Proof for a flat earth is all around us

Quote from: "zanzobar"

what is the closest land mass to the ice wall, and what is that distance?  what coast do i set sail from and how far "rimward" would one have to go.

Travel southward from the tip of South America, Africa, or from the bottom edge of Australia. You'll reach a vast wasteland of ice, which you can walk across for a long, long time and never find anything or anyone. The ice wall is very vast. Good luck finding the edge. (Note: Before someone else mentions my contradiction of the usual FE statements, I do not believe the standard ice wall conspiracy theory.)


--Chal

how can you have varying beliefs of geography.

and here's another question.  if a plane takes off  from point "A" to point "b" and the runways to and from these points are the most conveneient position possible (for the sake of physics)  the total distance travelled would vary if you compared the FE to RE.  the amount that it would vary would depend on altitude and distance.  from boston to new jersey the diference would be tiny, but the distance from boston to Los Angeles would be noticably greater, especially at a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet.  guess which calculations are used to determine fuel consumption and ETA.   :idea:

There is another mass pulling the Earth back into a disc shape again.

What sort of magical gravity does this other mass work by? How does this other mass pull the earth below our feet up and back into a flat shape without pulling us up into the sky?? Or how come this gravity seems to only affect the ground below us without pulling the birds out of the sky or the leaves into the air?

I have always refused to believe the ignorant drivel shoved down my throat since grade school. It is not  natural to believe the crazy theory of a round world. It is something they teach you, and i have no idea why.  Some people on this board have been trying to show the "proof" of pictures from "space". It is...laughable at best. I have always known that the sun functions as a type of spotlight. A spotlight, such as one used in a stage performance ONLY LIGHTS UP A SMALL AREA. It is obvious that the earth is flat, and the disk of the sun lights up a disk shaped portion of the earth, leaving the rest in darkness. This would leave some ignorant folk with the impression that the earth was round. That is as inane as believing that celine dion is the only person in a sold out arena just because everyone else is not illuminated.

you guys are ####### nuts... the earth is round... haven't you seen pics from space?and if it is flat why can't you fall off the edge???

I posted this in another part of the forum, and it would be appreciated if you would not be so judgemental. Just because you were told something doesnt mean that it is true.

the sun functions as a type of spotlight. A spotlight, such as one used in a stage performance ONLY LIGHTS UP A SMALL AREA. It is obvious that the earth is flat, and the disk of the sun lights up a disk shaped portion of the earth, leaving the rest in darkness. This would leave some ignorant folk with the impression that the earth was round. That is as inane as believing that celine dion is the only person in a sold out arena just because everyone else is not illuminated.

as for falling off of the edge, it is my firm belief that if you could make it over the ice barrier, something impossible because of the extreme cold, you could fall off of the edge.

Of course the world is a flat disc.....   It sits atop four giant cosmic elephants riding on the back of the celestial tortoise, I thought everyone already knew that...

     Viva la Ankh Morpork!!

I would like you to know that I am not impressed by the quality of your arguments or the content of these and related sites.  Your scientific arguments are extremely dubious pseudo science and the way you try to explain those arguments to others is severely lacking.

   When the FE'ers on this site are asked a question your answers are extremely vague and incomplete.  Your explanations have no substance or merit, and you seem to be desperately reaching for any sort of half-baked conclusion.  When confronted with arguments that you cannot answer you ignore the questions, or refer people to a FAQ which provides little useful information.  

   But what strikes me as the most condemning part is how you relate to critics.  When you are asked a clear and direct question you choose to argue the minutae of how words are defined and the precise phrasing of the question instead of answering its clear intent.  The responses that I have seen on this site are very deceptive and intended to stall and  misdirect the critic.  A person with clear and honest answers would provide them instead of trying to muddy the waters with verbal games.  

   When you say that other readers are being close-minded as an excuse for your lack of empirical evidence, that closes the argument in my mind.

  -J

<i>Planes don't typically fly dozens of miles above the earth. </i>

Ok, so fighter jets fly at about 90,000 feet above the earth, flat or not. That's a little over 17 miles above the ground. There are experimental planes that fly even higher. I would have to conclude that since a dozen = 12, that planes typically do fly at least one dozen miles above the earth.

Seeing Hi Def footage of Earth from Space on HDTV was proof enough for me. What a beautiful sight the truth is. Maybe you FE believers should invest in something other than chewing tobacco and check it out. Upgrade that VCR too.

