1

Flat Earth Q&A / 3 holes in FE that need to be patched up

« on: March 17, 2006, 01:08:00 PM »

Hmmm...your title gives the impression that you have two holes rather than three...

Yeah, I edited my post right after I made it, and forgot to change the title. I fixed it if it makes you feel better.

Anyway, I really think it would be cool to try to make FE match with reality, so it could be a viable theory, even though I don't think it's true. As it is, I don't see any way that it can work for the reasons stated above. The only explanation is a supreme being who is tricking us all for some reason, like Descartes' "Evil Genius." Maybe it's a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Either way 1 and 3 would be taken care of. The Spaghetti Monster makes the penulums rotate with his noodely appendage, and tricks our mind so the stars in the southern hemisphere seem to rotate around a point. He also messes up our rulers whenever we try to measure distances to make the earth seem like a sphere.  :wink:

2

Flat Earth Q&A / 3 holes in FE that need to be patched up

« on: March 16, 2006, 02:06:49 PM »

The way I see it now, there are at least three holes in FE theory that need to be fixed before FE becomes viable. Both of these holes are things that don't match with observation.

#1-foucault pendulums.
info on them can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Basically, focault pendulums rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern heimsphere, and as you get closer to the equator they rotate slower and slower. At the equator they do not rotate. This can be explained using a RE model, but not on a FE model, unless you decide that momentum and inertia don't exist, or don't work they same way they seem to every time we test them.

#2-The southern cross
If you go to the southern hemisphere, then you can see a famouse constellation called the southern cross. It's basically the north star of the southern hemisphere. If two people are on opposite sides of the "south pole" then they can both se the same constellation, to the south of both of them. Furthermore, this constellation will rotate around a point very close to the constellation, and both people will see it rotate around the same point in the same direction. On a FE model The observers would be 2 times the radius of the earth apart, and the sky and starts would not rotate around a point over the south pole.

#3 is a measuring problem that is detailed here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1367

For FE to be viable, these holes will have to be patched up. Does anyone have any ideas?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / can FE do me a favor?

« on: March 15, 2006, 12:29:50 PM »

I saw another thread, where someone said the point was to try and patch the holes in FE theory. I think that does sound like fun, even if I do believe the Earth is spherical. Anyway, I think I found a way the sun could appear to be sinking below the horizon. The darker blue shapes represent denser patches of air. Dense air can refract light just like glass or water can. The air would have to be very dense, and move with the sun while being unnoticed in every single way (not refracting starlight for example). They would also have to be perfectly arranged and perfectly shaped all the time. I still haven't figured out how the sun could appear to move lower as it got farther away, I think I need to adjust the shapes of the air masses to try and achieve that. Anyway, light from the bottom of the sun is refracted up into space, so we can't see it. Light from the top of the sun is refracted down, then refracted by the lower air mass so that it looks as if it is sitting on the horizon. Also top of the sun may be red, and the bottom yellow. When it's day, we only see the bottom, but as the sun sets we see the top, so the sun gets redder as it sets.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=765800

P.S. How do you post pictures? I tried the [img] coding, but for some reason my pics won't post?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: can FE do me a favor?

« on: March 15, 2006, 12:08:14 PM »

Specifically I'm thinking of the ships sinking below the horizon, and the sun setting. How do the atmospheric distorions bloking the ship from our view after a certain distance, and only from the bottom up. how is the light being bent, such that the bottom seems to be below the horizon. I just can't figure this one out.

FEers explain this by saying that waves stack up as more waves get between you and the ship, and eventually, the waves block your view of the ship.  Do a search for this one; it's been discussed a lot, and I've made some pretty pictures about it

-Erasmus

Yes, I have heard that one, and seen your pretty pictures, but those pictures really point out how the idea of waves stacking up makes no sense. I would think that if you could figure out a way for the ship "atmospheric distortion" to work, then you could also solve the sunset problem, because they both dissapear below the horizon in a very similar way. This is really bothering me becuase, even if the air can act as any lense imaginable,  I can think of no way in which the sun or a ship could appear to sink below the horizon.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / can FE do me a favor?

« on: March 14, 2006, 07:19:07 PM »

I really want to make this scientific, so I want to ivestigate both sides. Are there any predictions about the earth that the FE model explains, predictions that the RE model can't? Most of what I see seems to be FE modifying it's model to match RE predictions. Most of these modifications involve things like "atmospheric distortions." can anyone explain how these distortions work? Specifically I'm thinking of the ships sinking below the horizon, and the sun setting. How do the atmospheric distorions bloking the ship from our view after a certain distance, and only from the bottom up. how is the light being bent, such that the bottom seems to be below the horizon. I just can't figure this one out.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us

« on: March 14, 2006, 07:13:41 PM »

Oh yeah, and "scienctific proof" is NOT BASED ON OBSERVATIONS.

 :shock: AHHHH!!!!! This made me cry. Do you know anything about science at all!!!! When you went to school did you learn the scientific method?!?!? The scientific method is covered in just about every science class you take up through high school. Anyway, Science is based COMPETELY on observation. The whole point of science is to make a logical explanation of the natural world that agrees with observation.

Excuse me, I really need to yell.
 :x AHHHHHH!

7

Flat Earth Q&A / FE magnetic field

« on: March 14, 2006, 07:00:16 PM »

This does seem like a good model for a flat earth's magnetic field. The only thing I would worry about is detacting changes in the field at the gaps between the magnets. Unless they were very small. Anyway, I think the Focault pendulum pretty much settles the issue for me, unless you don't believe in inertia and momentum.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / How about this proof?

