Questions for Clarification.

Alright, I do have some questions that my curiosity has brought me to ask. I'm not RPing this one, so if I say something stupid, I mean it It'll happen, I can guarantee it.

In the FE model, the flat plane of the earth is said to be moving upwards along an infinite path. Does the earth spin while moving upward?

Why can nobody cross the ice wall, if it is only 150 feet high? Where is the ice wall located approximately on a map of RE?

Why are the polar circles the same length?

More questions to come, I can guarantee it.

In the FE model, the flat plane of the earth is said to be moving upwards along an infinite path. Does the earth spin while moving upward?

It has a slight horizontal spin.

Why can nobody cross the ice wall, if it is only 150 feet high? Where is the ice wall located approximately on a map of RE?

Most of the ice wall, as stated by Erasmus, is unapproachable except by air. With advanced air forces, it is completely unapproachable.

Why are the polar circles the same length?

Are you referring to the RE?

More questions to come, I can guarantee it.

Everything is welcomed.

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 01:40:43 AM

Why are the polar circles the same length?

Are you referring to the RE?

I'm not sure. On most modern maps of FE, the southern hemisphere is stretched and the north is squished. The most reliable way to measure these areas would be to measure the polar circles. Why is it that they are the same distance if physically measured, but not so on the FE? Is there some sort of spatial distortion that makes everything look less distorted, or is it a map problem.


Does this version of the Flat Earth Society consider Brimstone Head to be one of the four corners of the earth?

Does anyone feel that Rowbothman's experiments were valid?

Why is gravity 0.6% less at the equator than it is at the poles? (fairly sure this is right)

Just a note: These aren't accusatory or attacking questions. I'm not trying to find flaws in the FE theory right now, just want to know how it all fits in.

I'm not sure why you locked that other thread. There is a Southern Hemisphere in FE. The equator doesn't magically disappear because the Earth is flat. (Although referring to it as a sphere obviously isn't completely accurate)

In the FE model, the flat plane of the earth is said to be moving upwards along an infinite path. Does the earth spin while moving upward?

Not necessarily infinite. We could all be squashed some day.

Some contend that it spins, but most don't. Pretty sure it's not feasible if spinning.

Why can nobody cross the ice wall, if it is only 150 feet high? Where is the ice wall located approximately on a map of RE?

Not 150 feet; should be edited. Also, there is no reason to believe that the Ice Wall would be impossible to traverse or pass.

The Ice Wall is technically past Antarctica (passed the ring of the outer edge).

Why are the polar circles the same length?

Polar circles? Arctic circle?

Alright, I do have some questions that my curiosity has brought me to ask. I'm not RPing this one, so if I say something stupid, I mean it It'll happen, I can guarantee it.

In the FE model, the flat plane of the earth is said to be moving upwards along an infinite path. Does the earth spin while moving upward?

Why can nobody cross the ice wall, if it is only 150 feet high? Where is the ice wall located approximately on a map of RE?

Why are the polar circles the same length?

More questions to come, I can guarantee it.

Most FEers hold that the Earth has no orbital OR axial motion - it does not spin.

As for the Ice Wall, it's important to point out that the "150 ft" estimate is not a universal FE concensus. The model to which I and several others subscribe involves a 40000 foot Ice Wall which is instrumental in holding in the Earth's atmolayer. It's not literally impassible - it's just a practical nightmare to do so. Not only is the Ice Wall so huge, it is buried deep within Antarctica - on the edge of the known world.

Alright, this is making more sense.

Heh, I locked the other thread because it wasn't exactly how I wanted to present myself. I'm not an arrogant person, so trying to keep that up was horribly tiring. I won't be locking this one.

Atmolayer, interesting.

Is there a FE reason for gravity being stronger at the poles?

Is there a FE reason for gravity being stronger at the poles?

Have you seen first hand evidence of this? Its a conspiracy.

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:40:03 PM

Is there a FE reason for gravity being stronger at the poles?

Have you seen first hand evidence of this? Its a conspiracy.

I have not seen this first hand, no. I've read a good many papers on it, but I haven't seen it myself.
How is it a conspiracy?

US per capita consumption of sweeteners including sugar, syrups, honey (and Valentine's candy) increased from 137 pounds in 1990 to 158 pounds in 1999.

I... um...
Did you eat it?

Is there any evidence of a conspiracy involving NASA?

Is there any evidence of a conspiracy involving NASA?

That would kind of defeat the purpose of the conspiracy.

So there is absolutely no proof of a conspiracy? Because that also defeats the purpose of even mentioning it. Just assuming there is a conspiracy =/= conspiracy.

No.  That's not taking all factors into account.

Which factors would these be?

