is the world flat?

[extrasolar]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

[pdcdp]

i do hope this is leading into a deeper point about how bloody thick people are nowadays.....

[adreamtosome]

Nope, it's shaped like a burritto! :D

[abaddon]

Other than mountain climbing, and seeing the curvature of the earth from above? Or would you rather astro-travellers that frequent the Icke forums to reply? :D

Not a veiled insult, merely perplexed by the question ;)

[ownedtbh]

i dont believe it. but i am interested in what they have to say

[abaddon]

hunting 'proof', makes me believe you don't trust your eyes concerning our environment (living space), so to speak.

I googled Scientific American, they had articles about Holographic universe theory, etc, maybe this is a fresher perspective on the question you pose... (<- link) (http://www.johnkharms.com/holographic.htm)

[steevo]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

I have no "first hand proof" that the earth is a sphere. From looking at the evidence available, it would APPEAR to me that it IS a sphere.

Question EVERYTHING.

[norton]

if our reality is based on what we believe, then no. the world can't possibly be flat

[homebrew1973]

Perhaps a more reasonable discussion would be about if this planet is hollow...

[norton]

Perhaps a more reasonable discussion would be about if this planet is hollow...


that i do believe! seems totally plausible and, to me at least, makes a lot more sense than a solid earth. Wether beings living inside or not, is a different matter. why not though? life has taken advantage of every available source, why not inside?

[extrasolar]

geez gosh how could i be so dumb and blind

of course the earth is not round

it might be a little curved

but thats about it

gosh!

[smariot]

The planet is a toroid. Ask anyone.

PS: If you do ask someone they pretend not to know what you're taking about, they're obviously in on the conspiracy and you should shove them to the ground and run away as fast as you can.

[1694]

WAtch a boat comming into view on the horizon, notice how you see the top of the mast first then the closer it gets the lower down the boat you can see.

[extrasolar]

awesome

thanks for the tip smariot!

[extrasolar]

crud!

so that means there is a jurrasic park on earth etc

[pdcdp]

that i do believe! seems totally plausible and, to me at least, makes a lot more sense than a solid earth. Wether beings living inside or not, is a different matter. why not though? life has taken advantage of every available source, why not inside?

how can it be hollow if it's flat?:confused:

[extrasolar]

just because something is flat doesnt mean its not three dimensional

[dangermouse]

how can it be hollow if it's flat?:confused:

its like a fig roll :D

[vigilantguardian]

that i do believe! seems totally plausible and, to me at least, makes a lot more sense than a solid earth.

Well we know for a fact the earth is not solid... nothing is solid... It's the whole atom thing... (yes i'm being pedantic i know:D)

I'm suddenly having horrid memories of the Journey to the Centre (yes that's centre not center... i don't care how they spell it.. it's wrong!!!!) of the Earth in 3D coming back to me...

What a horrid film!

[whiteshadow]

Please don't start this shit again.
It was only last month that some fool managed to get his 'flat earth' thread to about 10 pages long. Complete waste of time.

[extrasolar]

wow

you learn something you used to know

and its like learning something new everyday

yipee

[realreality]

You cant fall off the edge of the Earth. if it was flat then this would happen.

If the Earth was flat then we would be living on something similar to a Table.

[realreality]

just because something is flat doesnt mean its not three dimensional

Incorrect.

A peice of paper is Two dimensional.

[extrasolar]

everything is three dimensional on some order of magnitude

[skyline]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

I dont mean to be rude but do you drink diet coke?

[extrasolar]

no

[pdcdp]

its like a fig roll :D

lol... that made me laugh snot out of my nose...:D

[norton]

how can it be hollow if it's flat?:confused:

in a previous post i said the earth was round

[armoured_amazon]

This thread delivers!!! LMAO! :D :D :D

would you rather astro-travellers that frequent the Icke forums to reply?

PS: If you do ask someone they pretend not to know what you're taking about, they're obviously in on the conspiracy and you should shove them to the ground and run away as fast as you can.

its like a fig roll :D

*falls down laughing*

[pdcdp]

in a previous post i said the earth was round

oh yeah.... must have been too engrossed in my cheese and spaghetti hoop toasties to fully understand that post, or maybe my subconscious mind changed it to what i wanted to read...?:confused:

[norton]

Incorrect.

A peice of paper is Two dimensional.


i'd say that was incorrect, if paper only had length and width, how would you be able to write on it? a stack of paper wouldn't be visible. paper has SOME width, not very much, enough.

[rhydra]

It is flat and it is also finite. If you stand on a very tall building with a powerful telescope you will see the back of your own head.

Absolute truth, it was told to me by God, if you don't believe me you are a Satanist!


The Earth is also supported by a giant tortoise. So what, pray tell, I hear you ask, is supporting the giant tortoise...

Easy...


An even larger giant tortoise.:D

[nimlyn]

I’m contemplating the possibility that planet Earth cannot be flat due to the slowness of the rotation…:)

[sevenworlds]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

We may never know for ourselves.

The eyes don't actually see in 3 dimensions. Distance is a concept. You have to be taught about distance. The eyes see everything flat.

There is a story about a tribe somewhere who when they first saw other people approaching them got terrified because they thought they were tiny people. They had no concept of distance and so there was nothing there to put what they were seeing into perspective.

[frankanne]

Incorrect.

A peice of paper is Two dimensional.

No it isn't. It has length, width and depth. that's three dimentional.

[steevo]

No it isn't. It has length, width and depth. that's three dimentional.

A drawing on a piece of paper is said to be 2D.

[zero1]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

It's actually oval shaped, but never having been into space - I don't have any proof. :rolleyes:

[frankanne]

A drawing on a piece of paper is said to be 2D.

Not true. The ink has length, width and depth. Even if it is 1000th or even 1,000,000th of an inch thick, it still has depth, so it is still 3 dimentional.

[1694]

Why do I have to post his again.

WAtch a boat comming into view on the horizon, notice how you see the top of the mast first then the closer it gets the lower down the boat you can see.

Le thread est fin.

[norton]

Why do I have to post his again.

