Flat Earth

[BADecker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzEy4GlcQI

[1714904457]

1714904457

[1714904457]

1714904457

[BADecker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzEy4GlcQI

From http://www.plasmacosmology.net/history.html:

A Brief History of Plasma I         
          
Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), Norway

Birkeland was amongst the first to speculate that the Northern Lights were charged particles ejected from the Sun, captured by the Earth's magnetic field, and directed towards the polar atmosphere. To prove this theory, Birkeland performed his famous 'Terella' experiment, where he artificially created the aurora in the laboratory. His theories were initially laughed at, and it is only now in the space age that measurements from satellites are proving Birkeland correct.

Significantly, his approach to science was broad, comprising observation and laboratory experimentation in addition to mathematical modelling. He was not content with a merely theoretical approach, despite having trained as a mathematician.

He is probably Norway's greatest ever scientist, and many of his works are still used as reference materials. The electric currents that flow from space are named after him -- Birkeland currents. He is recognised for bringing Plasma and Electromagnetism into Cosmology, but while many of his ideas are widely accepted, his cosmological theories are less well known. He died aged 49 just when a working committee was in the process of nominating him for the Nobel Prize in Physics.
          
Sydney Chapman (1888-1970) was regarded as a leader in the field of interplanetary magnetospheric physics for a while after the death of Birkeland. He took an approach very similar to that of Big Bangers, relying heavily on mathematical models, and refused to even discuss many of Birkeland's ideas. According to his models, currents were confined to a sphere that extended little beyond the Earth. He failed to recognise the complex three dimensional relationship between the Earth's magnetosphere and the currents flowing from the Sun. He proposed, in contradistinction to Birkeland's ideas, that currents were restricted to the ionosphere, and that the Earth moved through a vacuum. He was wrong.
          
Irving Langmuir (1881-1957), USA

Langmuir (1881-1957) was the first to use the term 'Plasma' in 1927, borrowing it from Blood Plasma to describe the almost life-like and self-organising behaviours of a plasma when in the presence of electrical currents and magnetic fields.

He discovered Plasma Sheathes, now called Double Layers, having observed the electrons and ions of a plasma separating during experimentation. DLs are one of the most important features of plasma behaviour.

He also defined and explained the term 'valence' as part of his description of the atom. Few textbooks, however, recognise the influence that Langmuir had on the development of our understanding of the nature of the atom.

He became the first 'non-academic' chemist to receive the Nobel Prize, an accomplishment he realised in 1932. Langmuir probes, which can be used in space, are named after him.
          
Hannes Alfven (1908-1995) - The Father of modern Plasma Physics, Sweden

Alfven (1908-1995) is generally regarded as the Father of modern Plasma Physics. He continued the work of Birkeland, feeling very much in spirit with him, and eventually won a Nobel Laureate for his ground-breaking contributions. He was not always highly regarded by the scientific establishment because of his controversial ideas, however, and suffered no little condescension and ridicule in his lifetime.

In fact it now seems bizarre that he wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize until 1970, especially considering his many fundamental accomplishments. For some time he was forced to publish in journals that did not enjoy international readership. His ideas finally became known to the general scientific community through his ground-breaking book, Cosmical Electrodynamics, published by Oxford University Press in 1950.

Alfven took a practical and intuitive approach to science, insisting that theories of cosmological phenomena must agree with laboratory experiments. (The definition of 'laboratory' being broadened to include experiments in space.) Having started out as an engineer, his methods were in direct opposition to the approach generally favoured by Big Bangers, that of starting-out from idealised mathematical principles.

In 1937 Alfven proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. Plasma carried the electrical currents which create the magnetic field.

While many of Alfven's theories are now well known, like those of Birkeland, the cosmological implications of his work also remain to be fully recognised. Ironically, some have put this down to the very simplicity of many of these ideas.
          
David Bohm (1917-1992), USA         
          
Bohm was the plasma theoretician and cosmologist who discovered the instabilities and resistivity of magnetized plasmas that now bear his name.

There are many others who probably should be mentioned, but this web site aims only to serve as an introduction to the emerging paradigm.

Today, a growing body of scientists, engineers, and independent researchers are continuing the work of these pioneers. They have taken up the gauntlet in defiance of some of the more entrenched thinking that still permeates the mainstream. See the links page for further details.
        
          
Summation         
          
Both Hannes Alfven and Irving Langmuir won Nobel Laureates for their work, and Kristian Birkeland probably would have done had he lived long enough. It seems unfortunate, therefore, that their work in cosmology, and the implications of their work in this field, remain largely unrecognised. Alfven's criticism of the Big Bang, it has to be said, certainly rankled with some of the powers that be.

