The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Hentaispider said:

No shit, they're 2d projections of 3d surface.

You must be registered to see the links

Click to expand...

Well by all means it do make sense but it skew your perception of the size of continents and countries, i didn't hear anybody to say Asia is smaller/equal that Africa,etc.
We are visual creatures after.

stoper said:

So what if it's flat?
I mean, where's the conspiracy here?

Click to expand...

Honestly the main thing here is that most of our understanding of space/our solar system get's thrown out of the window.

stoper said:

I remember a site that allowed you to move countries and see how the size changes when you change the position on the map projection.

Click to expand...

Good for you, i didn't hear of that one, the main problem i think is that you expect a map to have a constant Map Scale but that motion gets thrown out of the window with this 3d projection, nor i think most people actually know/care about this.

DeMatt said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

There is some destinations that would be more closer to fly over antarctic with the actual earth model, but i am fine with argument.

Hopeyouguess62 said:

1) Why is there never a line-shaped lunar eclipse?
2) Why do the other planets in the solar system all look round?
3) Where does the top of the world "end?"
4) Do the oceans reach the world's end? tell me where ships have to stop so they don't fall off the end of your stupid, flat Earth model.
5) A day is still 24 hours long, and we've got time zones that seem to fill the appropriate times.

Click to expand...

1) The earth is not completely flat it has a small curvature that makes that there is never a line seen.
2) Well nobody said that they can't be round, and this is based by that the earth have a dome over it and out solar system exists in this dome.
3) It ends at the dome that has stars all over it.
4) While i agree on these questions the limits are the antarctic all around our surface i.e. antarctic is our circumference.
5) Same as 1 because there will be parts on the other side of the curvature that wouldn't see the light

Termite said:

The sun itself actually rotates in an elliptical pattern around the disc.

Click to expand...

Correct, closer or further from the center and because of that we have different seasons.

Takumaru said:

the map represents earth as being a kind of a pond of its own, for all we know.

Click to expand...

We are looking for the drown atlantic yet we are that atlantic.


By the way the sun is much closer with this model, and other sites.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

That is just a suspicion of mine based on digging for Diamonds amidst all of the coal as to what possible reason could there be to deceive everybody about the shape of their very own habitat. I do not have the answers but I will describe an example in chess as to how something might make absolutely no sense in the beginning but then becomes obvious towards end-game...

stoper said:

Wait... what? So, it's not about the Earth being flat, but rather a sneaky way to promote the acronym FE? I'm confused, man.

Click to expand...

...that example I will give is that I once played against a high-level computer-difficulty and, for some reason, I was able to take its Queen early in the game, almost like I was getting a free Queen which made no sense to me at all, why such a high-level computer A.I. would make such a decision. Towards the end of the game, the results became obvious, because its other pieces were structured in such a manner that it was able to safely get a bunch of pawns across the board where I could not figure out how to break through any of its other defenses, resulting in a rather one-sided decisive-victory. For the computer.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Lurker_01 said:

Honestly the main thing here is that most of our understanding of space/our solar system get's thrown out of the window.

Click to expand...

My question is why would someone go to such and extreme lengths to fool everyone for generations?
You and your mates, who know "the truth", what have you gained exactly?
Say, tomorrow the curtain falls off, what would change in the world? Who would lose money, who would lose power?

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

So wait, is the idea that the earth ends somewhere? That somewhere is connect to a dome? How on Earth does anyone think that we, over the course of our history, have not had the means to find this dome if it existed?

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

stoper said:

My question is why would someone go to such and extreme lengths to fool everyone for generations?
You and your mates, who know "the truth", what have you gained exactly?
Say, tomorrow the curtain falls off, what would change in the world? Who would lose money, who would lose power?

Click to expand...

It sends the science to wrong path and allows to government to use those funds on things not related to science.
Think about the space stations that are "existent" now, let say the ISS with 6 people, one person take ~550 liters of pure oxygen per day or ~1,63 liquid oxygen per day, the supply ships run ~each 3-6 months and this is 880-1760 liters for 6 people (where do they even store it on the station?) and we don't include the storage weight, we don't include food,clothes,water,etc.
The space station consist of 916 pressured cubic meters and 388 cubic meters habitable.(apartment of 180 square meters) by
considering the fact that they don't store anything outside the station (or there are no visual cues of this), there are literally no space for this, also each country live in their own module so not even all the above mentioned space is available.
Also please find me that magic fabric of theirs that can withstand these extreme and negative space temperatures

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

ToxicShock said:

So wait, is the idea that the earth ends somewhere? That somewhere is connect to a dome? How on Earth does anyone think that we, over the course of our history, have not had the means to find this dome if it existed?