WAtch a boat comming into view on the horizon, notice how you see the top of the mast first then the closer it gets the lower down the boat you can see.

Le thread est fin.

that isn't relevant to the latest subject matter though.

le thread ist still le open

[1694]

ah Zero1 as the last post I was looking at.

Enjoy le thread.

[sevenworlds]

Whatever you look at is flat. When you look at a tree trunk, what you see is flat. Since you were taught the tree trunk is round, the brain is tricked into projecting that knowledge onto what you see and so you perceive it as round.

So even if you were in space looking at Earth, and it was round, what you would actually only ever be able to see is a flat disc. So in that sense the Earth is flat.

[1694]

Whatever you look at is flat. When you look at a tree trunk, what you see is flat. Since you were taught the tree trunk is round, the brain is tricked into projecting that knowledge onto what you see and so you perceive it as round.

So even if you were in space looking at Earth, and it was round, what you would actually only ever be able to see is a flat disc. So in that sense the Earth is flat.

WE have more than one sense though, plus a "sense" of perspective so I don't see that your supposition holds.

[zero1]

ah Zero1 as the last post I was looking at.

Enjoy le thread.

Assume I'm dumb - what shape are you actually claiming the world is then? I ask sincerely...because I don't understand what you're getting at with the instructions to watch a boat appear from over the horizon. I have done so, and never thought the world was anything less than slightly roundy...

[kreesurgeon]

if you stand at any point on the earth and choose to travel in any direction in a strait line (on the surface) you will eventually come back to where you started = spherical (ish) earth.

[sevenworlds]

WE have more than one sense though, plus a "sense" of perspective so I don't see that your supposition holds.

Our sense of perspective is learnt. The brain fills in the perspective. It works like those slides Icke shows where you think you're looking at flowers but hidden is the word 'sex'.

I don't know how we came to be in this state but supposing it has all been orchestrated by an Elite, they have really fooled us in every way. Our whole understanding of what we are and the 'world' we supposedly live in is false.

[1694]

Assume I'm dumb - what shape are you actually claiming the world is then? I ask sincerely...because I don't understand what you're getting at with the instructions to watch a boat appear from over the horizon. I have done so, and never thought the world was anything less than slightly roundy...

It only has to be "Slightly" round to be be completely round on a large enough scale.

[1694]

Our sense of perspective is learnt. The brain fills in the perspective. It works like those slides Icke shows where you think you're looking at flowers but hidden is the word 'sex'.

I don't know how we came to be in this state but supposing it has all been orchestrated by an Elite, they have really fooled us in every way. Our whole understanding of what we are and the 'world' we supposedly live in is false.

It is learn't but not necessarily taught. Watch a baby, it learns 3 dimensions through its senses.

[sevenworlds]

It is learn't but not necessarily taught. Watch a baby, it learns 3 dimensions through its senses.

That is a projection. We can never know how a baby operates. All I know is the senses are all working individually. It is our taught knowledge that links them but we are brainwashed so thoroughly we can't see this.

[1694]

That is a projection. We can never know how a baby operates. All I know is the senses are all working individually. It is our taught knowledge that links them but we are brainwashed so thoroughly we can't see this.

What do you mean by projection? A babies ability to perform tasks within a 3 dimensional environment, even just sucking its thumb, is evendence that it understands 3 dimensions.

[zero1]

It only has to be "Slightly" round to be be completely round on a large enough scale.

Oh. OK. :) True enough. I agree. Er...yeah...

[abaddon]

We may never know for ourselves.

The eyes don't actually see in 3 dimensions. Distance is a concept. You have to be taught about distance. The eyes see everything flat..

Agreed.

Just to clear things up, if a piece of paper is 3D, like a coin, then really, nothing is 2D, as it must be made of matter to 'exist' and occupy the 'space', so we can label it. (?)

So if light is wave-matter, and a ray of light shines through the curtains in a dusty room, is that 3D because I percieve it like that and it has matter-like properties, or 2D because light is a moving wavelength picked up and organised/rationalised by the elecrtrical process in my brain?

Tomatoe tomato, the earth is a sphere. :D

[haukipesukone]

The Earth is shaped like a duck masturbating on a donut. 'nuff said. You have heard the truth. Thread closed.

[haukipesukone]

The eyes don't actually see in 3 dimensions. Distance is a concept. You have to be taught about distance. The eyes see everything flat.


Lately I've felt when I look at a car in the distance that looks small that it is small. It's not me perceiving things wrong.

[guuna]

Well we know for a fact the earth is not solid... nothing is solid... It's the whole atom thing... (yes i'm being pedantic i know:D)

I'm suddenly having horrid memories of the Journey to the Centre (yes that's centre not center... i don't care how they spell it.. it's wrong!!!!) of the Earth in 3D coming back to me...

What a horrid film!

which version of it are you refering to? There was one made in 1959 starring James Mason, another made in 1977 with Kenneth More, a tv mini-series in 1999 starring Treat Williams and most recently a 3-d version with Brendan Fraser(which I have not seen.)

Still that's a bit off topic, imo the earth is not likely to be flat,may be hollow though.

[smariot]

Whatever you look at is flat. When you look at a tree trunk, what you see is flat. Since you were taught the tree trunk is round, the brain is tricked into projecting that knowledge onto what you see and so you perceive it as round.

So even if you were in space looking at Earth, and it was round, what you would actually only ever be able to see is a flat disc. So in that sense the Earth is flat.

Hey there, the few of us that took the advice 'don't run with scissors' seriously are still in possession of stereoscopic vision.

Vision doesn't happen in the eye, it happens in the brain.

[helloperator]

Until I have absolute proof I will continue to believe that all the 'people' on the internet except me are bots

[haukipesukone]

Until I have absolute proof I will continue to believe that all the 'people' on the internet except me are bots

Why do you believe you're not a bot?

[smariot]

Why do you believe you're not a bot?

Yeah, I mean, how can you expect a bot to be able to properly do its job of impersonating a human unless it thinks like (and therefore thinks it is) a human?

[ericdubay]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/100reasons.html

Read the entirety of those two books and you'll find MANY reasons to question the supposed rotundity of the Earth.

