The Earth is round, but we are on the inside; you Flat Earthers almost have it!

  • 33 Replies
  • 748 Views
The Koreshian principle: an elevated line perpendicular to the Earth's surface at one point will touch the Earth at distances from this point in either direction proportional to the elevation of the line at the original point. The stars, Sun, etc. are in the middle, and the Moon landing was faked.

And your evidence or justification for this is....?

Also, if this was the case, why can't we look up and see the other side of the planet? Why can't we always see the sun?

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale

The blue sky is like a fog; it blocks our view of the other sides. Also, do you remember the cry of the "Last Koreshan"?

The blue sky is like a fog; it blocks our view of the other sides. Also, do you remember the cry of the "Last Koreshan"?
So during the day when the sky is blue we can't see the other side or the sun but at night when the sky is colourless we can?

The Sun is bright enough to shine through the fog, as a lighthouse shines through the storm. At night, just because the sky is black does not mean that it is clear, it is just no longer illuminated by the brightness of the Sun. The Stars revolve around the center of the Earth-Sphere, and come closer and are no longer outshined by the Sun during the night.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 15683
  • Backstage
The Sun is bright enough to shine through the fog, as a lighthouse shines through the storm. At night, just because the sky is black does not mean that it is clear, it is just no longer illuminated by the brightness of the Sun. The Stars revolve around the center of the Earth-Sphere, and come closer and are no longer outshined by the Sun during the night.

Wellcome to the flat earthers movement. There is nothing I want object your upside three posts. All of them are classical principles here. Just, John wikipedia Davis does not mention them.
I don't take jack'inoz (rab'black) the fierce globularist as an interlocutor in no way.

ANNIHILATOR OF JOHN TURD DAVIS



The Sun is bright enough to shine through the fog, as a lighthouse shines through the storm.
So it should be easily visible at night.

The Stars revolve around the center of the Earth-Sphere, and come closer and are no longer outshined by the Sun during the night.
So we should see the sun set behind this sphere, high in the sky rather than at the horizon (well more technically the horizon should be the boundary of this sphere, high in the sky, not below eye level)?

There is nothing I want object your upside three posts.
So you accept Earth isn't flat?

Don't bother me with self-serving questions; the Wikipedia page on Koreshanity has already been referenced in this thread.
"The sun is an invisible electromagnetic battery revolving in the universe's center on a 24-year cycle. Our visible sun is only a reflection, as is the moon, with the stars reflecting off seven mercurial discs that float in the sphere's center. Inside the earth there are three separate atmospheres: the first composed of oxygen and nitrogen and closest to the earth; the second, a hydrogen atmosphere above it; the third, an aboron atmosphere at the center. The earth's shell is one hundred miles thick and has seventeen layers. The outer seven are metallic with a gold rind on the outermost layer, the middle five are mineral and the five inward are geologic strata. Inside the shell there is life, outside a void."

Just another alternative FE theory (meaning FE as in "anything but round")? Trolling? Move to complete nonsense?

I hereby claim an example of Poe's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Often attempted, but seldom accomplished, the perfect balance between between sincere hokum and complete nonsense.

Well done, sir, well done!
Is it possible for something to be both true and unproven?

Are things that are true and proven any different from things that are true but not proven?

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15503
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Also, do you remember the cry of the "Last Koreshan"?

His name was David.

His last words cried were . . . Awwwww it's hot!
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

The sun is an invisible
No, it is quite visible.
It doesn't matter how you want to manipulate it, it is visible. The only explanations for the observed sunset is the current model of the universe and a FE where the sun goes below or into Earth.

The earth's shell is one hundred miles thick and has seventeen layers. The outer seven are metallic with a gold rind on the outermost layer, the middle five are mineral and the five inward are geologic strata. Inside the shell there is life, outside a void."
And how did you magically find that out?

Now care to address the issues, or do you just plan on spouting nonsense?

