A Flat Earth not Round ...?

[animovado]

One thing's for sure: it doesn't need two poles for polarizing!

A koan from Zen-Buddhism tries to make an attempt at conciliation:

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.
One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves."
They argued back and forth but could not agree.
The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe.

[loveoflife]

I am amazed at the new information that is coming out as people research a FE.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ellp5AY2Tw0

Did you know that in Antarctica the temperatures arrive to +25ºC during the summer there?. Look at this timelapse video of the Taylor Valley: https://youtu.be/w-ef2KLXKFI

[Selkie]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
I am amazed at the new information that is coming out as people research a FE.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ellp5AY2Tw0

Did you know that in Antarctica the temperatures arrive to +25ºC during the summer there?. Look at this timelapse video of the Taylor Valley: https://youtu.be/w-ef2KLXKFI

This is interesting, in light the above video,

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

I'm not saying I believe the flat-earth paradigm, btw.

[loveoflife]

Posted by Selkie (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)
I am amazed at the new information that is coming out as people research a FE.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ellp5AY2Tw0

Did you know that in Antarctica the temperatures arrive to +25ºC during the summer there?. Look at this timelapse video of the Taylor Valley: https://youtu.be/w-ef2KLXKFI

This is interesting, in light the above video,

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

I'm not saying I believe the flat-earth paradigm, btw.

Thanks for the link.


Belief in anything can dangerous, it can cause an inflexible rigid attitude that inhibits growth and resists change by clinging to tradition. The only reason to believe is because there is no proof.

[araucaria]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

Where is the curve? In the part of Brisbane that you can't see below the horizon. You can't actually 'see Brisbane'. All you can actually see is the top of the city's highest buildings, just like a ship slipping under the horizon reduces to its funnel and top deck. The ship and Brisbane both behave exactly in the same way as a piece of chewing-gum stuck on a beachball if you rotate it in front of your eyes. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[DarMar]

when you put chewing-gum on end of long hall you get exactly same result. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[animovado]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

This picture is made on a hill. Brisbanes ground level is around 24 meters. If you're looking towards Brisbane from a hill that's 500 meters high (from a distance of 52 miles), you can see almost everything of the city.

[araucaria]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
It does seem that this thread is being mainly ignored

26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

If this is an example of your ‘proofs’, then no wonder this thread is being mainly ignored. An aircraft remains gravitationally bound to the earth just as much as a train or for that matter a fly on a window pane. It does not stop rotating at the same speed as the planet simply by taking off the ground.

Imagine you are sitting in a train. You ‘take off’ to the restaurant car for a coffee, walking at say 3 mph in the direction of travel. If the train is doing 100 mph, then you are doing 103 mph altogether. You return safely to your seat at 100 – 3 = 97 mph relative to the earth. Don’t tell me this impossible, I have done it myself. And I have done it on the return train too. I have even been to the toilet on a plane, go figure.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)
It does seem that this thread is being mainly ignored

26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”

If this is an example of your ‘proofs’, then no wonder this thread is being mainly ignored. An aircraft remains gravitationally bound to the earth just as much as a train or for that matter a fly on a window pane. It does not stop rotating at the same speed as the planet simply by taking off the ground.

Imagine you are sitting in a train. You ‘take off’ to the restaurant car for a coffee, walking at say 3 mph in the direction of travel. If the train is doing 100 mph, then you are doing 103 mph altogether. You return safely to your seat at 100 – 3 = 97 mph relative to the earth. Don’t tell me this impossible, I have done it myself. And I have done it on the return train too. I have even been to the toilet on a plane, go figure.

Yes. If someone who's trying to prove the Earth is flat doesn't understand about inertial frames of reference, they should go no further, and instead take a basic course in physics.

This isn't intended to be dismissive or rude! But I actually mean what I say — in literal terms, that might seem harsh — about one needing to know some basic physics before engaging in this kind of discussion.

There was a Flat Earth debate on Art Bell's new radio show on 5 August. It was highly entertaining, but rather hard to listen to... the two guests were (a) a Flat Earther with little knowledge of science, and (b) a world class astrophysicist who had, astonishingly gamely, volunteered to come on the show.