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

[danster82]

When flying in a plane you can see quite clearly see the curvature of the earth also you can observe other planets and combine it with laws such as gravity which have practical application by sciencie.

It would be similar to me being inside looking outside and saying because it is snowing I can pretty much assume its cold outside and not hot but cant be sure 100%. Non the less this type of thinking is not how I come to know truth the analytical mind can only take you so far.

[1694]

Until I have absolute proof I will continue to believe that all the 'people' on the internet except me are bots

Have you ever harmed a human or through your own inaction allowed a human to come to harm?

[sevenworlds]

What do you mean by projection? A babies ability to perform tasks within a 3 dimensional environment, even just sucking its thumb, is evendence that it understands 3 dimensions.

By projection, I mean everything we say about how a baby functions is based on what we know as adults. ie. you can only talk about 3D because you have been taught that concept.

Just because a baby sucks it's thumb that is not evidence it understands 3 dimsensions, we just interpret it like that.

Hey there, the few of us that took the advice 'don't run with scissors' seriously are still in possession of stereoscopic vision.

Vision doesn't happen in the eye, it happens in the brain.

The eyes work like a camera. They capture exactly whatever they are looking at. The brain is like an editor, taking in those signals from the eyes and then adjusting them to fit with it's knowledge and beliefs.

[helloperator]

I am not a bot

[humito]

i live in norfolk.............my world is flat in more ways than one;)

[talulah]

i do hope this is leading into a deeper point about how bloody thick people are nowadays.....

lofreakinl,hahahahaha your avatars the best ive seen and aye your right like.i would imagine that if the world was flat and we sailed to the horizon we would indeed fall over in a big waterfall a bit like the movie time bantits if youve ever seen it;)

[talulah]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

Do you thinkn its like a conspiracy?Maybe your right maybe it is flat.Maybe theyve brainwashed us to thinkin its round.it wouldnt matter about the oceans falling off the edge as i supposse gravity would stop them from falling off the edge into space.So do you think perhaphs other planets coulld be diffrent shapes too?maybe the moon is really in the shape of a diamond but the powers that be super impose the moon into the sky as a circle.mmmmmmm:eek:

[boots]

By projection, I mean everything we say about how a baby functions is based on what we know as adults. ie. you can only talk about 3D because you have been taught that concept.

Just because a baby sucks it's thumb that is not evidence it understands 3 dimsensions, we just interpret it like that.



The eyes work like a camera. They capture exactly whatever they are looking at. The brain is like an editor, taking in those signals from the eyes and then adjusting them to fit with it's knowledge and beliefs.

What drugs you been on mate?


I watched a doc made by scientist where they put a baby and a glass floor which was black and white checked and had a pit that was black and white checked, as it crawled to the "edge". It stopped knowing that it was a 3d dimension and realized that to go further, it would put it's self in danger.

Thats proof that we SEE in 3D.


If you had kids, then you would know without speculating.

.

[whiteshadow]

Please don't start this shit again.
It was only last month that some fool managed to get his 'flat earth' thread to about 10 pages long.

It's happening again then.:eek:

[fayette]

this message board was way way better a year what is with these stupid threads?

[phonicboom]

WAtch a boat comming into view on the horizon, notice how you see the top of the mast first then the closer it gets the lower down the boat you can see.

disproved. http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

[beldazar]

Not true. The ink has length, width and depth. Even if it is 1000th or even 1,000,000th of an inch thick, it still has depth, so it is still 3 dimentional.

Agreed! I had always thought that and felt confused when told otherwise

[beldazar]

What drugs you been on mate?


I watched a doc made by scientist where they put a baby and a glass floor which was black and white checked and had a pit that was black and white checked, as it crawled to the "edge". It stopped knowing that it was a 3d dimension and realized that to go further, it would put it's self in danger.

Thats proof that we SEE in 3D.


If you had kids, then you would know without speculating.

.

That is correct but it only happens at a certain age, they learn depth perception, funny how they were put on a checkered floor! Lets hope that was just coincidence....

By the way, this thread is really funny! :D

[haukipesukone]

It makes sense to me that the Earth is not a globe. It doens't mean it's a disc either.

Like David Icke put it, the shape is decoded by our brains to look like (enter desired geometric shape). Really the Earth is a bunch of molecules spinning. (Or whatever those tiny things are that supposedly make up the physical world.)

[eyepod]

I used to be a contractor at British Airways a few years back and a lot of the actual BA staff I worked with had got freebies to fly on Concorde. All of them found it to be an amazing experience and I remember each of them commenting that because of the height it flew (about 55,000+ feet) you could clearly see the curviture of the earth. Doesn't prove it's a sphere I suppose but it certainly isn't flat. Unfortunately I only got to go on it whilst it was sitting in hangar going nowhere fast :mad:

[phildee3]

I used to be a contractor at British Airways a few years back and a lot of the actual BA staff I worked with had got freebies to fly on Concorde. All of them found it to be an amazing experience and I remember each of them commenting that because of the height it flew (about 55,000+ feet) you could clearly see the curviture of the earth. Doesn't prove it's a sphere I suppose but it certainly isn't flat.



Maybe the light waves are being bent by the mass of the earth making it appear curved.

[eyepod]

Maybe the light waves are being bent by the mass of the earth making it appear curved.

Possible I suppose, light does get bent by gravitational pulls of v.large objects.
:confused:

[phildee3]

if you stand at any point on the earth and choose to travel in any direction in a strait line (on the surface) you will eventually come back to where you started = spherical (ish) earth.



No you don't.
You come to a place that is similar to the place you started from.
There are many things that are different!
It's like travelling across a fractal landscape:
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=fractal&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

[phildee3]

Why do I have to post his again.

WAtch a boat comming into view on the horizon, notice how you see the top of the mast first then the closer it gets the lower down the boat you can see.

Le thread est fin.



Non.
This is proof that the earth bends light waves! ;)

[phildee3]

To say that the earth is round because it looks round from an aeroplane is like saying that a car in the distance is tiny because it looks tiny.

