Evidence of flat earth

I first knew of this organization from Charles Johnson's newsletter back in the 70's (I think 70's). I was amused by some of the "proofs" he detailed. And those things made sense if the earth was indeed flat, or an island as I envisioned it.

There is one scientific fact that gives this "theory" credibility. And that is the elipticial orbits of every object in space. Objects in space MUST be in an eliptical orbit around a larger object to stay in continous motion. Otherwise they would lose speed and the orbit would decay. Circular orbits do not exist in space. A circular orbit is a dying or decaying orbit, much like our communication satellites.

It is impossible for every object in space to be in a "captured" eliptical orbit around another object because that would require ALL objects to be captured by a larger object in order to create an eliptical orbit. That would mean that our Sun would be captured by a much larger Sun in an eliptical orbit and so on and so on.

The Universe only makes sense if EVERYTHING in it is captured in orbit around ONE immense object (whose magnetic field is strong enough to hold everything in orbit, and keep it going with a power source). The Earth is that object and everything else is slung around it using the power of it's magnetic field, and a slight lateral shift as the Sun and other objects follow an eliptical orbit. This lateral shift creates an acceleration point at the smaller objects closest point to it's larger master. That acceleration point slings the smaller object back out in space where it finally slows and begins it's return trip. The magnetic attraction causes a slight lateral shift of the larger object until it tries to "get away" around behind and is slung back again to space.

You have to be able to THINK freely to understand this, but it is quite possible that the Earth is the center of everything, and we are living on a volcanic island from which every thing erupted into the void of space (the big bang), and is kept up there in infinite motion, THE UNIVERSAL MOTION of an eliptical orbit.

Of course there is no such force as gravity. The Earth is an elevator, moving up at a constant speed powered in much the same way as a partical accelerator moves mass. The magnetic field creates this partical accelerator. The force of gravity is simply free fall created from the Earth's upward motion.

Also, the possibility exists that a similar "island earth" exists somewhere past the boundries of our southern regions where we have never ventured, but another heated area might have spawned life. There are ancient structures which could act as navigation aids for world to world travelers to use in traversing the great unknown expanse beyond our "South Pole".

Like I said, this is an interesting subject.

thats witch doctor science

Bob,
    You obviously don't consider THINKING is of any value. It took me days of THINKING to discover that the universe can't have billions of individual elliptical orbits. You replied to my post in 2 minutes by saying it was "witch doctor science". By the way, you spelled That's, Thats.

Can you tell me what keeps things in space moving? Other than eliptical orbits, what prevents us from crashing into the Sun? What powers the motion of the universe? Other than God.

Bob,
    You obviously don't consider THINKING is of any value. It took me days of THINKING to discover that the universe can't have billions of individual elliptical orbits. You replied to my post in 2 minutes by saying it was "witch doctor science". By the way, you spelled That's, Thats.

Can you tell me what keeps things in space moving? Other than eliptical orbits, what prevents us from crashing into the Sun? What powers the motion of the universe? Other than God.

God powers the motion of the universe.

Lighten up Jeff. :mrgreen:

Ignore BobDole, he is a troll.

In what way does the existence of elliptical orbits imply a flat-earth?

It seems to me that you have created an interesting model here, but have not provided a single shred of evidence (predictive or observational) to support that model.

That major problem aside, there is also the butchering of orbital mechanics:

 

Objects in space MUST be in an elliptical orbit around a larger object to stay in continuous motion.  Otherwise they would lose speed and the orbit would decay. Circular orbits do not exist in space. A circular orbit is a dying or decaying orbit, much like our communication satellites.

First: Communication satellites are not in a perfectly circular orbit.  They aim for a circular orbit when launching, but a true perfectly circular orbit is effectively impossible.  

Second:  The orbits of communication satellites decay whether they are in circular or elliptical orbit.  They decay because of minor air resistance from the atmosphere.