Click to expand...

At least in russian language still exist traces of heavens dome or star dome and space as boundless/vast ocean.
The closest point to find a possible wall is the antarctic yet not many reached far into it.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Antartica has been reached into, and how could that relatively tiny portion of land be the base of the ENTIRE dome?

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

ToxicShock said:

Antartica has been reached into, and how could that relatively tiny portion of land be the base of the ENTIRE dome?

Click to expand...

Umm it's the circle around the continents

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Again, people have gone pretty deep into Antarctica. The curvature of the earth would have to be concave for the North Pole to be the direct center of Earth. Pretty heavily concave to lost that much sun in the most prime position for it, no matter what arc the sun goes around, it still gets the most. To the point where sea levels would be obviously uneven, and I'm curious as to why it hasn't flooded.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

ToxicShock said:

Again, people have gone pretty deep into Antarctica.

Click to expand...

No important expeditions after ~1960 after the various countries firmed the Antarctic Treaty, wikipedia has nothing about this other that the "actual" data from CIA. I don't believe that expeditions made in years 1910-1960 could go that far

ToxicShock said:

The curvature of the earth would have to be concave for the North Pole to be the direct center of Earth. Pretty heavily concave to lost that much sun in the most prime position for it, no matter what arc the sun goes around, it still gets the most. To the point where sea levels would be obviously uneven, and I'm curious as to why it hasn't flooded.

Click to expand...

Considering the fact that a sphere is even more concave is no wonder we are not in ocean yet, there is also a thing about different local sea levels.
Just some links


(While i don't agree with the conspiracy,religion,etc. things, this is quite nice amount of facts even if some are not too appealing or repetitive, after all nobody of us did any experiment and we just think that our round earth is true and we fall to ad populum because nobody has time to supposedly re-invent the wheel, all our understanding of the world just goes to trust/compelling arguments)

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Lurker_01 said:

Considering the fact that a sphere is even more concave is no wonder we are not in ocean yet, there is also a thing about different local sea levels.

Click to expand...

Spheres are, by definition, not concave, they are convex.

And the model in your very first link has been disproven for over 2000 years because of cast shadows.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

ToxicShock said:

Spheres are, by definition, not concave, they are convex.

Click to expand...

it doesn't need to be with this hard angle to obtain this effect.

ToxicShock said:

And the model in your very first link has been disproven for over 2000 years because of cast shadows.

Click to expand...

apparently you missed the link i gave earlier, but there is more information if you search it.
The sun distance is actually this small because the cast shadow, unless you mention something different.

Lurker_01 said:

By the way the sun is much closer with this model,

You must be registered to see the links

Click to expand...

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

All I know is that the Earth is not flat. But eliptical. It is a spacial anomaly that is so grandiose in scale, it cannot be understood through conventional means WHY things have 90 degree angles and the like.

What I know about the subject of it being not flat is that in 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue, proving that the Earth loops. Therefore it must have Connectivity in some way for perpetuation.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Lila said:

WHY things have 90 degree angles and the like.

Click to expand...

This is an axiom and that means it shouldn't need to be proven because reasons or that all geometrics are based on this....

Lila said:

What I know about the subject of it being not flat is that in 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue, proving that the Earth loops. Therefore it must have Connectivity in some way for perpetuation.

Click to expand...

Well he may sail in circles....
BTW he is not the first to even "encounter" america there are much older maps picturing that.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Lurker_01 said:

it doesn't need to be with this hard angle to obtain this effect.

The sun distance is actually this small because the cast shadow, unless you mention something different.

Click to expand...

No effect is being discussed. I was talking about spheres, like the real Earth model. You just said a sphere would be concave. That's wrong.

