the flat Earth's Sun will not have the mass to begin stellar fusion. However what I was taking issue here with was not the distances from the sun, but is current orbit. (now you look at the current model since I'm not going to spend a page describing its motion) The Suns current orbit will continually alter The distance between any given point on the Earths surface and the sun. Assuming the Suns heat to be constant, and its orbit regular, then the weather patterns causing the deserts would not exist, as the air the is being cooled as it moves to the north and south would instead be heated continuously as the sun followed its orbit. This process would result in a complete abscence of deserts as they would no longer lose all there moisture to winds moving back towards the Equator.

Quote
Yeah, so, here's the counterexample to your own argument (so much for case studies), and it's in fact why I brought it up in the first place. Antarctica, surely, is farther from the sun than either the Saharah or the Kalahari, and is farther from the equator than them, as well as being farther from the equator than where I live, which as it turns out is a rain forest.


Antarctica is a COLD desert, as indeed it gets no rain. Thus by the DEFINITION of a desert it is one. How ever, it is desert for a different reason; it is not warm enough for rain to occur. It is NOT a desert for the same reasons as the Sahara, Thus it is NOT a counter example.

Quote
I think you should examine your argument, which was a misdirected attempt to establish closeness to the sun with hotness, dryness, and desertness.


Where have I used the word dryness in my Arguement? Or Desertness? and Is desertness even a word? And if you read my arguement, you would see that I have established that the distance between Earth and the Sun is related to the 'hotness' of an area. I have established that certain deserts exist where they do because Of their proximity to the sun, and as an indirect result of Earths stable orbit around the sun. On the flat Earth this does not exist, BECAUSE of the suns instable orbit.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on March 07, 2006, 11:21:47 AM
Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
Because sunlight will weaken as it travels through more of the atmosphere, then the light traveling a direct path through said atmosphere at the equator will not have spent as much time travelling through the Atmosphere, as the distance between the edge of space and the Earths surface will be smaller.


Yes yes, the atmosphere attenuates sunlight.  However, even if there were no atmosphere, the area where the sun is highest in the sky would still be warmer than areas where the sun is lower in the sky.  This is because the dominating control factor in surface heating is not atmospheric absorption of light, but foreshortening of the sun's rays, which explains why noon is hotter than dawn or dusk and why the summer is warmer than the winter.

In any case, what you always argue about is really distance to the edge of the atmosphere, not distance to the sun.  So if you take the tallest mountain on the Earth, when the sun is almost directly overhead (note that Mt. Everest, at 27 degrees N, is not quite tropical), why isn't it hotter than any other place on Earth?  It's both closer to the sun, and closer to the edge of the atmosphere, than any point near its base, right?

Quote
Thus because the part of the Earth known as the Equator is at the Equator, and is thus closer to the sun,


All year round?

Quote
As the Sun is the only non negligeble Heat Source in the solar system available to Earth,


Well, technically, the Earth itself generates heat, but barring that, yes, the sun is the only heat source.  However, solar radiation is not the only way the Earth's surface is heated.  Remember those winds you talked about?  Well, if warm wind blows someplace cold, the cold place warms up.  If warm water flows someplace cold, the cold place warms up.  The waters in the Pacific Northwest, e.g., are often warmer than those off the coast of California, because of warm ocean currents.  In fact, climate is very strongly tied to ocean currents; they often decide whether a certain region is a desert or a rain forest.

Quote
I was thinking of Nepal... not alot of snow up there.


Are we thinking of the same Nepal?  The one with Mt. Everest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Everest) on its Tibetan border?  Maybe you should have a look at pictures of it.

Quote
Also I think we could locate some mountains that didn't have snow on them year round...


Certainly... they're typically the ones that are much farther from the sun, and, coincidentally, warmer.

Quote
But I think you are making a big issue of a small arguement


I noticed that you think that.  Pretend, for a second, that it's a big argument, and give it some more thought.

Quote
Quote from: Erasmus
Actually, it does, and to a much greater degree. Like, on Earth, some places are maybe 1.00000005 times closer to the sun than others. On the flat Earth, with the sun 3000 miles away, Consider a point directly underneath the sun (3000 mi) and a point, say, 4000 mi away, or 5000 mi from the sun. The difference here is a factor of 1.4. Wouldn't you say that's a little more significant than 1.00000005?


Quote
I think most people have accepted that the flat Earth is dead.


And yet we're still here!

