• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Tales Of A Flat Earth

Yep, that was a bit depressing.
 
Tribble said:
As someone who is well-read in the ways of science, that list makes me want to sigh and go get another fish finger sandwich.
Click to expand...
Me too, but some the statements made are significantly thought-provoking.

Xanatic* said:
Yep, that was a bit depressing.
Click to expand...
No wish to result in that. Sorry that it's caused offence, it's gone. The link is still there, though.
 
Wasn't that list put together in 1968?
That might explain some of the inaccuracies.
 
No, apart from more satellite photos most of that stuff has been answerable for centuries.
 
I suppose that a flat Earth would explain why we aren't subject to centrifugal forces and get flung off the planet...
 
MungomanII said:
I suppose that a flat Earth would explain why we aren't subject to centrifugal forces and get flung off the planet...
Click to expand...
But gravity explains it far better, and it also explains why the Earth is round - a cloud of matter collapsing under gravity to form a planet settles into a symmetrical sphere, rather than a highly asymmetric disk!
 
MungomanII said:
a flat Earth would explain why we aren't subject to centrifugal forces
Click to expand...
Would it, though? Suppose (for purposes of this thread) the world was a flat 2D rotating discworld...surely the centrifugal forces (or a centripetal effect) would still be applying a force, but in just one plane?

And, although I have never failed to..
Xanatic* said:
pay attention in science class.
Click to expand...
I am going to presume that the official answer as to why we aren't flung off our real-world spherical globe is because the weak stronger forces of gravity must counteract the weaker (but intuitively-strong) effects of the rotational vector upon which, we, fleas, adhere. Have I got that right @Xanatic* / @Tribble?

Whilst I believe I do understand (as will most others) the broad concepts of Foucalt and Coriolis, the 0.5km/sec or 1000mph rotational speed at the equator is clearly still not overcoming the 9.81msec^-2 inwards or downwards attracting effect of gravity, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I feel that the 1968 list item regarding the Earth's magnetic field, and Curie point of iron, to be an odd inclusion by the author, in that I just presume that the Curie effect (cancellation of ferromagnetic forces) would only apply at the very-hottest more-than-1043-degK centre, and that the onion-like cooler/closer-to-surface (magma?) layers are evidently those from which we experience the geomagnetic field.
 
No, the centrifugal force is not enough to counteract gravity on Earth. Though it's enough to be useful, which is why spacerockets are launched from as close to the equator as possible. It negates gravity a bit, enough to mean less fuel consumption for the rockets.
The magnetic field is indeed believed to be generated from the outer metallic core of the Earth, not the mantle.
 
Ermintrude said:
However...the following set of impossible information is fascinating. I've seen much of it before, but this is a good (contestably-flawed) summary. Read it with an open mind (as, of course, you will), and remember: always doubt everything.

http://aetherforce.com/isnt-it-strange-that/
Click to expand...

That was interesting and depressing, I would say. Thanks for posting it, Ermintrude - it's always informative to see what people believe, but you will hopefully understand the collective eye-rolling which we've indulged in. Of course, it's useful on occasion to ask those questions to better understand the answers, but the first half of that list (about as far as I read in detail) is full of sweeping statements and outright silliness. The statements made seemed to be justified by the idea that science can't explain everything, therefore it's all wrong. The idea that a spinning Earth creates a centrifuge being but one example.
 
The thing about the magnetic field is probably his only fair point on that list. We still know quite little about it. Though I'd be curious to hear how a flat Earth can better explain the magnetic field.
 
The question that comes to my mind is - would a two dimensional earth rotate, surely it would spin, arse over tip, (nocturnal, diurnal) rather than spin from a centre point?
 
MungomanII said:
The question that comes to my mind is - would a two dimensional earth rotate, surely it would spin, arse over tip, (nocturnal, diurnal) rather than spin from a centre point?
Click to expand...
If a flat, disc-shaped Earth spins around a central point, surely we'd all be flung outwards by centrifugal forces?
It would be increasingly difficult to travel towards the centre.
If it rotated like a coin being flipped, that would create similar problems.
 
davidplankton said:
The needle arm on a record player is subject to greater inward pull the closer it gets to the centre. Not sure if that has anything to do with anything.
Click to expand...
That's more to do with the groove pulling the needle into a tighter angle, than centrifugal forces.
 
Not sure that Flat earthers think the world moves at all. Isn't it just tiny celestial bodies zooming round us or something? Any actual Flat Earthers around to enlighten us? :)
 
Squiddy said:
Not sure that Flat earthers think the world moves at all. Isn't it just tiny celestial bodies zooming round us or something? Any actual Flat Earthers around to enlighten us? :)
Click to expand...

If it helps, this is from another forum, which has people believing it:

What I find mystifying about the FE is not just how enraged it makes people, but how they will refuse to do even one minute's research on it, and then ALL start smugly hitting you with the same questions thinking they are oh-so clever and superior, that nobody could have possibly thought of THAT before (e.g. "If the earth's flat, why don't you fall of the edge? What about gravity? How do you explain the sun and moon? What about satellites?") - and the fact they all do this PROVES they have taken no time to research the theory, as all these questions are the first thing any flat Earth resource deals with! In fact, vehement round Earthers are just like vehement pro-vaxxers; they won't take a single minute to look at the reams of research showing how dangerous and ineffective vaccines are, but they will launch into a tirade at anyone who has read said research and therefore questions vaccines. "Vaccines are safe and effective because [mainstream establishment] science! You're stupid! I don't like you! Go away!" is exactly the same as "The Earth is round and spinning because [mainstream establishment] science! You're stupid! I don't like you! Go away!"

