A new Idea: flat earth in a sphere

My last thread was unfortunately moved to the nonsense section http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35416.20. I do however realize that the presentation of the theory could have been clearer, and I apologize for that. I have however now provided an illustration of my theory, and hopefully you will see that this is a serious attempt to explain what seems to me to be a major problem in FET.

The problem is to explain where the energy from the UA comes from. To me, attributing this to the Dark Force just does not seem very convincing. I therefore developed a theory where UA is in fact a result of centripetal acceleration. Such an explanation will increase the credibility of FET, in addition of course to being more reasonable in my mind.



As you see from the illustration, I believe the most likely explanation is that the flat earth resides inside on the bottom of a rotating sphere (on a giant turtle, two elephants or whatever). The rotation of the sphere then provides the centripetal acceleration that we from the inside of the sphere experience as gravity.

If we now in addition assume that the flat earth slides around, rotating, inside the sphere, and assume that stars are small holes in this giant ball, then we can explain the rotating stars in the night sky. The sun can also then be easily explained as a rolling ball inside the sphere that rolls below the horizon (end of the world) at night (assuming the flat earth is elevated in some way, possibly by giant animals).

why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation  would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other

How does this model explain time zones?

why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation  would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other

Simple explanations are often wrong. Also, this theory builds purely on evidence that we can experience ourselves, by making the Dark Matter assumption redundant. I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.

Quote from: niblz on January 06, 2010, 07:41:31 AM

why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation  would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other

Simple explanations are often wrong. Also, this theory builds purely on evidence that we can experience ourselves, by making the Dark Matter assumption redundant. I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.

Really really good work. I think this trumps Flat Earth Theory in every way.

Quote from: FlatEarthInSphere on January 06, 2010, 08:35:57 AM

Quote from: niblz on January 06, 2010, 07:41:31 AM

why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation  would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other

Simple explanations are often wrong. Also, this theory builds purely on evidence that we can experience ourselves, by making the Dark Matter assumption redundant. I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.

Really really good work. I think this trumps Flat Earth Theory in every way.

Tank you very much onetwothreefour. I have worked on this for many years, and when it finally came to me I had a real eureka moment.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13382.0

Amazing to see that others have been on to something similar. Thanks a lot parsec.

I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.

The time zone problem has been addressed in the standard FE model, which is different from your model. I asked how your model explains time zones. You show the sun passing below the flat Earth at night, which means that it would be dark everywhere on the Earth at once. This is clearly counter to reality, which seems to me to be a fatal blow for your model.

Quote from: FlatEarthInSphere on January 06, 2010, 08:35:57 AM

I think the time zone problem has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. The contribution of my theory is to explain the acceleration in a plausible way.

The time zone problem has been addressed in the standard FE model, which is different from your model. I asked how your model explains time zones. You show the sun passing below the flat Earth at night, which means that it would be dark everywhere on the Earth at once. This is clearly counter to reality, which seems to me to be a fatal blow for your model.

Well, if you prefer we can delete the sun under the earth, and use the standard FET explanation. Alternatively, we can attribute this to a conspiracy. After all it is impossible for a person to be at two places at the same time to verify time zones. He has to rely on devices prone to manipulation (telephone, tv, clock etc.). In any case, I do not see this as a fatal blow, but rather as an interesting input for further development of the theory.

I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)

The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading depending on where I was in the world, it still wouldn't explain why my internal body clock differed so greatly from the solar time in China.

If you remove that part of the hypothesis, then this model becomes almost identical to the standard FE accelerating upward model, in terms of observables. Almost but not exact because there would be a coriolis force, but if we assume a very large radius, this force could be made arbitrarily small, and therefore undetectable. (Conversely you could confirm this model by observing such a coriolis force, but I doubt you will.)

I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)

The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading depending on where I was in the world, it still wouldn't explain why my internal body clock differed so greatly from the solar time in China.

If you remove that part of the hypothesis, then this model becomes almost identical to the standard FE accelerating upward model, in terms of observables. Almost but not exact because there would be a coriolis force, but if we assume a very large radius, this force could be made arbitrarily small, and therefore undetectable. (Conversely you could confirm this model by observing such a coriolis force, but I doubt you will.)

Thank you very much for very helpful comments. I do see that the conspiracy theory is a bit unlikely. I have had similar experiences as you, and I must say that if this is part of a grand conspiracy then damn they are good! I therefore think it is better to get rid of the sun below earth.

I of course agree with you that the model is almost identical to standard FE in terms of observables, but in my opinion theoretically substantially more plausible. As you suggest, I imagine an enormous radius, much larger than illustrated. There would of course be a small coriolis effect by the rotation of the sphere, but this would be offset by the rotation of the earth itself, as illustrated. The result could very well be that close to the center of the earth there is a rightward coriolis effect, and a left one further out towards the edge. This is exactly the sort of opposite effect that can be measured in what in RET terminology is referred to as the northern and southern hemisphere.

I guess my model could actually explain these oposite coriolis effects, if we assume that the "southern hemisphere" is located at the edge of the earth.