[BADecker]

Jesuit fraud, Einstein. By Nikola Tesla !





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er3pCWcX-zs

[BADecker]

Eric Dollard: The Sun Is Not What We Have Been Told (2013)





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM5zrzd4pOU

[notbatman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzEy4GlcQI

Excellent video, somebody needs to hook him up with some Flat Earth info, he'll have an ah-hah moment.

[BADecker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYzEy4GlcQI

Excellent video, somebody need to hook him up with some Flat Earth info, he'll have an ah-hah moment.

Actually, it would be an "ahem" moment.   

[Firedude]

I don't think the curve of the earth can ever be proved.

[bitfranky]

This debate will probably never end but the truth is the shape of the earth is not flat or round.  

[Relex]

On our flat Earth, when the sun is directly overhead here in Sandwich, IL, which countries around the plane are experiencing nighttime

As you can see from the map below the Sun is never directly overhead within the continental United States.

There is a great video on YouTube explaining everything about this very well explained.

[notbatman]

On our flat Earth, when the sun is directly overhead here in Sandwich, IL, which countries around the plane are experiencing nighttime

As you can see from the map below the Sun is never directly overhead within the continental United States.

There is a great video on YouTube explaining everything about this very well explained.

Here's a playlist with a few videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFjG4jpUhQI&list=PLC9PqY3bMrudeQzsM4bjyze8CTv7LHSLl

[MakingMoneyHoney]

This debate will probably never end but the truth is the shape of the earth is not flat or round.  

It would probably end if NASA put up hundreds of non-edited pictures/video of Earth in space.

[protokol]

On our flat Earth, when the sun is directly overhead here in Sandwich, IL, which countries around the plane are experiencing nighttime

As you can see from the map below the Sun is never directly overhead within the continental United States.

I think people have already asked this, but how does the Sun appear to set below the horizon if it is circling above the Flat Earth in this way? If this diagram was true, then the Sun would never appear to set, it would be in the sky all the time.

Also, how does this account for different periods of daylight/darkness? For example, we know that you experience 24hrs of daylight in the Arctic circle in Summer, while Antarctica experiences 24hrs of darkness at the same time.

These are just 2 of the many issues with the Flat Earth model, and I'm always surprised that flat-earthers don't seem to be able to explain them. The globe model solves them easily.

This is the explanation on the website:

Spotlight effect

The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on the Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as it flies into the distance.

They seem to be sneakily re-writing the laws of physics with this, because it makes no logical sense. A spotlight sun would cause major problems in terms of specific areas having strange amounts of daylight/darkness. And their explanation of "perspective/vanishing point" being responsible is simply wrong - anything 3,000 miles above the Earth can never appear to drop beneath the horizon, it's primary school physics.

Not to mention that the whole theory would require such an astronomical cover-up, it defies logic. The vast majority of scientific institutions would have to be involved, along with schools and universities. Not to mention pretty much every commercial airline company, plane manufacturer and every plane pilot, and even amateur astronomers. We're talking at least 10 million people, probably more.

It's at this point that most rational people allow their throats to be slit by Occam's Razor, but not the Flat Earthers apparently...

[BADecker]

what century is this? my time machine must have worked if this is a topic for discussion

Don't you mean "Once you go flat, you never go splat?"   

[BADecker]

This debate will probably never end but the truth is the shape of the earth is not flat or round.  

It would probably end if NASA put up hundreds of non-edited pictures/video of Earth in space.

Of course, maybe they never got out that far.   

[exemplaar]

I still can't believe someone would even think about this. Don't you have something better to do in your life? Probably not. The point still stands; you can build a cheap mini rocket and fly it upwards with a camera.

yup..

and because of the tidal bulge it's actually technically more of a football shape.
partially because of the sun's gravity but mostly because of the Moon's gravitational pull.
the side the moon is facing gets drawn up and pulled on and then the opposite side of the earth gets the same.
..a football shape.

Really?

Look at the evidence without your preconceived biases and you'll see the problems also. Here is a few problems with the standard model among hundreds...What is keeping the all powerful vacuum of space from sucking off earths atmosphere? Please Explain to me how the moon gravity is strong enough to pull our oceans yet earths gravity hasn't pulled the moon into us yet. I could literally go on for hours about this. Why was relativity created to dismiss experiments such as Aires failure which prove the earth isn't moving?

Clear thinker using common sense video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6vjpgYbzQ 

enjoy watching.

1) What properties do you believe space has that would necessarily suck away Earth's atmosphere?  What is the basis for your assumption?  To make such an assumption, you must have a theory or model of how and why this would work.