Note that that paragraph of mine was in response to

Quote
On a flat Earth, this difference does not exist, as all points are much closer to the sun


Quote
Under the current theory, the flat Earth's Sun will not have the mass to begin stellar fusion.


It has other ways of producing heat.  Since it's so much closer in FE theory, it doesn't need to produce as much heat.

Quote
The Suns current orbit will continually alter The distance between any given point on the Earths surface and the sun. Assuming the Suns heat to be constant, and its orbit regular, then the weather patterns causing the deserts would not exist, as the air the is being cooled as it moves to the north and south would instead be heated continuously as the sun followed its orbit.


How is this different on a round Earth?  Throughout the day, the distance between a sun and a point on the Earth varies by an extra terms approximately equal to the diameter of the Earth...

Also, how does the sun's orbit continuously alter?  You mean, it's different at different points throughout the year?  You do realize, of course, that this happens in the round Earth model as well... whole season thing.

Anyway, I'm still not compelled to believe that
a) points closer to the sun on the Earth's surface are hotter, or that
b) the flat Earth doesn't satisfy heat-related constraints on possible world models just as well as the round Earth does.

-Erasmus
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: sven1988uk on May 12, 2006, 04:29:11 AM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"


Is this an acceptable picture of the Flat Earth model of the universe?

ok... Before you start making astronmy drawings, learn the basics of astronamy.
A planet is not a Universe idiot... Planet/Solar System/Galaxy/*THEN* Universe.

Quote
As light travels through the Atmosphere it gets scattered by the particles in the atmosphere, in effect weakening it. At the equator, the sunlight has the least distance to go to the earth through the atmosphere, making it hotter at the equator. At the poles, the light has to travel through more of the atmosphere, which weakens it, making the suns light colder.


I don't really care what you say... If you say how close the sun is, you wouldn't even be talking about this. For the great fact is, Earth would have been destroyed long ago, it would of been pulled into the sun.
Hell... There wouldn't even be a formation of Earth if what you say is true.

Can you also tell me how something so small as Earth gets the largest substance in our solar system to orbit (above us if I get this lil theory of yours) Earth?! And why do we get day, night and seasons if the Sun is so close.

THE sun doesn't orbit US, WE orbit the sun.

Again if you say the moon is as close as you people say it is... Where's our mega stupidly large tides? And when the sun and moon pass each other. Why doesn't the moon get completely DESTROYED?

I mean... sure the Flat Earth might be right (although you people are having a weird way proving it). But the astronamy, it doesn't make ANY sense at all. Don't muck with something that already works and change it to something that completely backfires on it's self.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: sven1988uk on May 12, 2006, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: "flyingleaf"


Quote from: "flyingspaghettimonster"
But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field?  It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.



Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.
Before you say why doesn't the crust always move then?
IT DOES. Earthquakes? Volcanoes? It's not just the pressure that lets out the magma. If the crust didn't move, we would not have Earthquakes.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: EnragedPenguin on May 13, 2006, 08:47:49 PM
Quote from: "sven1988uk"

A planet is not a Universe idiot... Planet/Solar System/Galaxy/*THEN* Universe.


I think he knows that.

Quote
I don't really care what you say... If you say how close the sun is, you wouldn't even be talking about this. For the great fact is, Earth would have been destroyed long ago, it would of been pulled into the sun.
Hell... There wouldn't even be a formation of Earth if what you say is true.

Can you also tell me how something so small as Earth gets the largest substance in our solar system to orbit (above us if I get this lil theory of yours) Earth?! And why do we get day, night and seasons if the Sun is so close.

THE sun doesn't orbit US, WE orbit the sun.

Again if you say the moon is as close as you people say it is... Where's our mega stupidly large tides? And when the sun and moon pass each other. Why doesn't the moon get completely DESTROYED?


I can answer all of these questions at once. In the flat earth model, not only is the sun closer, it's smaller as well. Read the FAQ.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: sven1988uk on May 14, 2006, 07:20:30 AM
lol A smaller sun *laughs*

I also like the way how you dodged this one.

Quote from: "sven1988uk"

flyingleaf wrote:


flyingspaghettimonster wrote:
But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field? It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.



Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.
Before you say why doesn't the crust always move then?
IT DOES. Earthquakes? Volcanoes? It's not just the pressure that lets out the magma. If the crust didn't move, we would not have Earthquakes.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: 6strings on May 14, 2006, 07:55:48 AM
He wasn't dodging it, it was just imposssible to understand what point you are trying to get across, if you want us to adress your points, express yourself in way that we can understand you.