Third: Venus has an orbit that is more circular than many satellites, and its orbit does not decay.

Orbital mechanics work for all ellipses, circles included.

The Universe only makes sense if EVERYTHING in it is captured in orbit around ONE immense object (whose magnetic field is strong enough to hold everything in orbit

That's where I stopped reading.

Ignore BobDole, he is a troll.

so anyone that argues for a round earth is a troll? good to know the posters here are so open minded and willing to accept contradictory arguments...

so anyone that argues for a round earth is a troll? good to know the posters here are so open minded and willing to accept contradictory arguments...

No, anyone who makes 103 flame-bait posts in 24 hours is a troll.

Quote from: "BobDole"

so anyone that argues for a round earth is a troll? good to know the posters here are so open minded and willing to accept contradictory arguments...

No, anyone who makes 103 flame-bait posts in 24 hours is a troll.

link to my irrational troll posts that are not posing legitimate questions?

link to my irrational troll posts that are not posing legitimate questions?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php?search_author=BobDole

That should cover all of them. :lol:

Quote from: "BobDole"

link to my irrational troll posts that are not posing legitimate questions?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php?search_author=BobDole

That should cover all of them. :lol:

well as long as nobody's actually paying attention....

"ALL OF YOUR POSTS ARE JUST TROLLS TRYING TO GET A RISE OUT OF US!!!!"


(you can try reading the posts, I poke fun on occasion but I've actually come here with an honest attempt to debate, unlike many of the other football invaders)

well as long as nobody's actually paying attention....

"ALL OF YOUR POSTS ARE JUST TROLLS TRYING TO GET A RISE OUT OF US!!!!"


(you can try reading the posts, I poke fun on occasion but I've actually come here with an honest attempt to debate, unlike many of the other football invaders)

Yeah, basically I saw that one post you made in this topic and assumed you were like the 20 other trolls and spammers that signed up yesterday. In my defense, it is 11:40 PM here and I am running off of 3 hours of sleep and about 3 liters of Pepsi. :lol:

However, 90% of your questions could have been avoided had you used the search function, or read the FAQ.

well in my humble opinion

the questions are not actually answered by the FAQ, they just open up more cans of worms

Max,
 The universe is what, 14 billion years old since the "big bang"? How has it maintained it's perfectly balance motion for 14 billion years? An orbit is either powered or it is a dead spiral, like water going down a drain.

Think of how an orbiting mass stays in orbit. A larger mass captures a smaller one and the two move together to create an orbit. How can every object in the universe be in orbit around another. It takes a perfect match-up in weight difference to create a permanent, fixed orbit. Nothing else will work.

What I'm suggesting is that when the universe was born with a bang, it was a volcanic bank from Earth and everything up either came back down on the Earth, or settled into an orbit around the mass of Earth. The magnetic field of Earth holds everything in, and the lateral shifting creates the eliptical orbit to throw things out. After all, everything in the universe is in motion. That motion has to have a single cause, not billions of causes all acting independently.

The Earth is infinitly deep and infinitly wide. The "Face of the Deep" as written in Genesis. It has always been and will always be. No one created it. The existence of nothing is impossible. Something always has existed and will always exist. That's why it has to be the origin and center of the universe. Otherwise, everything is chaos and temporary.

Max,
 The universe is what, 14 billion years old since the "big bang"? How has it maintained it's perfectly balance motion for 14 billion years? An orbit is either powered or it is a dead spiral, like water going down a drain.

Think of how an orbiting mass stays in orbit. A larger mass captures a smaller one and the two move together to create an orbit. How can every object in the universe be in orbit around another. It takes a perfect match-up in weight difference to create a permanent, fixed orbit. Nothing else will work.

What I'm suggesting is that when the universe was born with a bang, it was a volcanic bank from Earth and everything up either came back down on the Earth, or settled into an orbit around the mass of Earth. The magnetic field of Earth holds everything in, and the lateral shifting creates the eliptical orbit to throw things out. After all, everything in the universe is in motion. That motion has to have a single cause, not billions of causes all acting independently.