The footage lasted at least 30 minutes, was crystal clear (not computer rendered at all) and looked fantastic at 57". It's like I had a window to look at earth through from space. I could only do better by going there myself.

FE believers are 100% ignorant. There is a 0% chance for a FE. ZERO.

Quote from: "gravitics"

Also, this one's been bugging me: why did the governments of every nation in the world decide to go in on this?  there is no material gain and, evidently, no psychological gain either.  When we question them, they don't throw it in our faces, so it serves no purpose.[/i]

I asked that in another thread and he said that he "wasn't sure"

Read the FE FAQ.

Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"
A: The motive is unknown.

They are believing in something "unknown".

Ok, take map of the world.  As claimed by FEers, the world is like the UN symbol:



I want one FEer to take this challenge:
Meet me in the southern tip of South America.  You fly to Australia via the fastest method available to you (a straight line, over the north pole).  I'll go my own, RE, way to australia over MY south pole.  See which way is faster.  :wink:

See, the problem with discussing this FE theory is that you claim that anything that we REers have "proven" were not proven by us personally, or if so was in fact an optical illusion (Hello to all those that say we're misled by plane GPS etc...).

However, it is impossible to claim that all we know about this world, as RE scientists, is true, even though we claim it is.  All throughout our written history, many things proven "true" were eventually proven to be "false" by more accurate "truths".  Imagine for a moment if you will that you are a RE person, living in a pre-15th century (also assume Columbus did in fact find America first).  You KNEW for a fact that the Earth was flat.  However, over the upcoming centuries, that fact was PROVEN to be false, in favor of the more supported theory that the Earth is round (bear with me, even you RE people, since it may be true (we were, after all, wrong back in the 1400s)).

We cannot go about claiming the theory that goes against most evidence we have to the contrary.  We have to go with whatever is the most apparent, which has the most proof, without going on about claims that someone is shielding our eyes without our knowledge (aka government conspiracy).

If it can be understood, I think I can actually conceive of a flat earth more than the FEers themselves.  I can't help but visually try to imagine how something could work.  I just pictured what the FEers claim as facts and put that into a picture.  Yes, your theory works fine in that way (covered all the loop-holes nicely), but it sadly has to claim that all proof to the contrary is the act of some malicious mind/minds that want us to remain ignorant of the total truth.

All we can do is just try to live with our life with the world as it's given to us, as we can interpret it.  I'm a RE believer, but that's only because it's the only theory that doesn't ignore so much evidence (even if it's heresay by all the authorities in our lives).

Well, for those of you that read my post, thanks for taking the time.  I'm not critically blasting FE or even RE believers here, I just want you to all take life as it is, without having to prove to others that yours is in fact the real truth.

At least flat-earthers place their beliefs on evidence and THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS.

Conspiracies and illusions?  Need I say more?

Is the moon flat too?

You Sir are correct and wise in your thinking.  The truth is there is NO direct proof for a round earth but there is for a flat one. Round earthers read their textbooks and then say with all certanty that they are correct. Your eyes dont lie, not with something this important

Yeah i mean we can only see that its round from space :roll:

(which isn't the lowest energy shape in space, by the way). At least flat-earthers place their beliefs on evidence and THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS.

Yes, that must surely explain why all the other masses in space are of a three dimensional shape :roll:

And self observations? Lest you guys give yourselves too much credit, allow me to remind you that single person observations have a high (and in this case, CERTAIN) tendancy to be wrong, because its based on what they know (in this case, nothing).

One of the oldest proofs of the Earth's shape can be seen from the ground and occurs during every lunar eclipse.

The geometry of a lunar eclipse has been known since ancient Greece. When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round.

Some good reading on how sacred geometry manifests the 3rd dimension.
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

1. The horizon line curves. It wouldn't if the earth was flat. -- Many parts of the 'earth' have broken away since it creation many thousands of years ago. We believe the landmass is shaped like a disc (the most natural shape in space, actually). But what you are talking about likely isn't due to the earth's pancakedness. Likely it is because of the natural atmospheric fogging that happens over considerably long distances (many miles on a very clear day). You'll notice that due to the way light works and atmospherics plays out that the fog leads you to see in a vast circle around yourself. That's a CIRCLE, not a SPHERE, proven by my view of the stars not being obstructed by these atmospheric effects.