We know all about the last ten strata, for they are what we mine. As for the "visible" Sun, we see a reflection on the spheres, which can move down to the "horizon". The upper atmosphere can be explored through light's properties when interacting with them, and knowledge of the outer strata is very close to even what is on RE TV, just inverted.

How far do we have to drill down to break through? What is there?
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House

"If you could reason with flat earthers, there would be no flat earthers." - Turtles

The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

How far do we have to drill down to break through? What is there?
I don't know how far down, though one would assume about 40 km, the "width of the Earth's crust".

We know all about the last ten strata, for they are what we mine. As for the "visible" Sun, we see a reflection on the spheres, which can move down to the "horizon". The upper atmosphere can be explored through light's properties when interacting with them, and knowledge of the outer strata is very close to even what is on RE TV, just inverted.
We don't have them as ten strata though. So how do you determine it is so many strata? And what about the rest.
The outer strata in your fiction is still quite different to Earth.
We have a solid iron inner core and a molten iron outer core. Each much larger than your alleged entire shell, it is also roughly a sphere, not a shell. So no, it isn't very close.

As for the sunset, if it is a reflection on the inner sphere then it wouldn't go below eye level.
If it was a reflection on the sphere of Earth, it wouldn't appear high in the sky.

Face it your model doesn't match reality.

*

rabinoz

  • 19924
  • Real Earth Believer
We know all about the last ten strata, for they are what we mine. As for the "visible" Sun, we see a reflection on the spheres, which can move down to the "horizon". The upper atmosphere can be explored through light's properties when interacting with them, and knowledge of the outer strata is very close to even what is on RE TV, just inverted.
We don't have them as ten strata though. So how do you determine it is so many strata? And what about the rest.
The outer strata in your fiction is still quite different to Earth.
We have a solid iron inner core and a molten iron outer core. Each much larger than your alleged entire shell, it is also roughly a sphere, not a shell. So no, it isn't very close.

As for the sunset, if it is a reflection on the inner sphere then it wouldn't go below eye level.
If it was a reflection on the sphere of Earth, it wouldn't appear high in the sky.

Face it your model doesn't match reality.
You just can't know that until know things like the thickness of the atmosphere to within a fraction of an inch etc ::).

Read all about it in, Koreshan Principles of Optics and you'll be none-the-wiser but assuredly far more confused.

But like all these hypotheses, it can't be falsified because any contrary evidence can be refuted by a simple, "but we can't know that" - sound familiar?

How far do we have to drill down to break through? What is there?
I don't know how far down, though one would assume about 40 km, the "width of the Earth's crust".

You don't know? Are you saying you have no evidence and this just something someone dreamed up?

How is gravity generated? Is it because the shell is spinning and we're pressed against the outside? That would mean the poles are vertical and everything would fall off them.

If it's not spinning and it's just the gravity from the shell pulling us down then how do you explain the coriolis effect, hurricanes, jet streams, etc?
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House

"If you could reason with flat earthers, there would be no flat earthers." - Turtles

The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

How far do we have to drill down to break through? What is there?
I don't know how far down, though one would assume about 40 km, the "width of the Earth's crust".

You don't know? Are you saying you have no evidence and this just something someone dreamed up?

How is gravity generated? Is it because the shell is spinning and we're pressed against the outside? That would mean the poles are vertical and everything would fall off them.

If it's not spinning and it's just the gravity from the shell pulling us down then how do you explain the coriolis effect, hurricanes, jet streams, etc?

It's spinning and there is gravity; the outer shell is thick and dense, generating gravity.

Do you know how thick the Earth plane is in FE? I don't know how thick the shell is because I've never drilled through it and seen how thick it was!

We know all about the last ten strata, for they are what we mine. As for the "visible" Sun, we see a reflection on the spheres, which can move down to the "horizon". The upper atmosphere can be explored through light's properties when interacting with them, and knowledge of the outer strata is very close to even what is on RE TV, just inverted.
We don't have them as ten strata though. So how do you determine it is so many strata? And what about the rest.
The outer strata in your fiction is still quite different to Earth.
We have a solid iron inner core and a molten iron outer core. Each much larger than your alleged entire shell, it is also roughly a sphere, not a shell. So no, it isn't very close.

