Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,687 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 186,424
Pageviews Today: 253,540Threads Today: 62Posts Today: 1,215
01:56 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 196000
Germany
02/15/2007 05:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Why a Flat Earth?

Ever since the official signing of the Flat Earth Society's charter, one of our most difficult goals was to understand the mindset of those we were trying to save. The complexities of Efimovich's theory, that theory's convoluted nature and dependence on flawed logic and the omission of obstructions make it nearly impossible to understand at all, let alone understand why anyone would believe such dribble.

Although we have, through the years, made significant progress towards understanding the viewpoint of Efimovich's followers, we still recognize the holes in the intricate web Efimovich wove. Ours is the truth, the truth of the world's flatness, and ours is also the burden of proof. We are the minority, the followers of lies being the majority, and we gladly accept our burden, if in the end that acceptance means ridding the world of the foul half-truths spread by Grigori Efimovich and his brood of vipers. We present the following five arguments, each completely logical and to some degree building off of the arguments before it. We hope that, after carefully considering what we say here, you will look a with a little less ridicule on the Flat Earth Society and its members.

Argument One - Experimental confirmation of the Earth's rigidity in space

1) The ether factor

In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.

Argument Two - Difficulties with the model: incorporating an Efimovich-type model with the known Universe

1) Maintaining speed

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

2) An accelerating world

A 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.

Argument Three - The impossibilities of holding unsecured objects in place on a curved surface

1) Staying on top

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

2) Falling off

As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.

Argument Four - Paradoxes associated with an inconsistent down direction

1) Negotiating long-distance travel

Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!

Looking at the feasibility of Efimovich's teachings cannot remain limited to examining small, solid objects such as human beings. A true analysis of his work must incorporate natural phenomena and how their existence is either explained or made difficult by each of the theories. In the next argument against the "round-Earth" theory, we will be analyzing the existence of two extremely commonplace (yet altogether unfeasible under the ramifications of having a round planet) non-solids: the atmosphere and the oceans.

Argument Five - Difficulties in maintaining a functional Earth-bound atmosphere and ocean

1) 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.

2) Thermodynamic complications

Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics.

Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.

[link to www.alaska.net]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 196014
Canada
02/15/2007 06:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Well, the author of Revelations must have thought it was flat as he says the four angels were standing at each corner of the earth.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 192603
United States
02/15/2007 06:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Interesting.

While I hold a more standard view, of course, it is interesting to see the types of arguments used by debunkers!

Yes, the flat Earth folk are trying to "Debunk" the mainstream view, so they are debunkers.

But still, they present their argument as if it is clear fact, and as if we don't have any evidence of the oposit!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 196018
Spain
02/15/2007 06:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
If earth were flat then the rest of the planets as well i suppose. Solooking at the nightsky the planets would not always seem round, sometimes we would have a side view and they would appear like little lines in stead of round.


Nope earth like the other planets must be round!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 195940
Australia
02/15/2007 07:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
So which side is the bottom?
bbb

User ID: 174138
United States
02/15/2007 07:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
So which side is the bottom?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 195940

The bushy side "down under" ?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 195971
Australia
02/15/2007 07:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
So which side is the bottom?

The bushy side "down under" ?
 Quoting: bbb



We'll be waiting for you, snake.
Illumi-Bunny

User ID: 192323
United States
02/15/2007 09:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
feedtroll




.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 191476
United States
02/15/2007 10:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
SO WE LIVE ON A BOX??
SpectrumBlue

User ID: 181546
United States
02/15/2007 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
SO WE LIVE ON A BOX??
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 191476

Or a thin piece of paper.
Dreams will begin as they fade into chaos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 150288
United States
02/15/2007 10:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
I guess they've never seen photos of earth taken from space.
Negaterium

User ID: 26222
Romania
02/15/2007 10:32 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
What a bunch of horseshit. Just go to a beach and see how a distant ship vanishes in the horizon. Yeah... the Earth is flat and the ship is just sinking in the water.

ROFL. I wonder why I try to argue such a crap.