« on: March 12, 2006, 09:48:18 AM »

sorry erasmus. I forgot to tell you, I looked it up, and asked about it on physicsforums. It is impossible to have a maget with a pole in the center and the other pole as a ring around the outside. A flat earth could not have a magnetic field where one pole is at the north pole, and the other is at the south pole. Because magnetic north is always in the direction of the north pole (generally) then a flat earth could not exist, at least not one where the north pole is in the center.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Foucault pendulums

« on: March 10, 2006, 01:26:06 PM »

I have another proof here, that relies on the earth's magnetic field. you can find it here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1316

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof

« on: March 10, 2006, 01:22:21 PM »

OK, a way to prove the flat earth hypothesis is wrong.

The flat earth hypothesis predicts that a foucault pendulum will either make one revolution every day, no matter where you are on earth (if the flat earth is spinning), or that it will not rotate at all (if the flat earth is not spinning).
In fact, a foucault pendulum does not behave this way. It's rate of rotation is equal to the sine of the lattitude.

Because a preiction made by the flat earth hypothesis has been proven wrong, the flat earth hypothesis has been proven wrong. That's how science works.

For info on Foucault pendulums http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Foucault pendulums

« on: March 10, 2006, 01:14:57 PM »

I agree with erasmus here. If the earth were flat and spinning, a pendulum would appear to make make one rotation in one day, regardless of lattitude. This is because the pendulum is actually staying oriented in the same direction in space, and the flat earth would rotate around it. Pendulums want to stay facing the same direction is space, just like a gyroscope (and for the same reasons too). Anywhere on a flat earth you would get one revolution per day. On a round earth, You would get one revolution per day at the north pole, but that would decrease as you got closer to the equator, where it would be zero revolutions. If you continued south, the pendulum would rotate in the opposite direction, very slowly, but getting faster as you approached the south pole. At the south pole the penulum would make one rotation every day, in the opposite direction as it would at the north pole.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / PROOF

« on: March 10, 2006, 12:59:18 PM »

right, that too. Anyway, it has been confirmed, a magnet with one of the poles in the center is impossible.
Flat Earth theory predicts that the Earth will have no magnetic field, or at least one that does not line up north-south. The earth does have a magnetic field, and it does in fact line up from north to south, therfore flat earth theory has been disproven.
QED

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Foucault pendulums

« on: March 09, 2006, 07:09:28 PM »

yup, I have seen these pendulums in action. They have one at the Franklin Institute. This would disprove flat Earth theory, because the only explanation would be that the earth is spinning at the north pole, and at the "edge" (in the opposite direction BTW) the rate of raotation decreases as you approach the equator. Either the Earth is round and spinning on it's axis, or else God has magically made the pendulums behave this way to trick the nonbelievers. God is the magic catchall, he's above the physical laws, and can make anything he wants to happen. Most flat earthers (the real ones, not the guys on this site) are bible literalists, so the God catchall is all they need. they don't even need the "conspiracy."

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Ok, I think I have found a gravity that would work.

« on: March 09, 2006, 06:31:48 PM »

Not bad, but what shape does this field take?  You've got to take into account the weird shape of the flat Earth's gravitational field, and nullify it exactly.

Hm...if the centre of the fields gravity was over the North pole, we'd be pulled slightly towards the N.P. So there must be a ring of matter around the Earth which pulls us away from the Earth.

Either that or it's shaped like a dome, perhaps?

Also, it still doesn't answer the question of why the sun and moon stay in orbit around the Earth.

The sun and moon could orbit around the centre of the fields gravity, if they orbit over the equator.

If it's the dome model, then it could orbit around the dome and the earth, perhaps?

The center of mass of a ring is still in the center of the ring, as in it is not part of the ring, it is in the "hole" You would still be sucked to the hole.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / How about this proof?

« on: March 09, 2006, 05:50:18 PM »

A magnet is formed by a group of polar molecules. Lots of material is made of polar molecules (water for one) but in a magnet the molecules are all lined up, such that thier positive side is all facing one direction, and the negative side is facing the other. This is what makes the magnet. In a center-pole magnet, all of the molecules would have thier positive end facing the center, and the negative end facing out. As far as I can tell, This would be impossible. The atoms would repell each other, i.e. all push out from the center. the molecules would probably spin around so that they face the same direction. Another possibility is that all of the dipoles would cancel out, because every dipole would have a dipole facing in the opposite direction. This is sort of what happens with non-magnetic polar materials.

I'm not positive of this description, but I am reasonably sure. The fact that I have neverr seen or heard of a center pole magnet adds empiracle evidence to my arguement.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / How about this proof?

« on: March 09, 2006, 04:33:52 PM »

thanks, I looked around and couldn't see anything about it.

Here's another one. The Earth has a magnetic field. There is a north side and a south side, just like the poles on a magnet. Anyone with a compass can see this. Under the flat earth theory the north pole is in the center. But a magnet with the one pole in the center and one pole all around the border can't exist. The poles must be on opposite sides of the object. The only way the earth can have a magnetic field that is oriented the way it is is if the earth is spherical, or any shape where the poles are at opposite ends.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / How about this proof?

« on: March 09, 2006, 04:08:20 PM »

OK, anyone who lives near the coast can do this one. This is how the ancient egyptians proved that the earth is round.

Go to the shore with a good pair of binoculars, or a telescope. you should wait for a ship to sail off, or show up when you know a ship will be sailing away. Watch the ship as it sails away. As it gets farther and farther away, it will start to dissapear. First the bottom of the ship wil not be visible, and slowly more and more wont be visible, from the bottom up. It will look like the ship is slowly sinking into the sea. This is because as the ship goes away, it follows the curvature of the Earth, meaning that it is curving down from you. But your line of sight is still perfectly streight. So the ship becomes less visible from the bottom up. The earth is blocking part of it. I'll attatche a pic to show this better.

I screwed up the picture. here's a link to it
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=759575