Flat Earth or Globe Earth ?

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
G'day Truthspoon.

Classic. :D

A love how none of the 'flat Earth' proponents will touch specific knowledge that, well, destroys their pet theory. For instance, the Coriolis effect, caused by the Earth's rotation, is responsible for air being pulled to the right (counterclockwise) in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left (clockwise) in the Southern Hemisphere.

Or how about centrifugal force, where you can spin a bucket of water around fast enough and the water will not fall out even when the bucket is upside down. A basic principle that is completely ignored by 'flat Earth' proponents when they bandy around the idea that all of the water on the planet would fall off if it was spherical.

The Earth is spinning on its axis, while simultaneously traversing around the Sun, with the Solar system spiraling through the Galaxy and the Galaxy spiraling through the Universe. Of course the speed of rotation / spin / spiraling increases in relation to the size of what is rotating / spinning / spiraling, which all generates centrifugal force, the same as when you spin a bucket full of water.

When you look up at the sky you can see a round Moon and a round Sun. When looking through a telescope you can see round planets. Yet the Earth is 'flat'.
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28


Water content is greater. Whereas a Spheroid's globe curves under past the equater, a circular flat plane keeps expanding outward past the equator.
 

WhiteKingWins

Active member
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
175
Reaction score
79
Points
28
Have to interject here regarding the centrifugal force as I also got thinking about that as a means to suggest that centrifugal forces would explain why the water is neatly stuck to the globe.

The only issue being , with my limited understanding of physics it appears that experiments with centrifugal force and water would demonstrate that water will stick to the OUTSIDE of a spinning object.

If Im wrong I would appreciate being corrected and show an experiment which demonstrates centrifugal force recreating what we are seeing with Earth.

Am I wrong in saying centrifugal force would create a situation where the oceans would be on the outer edges of the spinning object and not neatly stuck to the ball ?

Again, I have a limited understanding of physics and even less of an understanding of how the enormous sizes we are discussing here might not be possible to recreate in small scale experiments.

Thanks
 

I AM ALL I AM

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
232
Reaction score
45
Points
28
Have to interject here regarding the centrifugal force as I also got thinking about that as a means to suggest that centrifugal forces would explain why the water is neatly stuck to the globe.

The only issue being , with my limited understanding of physics it appears that experiments with centrifugal force and water would demonstrate that water will stick to the OUTSIDE of a spinning object.

If Im wrong I would appreciate being corrected and show an experiment which demonstrates centrifugal force recreating what we are seeing with Earth.

Am I wrong in saying centrifugal force would create a situation where the oceans would be on the outer edges of the spinning object and not neatly stuck to the ball ?

Again, I have a limited understanding of physics and even less of an understanding of how the enormous sizes we are discussing here might not be possible to recreate in small scale experiments.

Thanks

G'day WhiteKingWins.

Awesome question. Thank you for asking it. :thumbup:

I would have to think about that ... and I mean seriously think about it. :think:

For a start, it would require multiple objects spinning within each other, each with their own magnetic field and all relative in size. Considering the size of the Universe, Galaxy and Solar system, I doubt the we could build a scale model to work with, let alone provide each with its own magnetic field, or for that matter, the magnetic effects of other planetary bodies within the Solar system.

Then there is the issue of whether we tailor the experiment to the current model of the Universe or to the Electric Universe model.

Erm ... :wissl:
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Vegetables and land animals are found at nearly 80 degrees in the north while from the parallel of 58 degrees in the south the leichens and such plants only clothe the rocks and sea birds and the cetaceous tribes alone are seen upon the desolate beaches.

In the Arctic there are four clearly distinguished seasons, warm summers and an abundance of plant and animal life, none of which can be said of Antartic.

Aboriginals live as far north as the 79th parallel whereas in the south no native man is found higher that the 56th.

In New Zealand, situated at 42 degrees southern lattitude, on the winter solstice, the sun rises at 4:31 am and sets at 7:29 pm making the longest day of the year 14hrs 58minutes.

On the summer solstice the New Zealand sun rises at 7:29 am. And sets at 4:31 pm making the shortest day 9hrs 2minutes long.

Meanwhile in England a full 10 degrees farther north of the equator than New Zealand lies south. The longest day is 16hrs 34minutes and the shortest 7hrs 45minutes.

