I wish to challenge your theroy

Ok just a few things i dont understand about your theory

First of all if the Earth was flat then why would people be covering up that fact what is the need for the huge conspiracy.

How do you discredit all the evidance of the earth being round such as the thousands of people on round the world cruises satilites in space the moon landing the fact that all matter naturally wants to form a sphere (eg. when you throw water into the air it makes an elongated sphere and not a disc)

in the light of all this evidance why do you chose to believe that its all a huge conspiracy.

I highly susspect this is a hoax by the way

wow ur a retard the earth is obviuosly flat DUH

um are you being sarcastic

No, he quite obviously believes you to be retarded and judging by your great confusion, I feel he is correct. Imagine the wealth that could be enjoyed by all nations if they would just stop pouring trillions of dollars into sustaining this rediculous notion that the world is spherical. It's ok to be wrong. It doen't need to keep nations in poverty. All nations on this linear gavitational thin-disk with the ice wall should live in harmony and prosperity not shackled to an expensive hoax.

I also don't think you have the right to challenge anyones THEROY. I have my own THEROY and that is if you lack the ability to challenge huge misconceptions and simply accept doctrines of scholars who preceed you, then obviously the spelling portion of your brain whithers and dies quickly followed by the rest in short order as seen by 90% of round earther's replies. Owned and double owned rounder.  8-)

You still havent answered any of my questions.

Why is there a cover up? It just seems pointless and expenseive. I dont think any government in the world is stupid enough to try and coverup somthing so big.

PS. I came in here asking questions and was rewarded with insults. All theorys are chalenged at some time.

Let me also ask you this do you have any pictures or video footage of the earth being flat because i have some footage of the earth being round.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/realmedia/video_pop.shtml?earth_structure.ram
http://www.deepspacenyc.com/albums/album04/earth_from_space.jpg

here is my proof.

Funny I see no wall of ice

For all ye olde ignorant

here are some FACTS about the earth

Size    Diameter 12,756km
Mass    5.97x10(exp24)kg
 
Distance from Sun    150 million km
Atmosphere    Mainly nitrogen with oxygen and carbon dioxide
 
Moons/satellites    1
Temperature    Average 22ºC
 
Colour    Blue and green
Core    Iron/Nickel
 
Length of year    365.26 Earth days
Length of day    24 Earth hours

Look stupid people more links to help you learn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/earth/solsticescience.shtml

I dont know maybe thinking the earth is flat gives you some exitement in your dull little life.

Like o we must spread the word to the masses because we are the only ones who know. We missed out on the sixties so we fight the man with some crazy theories.

The thing is that the earth being round is a widely regarded FACT.
The flat earth theory is just that a Theory.

I love the gratuitous use of the word fact by "round earthers".

"FACTS"

H 1200065948679km

W 29387290000000x10_3tonnes

Distance from Coke factory 812638789090x10_8km

here is my "PROOF"

<insert link to bbc here>
<insert link to cnn here>
<insert link to fox here>
<insert link to US military online here>  

Do you get my subtle point, you drone. Shouldn't drones be cleaning each others rectums and gathering for their overlords. OWNED. COMPLETLY OWNED  8-)

You didnt answer any questions you just threw insults

Hmmm. I'm saying go and do your own research like Dork Bitch. He has posted the ice wall, with him in view. The best you guys can do is give dodgy links to controlled press articles. Not good enough.

Alright, Zoobtron. Explain this, if you will. Why does the atmosphere stay attached to the Earth, instead of dissipating off into space?

You had to rewrite the laws of physics to prove your flat earth theory.
We had to do no such thing.

Dont ask zoobtron anything hes a stupid little pedant who cares more about the spelling of words than clear cut facts

wow ur a retard the earth is obviuosly flat DUH

EXCUSE ME, the earth is round. And only people like you ends the talk with "The Earth is flat, coz i say so you fuckin' idiot"

Fascinating though this all is, it really is on the wrong forum  :roll:

ZOOBTRON

please post the link to y6our icewall, a pic of it, instead of acting like you even know what the word ownage, or more properly " pwnage" means, you think you own, |>\/\//\/ 7|-|15 j00 /\/00&

You heard Zelor.

Also, I'd like to see a pic of the Ice Wall from above.  I know an 'ice wall' can look awful similar to a glacier, no?

|>\/\//\/ 7|-|15 j00 /\/00&

wow is that leet, i havent seen that n a while.

Alright, Zoobtron. Explain this, if you will. Why does the atmosphere stay attached to the Earth, instead of dissipating off into space?

The so-called spherical earth "theory" invites us to imagine a globe spinning around and around, yet somehow managing to keep us, and the atmosphere, stuck firmly to it.

Try this experiment: tie a weight to a piece of string and whirl it around your head.  You feel a strong force pulling the weight away from you.  Were the Earth really spinning, as some scientists claim, with us standing on the outside, we would be similarly launched into space, along with everything else that wasn't nailed down.