Quote
lol A smaller sun *laughs*

You're right, this is just ridiculous, I mean, we've all been to the sun and seen just how big it is haven't we?  How could anyone believe that the sun isn't the size scientists say it is? I mean they're scientists...with lab coats and stuff...
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: EnragedPenguin on May 14, 2006, 08:27:27 AM
Quote from: "sven1988uk"
I also like the way how you dodged this one.



I wasn't dodging it, I just thought the answer was obvious. But I guess I need to point this out to you anyway:

Quote
Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.


All this means is that the crust is thick enough to have a magnetic feild.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: crunchybear on May 23, 2006, 07:47:45 PM
ya how do you explain zodiac changes and changes in the sun each day if you didnt notice you would see the sun stays in the sky longer also

is it also in the" conspiricy"
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: UNCLE JIM BOB on May 27, 2006, 08:47:43 AM
I would appreciate if the inclusion of hell (just below earth approx 5000 miles) and heaven (above the moon by 1000 miles) was justly made to this render.
-ujb.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Sas on June 04, 2006, 02:49:41 PM
You're an embarrassment to the human race.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: reggins15 on June 04, 2006, 03:23:38 PM
whatever idiot thought that the crust moving generates an electromagnetic field needs to die, right now. moving liquid METAL in the core is what causes the electromagentic field, also this moves in one direction, if it just kinda moved around in all directions like the earth's tectonic plates do it would not generate any field of consequence it would generate lots of tiny conflicting electromagnetic fields that would not protect earth from solar radiation


also erasmus, whatever you may think about the earths atmosphere and heat retention i wanna set you straight.

Because the atmosphere is such a good absorber of longwave infrared, it effectively forms a one-way blanket over Earth's surface. Visible and near-visible radiation from the Sun easily gets through, but thermal radiation from the surface can't easily get back out. In response, Earth's surface warms up. The power of the surface radiation increases by the Stefan-Boltzmann law until it (over time) compensates for the atmospheric absorption. Another, simpler, but essentially equivalent way of looking at this is that the surface is heated by two sources: direct solar radiation, and thermal radiation from the atmosphere; it is thus warmer than if heated by solar radiation alone. The result of the greenhouse effect is that average surface temperatures are considerably higher than they would otherwise be if the Earth's surface temperature were determined solely by the albedo and blackbody properties of the surface.


in synopsis:
the atmosphere both absorbs, deflects, and retains heat and all of these aspects are important to maintaining a desirable earth temperature, and the fact that mountains are colder than lower areas is grade school science and im honestly appalled you would site that as a legitimate reason for a FE theory


Also the earth does not actually generate any heat watsoever, the core  retains heat from its formation but it cools off at a very very very slow but steady amount
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on June 05, 2006, 10:37:50 AM
Quote from: "reggins15"
whatever idiot thought that the crust moving generates an electromagnetic field needs to die, right now.


omg, such anger.  You should talk to somebody about that.  Meanwhile I'll just go ahead and skip over paragraphs in which you regurgitate some RE textbook.

Quote
also erasmus ... i wanna set you straight.


Don't touch me.

Quote
Also the earth does not actually generate any heat watsoever,


None?  Whatsoever?  Not even from beta decay?  Not even from us burning things?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: FE is BS on June 13, 2006, 09:34:33 PM
i meant to quote erasmus, and tell him he's wrong (in regard to proximity to the sun Vs temperature (likelyhood of a desert)... but after thinking about it, hes right!


think about the lapse rates in the atmosphere, the temperature DECREASES as it gets further away from the surface of the earth (in the troposphere... then it starts increasing again in the stratosphere), and that is technically closer to the sun!

there are many more things that control the formation of a desert...

latitude
altitude
precipitation
geology

just to name a few... it just so happens that most of these areas lie near the equator


(and another thing, i think the southern hemisphere is "closer" to the sun during their summer due to the eliptical orbit of the earth)
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: TheEngineer on June 13, 2006, 10:00:30 PM
Quote from: "sven1988uk"


Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field? It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.
Wrong... you need the crust to generate the friction... Remember when you were a kid and you rub a baloon on your head and the friction generates a static shock. Same principle with the Earth. Except the moving magma does the rubing. The more thickness you have. The more static you have.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.  Oh, besides that FE'ers must believe the world is 2D...
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: submerge529 on July 16, 2006, 12:18:31 PM
What about Daylight Savings Time?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Ubuntu on July 16, 2006, 12:21:41 PM
I think it is obvious that this photo has been computer generated or 'faked.' Stop showing us conspiracy pictures meant to make us believe that the Earth is flat.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 16, 2006, 06:10:29 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
I think it is obvious that this photo has been computer generated or 'faked.' Stop showing us conspiracy pictures meant to make us believe that the Earth is flat.


