1. Find your way through the deepest dungeon in the 18th Mini Mapping Contest Poll.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. A brave new world lies beyond the seven seas. Join the 34th Modeling Contest today!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hive 3 Remoosed BETA - NOW LIVE. Go check it out at BETA Hive Workshop! Post your feedback in this new forum BETA Feedback.
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

I believe...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ash, Apr 15, 2009.

  1. Anachron

    Anachron

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,220
    Resources:
    66
    Icons:
    49
    Packs:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    3
    Spells:
    9
    Tutorials:
    1
    JASS:
    1
    Resources:
    66
    I've traveled around the world and I DID see the curve the earth does very clearly.

    PROVE NR 1.)
    On sunset you can see a curve on the water in a sea, can't you?
    PROVE NR 2.)
    While flying you can see this curve more as cleary of the earth.
    PROVE NR 3.)
    Maps have data of a round earth. Would the earth be flat, the maps would fail and we would all go panicing.
    PROVE NR 4.)
    You mean you have to say something against other peoples beleaving because you do not accept in everyones opinions. You are right that not everything is true, but since there are suchs as many reasons the earth must be flat you should've taken another example.
    PROVE NR 5.)
    The gravity of the earth is holded together by its round texture. Without this the gravity would increase to the middle and get decreased to the curved at the outta end. This will be exactly the opposite of what you've said
    PROVE NR 6.)
    Would the earth be flat, there would be no logical reason why it shouldn't be exploded. I mean how should a flat earth circluar?
    PROVE NR 7.)
    Day/Night lights. Well if I am not totally wrong we have day and night on earth. Aswell as summer and winter (and spring an autumn). Well if the earth would be flat, the sun would be on the other site of the earth.
    PROVE NR 8.)
    If the earth would be flat, WHAT would be on the other site?
    PROVE NR 9.)
    Whats up with gravity? Gravity keeps up the whole planet, and can only exist because the earth is round. A non round earth would implode itself because of the gravity. And proving for gravity shouldn't be so hard (just try jumping out of a Sky Breaker).

    Edit:
    I have the right to let all my things be removed which belong to me.
    You can still let your text stand there, but my right is to let the text
    be removed. Do it or I'll take further actions (just my text there).
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2009
  2. -Spirit Hunter-

    -Spirit Hunter-

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    169
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Ash, face it, you lost...
    I haven't read all posts, but as far as I can see all you want is the proof that the world is round, without proving it yourself that it is flat... And I have seen lot's of posts that have more solid evidence than you (check the ones above me). You are actualy trying to say, that all this time, from year 14-- the goverments of all countries decided to make up some epic shit about world being round, and since then they dedicated their lives to making their lie even bigger by spending all their valuable time making false stories about satellites, space-flight, cartography...etc. Heck, Why didn't you said that the world is square or triangle? I bet you got the idea that it is flat because you know from history books (*ehm* history is also science) that for some time people believed that the world is flat.

    Sorry if something of this is already been said...
     
  3. Pyritie

    Pyritie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,356
    Resources:
    60
    Models:
    30
    Icons:
    9
    Packs:
    3
    Skins:
    12
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    4
    Resources:
    60
    If the world is flat, then what happens when we get to the south pole? Are we on the whole edge of the world at once? And why does flying around on the north hemisphere take the same amount of time as flying on the same latitude/longitude (whichever the circumferencial one is, I forgot) on the south pole?
     
  4. Ash

    Ash

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Like I said, you're believing what someone has told you to believe. That could easily be a fake.
    Good, now we're getting somewhere. Apologies about the Earth's shadow, though. However, it's a fairly simple answer. The moon doesn't rotate around the Earth as Round Earth theory would have you think, in one of my previous posts I had shown the 'spotlight' idea, thus, I'd believe, it's not the Earth's shadow that you're seeing.
    Rocket Launches and Satellite images are nothing but fakes, in my opinion. I've already shown several things that are proof enough that the world is flat, for example:

    In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

    In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

    Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

    But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.
    I like this guy.

    I didn't believe I created a paradox, I'd just wished to show how outstandingly stupid his evidence was. By saying I was flawed, with him too being flawed, thus means I am perfect. However, as we all know, that is not the case.

    Barcode technology is clear oppression! Have you not seen them? And when there's barcodes on zippers, good god, it's like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse. I have already given none scientific evidence, and also pointed out criticisms of your sciences. Here's one I posted earlier:

    Picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the 'globe'? I acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction.

    I realise that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

    Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

    In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case.
    I'll tackle your text issue first. On several occasions I told the whole chat room I was logging text, which is already a public place, and you didn't object. You made your statements in a public place, which are vital to the thread, and thus I have every right to keep/repost them there.