Just see the Earth from space.
Stupidity has no limits.
I Am The I Of The Storm
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 195412
United States
02/15/2007 10:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
I propose we just start a fund somewhere to launch these fuckers into orbit. Just shoot 'em off into space so when they get back we can all say "SEE?"
Delicious Monster

User ID: 179394
United Kingdom
02/15/2007 10:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
[link to www.3dnworld.com]
[link to loud-voices.com]
[link to satellite.ehabich.info]


Images of Earth from Space
[link to images.google.co.uk]


Ocham's razor says that the simplest explanation is usually correct. There is nothing simple about the flat earth theory. It is convoluted and implies extensive complexities and cover-ups that in today's information age does not stand up.

The article makes no real sense, it seems to be written to fit the theory and is far too convoluted to be explained simply. Its as if the writer is throwing a whole lot of crap at a wall and hoping some will stick.
Negaterium

User ID: 26222
Romania
02/15/2007 10:50 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
[link to www.3dnworld.com]
[link to loud-voices.com]
[link to satellite.ehabich.info]


Images of Earth from Space
[link to images.google.co.uk]


Ocham's razor says that the simplest explanation is usually correct. There is nothing simple about the flat earth theory. It is convoluted and implies extensive complexities and cover-ups that in today's information age does not stand up.

The article makes no real sense, it seems to be written to fit the theory and is far too convoluted to be explained simply. Its as if the writer is throwing a whole lot of crap at a wall and hoping some will stick.
 Quoting: Delicious Monster


/signed

:)
I Am The I Of The Storm
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 196062
Switzerland
02/15/2007 10:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
you clima that the "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" - the mother of all cover-ups

Start here
End Times Reductionism is *** false ***. The true religion is the Explanding Universe.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
XXX
User ID: 62394
United States
02/15/2007 10:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
The Bible has been proven right again!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 188440
United States
02/15/2007 12:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Well, the author of Revelations must have thought it was flat as he says the four angels were standing at each corner of the earth.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 196014


Revelation 7:1

1. After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.


Do we see this throughout the whole bible? That the people of that time thought that the earth was flat
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 195207
Brazil
02/15/2007 12:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Oh dear:

bsflag bsflag bsflag bsflag
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 196149
United States
02/15/2007 12:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Perhaps we should look at what the word translated as corners is and if it has any other meanings.......
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 191760
United States
02/15/2007 12:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
[link to www.3dnworld.com]
[link to loud-voices.com]
[link to satellite.ehabich.info]


Images of Earth from Space
[link to images.google.co.uk]


Ocham's razor says that the simplest explanation is usually correct. There is nothing simple about the flat earth theory. It is convoluted and implies extensive complexities and cover-ups that in today's information age does not stand up.

The article makes no real sense, it seems to be written to fit the theory and is far too convoluted to be explained simply. Its as if the writer is throwing a whole lot of crap at a wall and hoping some will stick.
 Quoting: Delicious Monster


Pretty much. The ignorance of the basic laws of motion that prevent us from flying off and the bit about falling downwards from the south pole make me think that the author is probably just "flinging shit" as you so aptly put it. Anybody who was honestly that stupid would have had much worse spelling and a hard time reaching the keyboard.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 196062
Switzerland
02/15/2007 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!


CIA disinfo trick #1

add "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" to anyone exposing the illuminati hoaxes


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 196062


The *** greatest *** illuminati "science" hoax ever - revealed worldwide first by Matt Marriott
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 191760
United States
02/15/2007 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!


CIA disinfo trick #1

add "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" to anyone exposing the illuminati hoaxes




The *** greatest *** illuminati "science" hoax ever - revealed worldwide first by Matt Marriott
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 196062


Never mind. It really is possible to be this stupid and still capable of comprehending English.
Delicious Monster

User ID: 179394
United Kingdom
02/15/2007 01:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
Pretty much. The ignorance of the basic laws of motion that prevent us from flying off and the bit about falling downwards from the south pole make me think that the author is probably just "flinging shit" as you so aptly put it. Anybody who was honestly that stupid would have had much worse spelling and a hard time reaching the keyboard.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 191760


Someone who thinks Dribble is the same as Drivel. (Last word paragraph 1)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 125744
United States
02/15/2007 02:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: PROOF! We've been all lied to, THE EARTH IS FLAT!
I stopped readig at


-------------
1) Staying on top

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

------------------


Get a grip on Gravity.. I should have stopped at the paragraph before it when the writer did not understand the effects of gravity at relative distances...

2) An accelerating world

Moron..


wtf

News