Answering the Questions on Flat Earth Theory, or, FAQ Mk II

Most of you may think with the title I am either for or against Flat Earth. The truth is, I am in favour of a Round Earth, but, like any scientist, I shall treat your theory as valid as mine until I have disproved your observations as misinterpreted. So, let us run through some, shall we?

I'll use the questions from the FAQ and shall go in the same order presented there.

General:

Already answered really. Nothing asked or questioned other than about the society itself.

Government:

1. Ooookay. It's a proven fact that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I will hand you that a conspiracy theory is a plausible explaination, but at a grand scale, anything can be suggested. I could suggest Earth is a Discworld and use the same answer.

2. Another point where we lack conclusive evidence one way or the other. However, as I have launched rockets of my own (Not as big, mind you), I know Robert Godard's theories of rocketry are entirely plausible, and am in their favour, as you have never disproven this.

3. Yes, another famous thing from all conspiracies. The truth is, if you had a picture, knowledge, or in any way displeased this conspiracy, would you be allowed to exist? Surpression of ideas is the whole point of a conspiracy. I suggest chartering a boat and sailing around the world/to the Ice Wall. The end result would be you finding out for yourself the truth, at which point you can soundly decide one way or the other which is true or false.

4. Money being thrown at a problem does not make it go away. Humans can only work so fast and have so many ideas. I can grant you this that I have nothing to disprove you still, but you have nothing still to prove your point.

Now for the image thing. The fact is that therefore only experiencing it yourself can be the truth. Maybe you should get a live video feed and fly non-stop from the southernmost point of the Flat Earth and keep going until you meet this Ice Wall or Antarctica, whichever comes first.

5. I can supplement explainations a-plenty. Maybe we are a petri dish experiment? A subtle disguise for a larger, grander, far more sophisticated being? Or how about that our government knows that if we find a way out, we may want to explore and find other, better civilizations? Maybe the Ice Wall is steadily enclosing on us and they don't want us to spend our last days in fear? All plausible. Still no proof though.

6. See the last six words above.

7. Oook, now we have something implausible. Would not, then, Americans who rebelled in 1776 have revealed this horrendous secret? Or any other uprising that became privy to the worlds dark, horrendous secrets?

8. Yeah, but... As soon as you found evidence or came up with plausible numbers, would they then not step in? I still suggest a boat or plane to the Ice Wall.

9. Oook, hazard here. Eventually, SOMEONE would do things the old fashioned way with a map and a compass, at which point electronic prevention is useless. Constant Sattelite Transmision would also ensure this, and disabling the feed would show they have something to hide.

10. I don't know what this is in reference to...

The Earth in Space

1. Ok, now we get into numbers. The first question is, how do you know this? Is it a guess or do you have actual, factual data? And have you ever tried the Pharoah's Mast experiment? Take a piece of string and give it to the other person, then steadily walk away. You will see the other person eventually dissapear over the horizon but the string will remain taught. If you go further, it will eventually scrape the ground as it touches the curvature of the earth. However, neither of you will be leaning. You can cut the string and neither of you will fall off. If you continued with an infinite amount of string and a lack of obstacles, eventually you would arrive at the end point and you could measure it by calculating the distance from your starting point to your end point. There is now an actual way for me to prove to you my theory but if yours were true, the Earth must be covered in hills and the laws of physics entirely wrong for this experiment to be valid on a Flat Earth.

2. But what is causing them to circle the Earth? Must it not be incredibly dense in the center, or is it to do with cosmic strings? And there is really no such thing as cold light. All radiation moves at a certain wavelength, the faster it is determining the heat, but all radiate heat at a temperature above 0 Kelvin, which means they ALL carry heat. Radiation can NEVER be cold. The Rising and Setting Action could not be optical illusions because no matter where you are in the world, it appears to be in the same place, no matter what, at 12:00. If the Earth was flat, a person in South Africa and a person in Canada would see it slightly to the left or right of what the other sees.

3. And less light reaches you. Same reason on a Round Earth. Silly question really.

4. Ever observed a little F-type star known as Proycron? It's not two dimensional. Or how about the "Super-Earths"? These are ultra-dense planets many lightyears away that are visible as three dimensional because we can see they cast a shadow and have a shadow on themselves from light not entirely encomassing them.

5. Then how does a down-pointed sattelite dish not recieve signals which should logically be radiating around them from radio towers?