2) With regards to the Earth and its oceans and the moon, first you need to know what gravity is.  According to general relativity, objects with mass create curvatures in space.  The effects this curvature has on other nearby objects is what we call gravitational force.  We know that space curves as a result of mass because this was confirmed by astronomers testing Einstein's theory.  Initially, this was confirmed when astronomers were able to observe distant stars that should have been blocked by the Sun but were visible because their light bent around the Sun due to the curvature in space as a result of its mass. 

So, because the Moon and Earth are also mass objects like the Sun, they also create curvature in space.  The gravitational forces created by each body affect the other, but because Earth is something like 80 times more massive than the Moon, its gravitational pull is much greater.  This doesn't mean the Moon's pull is negated; it still exists, and we see its effects on our oceans (i.e. The tides). 

The moon doesn't crash into Earth because it's in orbit.  If you imagine throwing a rock horizontally, the rock falls to Earth due to gravity.  If you were to throw a rock really, really far (say, a few kilometers) it would fall to Earth too, but to hit the ground it would need to fall farther to account for Earth's curvature, and so it would.  Now, if you threw a rock really, really, REALLY far, it's possible that you could throw it so hard that it would keep falling and falling but never hit the ground, and instead it would circle the Earth as it continually falls around Earth's curvature.  This is what happens with the moon; it's continually falling towards Earth but never hits it because it is at the right speed and distance from Earth that it stays in orbit.  And so 'round and 'round it goes.

According to general relativity ONLY.  It is just one of many man made theories.

Is it in line with the Word, the LOGOS? ......i don't think so.

And according to observation, experimentation, replication, etc.

I have no idea why you're bringing up religion.  The "word" doesn't even provide an explanation whatsoever for the issues mentioned in the post (i.e. Some vague notion that space should "suck off" Earth's atmosphere, tidal motion, etc.). 

Are you suggesting that your evidence for a flat earth is a book (the Bible) that gives zero explanation for these things?

Hypothetical conversation:

Me: The earth is round because of x, y, and z.
You: The earth is flat because the Bible doesn't even mention x, y, and z. 
Me: The Bible doesn't provide any alternative explanation, either.
You: And that means the Earth is flat.
Me:  ...the hell?

 

First things first. Nobody is bringing up a religion, that is your first fail and i will not continue to count many of them.

Your "reasoning" is not quite correct. In fact it is very poor.  If A then B...blahblah... Not necessarily.

The surface of earth is not round. Your X,Y and Z are false evidence. You were framed 
The surface of our living place is flat and The LOGOS reveals that and of course you have plenty of observational evidences let alone in this thread.
LOGOS is eternal idea of the Creator of all things. So obviously He is the best source for that not nasa...   If you need to repair your car you won't drive it to the butcher's workshop
LOGOS also stands for ultimate logic. Puzzling is that atheists are always so keen in emphasizing the word logic and at the same time they are failing to acquire the ultimate one.  Though i know why is that.

Ignorance of LOGOS is darkness, comprehension is light.

So basic instructions are: check what LOGOS has to say about the subject. Find that through your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, natural observation, experiment or whatever your abilities gifts or talents are, and... BAM, it will be a perfect match for you. Winner, ACE, home run, you name it you claim it.  It is so simple folks.
Wish you all the best on your flat earth quest journey.

PS and earth is not a pancake. I noticed someone mentioned that, though it is funny.

[BADecker]

I still can't believe someone would even think about this. Don't you have something better to do in your life? Probably not. The point still stands; you can build a cheap mini rocket and fly it upwards with a camera.

yup..

and because of the tidal bulge it's actually technically more of a football shape.
partially because of the sun's gravity but mostly because of the Moon's gravitational pull.
the side the moon is facing gets drawn up and pulled on and then the opposite side of the earth gets the same.
..a football shape.

Really?

Look at the evidence without your preconceived biases and you'll see the problems also. Here is a few problems with the standard model among hundreds...What is keeping the all powerful vacuum of space from sucking off earths atmosphere? Please Explain to me how the moon gravity is strong enough to pull our oceans yet earths gravity hasn't pulled the moon into us yet. I could literally go on for hours about this. Why was relativity created to dismiss experiments such as Aires failure which prove the earth isn't moving?

Clear thinker using common sense video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6vjpgYbzQ  

enjoy watching.

1) What properties do you believe space has that would necessarily suck away Earth's atmosphere?  What is the basis for your assumption?  To make such an assumption, you must have a theory or model of how and why this would work.

2) With regards to the Earth and its oceans and the moon, first you need to know what gravity is.  According to general relativity, objects with mass create curvatures in space.  The effects this curvature has on other nearby objects is what we call gravitational force.  We know that space curves as a result of mass because this was confirmed by astronomers testing Einstein's theory.  Initially, this was confirmed when astronomers were able to observe distant stars that should have been blocked by the Sun but were visible because their light bent around the Sun due to the curvature in space as a result of its mass.  