2. If the earth was flat, I would be able to see farther than I do. Object moving away from me in the distance gradually fall below the horizon line, therefore, the world is curved, not flat. -- These are almost the same exact effects talked about on the previous point. Try again, please.

Oh no no...he doesn't need to try again because you didn't prevent any type of valid argument.  Neither of these arguments even pass an aesthetic observation.  Here's the proof that you can go discover for yourself...all you need is a beach:

Go to the beach...watch a sailboat go over the horizon ...use some binoculars if you need.  You will notice the boat doesn't simply disappear because of the atmosphere (the term is visual attenuation) - it actually LOWERS.  The ship appears to SINK...not disappear in a fog.  It SINKS because the earth is curved and your surface tangentials are no longer equal...they are intersecting at a point above your head.

You can't use air particulates as an argument, because on a clear day our visual resolution far surpases the maximum attenuation - I know this because I can measure the amount of visual attenuation and describe it as a function based on distance.

Well...

No matter what we throw at them, the round-earthers change what the say just to hang on to the dying belief that the earth is a three-dimensional circle (which isn't the lowest energy shape in space, by the way).

The idea that the world is flat has been around about just as long as humans were. Yet you say the idea that the earth is round is "a dying belief"

At least flat-earthers place their beliefs on evidence and THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS.

What are these observations?

The round-earthers just can't stand to give up their BELIEF that the earth is round. So far, round-earthers have not been able to explain the observed world as well as the arguments of those who know the earth is flat.

If the earth is flat, how can you explain the 4 seasons?
Why can we only see certain parts of earth from certain areas of space?

If you can show me just one, ONLY ONE example showing the round-earth model explaining something the obviously correct flat-earth model can't, I will renounce the flat-earth model and embrace the round-earth model. Good luck.

I have already given a few examples but here are some more.
How does the flat earth revolve around the sun, which is obviously round?
How does the flat earth model represent the core of the earth?
How does the flat earth model represent gravity?

How does the flat earth model represent anything besides lack of logic?

How does the flat earth revolve around the sun, which is obviously round?

It doesn't.  The sun is a disc rotating around the equator.

How does the flat earth model represent the core of the earth?

The flat earth is not two-dimensional.  It has thickness as well, and I think magma and stuff would be contained in there.

How does the flat earth model represent gravity?

The earth and other heavenly bodies are acted on by a force, accelerating them upwards at a rate of 9.81m/s^2, creating the same effect as gravity.

How does the flat earth model represent anything besides lack of logic?

Actually, I used science to come to my conclusion.  There was an experiment outlined in another post that said to boil water, put a china cup or mug into the water, as well as some red dye.  Then put the cup in the freezer, and go back to it in a week.  Science will show you what happens.  It's a neat effect, and it at least gives me evidence for a flat earth.

The earth and other heavenly bodies are acted on by a force, accelerating them upwards at a rate of 9.81m/s^2, creating the same effect as gravity.

If the earth is constantly being pushed up by some magical force, where is the G-Force?

If you've ever been on a roller coaster you can feel a force pushing you down or lifting you up as you ride up and down the roller coaster.
How come I don't feel constantly pushed down by g-force?

The flat earth is not two-dimensional. It has thickness as well, and I think magma and stuff would be contained in there.

Wouldn't the magma fall out the bottom of Earth?

It doesn't.  The sun is a disc rotating around the equator.

Equator:

 the great circle of the celestial SPHERE whose plane is perpendicular to the axis of the earth

Now tell me how a disc may have an equator or just simply come up with another pointless theory or conspiracy

an equator on a disc is a ring right in the middle of the disc.  That is, equidistant from the edge and center of the disc.

If the earth is constantly being pushed up by some magical force, where is the G-Force?

Do you know what G-force means?  gravity-force.  9.8 m/s upwards acceleration would cause the G-force on your body of one G, which you do not feel as that is the force you are used to feeling at all times.

an equator on a disc is a ring right in the middle of the disc.  That is, equidistant from the edge and center of the disc.

ahh so the sun is actually orbiting around the top of the earth?!
(which it is impossible to orbit if the equator is right in the middle)

also if you look at the definiton of equator it says that an equator is the great circle of a celestial SPHERE

equator is only defined in terms of a sphere as celestial bodies are spherical.  a FE person believes the Earth to be flat, but the term equator can still be used to mean the middle line, as it is a line EQUI-distant from the two extremes (center and edge)

an equator on a disc is a ring right in the middle of the disc.  That is, equidistant from the edge and center of the disc.