6. Honk honk wheee! Seemed as logical a response as the Elephants and Turtle thing.

7 and 8. This is a logical theory actually, and does make sense. However, it stops doing so when you use the aeroplane example. You see, if I push a ball on a table, it keeps moving until it runs out of kinetic force from the push, at which point it gently stops. If a plane flies over Earth at a constant speed while perfectly level, would it not quickly decelerate and crash? This also causes issues with the atmosphere but if you can solve the Plane example, THEN we'll move onto that.

9. I won't bother reading the explaination because the speed of light IS bypassable, as any intelligent physicist will tell you. Simply adding energy to a light wave makes it move faster than the speed of light, and since Matter and Energy are interchangable, objects CAN move faster than light.

10. Logical, if your theories are correct.

11. Curious that, if FE was true, would not the theory collapse if carbon-dating is accurate? Which means for FE to work, Dinosaurs must be a hoax too. And evolution. And pretty much all accepted science we know to date.

12. So logic doesn't work when it's not convenient?

13. Snakes have no legs because it was advantageous in their environment not to develop them. For cats and dogs, it was. It is not an unanswerable question, it is, as it has been in the past few ones, just a point where common knowledge doesn't go into detail and therefore makes sense until you think about it.

Geography

1 and 2. If your theories in the past bit didn't break down, I WOULD agree here. If your theories were true, Earth would indeed take such a shape.

3. And why does this Ice Wall not melt? Or, considering the speed, break apart and fly off into space like the rest of Earth?

4. I ain't touching this one with a ten foot pole. All I'll say is that Global Warming is definitely real and if your theories are true, we're gonna drown in about a century or so.

5. That... Makes a disturbing amount of sense... Except for the fact that tides wobble as much as the Earth does on its axis. This can't be explained by this theory as far as you've pointed it out.

6. Yeees but in your image of the flat earth, the Equator has been made into a circle, not an orbital path. The flat earth couldn't have ice in the middle because that would TOTALLY go against this answer.

7. But would it not be easier for it to flow out the sides or bottom? As we're moving forward, force would push it down, which would cause it to favour moving out of the Earth below it, not above.

8. See 2 in The Earth in Space

9. This is actually very similar to the RE theory, so I'll credit you there.

10. Heh heh, those wacky drunks. The fact is, however, that, they wouldn't need their GPS altered. Flight paths that run on the basis that the Earth is round would be identical to a flat one. You lift up, fly in a circle, and move around. Only the ones to the Antarctic would be different.

11. Whether misled by GPS or not, this route was found out pre-GPS, and therefore could not be mis-led. Sorry but there is just no way FE theory can fit in here.

12. Allow for another go at this. If you fire a laser straight forward and follow it forward, that laser will eventually start to get higher and higher the further away you go. This is proof the world is round because you are following the earths curvature as you move, not the laser. Unless you wanna say there's a laser magnet now...

13. We've been over this before actually.

14. This made NO sense. The water goes in a different direction, not slower. Hate to tell you but your theory here is total bunk.

15. Plausible, if you can explain why the Sun doesn't go flying off into space.

Religion

1. Nothing to do with science here.

Unanswered

I can answer these with RE, but not FE.


So, I hope to those FE theorists out there, this provides something to think about. You have every right to your theories (Don't expect to get a job in many scientific institutions though), and I support you for them. The fact is, not enough people question the world around them and use Scientific Method anymore. You people, despite having a different belief, excite me with the prospect of the Undiscovered Country once more. Observation, Hypothesis, Explaination, all in a continuous cycle and you actually THOUGHT about it!

Thank you, FE Theorists, for making a scientist smile.

This has been a message from your local 16 year old physicist.

Axel, out.

You should quote the questions from the FAQ, it's hard to follow without them.

Also, this might go unanswered for a while.

I agree, quote the FAQ

I love it when a highschool kid calls himself a 'physicist' and/or a 'scientist'.

I am glad you are a student of science, so please keep at it.

Despite all your typing, you have actually said very little.

You have lost credability points with:

This made NO sense. The water goes in a different direction, not slower. Hate to tell you but your theory here is total bunk.

Sorry, but the coriolis force does not make water drain from your sink in a different direction if you are on different sides of the equator.

Simply adding energy to a light wave makes it move faster than the speed of light

What?

