1

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« on: March 07, 2006, 02:42:41 AM »

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The BIG Question

« on: March 05, 2006, 04:17:29 AM »

And God said

"I refuse to provide proof that I exist. For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

That should clear up any problems here.

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Ask if the Earth is flat

PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT WE CAME FROM MONKEYS

No informed person believes that people believe we came from monkeys. The theory of Evolution states that people and monkeys have a common ancestor.

The debate about abortion is not about whether abortion is right, but when life begins.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« on: March 05, 2006, 03:30:26 AM »

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.

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.

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

You should bring up another thread for this

Will do.

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.

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?

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

The orbit, but I'll explain further down

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

for the RE or FE?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Man, this is wrong in so many ways.

Actually Erasmus, Here you're wrong.

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.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof is not spelt c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y

« on: March 05, 2006, 01:26:38 AM »

Every thread ever asking these people for proof has either been used for something else or just ignored. Just letting you know.

congratulations everybody, the flat earthers haven't posted and already the topic has been changed.

Now GPS systems: they use triangulation from a group of satellites in order to determine your location. So that can be faked. Unfortunately, because gravity doesn't work on a flat earth, then how are those satellites orbiting the Earth?

The catch is that most of the pictures i've seen were taken before photoshop existed, in the 60's

wow, thats entirely correct.

Please be sensible by giving me some solid proof

Don't hold your breath. There isnt any scientific proof for a flat Earth anywhere on this site. Perhaps there's a reason for that?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Eclipses. Solar and Lunar.

« on: March 03, 2006, 11:55:00 AM »

Well Erasmus, you are entirely right about the refraction thing. However since the flat Earth theory has broken every other law of physics, why should this one be any different?

But unlike the flat Earther's, I'm willing to accept that my theory's dead, so do you have a better one?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« on: March 03, 2006, 11:43:19 AM »

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?

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?
 

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.

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.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Two Questions

« on: March 02, 2006, 01:55:54 AM »

So intelligent design can have its own thread, the flat Earth can have its own thread but not the crab people? Why? they all involve the same amount of intelligent thought.

And how many valid flat Earth Arguments are there?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« on: March 02, 2006, 01:44:11 AM »

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.

 

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.

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?

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.

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.  

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.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Eclipses. Solar and Lunar.

« on: March 01, 2006, 01:45:13 AM »

Well If everyone is complaining about "Atmospheric Distortion", Lets sort it out.

Here's a theory.
If the atmosphere has a defined boundary, and space is a vacuum, then the light could be refracted by the boundary between them, like looking at something in water. This doesnt explain the sun actually rising or setting just getting closer to the horizon.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Disproval of the RE model

« on: March 01, 2006, 01:31:22 AM »

oooh an intelligent design and other religous stuff thread. I always enjoy these.

Heres a question I like to ask christians right about now; Which version of creation do you believe in? Genesis or Adam and Eve. Cause if you look closely, you'll see that there are two seperate stories.

However for a really good laugh, find a "Creation Science" Magazine. You can spend hours cracking yourself up over these.

Also, its pointless to argue over religon as nobody can prove anything.

On going to war over religon: You're basically fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« 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.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / How thick is the earth then?

« on: February 26, 2006, 03:45:55 AM »

Interesting fact: during the cold war, both the Americans and Russians had a race to see who could drill through the Earths crust first. Neither got very far because the Heat and pressure crushed and melted their drill bits.

 So how thick would the Earth's crust have to be in order for the temperature and pressure to be enough to destroy that sort of industrial drill bit? I'd wager more than 40km.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematical proof

« on: February 26, 2006, 03:38:22 AM »

Well Cairo is around latitude 30 and Alexandria isnt far off that, but as for the exact latitude... I have no idea.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / So, how did you end up on this site?

« on: February 25, 2006, 07:20:13 AM »

That and the fact that no one has yet come up with a piece of decent evidence against the moon landing...

15

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

« on: February 25, 2006, 07:16:27 AM »

And for the record, the flat Earthers still don't have a workable theory of gravity. And we're all so anxious to see one...

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematical proof

« on: February 25, 2006, 07:07:22 AM »

Actually, according to the most current theory of a flat Earth, that proof is flawed...

Not the math, but the assumption that the Sun will ever reach a zenith at Alexandria. Because currently the sun does not "orbit" over Alexandria, so *theoretically*, the original data is incorrect, which no amount of trigonmetry
will help.

 Of course the way around this is to go somewhere not on the equator, where the sun orbits the flat earth, and prove that the sun reaches its zenith ihgh in the sky, not somewhere off to the left or right.

And finally, because this flaw rests solely on a false concept, it simply adds another nail in the flat earth theory's coffin. Speaking of which, how many more do we need?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« 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.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

« 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.

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?

19

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

« on: February 23, 2006, 05:31:19 AM »

So just out of curiosity, how many flat earthers are left on this forum?