It was like the two were talking different languages (or, maybe, came from different planets ). The astrophysicist did his best to explain the basics in the simplest terms, but the other guest could not understand him.

The Flat Earther was (for instance) stating that gravity was a fraudulent fiction, invented to justify the spinning, spherical earth model in that that the theory of gravity was necessary to explain why everyone didn't go flying off into outer space due to the centrifugal force. (Do please listen to the video below for details.)

If anyone reading this doesn't understand what I've just written, please don't post on this thread!

(<— NOT censorship! But please be intelligent when doing ANYTHING on the forum, unless you're telling a joke.)

I should say: ...unless you really do want to understand this better. There are many good teachers here who are happy to explain math and science fundamentals. But that only works if one's mind isn't already made up.

By the way, that 5 August Art Bell show is highly recommended. Some might find this really worth listening to: (28 min extract)


Source: Watch on Vimeo


Source: http://www.vimeo.com/135819958

[loveoflife]

Yes its like Bill Ryan said, they were speaking two different languages, i find this interesting one person accusing the other of being wrong by being uneducated. I heard the scientist also refuse to discuss other points raised by the flat earther. I can understand how a FE theory can cause cognitive dissonance.

There is a dichotomy between what my senses tell me about reality and what scientists tell me, these are also two different languages and it seems that i have to deny one to accept the other.

It was like the two were talking different languages (or, maybe, came from different planets ). The astrophysicist did his best to explain the basics in the simplest terms, but the other guest could not understand him.

The Flat Earther was (for instance) stating that gravity was a fraudulent fiction, invented to justify the spinning, spherical earth model in that that the theory of gravity was necessary to explain why everyone didn't go flying off into outer space due to the centrifugal force.

As for gravity as far as i have read and i am no physicist, it is only a theory that was modified by Einstein and according to some still requires further modification. Also the big bang theory and the formation of the universe relies upon gravity as its basis, if that goes so does the rest.

Though astrophysics and gravity apart, its the basic maths concerning the curvature of the earth that gets to me, it appears to be flawed.

Here is another video where this guy makes a good point. Look for What should be there, but isn't. With all the technology available to NASA and with a trillions of dollar budget, why don't they just put an end to the debate and confront all of the flat earthers points provide irrefutable proof of a globe earth and silence the debate once and for all?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=O48uC3leOFU

I am still sitting on the fence though with one foot on the FE side, until all the arguments raised by the flat earthers are demolished. The FE theory is not perfect, though neither is the globe earth.

[araucaria]

You don't need centrifugal force to go flying off into space. If there were no gravity, you could kick off the surface of a non-rotating planet like off the side of a swimming pool and head off where you like. If there were no gravity, you would probably not be here in the first place, wherever you think you are.

If gravity is 'only a theory', then it is a damn good one that explains the consistent behaviour of falling objects.

[loveoflife]

Posted by araucaria (here)
You don't need centrifugal force to go flying off into space. If there were no gravity, you could kick off the surface of a non-rotating planet like off the side of a swimming pool and head off where you like. If there were no gravity, you would probably not be here in the first place, wherever you think you are.

If gravity is 'only a theory', then it is a damn good one that explains the consistent behaviour of falling objects.

The flat earthers go with electromagnetic energy and density.

I understand density and falling objects, but the following is to technical for me.

How does gravity work on the FE?
Gravity does not exist, gravity as you know it is an effect of the electro-magnetic force.
In this article CERN has omitted gravity.
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