As you get closer to the car, it looks like it's actual size.
As you get closer to the ground, the earth looks flat.

[fromthatshow]

that would be quite hilarious

[jahzel]

Yes I do, I've seen it myself :)

[sevenworlds]

What drugs you been on mate?


I watched a doc made by scientist where they put a baby and a glass floor which was black and white checked and had a pit that was black and white checked, as it crawled to the "edge". It stopped knowing that it was a 3d dimension and realized that to go further, it would put it's self in danger.

Thats proof that we SEE in 3D.


If you had kids, then you would know without speculating.

.

How can I possibly take you seriously?

If you are relying on scientists for "proof" then forget it.

I always find it intriguing on here that people are willing to accept we are controlled by some Elite group, who pervade all areas of our life, yet when their own beliefs are threatened they resort to the very science or media that is supposedly controlled to back up their beliefs. :confused:

[abrilliantone]

Yes, it is true that this subject was discuss awhile back *LINK (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38497&page=6)*

But I for one still have alot of unanswered questions on the matter. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

The fluid problem
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.


An accelerating world
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/flatpic0.gifA 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.



Centrifugal Force - The False Force
An evil word has worked its way into our daily vocabulary, and with it, an incorrect understanding of the way physics works. "Centrifugal Force (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/glossary.htm#Centrifugal Force)" ( Latin for "center fleeing") is often used to describe why mud gets spun off a spinning tire, or water gets pushed out of the clothes during the spin dry cycle of your washer. It is also used to describe why we tend to slide to the outer side of a car (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/centrif.htm#) going around a curve. It is a common explanation...the only problem is all of it is absolutely wrong!!! Centrifugal force does not exist...there is no such thing...it is a ghost we tend to blame odd behavior on.
Take for example this common situation. You are riding in a car going around a curve. Sitting on your dashboard is a cassette tape. As you go around the curve, the tape moves to outside edge of the car. Because you don't want to blame it on ghosts, you say "centrifugal force pushed the tape across the dashboard."--wwrroonngg!! When we view this situation from above the car, we get a better view of what is really happening. The animation below shows both views at the same time. The top window shows you the bird's eye view of the car and the tape, while the bottom window shows you the familiar view from the passenger.
http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/casette.gif
The car tires on the road have a enough static friction to act as centripetal force which forces the car to go around the curve. The tape on the slippery dashboard does not have enough friction to act as a centripetal force, so in the absence of a centripetal force the tape follows straight line motion. The car literally turns out from underneath the tape, but from the passenger's point of view it looks as though something (a ghost force?) pushed the tape across the dashboard. If the car you are riding in has the windows rolled down, then the tape will leave the car (or does the car leave the tape?) as it follows its straight line path. If the windows are rolled up, then the window will deliver a centripetal force to the tape and keep it in a circular path.
Any time the word Centrifugal Force is used, what is really being described is a Lack-of-Centripetal Force.


http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/flat_earth_sfw.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Flat_earth.jpg

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig54.jpg

I mean look also at how they represent the world on the flag of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/media/images/UN-LOGO%20copy.jpg

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

[talulah]

I mean look also at how they represent the world on the flag of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/media/images/UN-LOGO%20copy.jpg

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/think005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)[/QUOTE]

The flag is flat to show all the countries of the earth they coulldnt have a round flag unless the used a globe and its gravitation pull that keeps the sea where it is not because they world is flat.Funny enough i think someone would have reported it by now eh?

[tabea_blumenschein]

I come back from a few days offline, and here somebody's posted another flat-Earth thread. Yeesh.

Okay, folks. Here are some definitive proofs that the Earth is not flat and not just "curved", but actually spherical in shape.

1. It is possible to work out a set of equations to calculate the distance between any two points on Earth, given only the latitudes and longitudes of those two points. Equations that are derived assuming the Earth is spherical will give the correct distance between those two points. Equations derived assuming that the Earth is some other shape will give incorrect answers.

2. That works the other way around, too: measure the distance between various points on Earth and try to plot them on differently shaped surfaces. The points will correctly plot on a sphere, but you won't be able to correctly plot them on a flat or merely curved surface.

3. Solar and Lunar eclipses are predicted (i.e. when they will happen; whether the eclipse will be total, partial, annular, or hybrid; and where you will have to be in order to see them) by equations which assume the Earth to be spherical. Also, the equations assume the Sun to be a sphere with a diameter of about 860,000 miles and a mean distance from Earth of 93,000,000 miles, and the Moon to be a sphere with a diameter of 2150 miles and a mean distance from Earth of about 238,000 miles.

Equations derived using different assumptions will fail to accurately predict Solar and Lunar eclipses.

4. Declination and Right ascention of stars and planets in the sky are calculated using the "spherical Earth" model. Other models would put the stars and planets in the incorrect places.

5. If the Earth were flat, or a curved surface, there would be only one set of Circumpolar star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in the night sky. The fact that the northern hemisphere has one set of circumpolar stars and that the southern hemisphere has another set of circumpolar stars is a compelling argument that the surface of the Earth is spherical.

6. Hurricanes rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This is easily explained using the "spherical Earth" model. The tendency is for winds to blow radially inward toward an area of low pressure. But the Coriolus effect deflects those winds to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere, which causes the low-pressure system to rotate accordingly.

If the Earth were flat, or simply curved, all hurricanes would be expected to rotate in the same direction.

7. There is a similar effect involving the Coriolus force and cannonballs. Cannonballs shot toward the equator in the northern hemisphere veer to the right, while cannonballs shot toward the equator in the southern hemisphere veer to the left. Again, this isn't explainable by a flat or "curved Earth" model (I believe airplanes also have to take the Coriolis effect into account when flying northward or southward).

If phonicboom is reading this, a cannonball shot straight up in the air will come down pretty much where it was shot from in both the "flat Earth" and the "spherical Earth" model (provided the cannonball isn't shot too great a distance upward). Such an experiment does not bolster the "flat Earth" theory.

8. Parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia can be used to determine the distance to nearby stars, or other planets in our Solar System. Again, we're assuming a heliocentric Solar System and a spherical Earth.