Are you referring to the image on the first page of this thread?  That one was explicitly described as "I created this on my computer" by its creator.  Nobody is trying to pass it off as a genuine photograph.  It exists as a response to all those pointless "Well do you guys have a map?" questions.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Ubuntu on July 16, 2006, 09:50:23 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
I think it is obvious that this photo has been computer generated or 'faked.' Stop showing us conspiracy pictures meant to make us believe that the Earth is flat.


Are you referring to the image on the first page of this thread?  That one was explicitly described as "I created this on my computer" by its creator.  Nobody is trying to pass it off as a genuine photograph.  It exists as a response to all those pointless "Well do you guys have a map?" questions.


I was trying to be sarcastic.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 16, 2006, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
I was trying to be sarcastic.


Aha, my mistake :)
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: TimmTom on July 17, 2006, 12:24:00 PM
By looking at this map, the distance covered if you travelled around the Round Earth Tropic of Cancer by plane would be significantly smaller than travelling around the Tropic of Capricorn, whereas in practice surely the distances should be roughly the same. Just wondering if theres an explanation for this, I'm interested :)
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 17, 2006, 12:50:19 PM
Quote from: "TimmTom"
in practice surely the distances should be roughly the same.


"Surely"?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Ubuntu on July 17, 2006, 01:05:36 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "TimmTom"
in practice surely the distances should be roughly the same.


"Surely"?


Nice explanation.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 17, 2006, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Nice explanation.


Thanks.  I guess you too were wondering how he could be so sure that they would be the same.  Or, as he put it, roughly the same.

I think if Unimportant were here he'd respond, "Surely, if you went and actually measured it, the Tropic of Capricorn would be quite a bit longer than the Tropic of Cancer."
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: EnCrypto on July 17, 2006, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Nice explanation.


Thanks.  I guess you too were wondering how he could be so sure that they would be the same.  Or, as he put it, roughly the same.

I think if Unimportant were here he'd respond, "Surely, if you went and actually measured it, the Tropic of Capricorn would be quite a bit longer than the Tropic of Cancer."

Yet, trips around the world south of the equator aren't quite a bit longer than trips around the world north of the equator. Go figure.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: 6strings on July 17, 2006, 01:31:33 PM
I assume the velocity of the plane would factor into the length of the trip somehow...

And, of course, the flight path could always be altered.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Ubuntu on July 17, 2006, 01:33:34 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Nice explanation.


Thanks.  I guess you too were wondering how he could be so sure that they would be the same.  Or, as he put it, roughly the same.

I think if Unimportant were here he'd respond, "Surely, if you went and actually measured it, the Tropic of Capricorn would be quite a bit longer than the Tropic of Cancer."


Go bring us some measurements.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: toodles miss noodles on July 17, 2006, 01:35:22 PM
I think the earth is round but I don't see any problems with an airplane flying from some spot on the tropic of capricorn to another would fly for the same amount of hours as a plane going from one spot on the tropic of cancer, how about, to maintain the illusion, they have the northernmost routes follow the tropic of cancer, flying in a bow, while the flights along the tropic of capricorn would just fly straight across, and hope for clouds over the arctic  :wink: The real question would rather then be, why bother? Seems they feel they know why.  :shock:
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 17, 2006, 01:35:49 PM
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Go bring us some measurements.


I don't need to.  I can just compute the correct values geometrically, or read them off a to-scale FE map.  Isn't that exactly why you think that the two Tropics are the same length?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: EnCrypto on July 17, 2006, 01:59:53 PM
Quote from: "6strings"
I assume the velocity of the plane would factor into the length of the trip somehow...

But planes have to be going at least a certain speed to maintain altitude. I'm not sure what this speed would be, but I don't think it would be great enough to make the two distances seem equal. I mean, look at a picture of the globe and look at two points the same distance away from the equator. But on the Flat Earth, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger around, the farther south you go.

Quote
And, of course, the flight path could always be altered.

That would mean that pilots are in on the conspiracy.

One of the things that makes the "government officials, scientists, etc. are in ont it" realitvely, somewhat, almost acceptable is that those are elite positions that not every single man, woman, and child can attain. Pilots, however, are not so elite, they are quite average and I personally know a few pilots.