The Earth is infinitly deep and infinitly wide. The "Face of the Deep" as written in Genesis. It has always been and will always be. No one created it. The existence of nothing is impossible. Something always has existed and will always exist. That's why it has to be the origin and center of the universe. Otherwise, everything is chaos and temporary.

are you basing "existence" on the human ability to perceive existence? things will still exist without humans to experience them

are you basing "existence" on the human ability to perceive existence?

No he is not.

Quote from: "BobDole"

are you basing "existence" on the human ability to perceive existence?

No he is not.

so how can one know about what happened in the previous 14 billion years, how do we know that its not just a temporary good fortune that will inevitably crash into the sun or something on that line? humans have a very limited scope of knowledge in that regard, we've only been making these observations for a few hundred years

and most astrological observations are based on gravitational laws which already assume a round earth

Max,
 The universe is what, 14 billion years old since the "big bang"? How has it maintained it's perfectly balance motion for 14 billion years? .

Who said the universe was in balance?  The universe is in a constant state of change, as is our solar system and planet.

Galaxies are rushing away from each other at significant fractions of the speed of light, stars in our are galaxy are born at the rate of about 10 per year.  Stars in our and other galaxies explode in such a violent manner that we can see them here on Earth!  The universe is a continually evolving place.

An orbit is either powered or it is a dead spiral, like water going down a drain.

I'm afraid that is not true.  Your basing this idea because of your experience on Earth, where something in continual motion must be under continual power.

But space is a vacuum.  There is nothing to slow the planets or the stars down.*

Think of how an orbiting mass stays in orbit. A larger mass captures a smaller one and the two move together to create an orbit. How can every object in the universe be in orbit around another. It takes a perfect match-up in weight difference to create a permanent, fixed orbit. Nothing else will work.

Again, not true.  Any two objects can be in orbit of each other, regardless of their respective masses.  Granted, the velocities must be correct to get a near circular orbit, but that is not essential.  Look at the comets of our solar system.  They have long period elliptical orbits that are quite stable.

What I'm suggesting is that when the universe was born with a bang, it was a volcanic bank from Earth and everything up either came back down on the Earth, or settled into an orbit around the mass of Earth. The magnetic field of Earth holds everything in, and the lateral shifting creates the elliptical orbit to throw things out. After all, everything in the universe is in motion. That motion has to have a single cause, not billions of causes all acting independently.

The Earth is infinitely deep and infinitely wide. The "Face of the Deep" as written in Genesis. It has always been and will always be. No one created it. The existence of nothing is impossible. Something always has existed and will always exist. That's why it has to be the origin and center of the universe. Otherwise, everything is chaos and temporary.

This is all interesting speculation Jeff, but you have not provided one iota of evidence to support it.  Until then, it's just empty speculation.


*Just so no nit-picky FEer points this out.  No, space is not a perfect vacuum.

But it can be shown that the friction the planets experience due to run inns with interstellar dust and gas has no significant effect on their orbits, and will not have a visible effect until long after the sun has died.

Most astrological observations are based on gravitational laws which already assume a round earth

ASTRONOMICAL!!! Not astrological.  

I hate it when people don't distinguish between these two, because there is a world of difference!

One is a quantitative science based on observation.
The other is an unsupported pseudoscience based in myth.

so how can one know about what happened in the previous 14 billion years, how do we know that its not just a temporary good fortune that will inevitably crash into the sun or something on that line?

But we DO, know, and it is temporary. Our sun will turn into a red giant and anything left on earth at this time will die. And we know from observation.

And I have to agree with Max that our universe is anything but stable. If it was, earth or any other planet would not exist.