    You don't see a curve, you see as far as your optics let you. This is distorted by energy and ether, otherwise you'd be able to see to the end of the world. Maps are made by other people and, unless you're speaking about a globe, they wouldn't fail in the slightest. North points to the absolute middle, south points outwards, everything's relative.

    I have nothing against other peoples 'beliefes' [sic], I made this thread with the intent of discussing them openly. You're criticising my belief using ad homenim arguements, does that mean you have something against my belief? Argument 5 and 6 make no sense, if you could rephrase them it'd be great.

    I've already explained about the spotlight day and night theory to you, as I've explained seasons too, stop repeating yourself please, it's just taking up posting time.

    Why can gravity only exist if the Earth is round? Gravity pulls downwards, and it's relative to the object in question. Thus, I can't quite see why it would implode on itself.

    And good question, I'm not sure what is on the other side as nobody has ever made it that far yet.
    Firstly, why have I lost? You phrase it as if I'm doing this on purpose, I'm just here to discuss the two different theories, not to fight a battle or anything.

    And yep, without your taboo language, that is what I'm saying. You have no proof that the Earth's round because you haven't discovered it yourself. I don't think it was quite from 'year 14', as the first person that 'proved' -- and I say that extremely sarcastically -- the round earth theory was Galileo, and he was born in 15 February 1564. History isn't really a Science, either. It's more like literature, until you get into the parts where people dig around and the what not, then it becomes more like PE. But that's besides the point; I've gotten the idea that the Earth is flat from, surprisingly, the Flat Earth Theory, which makes a lot more sense than most of the opposing ideas posted here.
     
  5. Vicboy

    Vicboy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,048
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Someone told you that the Earth was flat right?
     
  6. Pyramidhe@d

    Pyramidhe@d

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,690
    Resources:
    31
    Models:
    1
    Icons:
    27
    Skins:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    31
    lol. good one.

    tell me this Ash. if the earth is flat, how the hell do we have north and south pole?
     
  7. Vicboy

    Vicboy

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,048
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    No, no, no... Don't ask him that. Obviously he's going to say that there are no poles.
     
  8. Anachron

    Anachron

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,220
    Resources:
    66
    Icons:
    49
    Packs:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    3
    Spells:
    9
    Tutorials:
    1
    JASS:
    1
    Resources:
    66
    Ok its a public place, but you are also not allowed to film me or take photos of a public place, do you? No you are not. Thats a fact. Remove it or I will let it be removed.

    Seriously have you ever FLEW to an other country???
    You obvoisly didn't.
    Why is the north pole the absolute middle? WHY? Is there any reason? Tell me how (and why).

    I am just TRYING to GET arguments of your belief, but everything what you do is trying to make other beliefs bad, without telling WHY yours should be more true.

    :S Maybe you tell it another one for the guys on this thread maybe?

    Never had chemics and physics?
    Gravity pulls to the centre of something. The strengh of the pull is diffrent to the location of the gravity 'point' where you stand.

    THIS IS NOW THE FINAL TRUTH:

    IF THE EARTH WOULD BE ROUND, THE GRAVITY WOULD DRASTICALLY INCREASE ON THE OUTTER REGION; THUS MAKING FLIGHTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT UNMAKEABLE.

    Thanks!
     
  9. Ash

    Ash

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Yes you are.
    A compass always points north, thus you'd eventually reach an absolute middle. So the south pole is the rim of the disc.
    No, I'm asking you to prove mine wrong. I'm not making others out to be bad, nor convert you to mine.

    Maybe, but it's still in here somewhere.
    You said that gravity pulls to the centre, then you've said gravity is stronger on the edge? Contradiction much? :p

    Gravity pulls down, you can't reach the rim because there's a stronger pull towards the middle.
    Nope, I figured it was when things fall down, and not off, the earth.
     
  10. Anachron

    Anachron

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,220
    Resources:
    66
    Icons:
    49
    Packs:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    3
    Spells:
    9
    Tutorials:
    1
    JASS:
    1
    Resources:
    66
    Ash, I am not making any more statement.
    Your joke fails horrible.
    Who or whatever made you making this joke
    should be damned in hell.

    (I mean, you didn't made a single TRUE statement in the texts above. It all is completly wrong, seems like you never have checked the rules in the laws... I mean who the fuck is allowed to film inside a public building? All belongs to the government which have the rights to destroy any illegal thing made in their structure. Same with texts. Same with interviews. DID YOU EVER WONDERED why some interviews seemed so short or crazy? Its because I HAVE THE RIGHT to keep things that I said for myself, even if I told them, you are NOT allowed to publicy them if I did not allow it. Its quite simple. I DISAPPROVE the text on the first page (the conversation). Accept it or I'll take further actions. You have 6 hours until now)

    Now delete my stuff or I will need to remove it.
     
  11. Zelda.Alex

    Zelda.Alex

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    778
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Thank You. I was thinking if it were because I figured out what were you playing at or because I made a long post or both?
    The way you are playing it is only the matter of logic by which someone will be able to win this.