You see, if I push a ball on a table, it keeps moving until it runs out of kinetic force from the push, at which point it gently stops. If a plane flies over Earth at a constant speed while perfectly level, would it not quickly decelerate and crash?

Which is why an airplane has to generate lift.


That's enough.  I grow weary of trying and line up your numbers to the questions in the faq.

Finally! I can now post a reply! I shall repost:

1. I will edit in the questions and put things in place.

2. I misinterpreted the coriolis effect, yes. I was not aware that it was the effect described in Foccaults Pendulum (I hope I spelled that right), and the rotation of water as a misconception.

3. A scientist is, by definition, anyone who uses Scientific Method to observe the world.

4. Shortening the wavelength of light speeds it up, although by doing so it effectively makes it something else. Once this is done, the light moves faster. Maybe I should've clarified that a bit.

5. Not the point. An Aeroplane achieves lift by having higher pressure below the wing than above. If there is nothing holding the air on Earth (No gravity), the air must be sucked away. There is also the fact that, so long as the Earth keeps moving, the plane is no longer pushed by the Earth and hence would slow down steadily and descend towards the Earth. This, however, does not happen so long as it maintains forward momentum. It effectively invalidates that part of FE theory.

That clear it up?

That clear it up?

No.

4. Shortening the wavelength of light speeds it up, although by doing so it effectively makes it something else. Once this is done, the light moves faster. Maybe I should've clarified that a bit.

Uh, no.  It would be hard to calculate wavelength or frequency if c varied with wavelength.  Also, violet light would travel faster than red light and would make for a very interesting world.

5. Not the point. An Aeroplane achieves lift by having higher pressure below the wing than above. If there is nothing holding the air on Earth (No gravity), the air must be sucked away. There is also the fact that, so long as the Earth keeps moving, the plane is no longer pushed by the Earth and hence would slow down steadily and descend towards the Earth. This, however, does not happen so long as it maintains forward momentum. It effectively invalidates that part of FE theory.

The earth accelerates the air along with it.

You know how you increase/decrease light's speed?  Optics.
Specifically, fiberoptic cable.  Fiberoptic cable has been used to "slow" and "speed up" lightwaves, though only observationally.  Basically, there have been experiments in which a single pulse of light was stopped, as well as experiments in which a lightwave ended up exiting the optical cable before it was seen to be put in.
Now, this isn't your average physics.  I don't claim to fully understand half of how this works, but apparently there's some quantum physics in the mix here.  Apparently, the light ended up causing another pulse at the end to be created and one to go backwards and cancel out the original pulse.
Though, from the graphic I've seen, it seems a bit off.  The animation I saw showed the backwards-moving pulse at a different frequency, yet it still cancelled out the original pulse.  I always thought two different frequencies couldn't cancel each other out.  But I could easily be wrong here.

So, what about the 3409204930 other points made by Axelgear?

The engineer pointed out about 3, heh.

I'm sorry, I tried to answer these points but I couldn't.  The reason I couldn't is because I don't know what they're referring to.  I mean obviously the FAQ - but if you can't make points that are clear what you're talking about without me having to constantly refer to other documents then I'm not going to go to the effort.  You need to re-edit your points so that I can understand them without having to go back to the FAQ to know what you're actually talking about.

Open two windows, whiner.

That's what I did, and gave up after just three answers.

Open two windows, whiner.

Or, if you actually want a response, put forward arguments that don't require me to do my own research just to understand what your point is. (You in general, obviously not specifically you Xargo).

I promise I will respond to every point if somebody turns them into independent statements but I refuse to waste so much time reading over multiple documents.  

An even better idea would be to post 1 argument at a time, so that there could be genuine debate on that issue - instead of posting 30 arguments at a time, making it hard to follow any discussion leading on from the response to those arguments.

On what grounds?

Axelgear, you win this one.

Maybe we should make a special  thread where we could post all previous threads that beats the FE model?  

Axelgear, posting this many arguments all at once is never a good idea. Most people don't even have time to read through them all, let alone answer them.

Axelgear, posting this many arguments all at once is never a good idea. Most people don't even have time to read through them all, let alone answer them.

You would rather see a new thread for each argument?

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Axelgear, posting this many arguments all at once is never a good idea. Most people don't even have time to read through them all, let alone answer them.

You would rather see a new thread for each argument?

No, I was suggesting that he only post three or four at a time. Then wait for those to be answered, and post few more.
That makes life easier on everyone.