As for the sunset, if it is a reflection on the inner sphere then it wouldn't go below eye level.
If it was a reflection on the sphere of Earth, it wouldn't appear high in the sky.

Face it your model doesn't match reality.

What you're quoting are not my words, they were words from a wikipedia page. Stop using them against me. I did not mean that those words are true word for word, just as FEs do not use quotes from religion concerning the "four corners of the Earth" to establish that circular FE models are false.

Ham radio works in my model, and on freak events the upper atmosphere can be weakened allowing radio signals to travel through the middle of the shell, allowing weak signals (rarely) to be picked up "very far away".

Face it, my model is better and more bulletproof than FE.

It's spinning and there is gravity; the outer shell is thick and dense, generating gravity.
The gravity from a spherically symmetric shell, when inside the shell, is 0, ALWAYS!


I don't know how thick the shell is because I've never drilled through it and seen how thick it was!
Then why did you assert it was 100 miles thick?

What you're quoting are not my words, they were words from a wikipedia page. Stop using them against me.
If you don't want me to use them against you then do not provide them in response to questions.
Instead, provide the answers yourself.

If you provide answers in the form of a quote, I will assume you agree with that quote unless you are indicating disagreement. I did not mean that those

Ham radio works in my model
I don't give a damn. So many other things don't.
You have been able to back up any of the claims of your models.
You have been unable to provide an explanation of a simple thing like a sunset and will have plenty more issues with the horizon in general.

Face it, my model is better and more bulletproof than FE.
I don't give a damn.
It isn't FE vs your model.
You need to compete with all available models, including the vastly superior one which can actually explain reality (i.e. Earth being round and convex).

So do you have actual solutions, or just claims that your model is better than a horribly flawed model?

It's spinning and there is gravity; the outer shell is thick and dense, generating gravity.
The gravity from a spherically symmetric shell, when inside the shell, is 0, ALWAYS!
The gravity from a spherically symmetrical shell, when inside the shell, is 0, IF F_g = G(m_1 + m_2)/d^2.
This is not the only way gravity could function, and most likely the conspiracy deceives us into believing this to be the formula for gravity. It is likely that F_g = G'(m_1 + m_2)/d or something of the sort, which still generates the 9.81 m/s^2 acceleration required for "gravity". In this equation, G' would be different than the imaginary G.

I don't know how thick the shell is because I've never drilled through it and seen how thick it was!
Then why did you assert it was 100 miles thick?

Ham radio works in my model
I don't give a damn. So many other things don't.
You have been able to back up any of the claims of your models.
You have been unable to provide an explanation of a simple thing like a sunset and will have plenty more issues with the horizon in general.

Face it, my model is better and more bulletproof than FE.
I don't give a damn.
It isn't FE vs your model.
You need to compete with all available models, including the vastly superior one which can actually explain reality (i.e. Earth being round and convex).

So do you have actual solutions, or just claims that your model is better than a horribly flawed model?
My model is better than a horribly flawed model. It is superior to FE in almost all ways.

I claimed that the Earth was about 100 miles thick for lack of a better response, as I later explained. I truly do not know how thick the Earth is, and have no great way of finding out. If you can measure G' for yourself and find the density of the Earth, I could tell you how thick it was, but in truth there is no way to find out. How thick is FE? How thick is the RE crust? All estimates of even the latter are just that: estimates.

Though it is nice to know that RE defenders are so devoted.

How far do we have to drill down to break through? What is there?
I don't know how far down, though one would assume about 40 km, the "width of the Earth's crust".

You don't know? Are you saying you have no evidence and this just something someone dreamed up?

How is gravity generated? Is it because the shell is spinning and we're pressed against the outside? That would mean the poles are vertical and everything would fall off them.