I've heard others suggest that maybe they could be in on it, but they never said it was definite because there were other ways to explain whatever was being bandied about that day; and I assume the reason most would be hesitant is because it's a job that, although requires training, isn't a job exclusive to having connections (military or otherwise), or being incredibly gifted in the fields of math and science.[/i]
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Ervin on July 17, 2006, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Go bring us some measurements.


I don't need to.  I can just compute the correct values geometrically, or read them off a to-scale FE map.  Isn't that exactly why you think that the two Tropics are the same length?
alright, can we see your results please?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 18, 2006, 12:20:48 AM
Quote from: "Ervin"
alright, can we see your results please?


Um, okay.  The two tropics are located at +23.5 and -23.5 latitude.  I adopt a transformation that maintains north-south distances: that is, latitude 90-θ on the round Earth is mapped onto a circle of radius Rθ, where R is the radius of the Earth.  The circumference of such circle is therefore 2πRθ, or π^2 Rθ/90.

I take R = 6400 km.

Thus, in the FE model, the Tropic of Cancer is actually a circle of circumference π^2 R (90-23.5)/90 = 46,672 km.

In the FE model, the Tropic of Capricorn is actually a circle of circumference π^2 R (90-(-23.5))/90 = 79,659 km.

Is that what you wanted to know?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Aralith on July 18, 2006, 12:31:24 AM
That's quite a bit of discrepancy for no one to notice. Also, while we're on the subject, did you know that the tropics are noted because they are the only areas that are in what's called the "sun's direct path", meaning that they are always recieving the most concentrated rays of the sun. That is why they are specifically marked off, and wouldn't you know it, but they're at 23.5 degrees north and south of the equator. Strange... I swear I've heard that number somewhere before. Oh, that's right! It's the same angle that the earth is tilted at on the RE model (the correct one I might point out). Interesting coincidence for the FE isn't it, but I guess that's what you people are all about.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 18, 2006, 12:55:40 AM
Quote from: "Aralith"
did you know that the tropics are noted because they are the only areas that are in what's called the "sun's direct path",


I did.  What's your point?

Quote
they're at 23.5 degrees north and south of the equator. Strange... I swear I've heard that number somewhere before. Oh, that's right! It's the same angle that the earth is tilted at on the RE model


Yes, an amazing coincidence.  The made-up RE model had a parameter which had to agree with the locations of the tropics, so the RE scientists set it appropriately.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Ezkerraldean on July 18, 2006, 03:43:04 AM
so the sun and moon orbit in a circle above the flat earth? what mechanism causes this? it is incompatible with gravity.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: submerge529 on July 20, 2006, 12:46:43 PM
In the FE model, is the earth spinning about its axis at all?  See, that's something that I haven't seen brought up as much as I feel it should be (Or I haven't read carefully enough).  Anyway, would that explain cloud and other weather's movement on a FE model, or is there some other explanation for that?  Is all weather and atmospheric variation still just one huge storm that was set into motion (ex: Jupiter's red spot) for unknown reasons?
Granted I have done no research into this whatsoever, it just popped into my head while at work.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Erasmus on July 20, 2006, 12:52:22 PM
Quote from: "Ezkerraldean"
so the sun and moon orbit in a circle above the flat earth? what mechanism causes this? it is incompatible with gravity.


Incompatible with what now?
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: agkklr on September 15, 2006, 06:56:31 AM
First of all, please accept my apologizes for any langage mistake, I'm not english :-)

Secondly, I really think you ARE INDEED joking about the whole FE stuff... But I'll go into it, and try to shoot down your belief :)

I've got a few questions regarding your FE model, that can be quite well illustrated by the pic given at the top of the 2nd page of this topic (which I assume to be the definitive one.

The first thing that comes to my mind concerns other planets from the solar system : When looking at those planets with a telescope, we can definitely observe spherical objects rotating. Even if the FE model doesn't get any information about those planets, how do you accept a system that doesn't/can't explain something you can surely observe yourself ?