Therefore the longest day in New Zealand is 1hr 36minutes shorter than the longest day in England and the shortest day in New Zealand is 1hr 17minutes longer than the shortest day in England.

William Swainson, an Englishman who emigrated and became attorney general of New Zealand in the mid-19th century lived in both countries for decades and wrote of their differences stating,

"The range of temperature is limited there being no excess of either heat or cold compared with the climate of England.

The summer of New Zealand is but very little warmer though considerably longer.

Even in summer people here have no notion of going without fires in the evening but then, though the days are very warm and sunny the nights are always cold.

For seven months last summer we had not one day that the sun did not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in June and though it has more power here the heat is not nearly so oppressive. But then there is not the twighlight that you get in England.

Here it is light until about 8:00 pm then in a few minutes it becomes too dark to see anything. And the change comes over in almost no time."

Exactly what you might expect on a flat plane world.
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the earth revolved around the sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190 million miles of supposed orbit around the sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
The Michelson-Morey and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to earth's assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
From Genoa Italy on bright clear days, the ilsland of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away. If earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Engineer W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the earth's supposed curvature stating:

"As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in schoolbooks. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind."

I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals ad the allowance has not been thought of, much less allowed for.

This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8 inches for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles.

Thus, a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule and allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed.

We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal than of wasting our time trying to square the circle"
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated:

"I am thoroughly aquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are incapable of any practical illustration.

All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as true levels or flats.

There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to 8 inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, could not be worked by any engine that was ever yet constructed.

Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are on the same relative level.

The distance between eastern and western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stationns at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon 3 miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities.

If such were the case there is not a driver or stoker within the kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train.
We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits as running trains round spherical curves.

Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible."
 

Wikkiidd

Active member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
131
Reaction score
24
Points
18
It's called 'Sea Level' for a reason. Flat. Dome, nothing gets into 'outer space'.
 

Firestarter

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2022
Messages
65
Reaction score
24
Points
8
The Michelson-Morey and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to earth's assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.
This is NO argument for a flat earth model...

Since the late 19th century several experiments have been done to find out the influence of movement on the speed of light.
Regardless of the shape of the earth, all of these experiments showed that the movement has no influence whatsoever on the speed of light (unlike for example the speed of sound, see the Doppler effect).

The Dutch scientist Lorentz "solved" this contradiction with "classical" physics, that the speed of light is a constant absolute speed, with a "transformation".
While adding the concept of "ether" as absolute zero speed, without which the transformation would become impossible to interpret.

The greatest liar of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, invented some hot air "thought experiments" that led to the preposterous "theory of relativity", according to which all constant speeds are relative (so no absolute zero), while maintaining the Lorentz transformation.
Leading to a "transformation" that leads to double results, so unbelievable. While many "scientists" still believe this BS to this very day...

Even using this "relativity" as some sort of "evidence" for the atomic energy/bombs science fiction!
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Max Malone:

"After 50 years and thousands of hours of space travel footage, both by NASA and other countries, there is no exterior shot where the astronaut completes the simple act of panning the camera 180 degrees let alone a full 360 degree sweep.

This has never happened on any moon mission, exterior space station, nothing, ever. Statistics will tell you that this would have already happened by accident years ago but it hasn't and it won't.

This is because of the rules they cannot break, the same rule that applies to television set shows, that never shows the fourth wall."
 

Cactus

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
41
Points
28
(Warning! plot spoilers)
Mark Sargeant's "Under the Dome, Edge of the Firmament"
Shell Beach segment


Transcribed from video
Images mine.

Lets look at something small, take an ordinary mouse and put it into a glass cage. It doesn't have to be a mouse, could be a snake, a lizard, insect, it makes little difference for this exercise.

People identify with mice because they're used to seeing them in lab experiments. Mice also don't have any sinister cannotations. They're seen as relatively innocent and benign. The perfect test subject as it were. I have yet to meet anyone who has a bias against the lab mouse.

So the mouse goes into the box for the first time and the reaction is always the same, it explores it's surroundings. More importantly tests the barrier around it. Probing for exits or potential exits.

The mouse inspects every inch of its new glass home and at some point settles into the acceptance that the walls are indeed solid and it may be there for a while.

Every so often it will repeat the process. Again checking the boundries of the cage just in case something has changed. What it doesn't do is act as it would in the wild because it realizes that it's in a form of captivity.