When we look at the facts, we see that not only are we firmly on solid ground, but we don't even feel the lightness that this spinning globe hypothesis predicts.  Science says that when a hypothesis fails to agree with experimental data, you discard the hypothesis, not the data.  So why do people cling to such a ridiculous notion?  I have no idea.

Hi, have you ever heard of gravity?  You know, that stuff that makes your argument look really stupid.  In your experiment, the string represents gravity.

Hmm spam gravity

Hi, have you ever heard of gravity?  You know, that stuff that makes your argument look really stupid.  In your experiment, the string represents gravity.

I'm loath to enter into a discussion with such a belligerent, but for the sake of knowledge, that's what I'll do.

You are referring to the theory of a force that connects every massive object in the universe.  But there are several acknowledged problems with this situation.

(1) The other fundamental forces -- electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear -- all have particles through which they act (photons, bosons and gluons).  Gravity proponents theorise the existance of a "graviton", but no such particle has ever been observed.

(2) If gravitons exist, how fast to they travel?  If they are limited by lightspeed, then (for example), the Earth would be rotating around the point where the sun was eight minutes earlier.  It's easy to show that this orbit is unstable.  If, however, gravitons act instantaneously, this breaks Special Relativity, and in particular, causality.

(3) A single theory describes electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, but nobody has been able to combine them with gravity.

(4) Einstein described gravity as a curvature of spacetime.  How can this be consistent with the existence of gravitons?

(5) The other fundamental forces are of comparable magnitudes.  Gravity is said to be many orders of magnitude weaker.  Nobody can explain why.

With all these contradictions, you cannot cry "gravity!" as if that explains everything.  It doesn't.

(1) The other fundamental forces -- electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear -- all have particles through which they act (photons, bosons and gluons).  Gravity proponents theorise the existance of a "graviton", but no such particle has ever been observed.

It hasn't been observed because we don't have the equipment to test for it yet.  Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

(2) If gravitons exist, how fast to they travel?  If they are limited by lightspeed, then (for example), the Earth would be rotating around the point where the sun was eight minutes earlier.  It's easy to show that this orbit is unstable.  If, however, gravitons act instantaneously, this breaks Special Relativity, and in particular, causality.

Gravity seems to be subject to the light speed limit.  There's no problem here, I'm not sure what makes you think there is one.  There are other factors at work which affect an orbit other than the speed of light limit.

(3) A single theory describes electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, but nobody has been able to combine them with gravity.

Once again, just because something isn't 100% known doesn't mean that current theory is wrong.  In fact, there ARE theories which incorporate gravity with the other forces.  Superstring theory is a promising one.  Not only does it unify gravity with the other forces, but it specifically predicts the existence of gravitons as well.  I mean honestly, do you think such an obvious challenge wouldn't have been thought of by physicists?  I love how people think that in 5 seconds they can turn the physics world upside down.  Why don't you go win your Nobel Prize already if you are that sure about gravity?

(4) Einstein described gravity as a curvature of spacetime.  How can this be consistent with the existence of gravitons?

I'm not sure.  If I could give a good answer to that, I'd probably win a Nobel Prize myself.  I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the graviton though, it certainly has nothing specifically to do with any arguments I've made against a flat earth.  Whether or not the graviton exists, there's an abundance of evidence that gravity exists, regardless of whether it has a messenger particle or not.

(5) The other fundamental forces are of comparable magnitudes.  Gravity is said to be many orders of magnitude weaker.  Nobody can explain why.

With all these contradictions, you cannot cry "gravity!" as if that explains everything.  It doesn't.

Your basic point seems to be "We don't know everything about gravity, therefore it doesn't exist."  Not sure I follow that logic, probably because it's just so bad.

LOL yea i agree with wtf

(edit: stupid forum software ...)

Quote from: "aramael"

(1) The other fundamental forces -- electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear -- all have particles through which they act (photons, bosons and gluons).  Gravity proponents theorise the existance of a "graviton", but no such particle has ever been observed.

It hasn't been observed because we don't have the equipment to test for it yet.  Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

No, but it is the same thing as "Don't bother talking about it until you've got some evidence."

Gravity seems to be subject to the light speed limit.  There's no problem here, I'm not sure what makes you think there is one.  There are other factors at work which affect an orbit other than the speed of light limit.

Let me put it to you that you are demanding precision from me which you are not supplying your self.  These mysterious "other factors", do you know what they are?  I assure that limiting the propogation of gravity to a finite speed does cause a problem, and I worry that your vague reference to other factors indicates a reliance on blind faith which you have come to this forum to castigate others for.

I noticed in high school that the propagation of gravity at a finite speed caused problems -- the force comes from the wrong direction if the source is moving.  This is obvious.  There is a reason that Newtonian mechanics still work more or less, but it's not at all obvious.

Once again, just because something isn't 100% known doesn't mean that current theory is wrong.

But it does mean that proposing these theories as a cure-all is intellectually dishonest.

In fact, there ARE theories which incorporate gravity with the other forces.  Superstring theory is a promising one.