A second point would concern life on earth : With the FE theory, you assume that Earth is a flat disc rotating around it's center, right ? This way, considering the circumference of this disc (roughly 78,000 miles based on your assertions), and the fact that it takes 24 hours to do a complete rotation, let's do some math (i'll use metric system, I'm much more used to it ;)) :
Centrifugal force is : mass x diameter/2 x (rotating speed)
Here we have : mass = Say 80 kg
Diameter = 20000 km = 20000000 m
Rotating speed = 360/24h = 0.00436 rad/s
F = 15207.7 kg.m/s = 15207 N !!!!
e.g. Force resulting from gravity for 80 kg people is... 800 N :)
This means... If people ever went to your model's arctic zone, they would be... Ejected out of earth by a force 20 times greater than their own weight ? (Please note that as opposed to the RE model, this force is absolutely perpendicular to the gravitation force in FE model)
OK, their's not a lot of people living in artic zone. But does this mean that space is full of flying penguins ? Goood the dream of linux-lovers finally came true ! Oh no ! There is a wall around the disc, I forgot it ! Well my friends, we've got penguins incrustations on this wall, I guess !
At least, people living in Southern Africa would be submitted to a 7-times-the gravity centrifugal force... Any physical adaptation for these conditions ? Then people living in the "north" won't go to the south, because they're not fitted to avoid falling ? Well... Well... Well...

Let's try to answer these two ones, and I shall give you my other questions ;)
Title: Mwua?
Post by: Suspect-Device on September 21, 2006, 01:00:15 PM
ummmmm, how does LE explain the horizon? and im sorry, i just cannot believe the absurbity that people still believe this tripe hundreds of years after it was disproven, and what would be the politcal gain of keeping people in the dark about whether or not the earth is flat or not? THERES NO POINT IN FEEDING PEOPLE MISIFORMATION IN THIS SUBJECT so why do it? and plus, examinations taken place during earthquakes and other such phenomina have given us maps on the earths make up which show us that there is indeed a large amount of molten rock below us followed by a spherical solid core .

frankly this theory is only around because it was driven by religious zeal (if i may quote lenin; "Religion is the opiate of the masses") and crackpot consiracy theorists with nothing better to do than 'fight the machine'



 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
*link to horizon details and such
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Suspect-Device on September 22, 2006, 09:48:12 AM
BUMP

awnser me damn you!
Title: Everyone lies sometime.
Post by: bcuzbcuz on December 26, 2006, 07:21:57 AM
"My dad spent 2 years in Deputatski (little settlement beyond the arctic circle in Russia) He sais it is dark for half a year and light for half a year. Would that count? "

Your dad was lying. Or he may have been oversimplifying to explain to young children. Check back with and ask if it was "really and truly dark" for half a year. Don't be angry with him when he explains the complete and untarnished truth that it wasn't all that dark for all that long.
Title: Re: Everyone lies sometime.
Post by: Masterchef on December 26, 2006, 09:30:23 AM
Quote from: "bcuzbcuz"
Your dad was lying. Or he may have been oversimplifying to explain to young children. Check back with and ask if it was "really and truly dark" for half a year. Don't be angry with him when he explains the complete and untarnished truth that it wasn't all that dark for all that long.

There is a difference between exaggeration and simplification. There is no reason to try to simplify something that is so simple to begin with. And you are not helping your side by making stupid arguments like that. :roll:

The Flat Side actually supports that. The orbit of the sun actually changes with the seasons, so extended periods of darkness in the center of the Earth is not only possible, but probable.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: DeathApples on January 08, 2007, 10:20:11 PM
Wouldn't pictures like:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17_big.gif

Disprove the entire FET?  8-)
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: MMMM on January 08, 2007, 10:39:14 PM
One fundamental problem with the whole FE map model is the fact that regardless of it's drawn scale, you would still have a line of sight to the sun 24hrs a day.
Title: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: TheEngineer on January 08, 2007, 11:03:58 PM
Quote from: "MMMM"
One fundamental problem with the whole FE map model is the fact that regardless of it's drawn scale, you would still have a line of sight to the sun 24hrs a day.

You do know how light works, right?
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Eisiger on February 28, 2007, 07:49:15 PM
Yes. Apparently, lights reappear throughout the day using a mirrage, as if it had come from underneath the Earth. This is not true, however, since now that it has shone in that direction, you are seeing side effects from the Sun's spotlike rays. The sun is not a giant firey ball, but a giant firey ball captured in a stage lamp being controlled by NASA to keep the sun in different areas, to throw everyone off.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Spartan on March 18, 2007, 02:57:37 AM
OK seriously... spaghetti has everything right exept i got bored after page 3 and had some of my own things to bring up

plz explain to me how ppl who heat thier homes through geothermal heating techniques do that.... i mean.... if thre is no mantle.... then there in no melted rock at searing temperatures... meaning no heat coming from under the crust MEANING these people with geothermal heated homes are being heated by some kind of magic that the government has devised in order for us to think our planet has a core.

