1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flying

« on: September 22, 2008, 12:30:21 PM »

... When I look out of my window, the Earth appears flat. Therefore, it is flat, and it is the centre of the Round Earth that doesn't exist.

Sorry to come back to this - how would the view from your window differ if the earth was round and had a circumference of almost 25,000 miles (as proposed by the RE model)? It would look as it looks now surely?

(... sorry if I seem to be picking on you today - you just happen to be the one who provoked a couple of questions!  )

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning

« on: September 22, 2008, 11:53:21 AM »

True, true ...

Laws-of-physics wise though, this makes RE a possibility in a 'post DE' universe then, even based on the FE beliefs?
Earth would be spherical 'planet' with a gravitational attraction, look like the RE model of earth, the horizon would appear as RE model says it does just now, distance, orbits etc... would all be as RE model says they are just now.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning

« on: September 22, 2008, 11:43:26 AM »

... so why would it then collapse into a sphere instead of becoming just a mass of material moving at a uniform 'velocity'?

If it did collapse into a sphere because of attraction caused my mass bending spacetime (did I get that right?), then it becomes a 'spherical' planet surely? If that happened, how would it differ from the RE model?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning

« on: September 22, 2008, 11:00:45 AM »

Okay, I've read it (as much as I can - it's a HUUGE thread), but as far as I can understand it from the initial post the theory is that 'gravity' is simply the perceived effect of inertia against an accelerating surface, and 'gravitation' is what is actually being felt?

If that's a correct understanding of 'gravitation' then I still don't understand why matter 'free floating' in space without DE affecting it would form spheres? That suggests 'free floating' matter would accelerate towards other matter with no force making it so? Why would the earth collapse into a sphere and not just continue 'up' but without accelerating any more (and just become a lot of 'loose' material moving through space at the same speed)?

If my understanding of gravitation's way off mark here there then I'm probably better leaving this particular topic alone, since the whole physics behind it is way over my head to be honest.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning

« on: September 22, 2008, 10:28:24 AM »

Gravitation.

... for the nation ... lol - you seem to be the king of short answers!

How do things exhibit 'gravitation' without 'gravity'? Apologies if that's a dumb question (seriously! - I'm no expert in these matters), but if something makes the spheres form when some material is left floating in a vacuum without external forces against it (i.e. no DE) then surely it's evidence of gravity?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In the beginning

« on: September 22, 2008, 10:18:30 AM »

.... a large region in front of it, extending for millions of kilometres, was shielded from the Dark Energy, allowing for spherical bodies to form ....

... at which point the Earth will be left to slowly cool and eventually collapse into a sphere ...

So in the flat earth universe, if a gathering of matter (such as makes up the earth) isn't being affected by DE, it collapses into spherical bodies? Why would it do that if, as you argue, there's no gravity?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: World politics vs. FET???

« on: September 22, 2008, 06:27:14 AM »

lol ... they keys aren't even near each other, I'm a disgrace to typists everywhere ...

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: World politics vs. FLT???

« on: September 22, 2008, 06:24:46 AM »

Hahaaa - "FLT" is what happens when one tries to type "FET" too quickly without being noticed by their boss at work!!!   

9

Flat Earth Q&A / World politics vs. FET???

« on: September 22, 2008, 06:19:05 AM »

Hi,

Firstly, I'm not here to debunk or mock - I'm a great fan not just nodding our heads when we're told something, and I happen to think some of the 'unconventional' theories out there make a good scientific case.

Here's one of the issues I can't reconcile with FLT though (steering away from the mind-boggling maths arguments that I can't understand): It's your belief that a conspiracy exists which teaches that the world is round, when actually it's flat, no long-term spaceflight can be acheived, pictures of the earth from space are faked etc...?
What you're suggesting here involves an agreement between scientists, astrologers, pilots of any high altitude transport and even world leaders to say the earth is round and doctor any photographs (or scientific data) that show it to be flat?

This seems massively unrealistic - many countries involved in such a collaboration would be arch-enemies who would do anything (including mass-murder etc...) to bring harm to those co-conspirator countries they consider enemies (scientists and leaders in Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan etc... would all have to agree to work together to support the conspiracy since they all have satellites etc...). All it would take is for one of the countries to stand up and show the world to be flat and the others would be hugely discredited. Not only that, but the conspiracy would have to perpetuate across generations in order to keep it going.

What are your thoughts on that?