And shadows tell us sun distance. It's a pretty easy math problem. Shadows also tell us the curvature of the Earth. If you take a look at that video, you'll see a point where the sun is directly over a bunch of countries in Africa. Meaning that the shadows cast in those areas, at that time, should be identical across distances, at least a distance near the diameter of the sun. They are not, that's been witnessed and documented, again, over 2000 years ago.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

ToxicShock said:

No effect is being discussed. I was talking about spheres, like the real Earth model. You just said a sphere would be concave. That's wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes i agree i just said that this is not necessary to have center concave

ToxicShock said:

If you take a look at that video, you'll see a point where the sun is directly over a bunch of countries in Africa. Meaning that the shadows cast in those areas, at that time, should be identical across distances, at least a distance near the diameter of the sun. They are not, that's been witnessed and documented, again, over 2000 years ago.

Click to expand...

so basically you are saying that small distance close straight sunlight cast different shadows? should this be the case? because if we put same sun to millions of kilometers there should be almost no existent difference in shadow. also nobody saying is 100% flat, if anything there is no definitive proof that shadows must obey the degrees exactly as if this is a spherical earth, there is a note about this even if this is a different question in the article, because what are you saying because there is a difference in shadow then it shouldn't be flat.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Lurker_01 said:

Yes i agree i just said that this is not necessary to have center concave

Click to expand...

Not seeing how this sentence makes sense, especially in context of what we were saying

Lurker_01 said:

so basically you are saying that small distance close straight sunlight cast different shadows?

Click to expand...

Not seeing how this sentence makes sense, regardless of the context of what we were saying.

Maybe cuz it's late or cuz I'm tired, but you seem to be missing words there and I'm not getting you.

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

ToxicShock said:

Not seeing how this sentence makes sense, especially in context of what we were saying


Not seeing how this sentence makes sense, regardless of the context of what we were saying.

Maybe cuz it's late or cuz I'm tired, but you seem to be missing words there and I'm not getting you.

Click to expand...

Okay, parts by parts

1) you said that north pole should be concave and that it will mess with our oceans, i said that convex would probably make the same thing to our ocean, you corrected me saying that sphere is convex and not concave and i agreed and said that there is no need for this hard edge of concave figure "to lost that much sun in the most prime position for it, no matter what arc the sun goes around"

2) What you said: you'll see a point where the sun is directly over a bunch of countries in Africa -> shadows cast in those areas, at that time, should be identical across distances -> a distance near the diameter of the sun ---> they are not -> false

My response:
a distance near the diameter of the sun -> different shadows?

If we put sun to millions of kilometers with this model -> same shadow(difference negligible)

You said that there is difference in shadows because the locations have different degrees/angles between them because the earth is spherical (in my understanding)
I am responding that flat earth is not 100% flat
and that you probably mention that each shadow give a different results in the equation to calculate the distance to the sun, so i mention that there is a note about that in my previously linked article

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Lurker_01 said:

It sends the science to wrong path and allows to government to use those funds on things not related to science.
Think about the space stations that are "existent" now...

Click to expand...

That's plain ridiculous. They could easily fake some science project for your flat Earth and still take those funds. No need to waste all this efforts (and money) just so that they can fake some space exploration.
And what about USSR? You think they needed to fake some science to get money from their people? That's laughable.

Your theory is based not so much on some science arguments, but rather conspiracy. If a physics law doesn't suit you, you just say it' manufactured by CIA.
A conspiracy that is going on for generations upon generations, governments upon governments, nations upon nations...
And you still think such a well oiled machine needs to fake a space station to steal money?...

Re: The Shape of the Earth is Actually in Debate...!

Takumaru said:

Let me guess... your education comes from those academic-institutions known as public-schooling. Ahem, I mean, indoctrination-institutions, such that you have no concept of thinking for yourself. I can smell the arrogance that is typical of such book-learned people who have no sense of street-smarts. Yes, education, such a joke these days, when it's really just dishonest indoctrination.

All you need are some gears that simultaneously turn other/multiple gears and/or multiple windmills, have those windmills themselves attached/connected to additional/multiple generators of electricity, then from there have them combined in the necessary loops/series to spin each other so that they are always generating electrical-output, but then again I have found that people like you will never bother to do your own experiments yourself, because all your types ever do is recite mantras from books instead of actually double-checking the books' claims for yourself.

Actually, forget all that, just go about living your "happy" life believing that you understand everything there is to understand about reality and energy and existence. I am just a "Tin-Foil Hat-Wearing Professional Conspiracy Theorist" anyway whom you should just ignore because I am obviously and clearly out-of-touch with so-called reality due to my disbelief in anything and everything main-stream.

Click to expand...

Where are you finding completely frictionless gears and where does all the extra energy come from?