the sun also blows my mind... u claim that its only 3000 miles away... if thisis true and we are assuming the *sun* is still running on fission and fussion of plasma atoms,(although its impossible for this to happen in such a small sun) how is it that everything directly under then sun (3000 miles) isnt burned away in a fiery inferno of heat?, and if u come back at me with "well the sun is so small so its not that hot" then u lose again because then anything more than a couple hundred miles north and south of your FE equator would be a barren frozen wastland devoid of life.

and wut happens with mountains south and north of the FE eqautor which i have been assuming to be under the path of the sun.... i mean wouldnt they have a permanent shadow to the side opposite the sun.... ALL year round...... i can tell u this is not true.

the earth is round, deal with it
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: WheresTheEdge? on April 12, 2007, 03:52:06 PM
the very fact that you had to create this map mocks the whole idea.  too bad you couldn't use a satalite image.  where's the edge?  i've been to antarctica, and I didn't see it.  Noone has.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ezsteve on May 14, 2007, 11:32:14 PM
I want a flat earth map that is exactly to scale. If the world is flat then surely drawing a map of it should be easier, right?
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 15, 2007, 01:54:41 AM
I want a flat earth map that is exactly to scale. If the world is flat then surely drawing a map of it should be easier, right?

Just by using the FAQ and a few cionfused posts before, I've provided you with some:

Standard flat earth map
South-pole centric map (to show just how distorted the Eaerth is on FE)
The Earth at night (because it's pretty)
Time-zone map
Tectonic plate map
Flat Mars map

use the search for 'FE Cartography) by Chrissetti to find them
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ezsteve on May 15, 2007, 08:11:00 AM

Just by using the FAQ and a few cionfused posts before, I've provided you with some:

Standard flat earth map
South-pole centric map (to show just how distorted the Eaerth is on FE)
The Earth at night (because it's pretty)
Time-zone map
Tectonic plate map
Flat Mars map

use the search for 'FE Cartography) by Chrissetti to find them

What? I cant find any of these?!
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 15, 2007, 08:13:25 AM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13339.msg199395#msg199395 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13339.msg199395#msg199395)

There ya go, they're there
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 15, 2007, 08:15:35 AM
Thanks, gayer, saves me the hassle  :D
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 15, 2007, 08:16:26 AM
Just call me the Search Master! ;D

Do they help ezsteve?
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ezsteve on May 15, 2007, 08:17:50 AM
Good effort on the maps, but still, as i've said before, the continents are not that shape, or those proportions.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 15, 2007, 08:25:01 AM
They are in the FE model which is based on the UN map, which is itself a polar projection of the Earth. These maps are wholly accurate by the standards laid out in the FAQ.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ezsteve on May 15, 2007, 08:47:58 AM
That does not mean that these map could at all be an accurate representation of the flat earth. Australia is not that stretched out, and south america is not that big in proportion to north america.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 15, 2007, 08:50:06 AM
It is just based on the UN logo, hardly a map. I expect that if the Earth is flat it would be the oceans that are stretched out a lot more than we think.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ezsteve on May 15, 2007, 08:56:53 AM
But then that means that the oceans would be HUGE in proportion to the continents?
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 15, 2007, 08:58:36 AM
Yeah expect they would have to be. Which brings up the question of travel across the oceans. jet streams is a little implausible...
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ezsteve on May 15, 2007, 09:06:26 AM
Wouldnt someone have measured and noticed by now, if the oceans were far to big to fit the scale of the round earth map?
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 15, 2007, 12:45:50 PM
Exactly. That's one of the questions that hasn't really been answered.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: TheCaptain on May 16, 2007, 09:04:09 AM
I'm bored at work.  Can someone tell me honestly if this site is for real or if people are just joking around?  There are thousands of pieces of evidence proving a spherical earth.  What would the government possibly gain by pretending the earth is round?  there's no money to be made in that at all.  all the planets are round - you can see them for yourself.  but the earth isnt?  what about day and night?  what about the atmosphere?  what about air planes?  how come there are no pictures of the ice wall?  none of this makes any sense at all.  i have a sneaking suspicion that everyone here is kind of just joking around?  it's gotta be.  the whole concept is just assinine.  if this is a joke site then its genius.  if it's not...then that is very strange.  i mean what about people who circle the earth?  what about the explorers who sailed around the world.  i mean come on.  its just laughable.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: cmdshft on May 16, 2007, 09:05:45 AM
I'm bored at work.  Can someone tell me honestly if this site is for real or if people are just joking around?  There are thousands of pieces of evidence proving a spherical earth.  What would the government possibly gain by pretending the earth is round?  there's no money to be made in that at all.  all the planets are round - you can see them for yourself.  but the earth isnt?  what about day and night?  what about the atmosphere?  what about air planes?  how come there are no pictures of the ice wall?  none of this makes any sense at all.  i have a sneaking suspicion that everyone here is kind of just joking around?  it's gotta be.  the whole concept is just assinine.  if this is a joke site then its genius.  if it's not...then that is very strange.  i mean what about people who circle the earth?  what about the explorers who sailed around the world.  i mean come on.  its just laughable.