9. We know from Newton's law of Gravitation that the Earth's gravitational field pulls all other objects towards it's own center of mass.

Think carefully about this. If the Earth were flat, then the Earth's center of mass would probably not be directly under your feet - it would be under the Earth's surface some distance away from you. So gravity would be pulling you both downward and sideways!!!

But since the Earth is a sphere, the Earth's gravitational field lines point straight down towards Earth's center, perpendicular to the ground, wherever you happen to be standing on the Earth's surface.

~

Several of the posters on this thread seem to think the "hollow earth" theory is compelling. May I ask why?

~

EDIT: Oh, yes. Fictitious forces.

Let's say you're on a bus that's parked beside another bus. Your bus starts moving forward. You know how it's hard to tell sometimes whether it's your bus that's moving or the other one?

Let's look at it both ways.

If we treat your bus as the accelerated frame of reference, then it's easy to understand why you're being pushed back into your seat. The accelerating bus seat pushes you forward; you push backward against your seat. Newton's third law. No problem.

Now let's look at your bus as a static frame of reference. In other words, let's pretend that your bus isn't moving but the other bus (and the rest of the world with it!) are accelerating past you.

Now we can't account for why you're being pushed back into your seat. Because in this frame of reference, the bus seat is not accelerating you forward. So we have a reaction force (you being pushed back into the seat) without an initial force to account for it. The way we resolve this in physics is to attribute you being pushed into your seat to a fictitious force.

So "fictitious forces" are needed to explain some of the stuff that happens in "static" reference frames. "fictitious" shouldn't be taken to mean that what the fictitious force is describing isn't really happening.

I strongly prefer the term pseudoforces because it's less likely to be misunderstood.

[phonicboom]

assumptions

a lot of assumptions there :) Did you read this? (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm) There are numerous actual experiments, not assumptions or maths based on a model, but actual experiments, arguing against all your points.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Phonicboom:

Your "proof" is a series of potentially flawed "experiments" carried out in the 1800's?

By the way, when and where is the next Solar eclipse going to happen?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Oh, yeah, one more piece of "spherical Earth" evidence that's really cool. Pictures documenting Analemmas (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070617.html) are beautiful to look at, and also pretty damn hard to explain by the "flat Earth theory".

Because the Earth is spherical, analemmas look different from different latitudes. Compare the Ukraine picture to this one (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061223.html) taken in Athens, Greece.

[boots]

No wonder the world calls us conspiracy nuts when you get threads like this one:mad:

Logic dictates

Mmm lets see the sun is round not a flat disc.
The stars are round or just painted in the night sky:rolleyes:
The planets are round.
The Moon is round.
Atoms are round. and spin in circles.

Planets circle the sun.

Space ships circle the earth and map the solar system.

Satellites circle the earth or do they have some amazing ability to do 180 degree turns.

And the earth if flat.:rolleyes::rolleyes:


FFS get a grip.

.

[beldazar]

:confused: What you on about Boots, stars are just holes in the sky!!! :D:cool:

[phonicboom]

Phonicboom:

Your "proof" is a series of potentially flawed "experiments" carried out in the 1800's?

By the way, when and where is the next Solar eclipse going to happen?

i asked if you had read them. I'm a fence sitter on this subject but leaning to the possibility of none-spherical due to NASA manipulation and lies. The experiments in question, should you choose to read them, soundly argue against all common round earth statements / assumptions. If nothing else they are interesting real world observations and not all maths and nasa fish-eye photography.

More interesting than "when" the next solar eclipse is, is "what" is a solar eclipse, and i'm not asking for a text book wikipedia answer, but more along the lines of the electric universe view of space. Is it more of a discharge between the floating electric poles.

By the way I am firmly in the 'no solid reality' camp, the universe to me in one big mind, so i tend to have an eyebrow or two raised to anyone who says they have it worked out "hey check this equation". That may well put me in the "not fit for a serious debate" camp too, but life is much more fun over here :)

[boots]

:confused: What you on about boots, stars are just holes in the sky!!! :d:cool:

:dlmao


.

[zero1]

Flat Earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

These guys know the score...and the scientific data backs them up. :D:p;)

LOL!

[codie]

[QUOTE=rhydra;603159]It is flat and it is also finite. If you stand on a very tall building with a powerful telescope you will see the back of your own head.

ROFLMAO:D

[shabun]

Of course it is flat. I went to Australia and I didn't fall off so it must be flat. End of.

[whiteshadow]

I don't know why threads like this get created. Why am I even reading this?

I think I am drawn in by this purely insane flat earth theory to see what ridiculuous 'evidence' is put forward next.

come on give us some more - 'ice around the edges to hold the water in'. I'm hooked.

[armoured_amazon]

I don't know why threads like this get created. Why am I even reading this?

I think I am drawn in by this purely insane flat earth theory to see what ridiculuous 'evidence' is put forward next.

come on give us some more - 'ice around the edges to hold the water in'. I'm hooked.

LOL me too. Moar! Moar! :D

[phonicboom]

This is why the threads go on so long as no one can prove one way or the other.

We have "NASA and school said so" VS "Well water is flat, they lie to us about everything else"

[1977]

The world is round. The real conspiracy is in getting people to believe that everyone thought the world was flat before Columbus sailed west and didn't fall off the edge!

Globus cruciger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As usual, the message is that the ancients were just a bunch of superstitious idiots. Amazon.com: Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (9780275959043): Jeffrey Burton Russell, David Noble: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51c5SSkP6hL.@@AMEPARAM@@51c5SSkP6hL has the right idea (although I disagree that it was specifically an attack on Christianity), and is a telling example of how easily history is manipulated:
Neither Christopher Columbus, nor his contemporaries, believed the earth was flat. Yet this curious illusion persists today, firmly established with the help of the media, textbooks, teachers--even noted historians....
But perhaps the most intriguing focus of the book is the reason why we allow this error to persist. Do we prefer to languish in a comfortable and familiar error rather than exert the effort necessary to discover the truth? This uncomfortable question is engagingly answered, and includes a discussion about the implications of this for historical knowledge and scholarly honesty.