An orbit is either powered or it is a dead spiral, like water going down a drain

Water going down a drain is not experiencing an orbit. What exactly would it be orbitting? Since water isn't known to go through objects, it has to follow the shape of whatever object contains it, in this case, a sink.

How can every object in the universe be in orbit around another.

Why do you think every object in the universe orbit each other? Gravity decreases as distance increases, objects that are far enough apart do not experience any gravitationnal pull.

What I'm suggesting is that when the universe was born with a bang, it was a volcanic bank from Earth and everything up either came back down on the Earth, or settled into an orbit around the mass of Earth. The magnetic field of Earth holds everything in, and the lateral shifting creates the elliptical orbit to throw things out

So you're saying that earth predates the universe?

In order to create our universe, the big bang had to be pretty damn powerful, so how would anything come back down on earth? Especially considering that there is no "down" in space.

And everything is attracted to the earth's mass? ( which I'm not sure how you would explain if you don't beleive in gravity) How big are you saying the earth is?

And you're saying the magnetic field of the earth holds everything in? How do you explain the presence of material that is not affected by magnetism? (or not affected enough to actually be attracted?)

Your explanations are wrong because your understanding of those concepts is lacking. Just look them up and you'll see that the explanations are already there.

Your explanations are wrong because your understanding of those concepts is lacking. Just look them up and you'll see that the explanations are already there.

Just reading explanations is not sufficient for understanding.  I think that's the problem slapping most everyone in the face here in these forums.  Some people just need to be slapped harder.  

You assume you know these things for a fact.  The things you are saying are not something you know, they are just things you have read or have been told.  Beyond that, these ideas are based on theories.  By definition, theories are never fact, never certain, and always in need of review.  

We do NOT know.  We only guess.

Just reading explanations is not sufficient for understanding

.

You know, that statment kind of makes schools useless. And it is also wrong. If reading information isn't enough to understand something, how would you ever follow driving directions?

Beyond that, these ideas are based on theories

No, they're based on observations and experimentation. Theories are tested, and then the results are facts.

Or did you ever see a magnet attract wood?

If you're gonna say that everything people are thought is false, then you'll have to demonstrate that it is. People don't just beleive anything they're told or read. If it makes no sense, you could make them read it a thousand times and they won't accept it.

But how does that make FE any more beleivable?

We do NOT know. We only guess.

You don't need to guess when you can simply test things for yourself. I don't know how you can function in life assuming that everything is wrong.

You know, that statment kind of makes schools useless. And it is also wrong. If reading information isn't enough to understand something, how would you ever follow driving directions?

No, it doesn't make them useless.  If schools didn't assign homework, example problems, essays, et cetera, THEN they would be useless. Reading does not make someone understand; that's why we have to do what we read.  

I would simply follow the driving directions.  However, if I told someone else these direction without having ever driven them I could be misleading this person unintentionally.  

Quote

Beyond that, these ideas are based on theories.

No, they're based on observations and experimentation. Theories are tested, and then the results are facts.

Theories are tested, yes, but the facts are relative to that theory.  

We could not predict the sun was going to die out if we used observations and experiments.  We could only wait and watch for our sun to burn out.  However, if there is a set of theories that make some claims that have not been disproved, such as:

Stars are large masses of hot gas because of some observation.
Stars fitting this criteria have died out based on some observation.
Because of some observation our sun is a star.

then we can predict that our sun will die out.  There is still the chance that our prediction is wrong, though, because any one of its foundations could be disproved.

Or did you ever see a magnet attract wood?

No.

If you're gonna say that everything people are thought is false, then you'll have to demonstrate that it is.

I never said that.  I said that we don't know for certain what we think we know for certain.  

People don't just beleive anything they're told or read. If it makes no sense, you could make them read it a thousand times and they won't accept it.

Actually, I think many people do believe anything they read.  They do not, however, read everything (as in their opponents point of view) and thus don't realize that they should not believe everything they read.  It's even a further stretch for people to apply this to what they believe and realize that they probably shouldn't believe what they believe, either, without finding out for themselves.  Believe me.  