Yes and no.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 16, 2007, 09:05:53 AM
This site is extremely serious.

And most of those questions are answered in FAQ.

Anything else you wanna know?
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on May 16, 2007, 09:16:22 AM
It's real. Or at least it is for some people look at some of the topics in the FE believers section'
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Catfish on May 24, 2007, 04:04:28 PM
I just found this site and I'd like to thank the folks who put this site together. I've known all along that the earth is flat. It's as obvious as can be!
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: neomath on June 08, 2007, 02:18:09 PM
Here is a challenge and some answers to previous concerns.

It is possible to have a flat earth and mathematics can support it and not support it all the way. I love mathematics and it does show that you can completely map a 3d universe unto a 2D plane. The paradox is the fact that even if you observe the earth from a 2nd plane it will still have turth values for third dimensional effects. There is no reason to neglect 3D effects it just not as obvious in a 2D plane. A great story to read is Flatland it is a famous book made by a famous mathematician that has a 2d head explore his world and comes into contact with third deminsional beings and objects which he fully doesn't see. The moral of the story is three fold and could help answer some of you questions between 3D and 2D mapping

On this map, what would happan is the side you see is obtaining sunlight while the side you don't see is not. There is a rotation of the earth on a two-dimensional disc it is just the fact you can not see it. You could represent from each point on the map as it round earth's equivilant giving the effect of rotation.

also the 3d north and south poles do exist if you don't neglect 3D rotation on a 2D plane. remember if you do compress the earth you still have not remove rotation that is a given therefore the earth rotates as it had in 3D. It just now you would not see the south pole that does not mean you could not travel there!

All the round earth theory is a point of reference, but even in a 1D universe where none of the laws by commen sense could be there. The laws are still there from the 3D universe. all you see the part of the dot you are in, and the dot would observe the same rotation as the 2d space. The thing that math brings to the table is we can map are universe in nth dimensions. I am awaiting the Hyperearth theory or 4D earth
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 08, 2007, 02:20:31 PM
Maybe the earth is a hypersphere!
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on June 08, 2007, 02:44:13 PM
oh well done, latch onto an idea i posted aaaggggeees ago and no-one even looked at...
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Jesus89 on June 09, 2007, 06:09:52 AM
LOL this is a photoshopped version of Google Earth asshats.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: TSEE on June 09, 2007, 06:12:06 AM
Actually more likely is that a standard topographical map of the Earth has been Polarised. someone actually said how they did it before...
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: Jesus89 on June 09, 2007, 06:32:06 AM
Actually more likely is that a standard topographical map of the Earth has been Polarised. someone actually said how they did it before...


Either way it is complete and utter mixture blood puss and urine.
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: moskaudancer on July 11, 2007, 01:24:43 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/Elcapetan/Steam/jesusBlueSpaceEarth.jpg

AHA! PROOF!
If Jesus says so, it must be true.  Unless Jesus is in on the conspiracy...
Son of a...  He got me hook, line, and sinker!
Title: Re: Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe
Post by: ninjapenguins on July 11, 2007, 04:57:58 AM
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/test1.jpg)

Is this an acceptable picture of the Flat Earth model of the universe?  Anything too big?  Too small?  Should Antarctica even be there?

The Sun and Moon are both 16x their supposed size because you'd almost not be able to see them if they're only 32 miles in diameter.  Their trails are not concentric so the two can be differentiated.

It's not complete yet.  I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult to get a small lightsource so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.  The earth disc has almost no thickness right now.  There are no stars, no sky-dome, and I think I'm also forgetting something important...

Oh and a 150ft wall around the perimeter is impossible to see at this scale.

That look pretty good! You make it?