[chattanova]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball

You can see the spherical shape when your at sea and high mountains, and I've never seen a flat moon or planet..

[signs]

Is not the fact that the earth is spinning on its own axis , therefore creating gravity , has the earth not been mapped by a satellite or something and this data has shown that he earth is near enough a sphere.:cool: A lot of images captured my space stations ect , seem to show the earth as near enough round or sphere like.:cool:

[shabun]

Is not the fact that the earth is spinning on its own axis , therefore creating gravity , has the earth not been mapped by a satellite or something and this data has shown that he earth is near enough a sphere.:cool: A lot of images captured my space stations ect , seem to show the earth as near enough round or sphere like.:cool:

Not true. Gravity is not caused by the spinning.

[signs]

Not true. Gravity is not caused by the spinning.

fair enough but if the earth stopped spinning what would happen, would the earth be on a collision course wit the sun , as in , would it be suck in to the sun by the suns gravitational pull.

[shabun]

fair enough but if the earth stopped spinning what would happen, would the earth be on a collision course wit the sun , as in , would it be suck in to the sun by the suns gravitational pull.

No mate! The Earth is in orbit round the Sun, regardless of whether it spins or not. They are both in equilibrium. Eventually the Sun will grow in size to swallow up the Earth, but hopefully that is not for a few years yet.

[lilavati]

depends on 3d view or 4d view.
higher consciousness entities may see as flat

[realitycheck]

Get a straight edge out and put it on your kitchen flloor - there you go, the worlds flat.

[1694]

Get a straight edge out and put it on your kitchen flloor - there you go, the worlds flat.

Or your kitchen floor is perfectly concave to the opposite of the earths curve....better try the living room to.

[phonicboom]

You can see the spherical shape when your at sea and high mountains.

that is perspective.

and I've never seen a flat moon or planet..

they look flat to me, especially the moon which we only see one side.

...

[drael]

that is perspective.

No perspective does not make straight things curved. Perspective simply traces all lines back to a point.

[phonicboom]

No perspective does not make straight things curved. Perspective simply traces all lines back to a point.

in the case of looking out to sea, the eye tricks you (as with the sun appearing to change size from noon to sunset). So with that eye-trick, the horizon is pulled in and the left and right curve to accommodate.

[phildee3]

No perspective does not make straight things curved. Perspective simply traces all lines back to a point.



Correct.
I say it's an optical illusion created by the mass of the planet bending the light beams.

[keystone]

in the case of looking out to sea, the eye tricks you (as with the sun appearing to change size from noon to sunset). So with that eye-trick, the horizon is pulled in and the left and right curve to accommodate.Abject nonsense.

[phonicboom]

Abject nonsense.

you know it is not :) The sun does appear to change size with position and it is a well know trick of the eye. And here is an experiment (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) on what i mentioned.

You are funny, I had some time away from this forum and came back to have one of your responses that sound so authoritative and have no evidence to back them up. It is a well know fact that the sun appears to change size at different times of day and it is a trick of the eye. You can't discount that correctly so you just type "abject nonsense" :D :rolleyes:

[drael]

But we are talking about earth curvature, not apparent size of sun..

[keystone]

you know it is not :) The sun does appear to change size with position and it is a well know trick of the eye. And here is an experiment (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) on what i mentioned.

You are funny, I had some time away from this forum and came back to have one of your responses that sound so authoritative and have no evidence to back them up. It is a well know fact that the sun appears to change size at different times of day and it is a trick of the eye. You can't discount that correctly so you just type "abject nonsense" :D :rolleyes:

It isn't a trick of the eye it's plain ordinary physics. What's abject nonsense is to say it's a trick of the eye which implies the mind is playing tricks on you.

[tabea_blumenschein]

that is perspective.



they look flat to me, especially the moon which we only see one side.

...

What about Sunspots, which can be observed crossing the face of the (rotating) Sun?

What about lunar Libration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which anyone with a pair of binoculars can observe happening over time?

~

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Come on, phonicboom. Give me a plausible "flat earth" explanation for some of the things I mentioned earlier ... (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=607076&postcount=86)

How do "flat Earthers" figure the distance between two geographical points on the Earth's surface?

(For the record, here's how I solved it when I worked out the problem a while back. I never studied non-Euclidian geometry, so I had to compute the distance in a roundabout way. Given the latitude and longitude of two points on earth, I swapped latitudes and longitudes to get two additional points. The chords connecting those four points on a sphere describe an isoscoles trapezoid, whose lengths I could figure out from great circles or minor circles, given the Earth's radius. From this I worked out the length of the diagonal between the two proposed points, and that diagonal formed the chord from which I was able to compute the arc length, or distance between the two points.

Geometry rocks! :) )

Now back to phonicboom:

What about Circumpolar star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia How does the "flat Earth theory" explain that? Why does the north star sink lower and lower toward the horizen the farther south you go, and why is it not visible at all from Australia, as well as most of South America and Africa?

What about the retrograde motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion#Apparent_retrograde_motion) of other planets?

Once again (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=607095&postcount=89), how does the "flat Earth theory" explain photographs documenting analemmas (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070617.html), and the fact that they vary with latitude? (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061223.html)

~

Those supposed "experiments" phonicboom is linking to were all conducted way back in the 19th century. I don't know if anyone has attempted to replicate them more recently. In my opinion, I'd say everything at the website phonicboom is linking to is either lies or fabrications, faulty reasoning, careless protocol with regard to the experiment being conducted, or just plain scientific ignorance.

When somebody can replicate those experiments or observations with proper controls in place, then we'll talk about them. But not before.

What I've posted, on the other hand, we can all observe and agree upon. We can agree on the distance between two points. We can watch planets retrograde, and we can watch the changing positions of the stars over time, or at different places. If there's a "flat Earth theory" that adequately explains any of the above, I'd like to hear it.

~

p.s. The Moon is on an elliptical orbit, so it's apparent size varies somewhat. The Earth is also on an elliptical orbit around the Sun, so the Sun's apparent size can vary a little, too.

[boots]

OMG this shit still going on.