So, because the Moon and Earth are also mass objects like the Sun, they also create curvature in space.  The gravitational forces created by each body affect the other, but because Earth is something like 80 times more massive than the Moon, its gravitational pull is much greater.  This doesn't mean the Moon's pull is negated; it still exists, and we see its effects on our oceans (i.e. The tides).  

The moon doesn't crash into Earth because it's in orbit.  If you imagine throwing a rock horizontally, the rock falls to Earth due to gravity.  If you were to throw a rock really, really far (say, a few kilometers) it would fall to Earth too, but to hit the ground it would need to fall farther to account for Earth's curvature, and so it would.  Now, if you threw a rock really, really, REALLY far, it's possible that you could throw it so hard that it would keep falling and falling but never hit the ground, and instead it would circle the Earth as it continually falls around Earth's curvature.  This is what happens with the moon; it's continually falling towards Earth but never hits it because it is at the right speed and distance from Earth that it stays in orbit.  And so 'round and 'round it goes.

According to general relativity ONLY.  It is just one of many man made theories.

Is it in line with the Word, the LOGOS? ......i don't think so.

And according to observation, experimentation, replication, etc.

I have no idea why you're bringing up religion.  The "word" doesn't even provide an explanation whatsoever for the issues mentioned in the post (i.e. Some vague notion that space should "suck off" Earth's atmosphere, tidal motion, etc.).  

Are you suggesting that your evidence for a flat earth is a book (the Bible) that gives zero explanation for these things?

Hypothetical conversation:

Me: The earth is round because of x, y, and z.
You: The earth is flat because the Bible doesn't even mention x, y, and z.  
Me: The Bible doesn't provide any alternative explanation, either.
You: And that means the Earth is flat.
Me:  ...the hell?

 

First things first. Nobody is bringing up a religion, that is your first fail and i will not continue to count many of them.

Your "reasoning" is not quite correct. In fact it is very poor.  If A then B...blahblah... Not necessarily.

The surface of earth is not round. Your X,Y and Z are false evidence. You were framed  
The surface of our living place is flat and The LOGOS reveals that and of course you have plenty of observational evidences let alone in this thread.
LOGOS is eternal idea of the Creator of all things. So obviously He is the best source for that not nasa...  If you need to repair your car you won't drive it to the butcher's workshop
LOGOS also stands for ultimate logic. Puzzling is that atheists are always so keen in emphasizing the word logic and at the same time they are failing to acquire the ultimate one.  Though i know why is that.

Ignorance of LOGOS is darkness, comprehension is light.

So basic instructions are: check what LOGOS has to say about the subject. Find that through your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, natural observation, experiment or whatever your abilities gifts or talents are, and... BAM, it will be a perfect match for you. Winner, ACE, home run, you name it you claim it.   It is so simple folks.
Wish you all the best on your flat earth quest journey.

PS and earth is not a pancake. I noticed someone mentioned that, though it is funny.

The real reason why the earth is not flat is not because it isn't, necessarily. The reason is this.

Round earth physics has a rather complete physics to it. Flat earth physics does not.

Round earth physics may have some flaws in it. All they are is flaws. But flat earthers try to use the flaws to say that the earth is flat, when all the flaws do is suggest that round earth need some additional explanation.

In other words, flat earth theory is not even theory, technically, because round earth is not theory. Round earth is fact, even though it has a few mistakes in the understandings about it.

[Lizzie]

lol, Never seen a funny thread like this in a long time. The earth looks flat until you go to space.

[notbatman]

lol, Never seen a funny thread like this in a long time. The earth looks flat until you go to space.

You should take a picture next time you're there, then you can show us what fools we are for believing the overwhelming evidence that proves it's flat.

[Xian01]

lol, Never seen a funny thread like this in a long time. The earth looks flat until you go to space.

You should take a picture next time you're there, then you can show us what fools we are for believing the overwhelming evidence that proves it's flat.

I suppose you could go up really high in an airplane, or send up a weather balloon to begin seeing the ellipsoid curvature of the earth.

[notbatman]

lol, Never seen a funny thread like this in a long time. The earth looks flat until you go to space.

You should take a picture next time you're there, then you can show us what fools we are for believing the overwhelming evidence that proves it's flat.

I suppose you could go up really high in an airplane, or send up a weather balloon to begin seeing the ellipsoid curvature of the earth.

This has been done and the horizon is perfectly flat and rises to eye level no matter how high up you go. That is of course unless you're filming with a fish-eye lens i.e. GoPro.