There would of course be a small coriolis effect by the rotation of the sphere, but this would be offset by the rotation of the earth itself, as illustrated. The result could very well be that close to the center of the earth there is a rightward coriolis effect, and a left one further out towards the edge. This is exactly the sort of opposite effect that can be measured in what in RET terminology is referred to as the northern and southern hemisphere.

I guess my model could actually explain these oposite coriolis effects, if we assume that the "southern hemisphere" is located at the edge of the earth.

No, that doesn't work, because if the rotation of the sphere imparted a measurable coriolis effect, and the Earth was also rotating, the the magnitude of the coriolis force would be time dependent. At a specific location, when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the same direction as the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be stronger, and when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the opposite direction of the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be weaker. This does not explain what we observe as coriolis force. (For example with a Foucault pendulum, the rate at which the pendulum precesses is not time-dependent.) So the coriolis force owing to our motion about the sphere, if it exists, must be extremely minor so as not to conflict with these observations.

No, that doesn't work, because if the rotation of the sphere imparted a measurable coriolis effect, and the Earth was also rotating, the the magnitude of the coriolis force would be time dependent. At a specific location, when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the same direction as the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be stronger, and when the rotation of the Earth moved it in the opposite direction of the rotation of the sphere, the coriolis force would be weaker. This does not explain what we observe as coriolis force. (For example with a Foucault pendulum, the rate at which the pendulum precesses is not time-dependent.) So the coriolis force owing to our motion about the sphere, if it exists, must be extremely minor so as not to conflict with these observations.

Of course, silly mistake by me. I guess we have to settle with the assumption that the sphere is gigantic, so that the coriolis effect is undetectable, except for extremely sophisticated scientific instruments, which we do not trust anyway.

Edit: typos

I have an idea! Why don't you make in the center of the earth's movement a giant sun? And then make the earth more round, like a sphere like shape?

I have an idea! Why don't you make in the center of the earth's movement a giant sun? And then make the earth more round, like a sphere like shape?

Well that's just impossible... 

Doesn't explain gravity between objects.

Doesn't explain gravity between objects.

This does.

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

I am saying this model does not explain that experiment.

I am saying this model does not explain that experiment.

In RET, objects have a natural attraction to each other due to gravity. This force is exemplified by the Cavendish experiment, and is why large celestial objects (such as the Earth) are comparatively close to being perfect spheres.

I am agreeing with you. I am saying flat earth in a sphere does not prove that. lol

Looks like someone needs a new day job to occupy a little extra time.

I am agreeing with you. I am saying flat earth in a sphere does not prove that. lol

Oh...

my bad.

Quote from: SupahLovah on January 06, 2010, 02:31:07 PM

I have an idea! Why don't you make in the center of the earth's movement a giant sun? And then make the earth more round, like a sphere like shape?

Well that's just impossible... 

Just like the suggestion of having a "flat" earth which is in a sphere, which couldnt have gravity from looking at the diagram.

This idea might work with an infinite earth, if the orbit was big enough. No idea how this would explain time zones though. Please continue to elaborate.

why do u have to come up with these ideas there so complicated its silly like elevating objects or turtles thats just over complicated what about the fact that the most simple anser is usualy the rite one!! like a globe and even if i did belive in a flat world and that all the other planets are flat and just happen to point at the earth all of the time your explanation  would not explane how it is night on one part of the world and night time in the other

Troll within a troll...

I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)

The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading

I have decided to alther my theory slightly by deleteing the sun under the horizon, as depicted below, in order to resolve the time zone problem. Hence I assume standard FET with respect to the sun.

Quote from: skeptical scientist on January 06, 2010, 11:23:29 AM

I have personally flown from the US to China, and experienced a roughly 10 hour time zone difference. Since this was late spring in the Northern hemisphere, that means the sun was overhead in one of the two places at all times, clearly violating the "sun passes under the Earth" model, assuming daytime in Chicago occurred at the same time when I wasn't there as when I was. (Since daytime in Chicago is fairly predictable, I can't imagine it would have changed simply because I was traveling.)

The conspiracy cannot explain this, because even if there was a gps unit and microchip in my watch telling it to mess around its reading

I have decided to alther my theory slightly by deleteing the sun under the horizon, as depicted below, in order to resolve the time zone problem. Hence I assume standard FET with respect to the sun.

Turtles need air and lettuce to live.

Well, it does not have to be a giant turtle. I allow for the possibility that there is some other elevating object. It might not even be a gigantic animal at all! It is just not possible to know what lies beneath. If the lettuce problem is  considered a major drawback here on this forum though, I am willing to alter the model here too, since it has not impact on the models ability to explain the world as we experience it.

Well, it does not have to be a giant turtle. I allow for the possibility that there is some other elevating object. It might not even be a gigantic animal at all! It is just not possible to know what lies beneath. If the lettuce problem is  considered a major drawback here on this forum though, I am willing to alter the model here too, since it has not impact on the models ability to explain the world as we experience it.

I was just kidding with you.

Actually, I wonder how this would work with UA theory?