I guess some ppl are to afraid that their egos would take irreparable damage to admit THEY are wrong. Pity.


.

[phonicboom]

I think I have mentioned several times that I am undecided, open and inquisitive. In a debate that is heavy on the round earth I add what I have found in reading about flat earth to balance the argument, especially when the points I have found are interesting. The thing is that people just wont accommodate the option. The typical response is "well these photos/maths/physics..." and that is the point! the system in place is telling you from cradle to grave that the earth is round and you accept it.

In such a field of interest as ours I would expect more inquisitive minds, which is all mine is, open, not decided. To conclude is to close :)

for your information (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0) Should you be at all inquisitive.

[phonicboom]

something to ease the mind and get a perspective on measurement.

Did I also say this? I have it on my website, that my position if pushed, is that the earth has no form.

[liltza]

that is perspective.



they look flat to me, especially the moon which we only see one side.

...

now look here old boy.. the moon.. although it looks flat, is in fact a sphere.. it only looks flat because its so far away and you can't get a different perspective on it alright? What do you mean it looks flat to you!? Are you trying to tell me that if we mosey on up there in our spaceship, and take a look side on, what we will in fact see is a wafer thin bit of card with a picture of the moon detailed on it?

[phildee3]

something to ease the mind and get a perspective (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2s3gv_kundalini-alan-watts_news) on measurement.

Did I also say this? I have it on my website, that my position if pushed, is that the earth has no form.



That's beyond Alan Watts (who I can just about get my head around)!

It may have no matter, no substance, but no form??
Form is shape, and we conceive of shape.
Therefore it exists (if only as a thought form), surely?

[anahata]

Depends on how you define 'world' and 'flat' I guess :confused: It would also depend on 'you' and where and what 'you' are in connection to it. There are far too many variables to answer this question so I shall say no.

[liltza]

An ant walking around on a massive beach ball may well be forgiven for thinking it is flat! From his perpective it is! It doesnt take away from the fact though that it is in fact a Sphere!

[phildee3]

An ant walking around on a massive beach ball may well be forgiven for thinking it is flat! From his perpective it is! It doesnt take away from the fact though that it is in fact a Sphere!



...and from your perpective the earth is round.

But I don't think that you can be forgiven as much as the ant, seeing as you have a greater ability to question appearances.

[liltza]

There is nothing for me to be forgiven for as I am not saying the earth is flat!

[phildee3]

Depends on how you define 'world' and 'flat'



...and on what your definition of "is" is.

[phildee3]

There is nothing for me to be forgiven for as I am not saying the earth is flat!



No, you're saying it's round - for a fact!

The ant sez the beach ball is flat cos it looks flat from his perspective.
You sez the earth is round cos it looks round from yours.

[liltza]

Look its incredibly simple.. a 4 year old could understand it...
Look at the Moon.. its is round correct?
Now what is the nature of this roundness?
There are 3 options:

1. It is a completely 2d round circle with absolute no depth at all.
2. It is a circle with uniform depth, a perfect cylinder if you will!
3. It is a sphere!

Now which of those 3 options do you think its 100% guarenteed to be?

[phildee3]

Look its incredibly simple.. a 4 year old could understand it...
Look at the Moon.. its is round correct?



No.
It looks round.

What it is is alot more complicated

and we're more than four years old!

[theoriginalmurph]

Is the world flat? -- To answer this question, I say it was the chicken who came first, the egg second. Seriously though, how far of a step back to see the big picture should people take to answer this?

At any given moment, for a brief instant, the planet is spherical. The rest of the time, it's shape is indescribable.

[liltza]

No.
It looks round.

What it is is alot more complicated

and we're more than four years old!



lol!! if something looks round it is round!!

im looking at a box of cigarettes .. it looks like a box it is a box!.. it doesnt look like a box and actually its a dodecahedron.

[liltza]

what you have to keep in mind is the 24 hour time zones.

When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.

[phildee3]

if something looks round it is round!!



and if something looks flat then it is flat?

[liltza]

and if something looks flat then it is flat?

oh you are sooo annoying.

no if something looks flat it might be flat or it might have depth.

[phildee3]

if something looks flat it might be flat



mmmm
but if it looks round it definately is round?

I'm not quite getting this.

What does this look like?
http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/scarlett_2.jpg

[mountain]

Perhaps it is shapeless, maybe Earth is a shapeshifting sentient being, too...:D

Like water.

[liltza]

mmmm
but if it looks round it definately is round?

I'm not quite getting this.

What does this look like?
http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/scarlett_2.jpg

it looks flat

look in the mirror... you look flat but you know ur not dont you

[phildee3]

it looks flat



not to me!
not flat at all!!

[red_ram]

When the general consensus among the people was that the earth was flat, it may well have been, later becoming its now familiar spherical shape when the consensus changed.

[abaddon]

http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/scarlett_2.jpg

/^^
0_0
∞
/\

*declares Tabea_B winner and pushes on*:p

[red_ram]

What does this look like?
http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/scarlett_2.jpg

I don't know much about images posted to prove a theoretical point, but I know what I like! :cool:

[1977]

Maybe it's a cube, did you ever stop to think about that???

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/4631/rotatend4.gif

[phildee3]

I don't know much about images posted to prove a theoretical point, but I know what I like!



Do you like what she looks like or what she is?

[drael]

No, you are all slave programs in a reality matrix, not people living on cubes. the devil is in the details....

[anthony65]

mmmm
but if it looks round it definately is round?

I'm not quite getting this.

What does this look like?
http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/01/scarlett_2.jpg

The picture must be flat but I find myself being drawn into depths and curves and ... :o

It really is a lovely cardigan! :D

Do you have any more of these, err, tests... :rolleyes:

[phildee3]

Do you have any more of these, err, tests... :rolleyes:

err, not until this one is completed.

Let me rephrase the question:
What is this a picture of?

[abrilliantone]

does anyone have first hand proof that the world is shaped like a ball


No and it would seems that no one can offer me a good argument on this subject either.



Originally Posted by abrilliantone http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=555869#post555869)
The fluid problem
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.