The fact that NASA keeps taking pictures of a Round Earth that doesn't exist, for starters...

A round earth that you assume doesn't exist, and NASA being the people you refuse to believe.
Just making sure I get this right.

A round earth that you assume doesn't exist, and NASA being the people you refuse to believe.
Just making sure I get this right.

Assume?  There's no assumption.  Experiments (outlined in Earth: Not a Globe) were performed many years ago which showed the earth to be flat.  You can re-create them if you'd like.

Is this the Bedford Level experiment? Because it has already been discussed that this experiment was flawed when first conducted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Early results seemed to prove this contention, but most later attempts to reproduce the observations firmly supported the conventional view that the earth is a sphere.

I'm pretty sure it outlines more than one experiment.  But the Bedford was pretty major.

Ok.

All I'd read was that it was based on the Bedford Level, which turned out to be a flawed experiment. I'll see what else I can find out, as I'd rather not read a book based on a flawed experiment. That would be a slight waste of time...

Ok.

All I'd read was that it was based on the Bedford Level, which turned out to be a flawed experiment. I'll see what else I can find out, as I'd rather not read a book based on a flawed experiment. That would be a slight waste of time...

quoted for irony

You do know what irony is, right?

Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history).

What is generally understood is that the Bedford Level experiment was flawed. It is also understood that reading about a flawed experiment to further understand the results of it is also a waste of time if the writing in question claims that the experiment was a success.

Irony is not present in that statement.

Alright, this is making more sense.

Heh, I locked the other thread because it wasn't exactly how I wanted to present myself. I'm not an arrogant person, so trying to keep that up was horribly tiring. I won't be locking this one.

Atmolayer, interesting.

Is there a FE reason for gravity being stronger at the poles?

You're going to get a new one ripped if you keep using the term "gravity" around here.     Might want to wiki it.

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:40:03 PM

Alright, this is making more sense.

Heh, I locked the other thread because it wasn't exactly how I wanted to present myself. I'm not an arrogant person, so trying to keep that up was horribly tiring. I won't be locking this one.

Atmolayer, interesting.

Is there a FE reason for gravity being stronger at the poles?

You're going to get a new one ripped if you keep using the term "gravity" around here.     Might want to wiki it.

Ah yes, the old 'teach a man a new defence, and he'll milk it for life' saying. I can see how it might apply here, thanks

I will be much more specific then.

Why is Earth's gravitational field stronger at the poles, and how does this get explained in the FE model?

Hows that?

Alright, I do have some questions that my curiosity has brought me to ask. I'm not RPing this one, so if I say something stupid, I mean it It'll happen, I can guarantee it.

In the FE model, the flat plane of the earth is said to be moving upwards along an infinite path. Does the earth spin while moving upward?

Why can nobody cross the ice wall, if it is only 150 feet high? Where is the ice wall located approximately on a map of RE?

Why are the polar circles the same length?

More questions to come, I can guarantee it.

What does it mean to RP something?

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 01:40:43 AM

Alright, I do have some questions that my curiosity has brought me to ask. I'm not RPing this one, so if I say something stupid, I mean it It'll happen, I can guarantee it.

In the FE model, the flat plane of the earth is said to be moving upwards along an infinite path. Does the earth spin while moving upward?

Why can nobody cross the ice wall, if it is only 150 feet high? Where is the ice wall located approximately on a map of RE?

Why are the polar circles the same length?

More questions to come, I can guarantee it.

What does it mean to RP something?

It means Role Play. I had previously started a thread where I was pretending to be stubborn and a know-it-all. I was conducting an introductory experiment on this very strange community, and I figured it would be easier to do that first and then explain myself.

Quote from: questions on November 20, 2007, 09:41:46 PM

Quote from: Ladon on November 18, 2007, 12:40:03 PM

Alright, this is making more sense.

Heh, I locked the other thread because it wasn't exactly how I wanted to present myself. I'm not an arrogant person, so trying to keep that up was horribly tiring. I won't be locking this one.

Atmolayer, interesting.

Is there a FE reason for gravity being stronger at the poles?

You're going to get a new one ripped if you keep using the term "gravity" around here.     Might want to wiki it.

Ah yes, the old 'teach a man a new defence, and he'll milk it for life' saying. I can see how it might apply here, thanks

I will be much more specific then.

Why is Earth's gravitational field stronger at the poles, and how does this get explained in the FE model?

Hows that?

Much better.  Now Engy and the others will answer your questions instead of insisting on correct terminology.   

Phew

It gets frustrating when people ignore good questions, especially when they do it because they don't have an answer.

Exactly.   

Hmm... Because of a lack of replies, I've had a think about it myself. The only thing I could come up with so far is the 'anti-moon', but it wouldn't be constant enough in one place.