Cause it seems that everyone who has put forward things in support of a flat earth has turned out not to support the flat Earth.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / The Flat Earth FAQ Thread

« on: February 23, 2006, 05:24:41 AM »

Any atmospheric fogging would be universal, so if that be the case, then there are plenty of nights, just no days...

Also, if the only thing causing a sunset was an atmospheric disturbance, then while we would see an abscence of the sun, we would still see its light.

Given that neither of these things are true, then what can we say about this theory?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / At the Request Of Cheesejoff, A new Topic for new questions

« on: February 23, 2006, 05:18:51 AM »

Hm... they're already claiming that the sun and moon are spotlights.

So just to clarify, the sun and moon are part of the government conspiracy as well?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / The Flat Earth FAQ Thread

« on: February 22, 2006, 05:31:26 AM »

the sun and moon flies in a circular orbit above the flat earth

so the sun circles above the surface of the Earth? Is that what you mean? Because if the Sun circles above the Earth where we live, whats this night thing I keep seeing? you know, the time of the day when the sun disappears below the horizon. if the sun circled solely above the Earth, then WHY ISNT'T IT ALWAYS DAY? Shouldn't the sun continuously shine on one Hemisphere?

Though to be Fair, that would explain 24 hour daylight at the north pole.

In addition, the light from the Sun would obscure the moon. And this doesn't even come close to explaining eclipses.

Lastly, I'm pretty Sure objects will orbit round a center of Gravity, not somewhere that is convenient to you're theory.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / At the Request Of Cheesejoff, A new Topic for new questions

« on: February 22, 2006, 05:22:58 AM »

0 acceleration (no change in velocity)

No object following a curved trajectory has zero acceleration.  In fact, don't you calculate the sun's acceleration later in the post?

Ahh whoops. You're quite right. The offending data has been removed.

As for the masses, I have yet to see the flat earthers provide any info on the flat earths mass, likewise the Sun, or their compositions, so until they do, it stays the same. And the brilliant thing about Wikipedia is, that if the Earth doesn't have that mass, Why don't they (the flat Earthers)  change it?

Without using any assumptions about the shape of the Earth, can you demonstrate that it has this mass?

If the Flat Earthers would provide Concrete dimensions of the Flat Earth, Yes

24

Flat Earth Q&A / The Flat Earth FAQ Thread

« on: February 21, 2006, 08:21:39 AM »

Flying Leaf wrote:

The diameter of Flat Earth is roughly the circumference of Round Earth: 24,900 miles

According to the flat Earth Theory, the Earth cannot be circular and have a diameter more than 6000 miles. Why? because twice a day, a very large star aka the sun, and a very large rock, aka the moon, would hit the sides of it. Let's see your ice wall survive that. It would have to be smaller again, to avoid the sun and the moons affect on the tides.

If you have a maximum of 6000 miles to fit all of the northern hemisphere on.... Then How big is England? Wouldnt it be microscopic to scale down the correct size to fit the rest of Europe and America on? And wouldn't that scale down be reflected in the population density, as well as the size of, say, a house? or indeed a room?

Thus the easiest way to settle this theory. take what the accepted dimensions of anywhere are, and work out how big they'd be when scaled down. then compare that to actuality.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / At the Request Of Cheesejoff, A new Topic for new questions

« on: February 21, 2006, 07:43:07 AM »

Here are some numbers I came up with using the flat Earth Theory... Enjoy
 (NB: when converting from miles to metres, I used:
 1 mile= 1600metres)
 (NB: ^ symbol means to the power of)
The sun (orbiting Earth) has a:

18849.55592 mile orbital circumference

785.3981634 miles per hour velocity (speed = distance divided by time)
(Time being 24 hours)

1.9891x10^30 mass (taken from wikipedia)


Earth has a:

mass of 5.9736x10^24


Now:
force of gravity between 2 objects (=) mass of object1 x mass of object2 divided by distance^2
 
[(=) means aproximate too.]
Using these numbers the force of gravity between the sun and the Earth is  is:

= 1.3207624x10^48

multiply by the universal gravitational constant and you get:

= 1.410405186x10^41 Newton metres^2 kg^-2 for the flat Earth

acceleration due to gravity = force(from above) divided by mass

therefore, on a flat Earth, the acceleration due to gravity is
 2.210999063x10^23 newton metres^2 kg^-2
versus 9.8 Newton metres^2 kg^-2

thus the force of gravity on any object is not 1 g, but  2.210999063x10^23g's

I suppose you could add another g if you count Earth accelerating upwards at a rate of 1g

Welcome to part 2
if we assume that a flat earth has a thickness of say 100km, and a radius of a maximum 3000miles, and is a circle, then its density = mass divided by volume

volume = 2.304x10^15
giving a density of 2592708333 kg/m^3 for a flat earth, compared to 5515 kg/m^3 for a round earth

(not accounting fo substance. If anyone wants a calculation using different materials, just let me know. Also if you want a diferent thickness of earth, again just let me know. Or better yet you can do it yourself. Its not that hard.)