Originally Posted by abrilliantone http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=551955#post551955)
An accelerating world
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/flatpic0.gifA 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.



Centrifugal Force - The False Force
An evil word has worked its way into our daily vocabulary, and with it, an incorrect understanding of the way physics works. "Centrifugal Force (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/glossary.htm#Centrifugal Force)" ( Latin for "center fleeing") is often used to describe why mud gets spun off a spinning tire, or water gets pushed out of the clothes during the spin dry cycle of your washer. It is also used to describe why we tend to slide to the outer side of a car (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/centrif.htm#) going around a curve. It is a common explanation...the only problem is all of it is absolutely wrong!!! Centrifugal force does not exist...there is no such thing...it is a ghost we tend to blame odd behavior on.
Take for example this common situation. You are riding in a car going around a curve. Sitting on your dashboard is a cassette tape. As you go around the curve, the tape moves to outside edge of the car. Because you don't want to blame it on ghosts, you say "centrifugal force pushed the tape across the dashboard."--wwrroonngg!! When we view this situation from above the car, we get a better view of what is really happening. The animation below shows both views at the same time. The top window shows you the bird's eye view of the car and the tape, while the bottom window shows you the familiar view from the passenger.
http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/casette.gif
The car tires on the road have a enough static friction to act as centripetal force which forces the car to go around the curve. The tape on the slippery dashboard does not have enough friction to act as a centripetal force, so in the absence of a centripetal force the tape follows straight line motion. The car literally turns out from underneath the tape, but from the passenger's point of view it looks as though something (a ghost force?) pushed the tape across the dashboard. If the car you are riding in has the windows rolled down, then the tape will leave the car (or does the car leave the tape?) as it follows its straight line path. If the windows are rolled up, then the window will deliver a centripetal force to the tape and keep it in a circular path.
Any time the word Centrifugal Force is used, what is really being described is a Lack-of-Centripetal Force.

[abrilliantone]

For you everyone's viewing pleasure.

Flat Earth - YouTube

[frenat]

Originally Posted by abrilliantone
The fluid problem
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.


The above shows an amazing lack of understanding of how gravity works. Saying that water would run down the sides of the Earth ignores that gravity pulls toward the center of mass.

[phildee3]

The above shows an amazing lack of understanding of how gravity works. Saying that water would run down the sides of the Earth ignores that gravity pulls toward the center of mass.



...acting the same way on light beams,
making it appear that the earth is round.

Can nobody tell me what the picture that I posted appears to be of???

[abrilliantone]

the above shows an amazing lack of understanding of how gravity works. Saying that water would run down the sides of the earth ignores that gravity pulls toward the center of mass.



yes, but that statement can be misleading. Newton showed us that the direction of the pull is not necessarily the same as the direction of the motion. For that reason, you can have things, under the influence of gravity, moving toward the earth, away from the earth, diagonally, sideways, etc.

the only rule is that the change in velocity will be in the direction pointing toward the center of the earth. If something's moving away from the earth, the pull of gravity will slow it down. If it's moving toward the earth, the pull of gravity will speed it up. If it's moving neither toward nor away from the earth, the pull of gravity will not speed it up nor slow it down, but will bend its path.


...

[abrilliantone]

What Newton came up with.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/anims/apple.gif http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/anims/sun.gif http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif Over three centuries ago, Isaac Newton invented a new kind of mathematics called calculus so that he could model motion in the natural world using mathematics. Calculus is about measuring change and so calculus became a vital tool in describing the motions of simple objects.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif Newton was able to make a mathematical model that encompassed both objects falling because of gravity on Earth, and the motion of heavenly bodies in the skies.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif Newton decided that the force of gravity on Earth was the same force that organized the motions of the moon around the Earth and the Earth and all the planets around the sun. He invented a formalism and developed mathematical formulas for calculating the size of the gravitational force both on Earth and in outer space.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif One of the important formulas in Newton's model is his law for calculating the force of gravity between two objects 1 and 2 with mass m1 and m2, which are separated by a distance R:
F12 = F21 = G m1 m2 / R2
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif The constant G is a number that occurs in Nature, like the speed of light c. The constant G is called Newton's gravitational constant.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif Newton's law of gravity winds up describing the observed motions of the planets extremely well. Another thing it models quite well is the way the gravitational force felt on the surface of a planet depends on the size and mass of the planet. For example, comparing the gravitational force at the surface of the Earth vs. the moon, we get
Fmoon/Fearth = (Mmoon/Mearth) (Rearth2/Rmoon2)
which is about 1/6, and the astronauts who walked on the moon felt it, too. You can see how much lighter lunar gravity is if you watch films of astronauts moonwalking.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif This was an enormous thing Newton did - to invent a new kind of math to build a model that described in the same formula the observed motion of both falling objects on Earth and the planets in the heavens.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif BUT unfortunately, Newtonian gravity falls apart when we try to combine it with what we've just learned about Special Relativity.

[abrilliantone]

What was wrong with that?

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/elecmag.gif When electromagnets were studied, our picture of space and time changed, too. http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif Newton's model for gravity looked pretty good until scientists started learning more about the force of electromagnetism.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif They learned that light was made of electromagnetic waves, and they could model the observed behavior of light very well by looking at solutions of the wave equation for the electromagnetic field.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif When they looked at those wave equations, they could see that causality and Special Relativity were both already there. The mathematical equations that modeled electromagnetism were consistent with causality and Special Relativity.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif But Newton's law of gravitation depends only on the distance between two massive objects at a given moment in time. Newton's law doesn't model what happens when the gravitational field changes in time. There was no wave equation to be had from Newton's model of gravity, and there wasn't a way to make it consistent with causality and Special Relativity. (Plus, Newton had spent a lot of time convincing himself that light was not wavelike in nature, so his theories really needed updating by the time electromagnetism came around.)
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/dot.gif This was where Einstein came in. Not only did Einstein give us the Special Theory of Relativity, but in his quest to make gravity consistent with Special Relativity, he invented the General Theory of Relativity.

[abrilliantone]

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.


Sorry about posting in patches like this but I was unable to post the last couple of posts into one single post.