The glass box doesn't even remotely resemble it's natural environment. You could put this box in the middle of the forest and the mouse might feel slightly better about it's situation but it still knows that it's been trapped against it's will then will settle into a non native lifestyle.

You could take all the other small animals that could be substituted for a mouse, the snake, the lizard, the insect, it makes no difference, the result will invariably be the same, repeated probing for escape routes, then acceptance.

Take the same animal and now put it into the middle of a hundred mile square wildlife preserve surrounded on all sides by a similar type of glass enclosure. The creature doesn't even bother to rush the sides of the preserve and start testing the boundries mostly because its out of visual range.

It could be days or even weeks before it even encounters a single fence. The animal's routine is spent doing what it normally would do, it eats, it sleeps, it breeds. It does everything that it would naturally do in the wild.

If one day the animal approaches the fence there might be some curiosity but any anxiety is quickly resolved by just turning around and heading back into the vast expanse from which it came.

The fence does not pose a potential problem for the animals in the preserve because it is so small compared to the expanse they live in and dwelling on that does not hold any interest.

We're assuming here that the fence is high enough to discourage flying creatures as well, deep enough to stop burrowing classes, and if you want, reaches the floor of any nearby body of water, stopping any clever aquatic types.

The point here is that all creatures great and small inside a giant wildlife preserve encountering the fence wouldn't care. They would all in their own way just shrug and move on with their lives.

However, if you take a human, male or female, regardless of education, of nurturing and put them in the exact same wildlife sanctuary the response would be quite different. When the human approaches the glass fence, they don't see it as a minor distraction. They pause, they wonder. More importantly they ask questions either internally or among others.

Why is the fence here? How far does it reach? Can I dig underneath, or climb over, or go around it? These questions continue in a way you might imagine.

But, eventually a bigger question jumps to the top of the list, who built the fence? It is that which changes not only the type of questions being asked but how the human being or beings look at their world.

The giant wildlife preserve suddenly gets smaller. Each new fence border discovered starts to artificially constrict their expanse even though the dimensions haven't changed.

Before long the preserve, their home, loses some of it's relevance. The fence is a reminder of the unknown.

It provokes fear and endless speculation within the human. Given enough time the importance of the preserve continues to be reduced. Especially in relation to the fence. And the reason why its so engrossing for the human is simple, its there, its real, they can see it, and maybe even touch it.

Adding more humans to the equation increases the disparity of the situation by orders of magnitude. Have you seen the fence? Do you know how long its been there? Have you ever known anyone thats been outside it?

Its older than us. Who is responsible for the fence? What can we do to appease the group that created it?

You can see where this might lead to.

A longlasting group hysteria would entrench itself within the population, grab hold and never let go. The fence is bigger, older, and wiser than they are. It humbles them, it angers them and it is forever. It is their proof of a higher power.

Maybe not god but certainly god-like. No civilization regardless of technology, discipline, or age would be able to cope with the existance of it.

For the human psyche there are just too many questions that go unanswered. Life would never be able to progress normally.

To summarize: a garden variety wildlife preserve would work for 99.9% of all the world's life forms. For human beings, however, you would need to make some modifications or really just one big one.

So lets take a look at a few examples of how this could be accomplished and from there expand it.

The first failed example can be seen in the 1998 movie Dark City. This is a good starting point to get you in the right mindset.



The premise here is that an advanced race creates a small flat earth area complete with a traditional dome. The design, however, is initially flawed in that they built the city all the way to the outer edge leaving no room for error.

To compensate for this they altered the memories of the human population on a regular basis therefore repressing any longterm investigations.



However, in movies there are always anomalies like the police officer who realizes that even though he remembers visiting a place called Shell Beach, there is no way to reach it because Shell Beach is outside of the flat world and never existed.

He just keeps going around the circular city that has no exits. In the end, another man, the hero of the movie, makes it to the edge, steals the advanced race's power, and creates an ocean which really should have been there in the first place.

Move from there to a movie released only 4 months later called The Truman Show.



Inevitably, all flat earthers have to take a hard look at this movie from a technical point of view

The movie follows the same lines as Dark City but in a much more relatable premise, that of a giant television stage built so that the outside world can watch a person go through his life without any knowledge that he is living inside a flat world surrounded by a physical dome.

The movie is interesting on so many levels including construction. Using their existing model of a small town bordered on one side by a large lagoon and wilderness and on the other a seemingly expansive ocean.