But how does that make FE any more beleivable?

It doesn't.  It should make the RE less believable.  

Quote

We do NOT know. We only guess.

You don't need to guess when you can simply test things for yourself. I don't know how you can function in life assuming that everything is wrong.

I'm not rich, but I think I'm doing fairly well.

In what way does the existence of elliptical orbits imply a flat-earth?

It seems to me that you have created an interesting model here, but have not provided a single shred of evidence (predictive or observational) to support that model.

That major problem aside, there is also the butchering of orbital mechanics: What orbital mechanics? Newton's?

 

Quote from: "Jeffbowe"

Objects in space MUST be in an elliptical orbit around a larger object to stay in continuous motion.  Otherwise they would lose speed and the orbit would decay. Circular orbits do not exist in space. A circular orbit is a dying or decaying orbit, much like our communication satellites.

First: Communication satellites are not in a perfectly circular orbit.  They aim for a circular orbit when launching, but a true perfectly circular orbit is effectively impossible.  

Second:  The orbits of communication satellites decay whether they are in circular or elliptical orbit.  They decay because of minor air resistance from the atmosphere.
Is there atmosphere at 22,500 miles above the Earth's surface?  They decay because there is deminishing speed to maintain an orbit.
Third: Venus has an orbit that is more circular than many satellites, and its orbit does not decay.

Orbital mechanics work for all ellipses, circles included.

Orbital mechanics? What are these mechanics?

There is one scientific fact that gives this "theory" credibility. And that is the elipticial orbits of every object in space. Objects in space MUST be in an eliptical orbit around a larger object to stay in continous motion. Otherwise they would lose speed and the orbit would decay. Circular orbits do not exist in space. A circular orbit is a dying or decaying orbit, much like our communication satellites.

Bollox. F=mv^2 /r = Gm1m2 / r^2 (gravitational force = centripetal force). i know these formulas work through personal practical verification for A-level physics coursework. nothing about elliptical orbits in there - notice the single radius figure implying a circle.

It is impossible for every object in space to be in a "captured" eliptical orbit around another object because that would require ALL objects to be captured by a larger object in order to create an eliptical orbit. That would mean that our Sun would be captured by a much larger Sun in an eliptical orbit and so on and so on.

(followed on from previous) Bollox.

The Universe only makes sense if EVERYTHING in it is captured in orbit around ONE immense object (whose magnetic field is strong enough to hold everything in orbit, and keep it going with a power source).

magnetic field? thats not what holds "celestial" orbits together. anyway, ever seen an electron beam in a perpendicular magnetic field? looks like a circular orbit to me.

The Earth is that object and everything else is slung around it using the power of it's magnetic field, and a slight lateral shift as the Sun and other objects follow an eliptical orbit. This lateral shift creates an acceleration point at the smaller objects closest point to it's larger master. That acceleration point slings the smaller object back out in space where it finally slows and begins it's return trip. The magnetic attraction causes a slight lateral shift of the larger object until it tries to "get away" around behind and is slung back again to space., blah blah blah etc.

whats magnetism got to do with anything?

Max,
 The universe is what, 14 billion years old since the "big bang"? How has it maintained it's perfectly balance motion for 14 billion years?

has it? stuff moves around and stuff hits stuff you know.

It takes a perfect match-up in weight difference to create a permanent, fixed orbit. Nothing else will work.

clarify. what the fuck does this mean? please put in a formula or something.

Quote from: "Max Fagin"

In what way does the existence of elliptical orbits imply a flat-earth?

It seems to me that you have created an interesting model here, but have not provided a single shred of evidence (predictive or observational) to support that model.

That major problem aside, there is also the butchering of orbital mechanics: What orbital mechanics? Newton's?