    The study was a scientific study if you did not see that. It was based on assumption which I said is the basic flaw in all sciences which scientists are yet trying to eliminate.

    As I have figured out what you are playing do not give such illogicality. The gravity never pulls any object towards the opposite pole. It is the center towards which the objects are being pulled.

    Please explain. I did not understand that part.

    There is a big difference between these comparison between "beach ball - grain" & "Earth - Object". The difference being the mass difference. If you can have a "beach ball - Grain" which have the dimensions & masses in ratio to "Earth -Object" then the grains will stay on the ball. Also for the grains to stay on the beach ball you will have to take care that other stronger forces should not be acting on the Grain present on the beach ball. In this case the Earth gives a much stronger force on the grain compared to the force acting upon the grain due to the beach ball. It is by virtue of the stronger force present that the grain falls down not because the gravity has failed. So this example was not proper. You need to complex the situation even more if you want to fool a science student.:wink:

    I already answered this situation in the above answer.
     
  12. Ash

    Ash

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Because you can construct a well written and logical argument :p
    I've never admitted to playing yet, as far as you should be concerned, I'm being absolutely serious.
    I'm just acknowledging that the example I gave was somewhat extreme.
    I'd never mentioned the beach ball being on Earth, I just used it as an example. For all you know, it could be somewhere without any forces acting upon it whatsoever -- however illogical that sounds. Technically speaking, I don't believe gravity exists.

    Gravity specifically refers to the force that Newton theorised happens between bodies with mass and is transmitted instantaneously. This, however, is incorrect, for a few reasons. One, gravity is not a force. It only looks to us as one because we assume we are not accelerating, but are at rest. However, we are undergoing a constant physical acceleration when we are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise. Two, it only acts on objects with mass. This leaves out a whole bunch of phenomenon. Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

    Gravitation, is the apparent attraction between objects. This includes those objects that have no mass. It also places the limit on the speed that this attraction can have, which is the speed of light. Now, whether this attraction is due to our tendency to follow geodesics or our acceleration through space is a matter of which model you subscribe to."

    Gravity is a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial. Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary.

    Gravity only needs to exist as a force in Euclidean spacetime, and since GR states that spacetime is non-Euclidean, what we feel on Earth is therefore gravitation, and not gravity. What we feel on Earth and attribute to gravity is actually gravitation and the mechanical resistance of the Earth. Thus, gravitation exists, but not Gravity.
     
  13. Zelda.Alex

    Zelda.Alex

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    778
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Thank You again for the compliment.

    Part of the play. But seeing that you don't want this to be open I will refrain myself from saying that again.

    I was saying that my English skills failed to decipher its meaning. So please write again if you may.

    If the Beach ball is not on Earth then why are you using the phenomenon of the grains falling apart from it? You will have to try that in the space before you say this. You should not be using the astronomers' experience as your word. It is second hand evidence you know.
     
  14. Ash

    Ash

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I'll explain it with a picture alongside for reference.
    [​IMG]
    The example I gave would involve the object in question traveling a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet to actually 'fall off' in Round Earth Theory.
    I think a better way to phrase it would be to say this; conduct a thought experiment, if you will, and imagine grains of X falling off've the top of a beach ball.
     
  15. Captain Griffen

    Captain Griffen

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    Everyone. It's public.

    Public buildings / property != government property. Government property is private, not public, property.

    Only in the presence of a contract before hand. Many people I guess setup a contract letting them have veto powers over the way it's edited before giving interviews. However, if such a contract doesn't exist, then I am free to quote you as much as I want for the purposes of debate.

    I'd seriously recommend you take legal advice, since I have a suspicion that trying to threaten people to restrict free speech without legal basis is probably illegal in many countries. If you keep it up, though, you won't need the legal advice, as it will escalate to harrassment, which is illegal.

    I know far more law than you ever will. So don't try pulling crazy crap like that.
     
  16. Anachron

    Anachron

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,220
    Resources:
    66
    Icons:
    49
    Packs:
    2
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    3
    Spells:
    9
    Tutorials:
    1
    JASS:
    1
    Resources:
    66
    Depends where you are, seriously. Schools ofcourse are public, but you are disallowed to make any photos.

    No, you miss something, generally they are not allowed to take the texts.
    They must underline a paper that they are allowed.

    Captain Griffen, what about the law that I am allowed to let all of my information which are on internet be removed if I wish so?

    Anyway, just remove it and I am happy.
     
  17. Gilles

    Gilles

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    8,464
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    We've given you evidence as to why the Earth is round. You've provided evidence to show our "theory" is wrong (or at least point out that we cannot prove it without a doubt), now I'd like to see evidence for the theory of a flat earth.
     
  18. Ash

    Ash

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    That's not the aim of the thread, gilles.