While better than Dark City it still had it's flaws. For one, it was less than 20 miles across and even though Truman's desire to explore was repressed there was still a chance that he would venture to the outer edge which is where the movie ended. But for the most part it worked.

Truman believed the entire scenario because he was born into it. And then lived 30 plus years without any reason to doubt where he was. Which could be said for any of us.

If it wasn't for the, and we'll say, "movie mistakes", that the studio fell victim to, then the show would have never ended.

And this then raises hypothetical scenarios like how many kids like Truman could you have raised inside that dome. 10..50?

Now, logistically you can see how it might be problematic in keeping tabs on that many kids especially as they get older.

But with enough slight of hand it could be possible. A fictional situation just like that was made in the 2004 movie The Village. And even though it turned into one of those M. Night Shyamalan plot twistings, the premise was very feasible.



A wealthy group of idealists buy a large parcel of land in an existing wildlife preserve, create a small town from the 1800s and raise children there.

They pay off government officials to keep planes far away and spread a myth that monsters live in the forest. As far as the kids are concerned they are actually living in a small Pennsylvania town in the 1800s.

And being born into it why wouldn't they?

Eventually the elders that founded the town would all pass away leaving the children to pass on the legacy free from any burden of guilt that their world was not what it appeared to be.

And keeping in mind this was done with very little land manipulation and no dome. This then circles back to how many actors the fictional Truman Show really needed to hire.

Other than the leads who did product placement the rest of the town could actually just live their lives like everyone else. Use phone lines to call outside, go to restaurants, watch televion at home and so on. But again I digress.

Assuming the technology was possible how many people like Truman could you keep in a dome the size of, say, a state that was hundreds of miles across? Probably thousands.

If you kept expanding the size of the dome to few thousand miles, well, then you are talking millions. But when it gets that big something interesting happens, you don't need actors anymore.

Start it up like The Village within just a few generations everyone is oblivious and you can leave them to their own devices.

Starting to sound familiar?

In fact, the larger you make the enclosed world the less micro-managing needs to be done. It gets easier as it scales up.

This brings us back to the missing modification you need for the human race. To keep the storylines consistant and remove all the hokus-pokus of monsters in the woods or that you can't get to Shell Beach. You place in gradual negative reinforcement. One that creates an illusion of choice.

Say for example that Truman went out in the sailboat the same as before but this time the dome was twice the size and the simulated ocean far larger.

How far would he travel before getting hungry, thirsty, or tired? The movie ending is then in doubt. And if you compare this scenario where where you are now then you start to see it.

Look at the flat earth map again, continents grouped in the center, surrounded in all directions by hundreds of miles of salt water. Think about how much further ancient ships would have travelled if you could drink what you are sailing on?

As you move closer to the edge the temperature starts taking a nosedive. Then you start seeing icebergs. If that doesn't stop you, then, you run into what we call Antartica which is a steep climb 2 miles up with no plant life or indiginous livestock animals.

And if you had the where-with-all to make it that far you would still have hundreds of miles of endless ice and snow. Its easy to see why so few people have gone the distance.

Compare this to the upper ceiling which is much easier to maintain. You simply decrease the oxygen rates so that every thousand feet up it gets more difficult to breathe. This slows down exploration over mountain ranges and discourages limited control flight such as baloons.

Also keep in mind that the dome itself doesn't have to be that high in relation to the outer ring. With commercial aircraft capping out at 10 miles and rockets less than 400, the dome would actually look more like a stadium roof dependng on how you wanted to display the sun, moon, and stars.

An enclosed world with these types of safeguards would be able to sustain an unknowing population for say, what, 4500 years? Then you could artificially introduce a globe model into the scientific community before the civilization technology reaches a point that could lead to discovery. And 500 years later here we are.

A civilization inside an amazing structure doing what we would naturally do. While the authority stands by the gate and fears the consequences if we ever found out for ourselves.
 
Last edited:

Truthspoon

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
251
Reaction score
38
Points
28
They're just movies.... probably designed, like other movies.... to implant schizoid suggestions into people's minds.....

You'll end up like Dicaprio's wife in Inception.

Made insane with a pernicious suggestion.
 

Wikkiidd

Active member
Joined
Apr 18, 2022
Messages
131
Reaction score
24
Points
18
The term 'flat earthers' used by the usual suspects (gate keeps) as a demeaning term.
 
Top