The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: GlobeEarth on November 26, 2021, 07:19:54 AM
-
If the earth really is flat, what is on the other side of the "disk"?
Is it flat? If so, how can we dig without falling through?
Since I don't believe in The Flat Earth Theory, I don't know the answer myself.
I would really like to see what you think about this part of the earth.
-
So, I believe a Flat Earth shares many of the same properties of a Round Earth. That includes a hot central body made of Lava. I also think Flat Earths or similar structures are located at the center of galaxies and are a galaxy unto themselves (in much smaller sizes of course).
From this point of view, I've looked for evidence of what's on the other side of a Flat Earth by looking at photos of galaxies and both sides of its Galactic Plane. So far, its inconclusive. I find equal evidence that one side of a Galaxy is the same as the other like in traditional "Black Hole" theory, rather than there being one Habitable Side with a rocky underbelly or another variation with Two Habitable Sides etc.
Here's some of my findings:
(https://i.imgur.com/6tlnYXK.png)
https://astrobites.org/2016/03/30/double-bubble-galaxy/
These are two "Fermi Bubbles" which are large amounts of Heat or Gas that is emanated from the center of galaxies. Traditional science suggests it could be Old or New Stars in the past or the accretion and heating up of matter caused by a Black Hole. I hear the word "Star" heat and "Accretion" heat and think perhaps one bubble is created by a central Star or Sun and another by Exposed lava. This would make the Fermi Bubbles part of the "Dome" we see on earth and on other Worlds.
Here's another photo of the Milky Way Galaxy with Heat Seeking Infrared Cameras. You can almost see a star at one end and a hot disc below it. However, the "sun" I propose in this photo is actually opposite the side I had assumed the Habitat was on so take my findings with some hesitation.
(https://i.imgur.com/ssrM1ZM.jpg)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/the-milky-way-in-infrared/
-
I can't help posting another pic of a similar Galaxy called NGC 4217. These are its magnetic field lines.
(https://i.imgur.com/XKSnA2s.jpg)
"Stunning image of Milky Way-like galaxy's X-shaped magnetic field captured in new radio study- Technology News, Firstpost" https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/stunning-image-of-milky-way-like-galaxys-x-shaped-magnetic-field-captured-in-new-radio-study-8644821.html
-
Here's another photo of the Milky Way Galaxy with Heat Seeking Infrared Cameras. You can almost see a star at one end and a hot disc below it. However, the "sun" I propose in this photo is actually opposite the side I had assumed the Habitat was on so take my findings with some hesitation.
(https://i.imgur.com/ssrM1ZM.jpg)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/the-milky-way-in-infrared/
How was this image obtained?
-
This was obtained using the AKARI infrared satellite. Like visible images in space, Infrared Telescopes use mirrors and lenses to capture Radiation from Celestial Objects that are produced from Heat and then uses a computer to translate that Radiation data into a visible image - Thats just a basic understanding I just read.
As an aside, they need to operate in very dry and cool temperatures at almost absolute zero via atmosphere and coolant systems in order to detect heat radiation from sky objects without picking up heat "noise" from the telescope or surrounding environment. This particular satellite used to orbit at very high altitudes to avoid the warm atmosphere of earth before its coolant ran out. Neat stuff.
-
This was obtained using the AKARI infrared satellite. Like visible images in space, Infrared Telescopes use mirrors and lenses to capture Radiation from Celestial Objects that are produced from Heat and then uses a computer to translate that Radiation data into a visible image - Thats just a basic understanding I just read.
As an aside, they need to operate in very dry and cool temperatures at almost absolute zero via atmosphere and coolant systems in order to detect heat radiation from sky objects without picking up heat "noise" from the telescope or surrounding environment. This particular satellite used to orbit at very high altitudes to avoid the warm atmosphere of earth before its coolant ran out. Neat stuff.
Agreed, super neat stuff. I've never seen these images before. Thanks for turning me on to them.