Flat earth: bad.  Eleven-dimensional universal (with seven dimensions too small to notice) containing interacting "branes" and unbelieveably long vibrating strings: good.

Not only does it unify gravity with the other forces, but it specifically predicts the existence of gravitons as well.

No, it is a mathematical creation that is consistent with the existence of gravitons.  It makes no predictions that are testable in practice.

Your basic point seems to be "We don't know everything about gravity, therefore it doesn't exist."  Not sure I follow that logic, probably because it's just so bad.

No, what I'm saying is that you brought up gravity to explain everything, but you don't know what it is (which is fine, nobody really does).  Proof in the natural world is a slippery thing; it's very hard to disprove "v = u + at"; something which is "obviously true", but turns out not to be "actually true."

No, but it is the same thing as "Don't bother talking about it until you've got some evidence."

How do you think you gain evidence, when you have none before?  Yeah in theoretical physics they do a lot of postulating about things we have no proof of.  But one thing about mathematical modeling is it yields a lot of predictions that you can test against the real world.  As our technology increases, the question of gravitons will eventually be answered to a much higher degree of confidence.  I honestly don't care one way or the other, and I'm not sure why it's a sticking point for you.

Quote from: "WTF"

Gravity seems to be subject to the light speed limit.  There's no problem here, I'm not sure what makes you think there is one.  There are other factors at work which affect an orbit other than the speed of light limit.

Let me put it to you that you are demanding precision from me which you are not supplying your self.  These mysterious "other factors", do you know what they are?  I assure that limiting the propogation of gravity to a finite speed does cause a problem, and I worry that your vague reference to other factors indicates a reliance on blind faith which you have come to this forum to castigate others for.

I noticed in high school that the propagation of gravity at a finite speed caused problems -- the force comes from the wrong direction if the source is moving.  This is obvious.  There is a reason that Newtonian mechanics still work more or less, but it's not at all obvious.

Here's a good basic description here
If you want a more technical one, look up the references there.  You can't just take newtonian intuitions and apply them to GR-described orbits and proclaim there's a problem when there isn't one.  Go win your Nobel Prize if you can back up your assertion.  

Quote from: "WTF"

Once again, just because something isn't 100% known doesn't mean that current theory is wrong.

But it does mean that proposing these theories as a cure-all is intellectually dishonest.

What "cure all"?  You posed one simple problem.  Gravity answers your question.  If you want to assert that we SHOULD fly off the earth, what reason is there to think that we should?  You want to bring up centrifugal force with no problems with the physics, but you want to dismiss forces that work in opposition to it?  Physics accounts for both, and explains perfectly well why we don't fly off the earth.  If you want to challenge that - be my guest, but make your argument a little better than "We should fly off the earth!"  If you want some reasons why we should believe in gravity, try here for some tests which have confirmed GR.  That's a hell of a lot more evidence than you have, or can, produce to believe in a flat earth.

Quote from: "WTF"

In fact, there ARE theories which incorporate gravity with the other forces.  Superstring theory is a promising one.

Flat earth: bad.  Eleven-dimensional universal (with seven dimensions too small to notice) containing interacting "branes" and unbelieveably long vibrating strings: good.

Yep.  Flat earth "theory" is soundly disproven, beyond any and all reasonable doubt.  String theory may or not end up being "right" but it certainly has some promising reasons to consider it.  The fact that additional dimensions seem unintuitive to *us* doesn't impact their reality in any way.  Mathematically, they are not particularly difficult to describe.

Quote from: "WTF"

Not only does it unify gravity with the other forces, but it specifically predicts the existence of gravitons as well.

No, it is a mathematical creation that is consistent with the existence of gravitons.  It makes no predictions that are testable in practice.

You are right at this point in time - string theory doesn't have a heck of a lot of testable predictions.  That doesn't mean it won't in the future, and that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of reason to think it might make some very useful predictions in the future.  

Quote from: "WTF"

Your basic point seems to be "We don't know everything about gravity, therefore it doesn't exist."  Not sure I follow that logic, probably because it's just so bad.

No, what I'm saying is that you brought up gravity to explain everything, but you don't know what it is (which is fine, nobody really does).  Proof in the natural world is a slippery thing; it's very hard to disprove "v = u + at"; something which is "obviously true", but turns out not to be "actually true."

So what if it isn't "actually true"? That doesn't mean it still isn't extremely useful as an approximation.  You seem to at least have a decent grasp of some basic concepts of physics and science (which indications to me that you are just trolling, like a lot of newcomers here - but we can save that speculation for later) so I'm sure you know that Newtonian physics are in fact still used in abundance - despite being "wrong".

None of this has much of anything to do with the earth being flat.  Why don't we focus on something that you can't deny exists?  So how about explaining time zones and seasons for me, and see if you can avoid throwing out entire branches of well-established science in the process.

GOOD POINT!

Aramel, you seem knowledgable about physics and stuff, so just a quick question: um, just what is it exactly that makes things fall to the ground when one lets them go if it's not gravity?