1

Flat Earth Q&A / Google Earth: Proof The Earth Is Round

« on: July 16, 2006, 05:18:17 PM »

Even with a rational motive, there is still that possibility.

A rational motive makes it much more difficult to logically dismiss the premise.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / My experience on a plane.....

« on: July 15, 2006, 10:02:29 PM »

Do you mean to say of magnetic fields in general or simply the magnetic fields of celestial bodies?

Ah, my apologies for being obscure (and wrong) on this point.  I am talking about the magnetic field of celestial bodies.  In this discussion, we're talking about the magnetic field of Earth as a whole (the one we can use with a compass.)  The magnetic model for a flat earth must conform to the magnetic field of Earth as a body (round or flat).

They would only be vertical near the poles. Which is the same way as the RE.

However, there are horizontal lines at lower latitudes in the real Earth, and not in the situation you are describing.  All the lines would be vertical because they would be going up and away from the Earth, wrapping around the sides of the Earth, and going underneath the Earth.

About time you understand.

I've understood all along.

The aurora happens during the day as well. It just gets washed out.

That is not the point though.  The point is that given the shape of the magnetic field under the flat earth scenario as you suggest a night time aurora will not happen.  Thus, we should never see any auroras given the model you describe.

There are numerous mag. fields on earth, and the Earth's field is one of them.

Earth's field is the relevant field to this discussion.  Again, my apologies for misstating this.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Google Earth: Proof The Earth Is Round

« on: July 15, 2006, 09:45:49 PM »

The question, "Why is it a problem that we don't know the motivation?" stands unanswered.

As noted, there is a lot of effort, time, and money spent preserving the round earth idea.  It stands to reason that there must be a motive for such a momumental investment.  And nobody denies this, there has to be a motive, otherwise it is irrational.  So we need to apply a bit more reasoning.

Many people claim there is a conspiracy to keep evolution as a dominate idea in science for the purposes of fame and tenture.  So fame and greed are logical motives.

Governments are also observed to hide information from their people for purposes of national security, to cover up sinister things they are doing, and greed.  Since this is a global conspiracy, national security is not a logical motive.  Let's examine sinister actions as a motive.  Generally, it is done to prevent the people from knowing about abuses against the people (to prevent social unrest.)  This doesn't strike me as a logical motive as the shape of the Earth won't lead to social unrest, nor will it give the people an advantage over the government.  Greed is the logical motive in this group.

When a person commits a crime, they will attempt to cover up their actions so as to avoid punishment.  This is an illogical motive for powerful world governments, however it leads us to perhaps another logical motive.  A contradiction of the government could embarass it and lead to a weakening of power.  But power can be tied in to greed.

So we must ask ourselves two questions at this juncture: Is a contradiction of the shape of the Earth enough to weaken a global government?  Given their ability to conceal it, the logical answer is no.  So we are left with the other option concieved of in this brain storm: greed.  Who stands to profit from a round earth?  The logical answer here is there is no profit in a round earth, except for globe companies and guys pressing their outdoor gear after "visiting Antarctica."

Nobody disagrees that there must be motive.  All conspiracies have a goal and that goal has motive.  So the problem is: lacking a rational motive, it leaves open the possibility that our premise may be false.  And we won't be able to dismiss this possibility until there is a rational logic chain connecting conspiracy to motive.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / My experience on a plane.....

« on: July 14, 2006, 11:07:05 AM »

The lines would actually point towards the north pole, just like the RE.

However, the lines would be vertical over the surface of the Earth and not horizontal.  Vertical lines will not give you an accurate navagational reading.  The field lines would need to be horizontal relative to the Earth's surface to be useful as a form of navation.  That means we'd need poles at the north pole and the ice wall.

This is Erasmus' visualization of the mag. field on the FE

This was one of my suggestions in my thread.  However the magnetic field in that situation is not correctly aligned to give us the northern lights.

Why?

The magnetic field is the wrong shape.  Charged particles would be crashing into the atmosphere during the daytime, not at night.  You wouldn't ever be able to see the northern lights over the intensity of the sun.

The Earth's mag. field is just one of many mag. fields observed on earth.

There is only one "Earth's magnetic field".  There are small localized fields found on Earth produced by ferrite minerals such as barium or strontium however we don't call these the "Earth's magnetic field."

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Thoughts on tides and currents

« on: July 14, 2006, 10:48:01 AM »

Magnetic flux has miniscule (if any) impact on water itself.  You can try this for yourself with a magnet and water.  Geologic activity is a possibility (as was suggested with the elastic ripples) but whatever it is it must be constant.

As noted, the see-saw effect is not sufficient to explain tides themselves and gives us a different result than what we can freely oberve.  You can do this experiment at home with a dish or plate.  Lateral force in a circular motion is promising, but it falls short of our observations of the Earth.  (it doesn't produce symmetrical tides concentrated at the equator)  When one adds landmass to this situation it becomes even less promising.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / My experience on a plane.....

« on: July 14, 2006, 09:05:42 AM »

Remember, magnetic fields only need certain configurations of electric currents revolving; the example of which being, well, Round Earth. While I see no reason for this to be impossible on a Flat Earth, I realize that it would be time consuming to create a model of how FE's magnetic field equates on a Flat Earth to the magnetic field on a round Earth. I may try my hand at some concepts, but magnetic field stuff is sticky business. We still don't know that much about magnets.