Gravity on the flat Earth.
The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Electro = Electron exchange. Magnetic = Attraction between the negative and positive. Spectrum - The wavelengths of energy in different concentrations and densities. So we are in a sea of fluctuating energy. If you have an empty space that is a 'negative body' and if you have a density of energy such as an electron, 'positive body' that has a higher density of energy than the negative body, it is drawn towards other higher densities of energy as its actually searching for the path of least resistance. Two positive bodies are 'attracted' to each other as the higher energy density of both of them creates a larger negative entropy between them and falling into each other is the path of least resistance.. As the two higher energy densities approach and come closer that will increase momentum. As they reach maximum velocity and maximum energy potential with the minimum amount of space between them, they also reach maximum energy potential. Upon approach or energy maximum the energy looks to continue on its path of least resistance in an altered direction reactionary to the combined forces. This is the 'Dynamics' The 'Dynamo' of positive and negative bodies always attracting and approaching and colliding and moving. The combined Electrodynamic Electromagnetic Spectrum creates a Quantum flow of entanglement. So like if two electrons approach each other and their energy causes them to veer around each other than the path of least resistance is for them to spin or rotate around each other. The centripetal force of the rotation gives of a higher vibrational shell of energy from the combined forces. The two positive bodies rotating around each other in an orbital free fall have now formed a new negative entropy point in between them out of dynamic equilibrium, and the other shell of higher energy potential causes a torus effect on the central negative space where energy is drawn towards falling to the new center of negative space. This shelling of energy is what everyone refers to as 'gravity' So we as people are a giant massive wad of structured electrodynamic energy potential. We have a greater she'll of energy vibrating around our central mass. So we are attracted to the earth's surface through this 'pull' of electrodynamic potential of our Electromagnetic Spectrum of energy vibration searching to fill the gaps of least negative entropy. 'Gravity' is not a force all its own but a Quantum byproduct of electromagnetism.

This is coulumbs law.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas.../Coulomb-s-Law

[araucaria]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
I understand density and falling objects, but the following is to technical for me.

Then what’s the point of quoting it if you don’t understand it? Over and out.

[Sierra]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by loveoflife (here)
Its the basic maths that does not hold up in a ball model that get me wondering. Where is the curve?

Where is the curve? In the part of Brisbane that you can't see below the horizon. You can't actually 'see Brisbane'. All you can actually see is the top of the city's highest buildings, just like a ship slipping under the horizon reduces to its funnel and top deck. The ship and Brisbane both behave exactly in the same way as a piece of chewing-gum stuck on a beachball if you rotate it in front of your eyes. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Why bother dear. The next thing the hirelings researching the gullibility level of the alternative community will say is, the earth is shaped like a turtle's back, and that is why we can't see over the horizon.

Ya heard it here first...

[Bill Ryan]

Not 'per mile squared', but per mile. And this is approximate (see the calculation below).

But, the answer to the question is simple. Any small schoolkid with a calculator (or even without one!) can figure this one out:

Even accepting the approximation (because it's actually not quite linear), 8 inches per mile = 34 feet in 52 miles. No problem seeing a bunch of high-rise city buildings, even if 34 feet of them is below the horizon.

(And if your eyes are 5 or 6 feet above the ground, you'll be able to see even more.)

Of course, that's also how come we can see ships' masts at 50 miles (but not at 150). (Not taking account of refraction caused by differential temperature layers, which can create mirage effects like one sees in the desert or on hot highways.)

Here's the math about seeing things on or near the horizon:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/dat.../shirley3.html

if you can't understand this, here's a personal entreaty... please don't post on this thread. You (seriously!) run the risk of showcasing your lack of understanding.

That's not a hanging offense — not to understand something! — but as araucaria suggests, please don't post things as 'evidence' that you admittedly don't understand — unless you are open-mindedly and genuinely asking someone else to give you a hand.