    However, I'll gladly do it. Writing now.

    EDIT: here you go:

    In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

    In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

    Scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

    But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.

    In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

    A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.

    So, once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world -- the North Pole -- gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the 'globe'?

    I acknowledge beforehand that we (the FEZ) are aware of the property of matter known as 'friction'. Yes, we realise that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet to actually be able to fall off.

    Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

    In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.

    Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!

    Looking at the feasibility of Efimovich's teachings cannot remain limited to examining small, solid objects such as human beings. A true analysis of his work must incorporate natural phenomena and how their existence is either explained or made difficult by each of the theories. In the next argument against the "round-Earth" theory, we will be analyzing the existence of two extremely commonplace (yet altogether unfeasible under the ramifications of having a round planet) non-solids: the atmosphere and the oceans.

    Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.

    Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.

    But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all.

    Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics.

    Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.

    Now, if we are to look at the property matter of Gravity, then we will find the following:
    • Gravity as a force does not exist
    • Gravity is not the same thing as gravitation
    • Gravitation is not limited to objects with mass
    This may sound slightly strange, but give me the due care and attention that you are and read on for a bit longer.

    Gravity specifically refers to the force that Newton theorized happens between bodies with mass and is transmitted instantaneously. This, however, is incorrect, for a few reasons. One, gravity is not a force. It only looks to us as one because we assume we are not accelerating, but are at rest. However, we are undergoing a constant physical acceleration when we are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise. Two, it only acts on objects with mass. This leaves out a whole bunch of phenomenon. Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

    Gravitation, is the apparent attraction between objects. This includes those objects that have no mass. It also places the limit on the speed that this attraction can have, which is the speed of light. Now, whether this attraction is due to our tendency to follow geodesics or our acceleration through space is a matter of which model you subscribe to.

    Gravity is, basically, a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial. Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary.

    To even quote wikipedia:

    And now, to quote the mathmatical gazzette, for those users this way inclined:

    ... Q.E.D.

    I've even gone to the extent to create a 'Q&A' to answer all your questions:

    Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

    A: As the warped light intersects with the earth, a spectator further away is too low to see the light rays that didn't hit the ground and cannot receive light through the Earth.

    Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

    A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

    Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

    A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. These are designed to transmit signals and perform the basic tasks of satellites but function differently.

    Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

    A: This is unknown. Most believe it to be just rocks.

    Q: "What about gravity?"

    A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity. Einstein proved this.

    Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

    A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object from accelerating to the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light. See in depth explanation.

    Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

    A: You would enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped. The Earth would continue accelerating upwards past you at a rate of 1g, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space.

    Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

    A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. What we know as 'gravity' is provided by the acceleration of the earth.

    A2: There is a counter-mass which pulls the Earth back into a disc shape.

    Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

    A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

    Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

    A: This argument is a non sequitur. The cause of gravitation is unknown and RE propaganda would have you believe all masses have the same properties.

    Q: Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?

    A: Circle, like in the UN logo, however, the earth is NOT 2D, it is in the shape of a cylinder.

    Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

    A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.

    Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

    A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

    Antarctica as a continent does not exist. Is exists as a rim surrounding the Earth.

    Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"

    A1: The ice wall is likely a mountain range. The distance of the sun's radiation just allows it to be covered in deep ice and snow.

    A2: Global Warming would better be described by cyclical climate change. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

    Q: "What about tides?"

    A1: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
    A2: The antimoon, is an object with a gravitational pull just like the moon, and is underneath the Earth. If it was above the Earth, it would be directly across the diameter of the moon path following the same motion as the moon. These create predictable tides.

    Q : "Why is the North pole colder than the equator?"

    A: The sun circles over the equator, thus the north pole and south rim don't receive the same intensity of light.

    Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"

    A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds its way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard.

    Q. "How does our iron core produce the magnetic field ?"

    A. Both churning spinning molten iron cores work the same way to generate the field. The shape of the field matches based on latitude in both models.

    Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

    A: The magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE. The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

    Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

    A. The moon gets its light from the sun and reflects it. When the sun is nearing furthest away from the moon, the light that normally extends down and up like a parabola, is interrupted by Earth. Distances approaching this limit, would yield the effects of lunar phases.

    Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

    A: The airline pilots are guided by their GPS. Remember that satellites don't exist. The replacement data given from pseudolites deliberately throwing distorting all the paths to make it the flights take different times. The curvature of these paths can add or subtract great distances without the overall turning being obvious to someone traveling it.

    Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"

    A: You're mistaken. On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.

    Q: "How do seasons work?"

    A: The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus. The image is by thedigitalnomad.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2009
  19. Gilles

    Gilles

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    8,464
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Once you give me your theory, I can get back to the "aim". I think.
     
  20. Ash

    Ash

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Resources:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    As I promised, there you have it.

    All previous questions answered and explained.