However, the density of a low end neutron star is 8x10^10 kg/m^3
Earth has a density of 2.592708333x10^9
making Earth just shy of one of the second heaviest group of objects in the known universe. Bear in mind that this will go up if the radius of a flat Earth gets smaller.
 :shock:
so what happens when we apply this process to the sun?
 :twisted:

well, with a diameter of 32 miles... or a radius of 25600metres
therefore a volume of 7.027623804x10^13 m^3
and a mass of 1.9891x10^30kg
the sun has density of
 2.830401933x10^16m^3

Making it denser than than the densest neutron star.  :shock:

And you still havent answered my first questions.
 

P.S Spot a whole? post and I'll fix it.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / At the Request Of Cheesejoff, A new Topic for new questions

« on: February 21, 2006, 05:24:10 AM »

Just wondering; Does the Flat Earth theory predict a geo-centric (Earth is the center of the solar system) or Helio-centric (the Sun is the center) solar system?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / At the Request Of Cheesejoff, A new Topic for new questions

« on: February 18, 2006, 04:16:35 AM »

Just thought of this.

The Flat Earth Theory claims that the moon orbits the the Earth at a distance of 3000 miles above the surface. Yet they have repeatedly stated that there is no gravity due to mass attracting things to Earth, that people do not fall of due to the Earth accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. So... If Earth has no Gravity, How can the Moon orbit it?

 Logically, only one of the statements made by the FET can be true. So Either the Flat Earth has no gravity, in which case, you deny the existence of the the Moon... OR the Earth does produce a gravity which affects other objects in space... In which case the Earth is of the Spherical persuasion (round).

28

Flat Earth Q&A / At the Request Of Cheesejoff, A new Topic for new questions

« on: February 18, 2006, 04:06:19 AM »

Here's a question:

the Flat earth has no gravity, because it is flat, And the moon Has gravity, because it is round (this is stated as fact, because we know it influences the tides). Here's My Question. Why is the moon round and the Earth flat? What law of cosmic existence decided that this must be so?

Heres another Question:

if the sun is only 34 miles wide (or was it 32?) and 3000 miles away, how do you account for their size in the night(and day) sky? Shouldnt they be tiny points of light?

Also a follow up:

How hot is the sun? since you haven't challenged how the sun functions in producing light and heat, I'll assume you won't. If you haven't challenged these, I'm assuming the mass is the same. by your theory, the volume is

1210.560369 miles cubed (6dp). what will happen when a mass of
1.9891 x10^30 kg is packed into it? something similar to a black hole I assume. Assuming you believe in black holes.

And Finally: if the Earth is not infact 8.31 light minutes from the sun, but a mere 3000 odd miles, and the temperature of the sun is the same,then why arent we living under water. scratch that, why are we living at all. To put it another way, what happens when you place a massive, long lived, thermonuclear explosive some 3000 miles from a massive amount of ice. Whatever happens, I doubt it results in an Ice wall.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / The Flat Earth FAQ Thread

« on: February 18, 2006, 03:28:07 AM »

Here's a question:

the Flat earth has no gravity, because it is flat, And the moon Has gravity, because it is round (this is stated as fact, because we know it influences the tides). Here's My Question. Why is the moon round and the Earth flat? What law of cosmic existence decided that this must be so?

Heres another Question:

if the sun is only 34 miles wide (or was it 32?) and 3000 miles away, how do you account for their size in the night(and day) sky? Shouldnt they be tiny points of light?

Also a follow up:

How hot is the sun? since you haven't challenged how the sun functions in producing light and heat, I'll assume you won't. If you haven't challenged these, I'm assuming the mass is the same. by your theory, the volume is

1210.560369 miles cubed (6dp). what will happen when a mass of
1.9891 x10^30 kg is packed into it? something similar to a black hole I assume. Assuming you believe in black holes.

And Finally: if the Earth is not infact 8.31 light minutes from the sun, but a mere 3000 odd miles, and the temperature of the sun is the same,then why arent we living under water. scratch that, why are we living at all. To put it another way, what happens when you place a massive, long lived, thermonuclear explosive some 3000 miles from a massive amount of ice. Whatever happens, I doubt it results in an Ice wall.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / A Rational Discussion.

« on: February 18, 2006, 02:54:09 AM »

First An opening Question. How long will it take for this topic to devolve into Mindless Flaming and Spamming? At a Guess, I'd say about a Day. Prove Me wrong Everyone.

For the Record: I am trying to be completely unbisaed here so anything said here is not neccesarily the opinions of the composer.

How About A Complete summary of the Theory at hand and the arguments for and against. From this can see what (if Anything) in the theory needs changing.

The Theory:
That the Earth (the planet on which we live) Is flat (like a Pancake). The creation of this Pancake is not an issue here and will not be entered into, nor will any issues which do not directly relate to whether or not the Earth is shaped like the aforementioned pancake.
Deal? Deal.

Would someone please set out the arguments that the Earth is Flat in a rational manner? I'm not sure I understand them and I'd hate to compromise this (first) attempt at getting a healty argument going.