Quote from: "Shackle"

If the earth is constantly being pushed up by some magical force, where is the G-Force?

Do you know what G-force means?  gravity-force.  9.8 m/s upwards acceleration would cause the G-force on your body of one G, which you do not feel as that is the force you are used to feeling at all times.

I am aware that it means gravity force.

Gravity's a physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles. It can extend over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between of groups of matter.

It's the attraction between certain objects.

In other words, it's not caused by earth being pushed up constantly.
The fact that the moon orbits the earth doesn't make your theory any more true either.

I was just saying that an acceleration of 9.8 m/s would cause you to feel 1 G, I never said I believed in FE.  Plus, a flat Earther would say the moon does not orbit Earth, and you just saying it isn't going to make them believe it.

Gravity's a physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles. It can extend over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between of groups of matter.

It's the attraction between certain objects.

In other words, it's not caused by earth being pushed up constantly.
The fact that the moon orbits the earth doesn't make your theory any more true either.

That's all very nice and scientific of you, but it doesn't address the fact that the "G-Force" effect you referenced earlier would occur exactly the same on a flat upwards-accelerating disc as it would a spherical gravity-dominated earth.

How come I don't feel constantly pushed down by g-force?

I'm actually quite certain you do feel constantly pushed down by g-force. Ever stood on a scale? The G-force is pushing you down. The scale tells you how hard.

If you're standing on a sphere earth the G-force is accelerating you downwards at 9.81 m/s^2, relative to the surface of the earth. If you're standing on an flat disc earth with no gravity, which is being accelerated upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, then the G-force is accelerating you downwards at 9.81 m/s^2, relative to the surface of the earth. No difference at all, and there are absolutely zero[/u] local experiments you can perform to differentiate between the two proposed models.

actually, there is perhaps a possibility for experimentation, in that gravity drops off exponentially over distance;  double the distance quarter the gravitational pull.  I would expect an upward acceleration, on the other hand, to perhaps be linear, or at least something not exactly like how gravity behaves.

Plus, an upwards acceleration of Earth might cause it to move upwards and collide with airplanes, whereas a downwards gravitational pull, overcome by the plane's lift, will cause the plane to not have to worry about causing itself to accelerate upwards in order to avoid the Earth.  (that second part was just me thinking, as I have trouble comprehending a flat Earth constantly accelerating upwards)

That's all very nice and scientific of you, but it doesn't address the fact that the "G-Force" effect you referenced earlier would occur exactly the same on a flat upwards-accelerating disc as it would a spherical gravity-dominated earth.

Thanks for cleverly pushing the actualy important part of the post aside and completely ignoring it, by doing this, it must've been pretty simple to handle the rest.

I think I could tell the difference between being attracted to an object and the object being pushed torwards me.

Not to mention the earth constantly raising would cause the atmosphere
( such as clouds ) to be constantly at our feet.

Unless gravity holds it place, but that would make two gravities...

Plus, an upwards acceleration of Earth might cause it to move upwards and collide with airplanes, whereas a downwards gravitational pull, overcome by the plane's lift, will cause the plane to not have to worry about causing itself to accelerate upwards in order to avoid the Earth.  (that second part was just me thinking, as I have trouble comprehending a flat Earth constantly accelerating upwards)

The FE acceleration is overcome by aircraft in exactly the same way as the RE acceleration. The atmosphere is sitting on top of the earth, and so is being accelerated upwards at the same speed. The aircraft generates lift based on the same principles.

Imagine being in an elevator, and in the elevator is a ladder. If the elevator accelerates upwards, you can still climb the ladder. Aircraft do the same thing; they "climb" the air, which is being accelerated along with the earth.

As for distance thing, yeah I guess we should have defined what was meant by "local". The idea, by the way, isn't mine. I'm pretty sure it was Einstein to made the "elevator" claim. Basically he said that there is no local experiment you can do to tell the difference between standing in an elevator being accelerated linearly at G in the absence of a gravitational field, and an elevator sitting motionless in the presence of a gravitational field generating an acceleration of G. I suppose Einstein was assuming your elevator wasn't thousands of miles tall.

I think I could tell the difference between being attracted to an object and the object being pushed torwards me.

No actually you very definitely could not.

Not to mention the earth constantly raising would cause the atmosphere
( such as clouds ) to be constantly at our feet.

Also untrue.