So for any tedious round Earthers who want to ask the same questions for the THOUSANDTH MILLIONTH time, here is a brief breakdown. If you want more info, do the research yourself or follow the links already provided in this thread.

Q. Why don't you fall off the edge?

A. Huge ice wall surrounding the Earth - "Antartica" which is heavily guarded by a multi-nation treaty and independent explorers are chased away.

Q. What about gravity?

A. Doesn't exist. Objects fall to the earth because of density, not gravity.

Q. What about the sun and moon?

A. They rotate around us.

Q. What about circumnavigation?

A. A flat disc can be circumnavigated east to west, as the Earth has been. But it has never been north to south.

Q. What about satellites?

A. CGI fiction.

Q. What about pictures of Earth from space?

A. CGI fiction - none of the images look at all alike and the size of continents changes drastically. Even NASA admits they're photoshopped.

Q. What about the ISS?

A. Doesn't exist.

Q. What about the moon landings?

A. Faked.

Get the picture?! These are very brief answers, but all these questions have been answered elaborately and at length by people who have devoted their lives to this subject. The notion that tantrum-throwing detractors who refuse to read a single article on the subject could come up with a question that hasn't been tackled yet is just ludicrously stupid.

If people aren't interested in / don't believe the FE, fine, but stop wasting our time asking and re-asking questions that have been dealt with and answered a million times!! Go to one of the hundreds of flat Earth resources and read through the answers for yourself.
Click to expand...

SOURCE: http://conserpiracy.boards.net/thread/681/earth-flat-centre-universe?page=3&scrollTo=13068

Hopefully this helps to explain things?
 
It all proves that science and information dissemination have become so vast one can believe and find support for any nonsense one wants to believe. And, once again, any question that can't be answered with evidence is answered with claims of conspiracy.
 
PeteByrdie said:
It all proves that science and information dissemination have become so vast one can believe and find support for any nonsense one wants to believe. And, once again, any question that can't be answered with evidence is answered with claims of conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Guess so, although all our veiws must be ultimately based on a choice made somewhere of who to trust. No argument is ever irrefutable, suppose that's why we have trial by jury as our ultimate test of veracity rather than some sort of scientific process, everything always comes down to a guess :)
 
Q. What about satellites?

A. CGI fiction.

Q. What about pictures of Earth from space?

A. CGI fiction - none of the images look at all alike and the size of continents changes drastically. Even NASA admits they're photoshopped.
Click to expand...
The first satellites were launched in the 50s.
The first photos of Earth were done in the 60s.

Photoshop was first created in 1987.
 
Come now, you know what they mean. Photoshopped has just become the common term for images that are manipulated.
 
Xanatic* said:
Come now, you know what they mean. Photoshopped has just become the common term for images that are manipulated.
Click to expand...
Well OK, perhaps 'CGI' was the incorrect term to use? Slack use of wording?
We know from films such as 2001 that it was possible to fake up images and present them in a realistic fashion.
 
PeteByrdie said:
It all proves that science and information dissemination have become so vast one can believe and find support for any nonsense one wants to believe. And, once again, any question that can't be answered with evidence is answered with claims of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I agree. The thing is, however, it looks more and more like it is people who are researching their belief, and finding whatever they can find to confirm that belief. What it doesn't seem to be is them researching the subjects, to see if their beliefs can be verified.

If you look at the quote above, they have not taken into account Precession, the movements of the planets in the night sky, the variances in the position of the moon and the sun over the year, (when the sun is high in the sky, the moon is low, when the sun is low in the sky, the moon is travelling high in the sky,) or the phases of the moon... and that is before we look at comets, meteors, the fact that you have the ocean's floor creating new land at the tectonic plates, through magma seeping up, earthquakes, volcanoes...

Once you start thinking about it, you realise that there is also nothing to gain from any Elites faking the shape of the world. Not only that, but this is something the Greeks knew, the Sumerians... does that mean they were part of the conspiracy? No. But is won't get in the way of some people, making sure their pet theory is viewed as sacrosanct by all and sundry...
 
Mythopoeika said:
Well OK, perhaps 'CGI' was the incorrect term to use? Slack use of wording?
We know from films such as 2001 that it was possible to fake up images and present them in a realistic fashion.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that... some people believe that Stanley Kubrick was hired to direct the faked moon landing footage... if you believe it was faked in the first place. (I don't.)

The film came out in 1968, so it is possible that the footage was faked. However, would the effects be as good as they needed to be, and wasn't it all filmed live, as well?

The thing is, I think we can spot orbiting satellites with the naked eye, and can see the ISS in a telescope, and follow its motion?
 
What about Westeros? Those opening credits always seemed to me to depict something akin to a flat world with a sun hovering above.
 
Another thing we have learned from observing it in free fall - liquids naturally form spherical globs. It's only a small leap of the imagination to extend that (and the process by which it happens) to the shape of planets.
 
Xanatic* said:
What about Westeros? Those opening credits always seemed to me to depict something akin to a flat world with a sun hovering above.
Click to expand...
Well, Westeros is a continent, not a world... George RR Martin simply calls it "The Known World," which has a number of continents. The action in the books is set mostly in Westeros.

I wonder is Terry Pratchett knew about this theory, and was amused by it? Whenever I see this theory, I am reminded of the Discworld...
 
Pratchett based Discworld on the Hindu myth of the flat Earth borne on four elephants, on the back of a turtle, so the early Hindus were way ahead of the modern flat Earthers, who are now way behind the rest of us. But way ahead in contrariness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top