 

Quote from: "Jeffbowe"

Objects in space MUST be in an elliptical orbit around a larger object to stay in continuous motion.  Otherwise they would lose speed and the orbit would decay. Circular orbits do not exist in space. A circular orbit is a dying or decaying orbit, much like our communication satellites.

First: Communication satellites are not in a perfectly circular orbit.  They aim for a circular orbit when launching, but a true perfectly circular orbit is effectively impossible.  

Second:  The orbits of communication satellites decay whether they are in circular or elliptical orbit.  They decay because of minor air resistance from the atmosphere.
Is there atmosphere at 22,500 miles above the Earth's surface?  They decay because there is deminishing speed to maintain an orbit.
Third: Venus has an orbit that is more circular than many satellites, and its orbit does not decay.

Orbital mechanics work for all ellipses, circles included.

Orbital mechanics? What are these mechanics?

Just so you know Jeff, it's bad form to change the content of a quote, without specifying what you have changed.  You made it look like the statements you added in the above "quote" were originally made by me.



But to the points that you made:

Yes, there is a minor atmospheric resistance at the altitudes that some satellites orbit at.  Not at 22,500 miles, at that altitude atmospheric resistance in negligible.  But at lower altitudes, yes.

The Hubble Telescope (if you belive in it) for example flies at just a few hundred miles above the surface of the Earth.  At that altitude, atmospheric resistance is incredibly small, but enough to necessitate a boost every decade or so.

And yes, I was referring to Newtonian mechanics.  Your first post gave the impression that the mechanics of elliptical orbits (Originally devised by Kepler, but given real substance with Newton) gave credence to your hypothesis.  I wanted to show that that is not true.

Max,
Sorry, I don't know how to arrange quotes and comment on them yet. I have only figured out how the universe stays in balanced motion. That was much easier once I discovered the fundamental cause of the eliptical orbit which led me to believe that there is one source for the movements of the Stars, Planets and Moons which move across the sky. Since they all seem to be moving in the same circular direction, they must be influenced by a single object or force. That object seems to be a much more massive Earth than the round globe we have come to accept.

There is another curious fact that would support this theory of Earth being an island type land mass rather than a round globe floating in space.

If you look on a globe type map of the Earth, there is an area at the South Pole which is marked "unknown area" or something of that nature. This is a blank, almost round area which has no markings. If you peel this map from that unknown space back to where the map is flat, you would see that the map of the known world is an island with ice surrounding it.

Apparently the entire surface of our "planet" has not been fully explored. Add that to the fact that there are no "North/South" satellites orbiting the earth, much less airline routes over the South Pole, and you wonder if there is a "Planet Earth".

As for the Big Bang creation of the Universe coming out of "The Face of the Deep", or Island Earth, I ask the question, where is the deepest hole in the Earth? Is it not under the Artic Ocean? Does not the Earth resemble a volcanic island in that rivers flow north to south.(Exept in places where a river begins in a mountain). Do we not have volcanic activity still today, billions of years after the earth cooled? What would keep the earths core hot after all these billions of years if not a "Super Volcano" the size of the entire known world Why no volcanic activity at the South Pole or even the North Pole?

A likely explanation is that the volcanic activity occurs only below a certain latitude because that is where the residule pressure remains, still venting from the Big Bang.

Finally, this is all just for fun. Right. No one really knows for sure. Even our camera lens will see a curved line at great distances, so to our own eyes. Even astronomers and will admit that much of what we know of the Universe is derived from mathematical computations.

So, this is just brain fun. I don't "believe" in anything until it is a proven fact.

Moons which move across the sky. Since they all seem to be moving in the same circular direction, they must be influenced by a single object or force.

But they are not. Most of them move away from each other.

The general concensus is that there is a black hole a tthe center of the universe (this is a conclusion that you will reach with even minimal knowledge of astronomy). So there would still be a logical reason for everything in the universe to seem to be in synchronous orbit. Though it wouldn't stay that way forever.