Well consider that there is only one actual observed magnetic field on Earth.  So, our field possibilities are extremely limited by that notion.  Whatever explanation we come up with, we're no doubt going to have an intense magnetic force concentrated right over the North pole.  There is no force in a spherical model, but there would be in a flat model as the fields would be always at opposition over that point.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Thoughts on tides and currents

« on: July 14, 2006, 08:50:26 AM »

Whilst flipping through the FAQ, I came across the origin of tides according to the FE model, namely being the see-saw effect of the Earth.  However, one can make an observation that causes a problem under this model.  High and low tides are more extreme at the equator.  That is: that a greater volume of water receeds at low tide from the equator and a greater volume of water accumulates at high tide.  This is unique to the equator but does not make sense under the see-saw model.  Using the see-saw model, we would expect the greatest volume of water near the ice walls with very little tidal variation in other regions.

Oceanic currents in the ocean also do not support this notion as we would expect to see currents constantly going around continents.  Instead, the currents seem to be going in a circular fasion.  This could be explaned by a rotational movement of a non-level flat Earth, however it does not adequately explain why tides are higher and lower at the equator.  We would still expect the highest and lowest tides around the ice wall with the equator seeing almost no tidal effects.

Another potential flat earth model is the following: a rotation of an unlevel flat earth in addition to a perpetual elastic ripple from both the north pole and the ice wall.  These ripples would have to be synchronous, so when the north pole is elevated, the ice wall would have to be elevated and visa versa.  While the ice wall is off limits, we can travel to the north pole and see if its elevation is changing every 12.5 hours.  However this model has another flaw.  Extreme tides seem to travel around the equator and not occur simultaniously (which is what would happen in the model I have suggested.)

We would need a different model.  Here's the only accurate one as I see it.  We would need a different kind of elastic ripple.  One originating from the north pole and spanning the entire radius of the Earth to the ice wall.  It would need to move counterclockwise for half the earth in the span of about 25 hours.  There would need to be two ripples coming from the north pole.  That way there would be a 12.5 hour delay between high and high tides on both sides of the Earth.  However, this model is not yet complete.  We would need to assume the earth isn't perfectly flat.  We would need to assume it is sloping inwards towards the equator and that our elastic ripple is enough to overcome and exceed this slope.  The reason for this is because tides are so much higher at the equator.  A change in your elevation would certainly be measurable, especially when it comes around every 12.5 hours.  However, we have more problems with this model.  While it accounts for tides, it still does not account for currents.  An unlevel rotation doesn't quite account for the currents in this model because our ripple upsets the balance needed to sustain circular currents.

In conclusion, tides are an extremely complex thing to explain using the FE model.  I was unsuccessful as there are problems in every model I suggested.  Every model I suggested far exceeds the current model of FE tides because the current model of FE tides do not match our observations of the Earth.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Since the Earth appears flat the burden of proof lies with

« on: July 13, 2006, 08:30:41 PM »

You still have yet to explain the lunar eclipse, and just to make things interesting, why does the sun rise and set?

Furthermore, what prevents us from seeing vast distances from a tall perspective with the aide of telescopes?  It seems like wherever I go a hill is obstructing my view, even on the open ocean.  Such problems also occur when observing a ship in the distance as the bow disappears but not the mast.  There are thermal situations that are responsible for seeing strange things out over an open ocean (such as upside down ships), however, these optical illusions are 100% dependent on a curvature in the Earth.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / My experience on a plane.....

« on: July 13, 2006, 08:24:12 PM »

Unless you are visualizing a magnet that's north mag. pole is over the surface of one side and the south mag. pole is over the other side, magnets dont work like that. And that is not how the FE's magnetic field is set up.

A disk shaped magnet works like that.  One surface is north, the other side is south.  You can try to cut it into a different shape, but then you'll find you have a bar magnet.

In order to get a field of magnetism that can be used for navagation over a flat earth, you'd need a magnetic field with field lines pointing toward the ice wall.  In order to get this, we can visualize a bar magnet with it's north pole toward the ice wall.  But we have a problem.  This only covers a portion of the Earth.  If we envision a bunch of bar magnets (enough to cover the Earth's surface) that works.  But we have another problem.  At our geographic north pole, all of our magnets are trying to push each other apart.  We have another problem.  This particular arrangement will create a different magnetic field, one that will not allow the northern lights to occur.

The disk-shaped magnet I suggest will create a magnetic field that will allow the northern lights to occur.  However, it is useless for navagation.  Your suggestion will be useful for navagation, but won't allow the northern lights to occur.  A magnetic sphere will satisfy both knowns.  We know this because we can model it using field equations based on known and freely observable magnetic interactions.  Known and freely observable magnetic interactions means this: we can determine these equations ourselves (which I have done).  We can know we're not dealing with "tainted" field equations given to us by the government because we can derive this information ourselves.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / My experience on a plane.....

« on: July 13, 2006, 01:36:03 PM »

The FE would have the same set-up, but with them eminating from the rim and going into the center.

Magnets don't work like that though.  A flat circle shaped magnet behaves like a bar magnet over its surface area.  So in other words, magnetic fields lines would be going down INTO the surface of the earth.  This makes it completely useless for navagation as the tendancy of the compass would be to point toward the sky or to point toward the ground.

You would need to create a magnetic field some other way that gives the appearance of a uniform field across the surface of the earth without tearing the earth apart.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Since the Earth appears flat the burden of proof lies with

« on: July 11, 2006, 01:22:53 PM »

Without trying to argue sensibly, I'll look at it from another perspective.  Timezone designation seems to indicate a round earth.  Wherever you go, 0:00 always seems to be dark (except in the extreme poles depending on the season), but you turn on the TV and watch events unfold live across the world and it is daytime there.  Or you could hop on a plane and watch it get earlier and earlier (or later and later depending on which direction you fly).  There are some questions I have in my mind.  In the case of a flat earth, how does the sun always keep exactly half the world in shadow and simultaniously fly overhead?