With that honest approach, all members will find plenty of patient teachers here.

~~~~~~

[aviators]

Google top search on curvature could be misleading .
you tuber explains here.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6a9wxl6FQbY

Mark Night has spent thousands of hours looking at this subject.
He explains the curvature of the earth formula here. (at the 3 min mark.)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk

Most of the researchers on this topic found the rabbit hole to go deep and wide.

Warning if you think this is a joke you might as well move on. One thing for sure this movement isn't going away anytime soon.
One documented exploration across Antarctica would be the proof. Just make sure NASA not involved.

[loveoflife]

Forget proving the flat earth, what i want is irrefutable tangible proof that the earth is a globe, we have the technology to send people to the moon, so lets have it.

I dont have to understand everything to post on this thread, i am no expert just an interested bystander looking for answers apart from the gobbledegook often used by the scientific community. There are many things i am expected to take on face value without any tangible proof, especially on this and other similar forums. What i do not understand now i am sure that i can learn with the help of someone who can simplify and explanation for the layman, the likes of Nassim Haramein and Rupert Sheldrake and others have no problem with this.. I do not claim to be a expert, I honestly admit a shortcoming and find myself lambasted.

So it would seem that there are 2 calculations for the curvature of the earth. One group say its 8"/ mile, and another say its 8"/mile squared. We have had a summary of it being 8"/ mile so lets look at the 8"/mile squared version. Let me just say that i understand the maths of both of these versions.

The Horizon curves by: sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius, equivalent to distance^2/R*2. At 100 km, it descends 784m.


Earth's curvature

Below is the method that Samuel Birley Rowbotham used for calculating the rate at which the spherical earth, 25,000 English statute miles in circumference curves.

"If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:




"Let the distance from T to figure 1 represent 1 mile, and the fall from 1 to A, 8 inches; then the fall from 2 to B will be 32 inches, and from 3 to C, 72 inches. In every mile after the first, the curvature downwards from the point T increases as the square of the distance multiplied by 8 inches. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles.

"The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles. To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.

Statute Miles Away.....Math..............= Drop
1...............................1 x 1 x 8 = 8 Inches
2...............................2 x 2 x 8 = 32 Inches
3...............................3 x 3 x 8 / 12 = 6 Feet
4...............................4 x 4 x 8 / 12 = 10 Feet
5...............................5 x 5 x 8 / 12 = 16 Feet
6...............................6 x 6 x 8 / 12 = 24 Feet
7...............................7 x 7 x 8 / 12 = 32 Feet
8 ..............................8 x 8 x 8 / 12 = 42 Feet
9...............................9 x 9 x 8 / 12 = 54 Feet
10..........................10 x 10 x 8 / 12 = 66 Feet

"To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required."[5]

The diagram on the right shows the rhetorical use he often made of these numbers to demonstrate in this case that Great Orme Head would be 872' below the horizon as seen from the Isle of Man. Note that the sloping lines are drawn from sea level not from the hills or the observer.[6]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QyJNvlMzt4o

So as i see it, it just gets weirder. Besides there being two versions of the shape of the Earth, there are also two versions of how the curvature is calculated.

[loveoflife]

Double post, please delete.

[loveoflife]

I agree with aviators that the FE movement is not going away anytime soon, in fact its gaining momentum. I would have left this topic alone a while ago but it just keeps getting more interesting, as more people get involved to question the accepted model of a spinning globe. Also this is a grass roots movement of independent researchers working on a tiny budget. Yet all NASA (with a budget of trillions) shows us is composite CGI of perfect sphere of a globe earth from space.

This guy has my attention he is a structural engineer working out the physics of a spinning earth which according to him does not add up. Well worth a watch.

A problem for discussion involving a plane flying relative to a rotating Earth. The problem is that the plane ends up with a greater velocity to the east than that of the north-south orientated runway that it is trying to land on. There must be some unknown force that can balance out these differences in velocities for ALL planes that fly east or west during their flights. How do we calculate this force? Where does it come from? The only way to get rid of the need for the force is to stop the Earth from spinning. If we can't calculate this, the Earth does not spin. We are able to calculate forces and velocities for all situations throughout Physics. There cannot be an exception for this. The problem also looks at the curvature the plane would have to fly over to get from one airport to the other. Please review, comment, and discuss!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DGE2-USFbwo

[Harley]

Okay, lets look a little further away than 52 miles.

Can you see the North Star from the South Pole?

If you go as far north as the North Pole, you'll see Polaris directly overhead. As you travel south, Polaris drops closer to the northern horizon. If you get as far as the equator, Polaris sinks to the horizon. South of the equator, Polaris drops out of the sky.

Get your slide rules out and debunk this.

And I wanna see a complete White Paper on it!