If it's not spinning and it's just the gravity from the shell pulling us down then how do you explain the coriolis effect, hurricanes, jet streams, etc?

It's spinning and there is gravity; the outer shell is thick and dense, generating gravity.

Then, as Jack said, we'd be floating in zero G, balanced by the gravity from the far side. The other side may be further away but because we'd be located off-centre then there's more mass above us than below.

Quote
Do you know how thick the Earth plane is in FE? I don't know how thick the shell is because I've never drilled through it and seen how thick it was!

No, but FE is a silly idea as well, we can't get out of the FEers how thick their disc is either.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House

"If you could reason with flat earthers, there would be no flat earthers." - Turtles

The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Just another alternative FE theory (meaning FE as in "anything but round")? Trolling? Move to complete nonsense?

I hereby claim an example of Poe's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Often attempted, but seldom accomplished, the perfect balance between between sincere hokum and complete nonsense.

Well done, sir, well done!

jimster, you're right.

The gravity from a spherically symmetrical shell, when inside the shell, is 0, IF F_g = G(m_1 + m_2)/d^2.
You didn't even manage to get the formula correct. It is meant to be M*m, not M+m.

It is likely that F_g = G'(m_1 + m_2)/d or something of the sort
Pure BS.
There is no reason at all to think it follows a formula like that. We live in a 3D universe. That is the equation for a 2D universe.

My model is better than a horribly flawed model. It is superior to FE in almost all ways.
So all you can do is say it is better than a particular piece of garbage. I don't care. That doesn't mean it isn't garbage itself.

I claimed that the Earth was about 100 miles thick for lack of a better response
Do you know what a much better response would have been? Stating you have no idea.

If you can measure G' for yourself and find the density of the Earth, I could tell you how thick it was
Again, you can't, because gravity doesn't follow your fantasy.

All estimates of even the latter are just that: estimates.
Do you know the big difference? They are estimates based upon empirical data rather than just pure BS.

Though it is nice to know that RE defenders are so devoted.
If you mean devoted to the truth, then yes.
It isn't nice to know that those that attack it need to resort to such pathetic BS.

The gravity from a spherically symmetrical shell, when inside the shell, is 0, IF F_g = G(m_1 + m_2)/d^2.
You didn't even manage to get the formula correct. It is meant to be M*m, not M+m.

It is likely that F_g = G'(m_1 + m_2)/d or something of the sort
Pure BS.
There is no reason at all to think it follows a formula like that. We live in a 3D universe. That is the equation for a 2D universe.

My model is better than a horribly flawed model. It is superior to FE in almost all ways.
So all you can do is say it is better than a particular piece of garbage. I don't care. That doesn't mean it isn't garbage itself.

I claimed that the Earth was about 100 miles thick for lack of a better response
Do you know what a much better response would have been? Stating you have no idea.

If you can measure G' for yourself and find the density of the Earth, I could tell you how thick it was
Again, you can't, because gravity doesn't follow your fantasy.

All estimates of even the latter are just that: estimates.
Do you know the big difference? They are estimates based upon empirical data rather than just pure BS.

Though it is nice to know that RE defenders are so devoted.
If you mean devoted to the truth, then yes.
It isn't nice to know that those that attack it need to resort to such pathetic BS.

Ah, you clearly didn't understand my last post. The Cellular Cosmogony (I think that's what it's called) is, of course, wrong and garbage. We live on the outside of a round, convex globe that is the Earth. I am surprised you (a REr) are the only one with any problem with a concave sphere (as opposed to FErs destroying an upstart) and this truly was an example of Poe's law. Your last post definitely confirms the law, and was also quite amusing :D.

Ah, you clearly didn't understand my last post.
No, I understand that you are a pathetic troll with no life. That isn't going to stop me from pointing out your BS.
Plenty of morons will believe what trolls say, even after they admit they are trolls.

Plenty of morons wish to keep an argument going long after it is over. cjklamas or however you spell his name is right, by the way.