Question, why believe these satellite images and perhaps not believing images from other satellites? Like another Japanese satellite, the Himawari-8:
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-08-2015/ZCrRfQ.gif)
-
I don't mistrust the images. It's about 1/10th the distance to the moon so it's still very close by flat earth standards. (Sorry for the late response I was gathering details)
-
I don't mistrust the images. It's about 1/10th the distance to the moon so it's still very close by flat earth standards. (Sorry for the late response I was gathering details)
No worries on response time. I don't know what this means, "It's about 1/10th the distance to the moon so it's still very close by flat earth standards." What are "flat earth standards"?
-
The satellite may be to close to earth to capture a large field view which may be necessary to see a big big earth.
-
The satellite may be to close to earth to capture a large field view which may be necessary to see a big big earth.
Himawari 8 is geostationary and about 35,791 km (22,239 mi) away.
The Advanced Himawari Imager onboard can produce images with a resolution down to 500m and can provide full disk observations every 10 mins and images of Japan every 2.5 minutes. It's the full disc images that I'm talking about. It's far enough away to capture an image from the perspective of hovering, so to speak, over the Eastern Hemisphere. Here's what I mean, a full disc infrared shot taken about 15 minutes ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/qdRYhNZ.png)
From where I am, it's basically a shot of what's on the "other side" from me.
-
If its GeoStationary that means it always orbits above Japan/Austalia. They cannot capture the entire Earth without a Composite.
-
If its GeoStationary that means it always orbits above Japan/Austalia. They cannot capture the entire Earth without a Composite.
I think you've missed the point. It is geostationarily locked over the entire Eastern Hemisphere. (Being that conventionally, there are 4 hemispheres: North, South, East, and West) Of course you couldn't capture an entire sphere by looking at just one side of it, so to speak. You obviously can't see the back of a sphere from the front. Nor the back of a plane from the front. The point is it captures a "full disk" image over the Eastern Hemisphere, as it's called, roughly half of a conventionally understood spherical earth. The question is, if it's capturing a full disc image and it looks decidedly spherical, then the back side is the Western Hemisphere - Is the Eastern Hemisphere flat and "the other side", the Western Hemisphere the flat other side of it?
-
Stack, hear where I'm at and correct me if I'm wrong. The Himawari 8 satellite is so high in the sky that it can take an entire shot of the Eastern Hemisphere in one shot.
And if the world is round, that's all you can ever ask a satellite to do.
But if the Earth is flat, then is it not conceivable that the Himawari isn't high enough to capture both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres in one shot?
However, if the Himawari is above the Glossy Dome Exosphere, then technically it might have a chance at capturing the Sun at night if they turned there satellite South at Midnight Australia time, because with the absence of a Dome over there heads, the Sun should not Set due to refraction. This would prove the Sun hovers over a flat plane and is not hidden behind the Earth.
-
Stack, hear where I'm at and correct me if I'm wrong. The Himawari 8 satellite is so high in the sky that it can take an entire shot of the Eastern Hemisphere in one shot.
Correct.
And if the world is round, that's all you can ever ask a satellite to do.
I don't think so. As you could have a non-geostationary satellite, at that distance, orbiting around an entire sphere, and/or capturing the entire sphere revolving.
But if the Earth is flat, then is it not conceivable that the Himawari isn't high enough to capture both the Eastern and Western Hemispheres in one shot?
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
As for the "other side" we have a NOAA geostationary imaging satellite over the Western Hemisphere, the GOES 16. It too captures a full disc image just like Japan's Himawari 8, "The default scan mode concurrently takes a full disk (Western Hemisphere) image every 15 minutes, an image of the Continental U.S. every five minutes, and two smaller, more detailed images of areas where storm activity is present, every 60 seconds (or one every 30 seconds). Alternatively, ABI can operate in full disk mode, continuously imaging the full disk every five minutes."
The GOES 16 maintains a similar altitude as the Himawari 8, 35,780.2 km (22,232.8 mi). From GOES 16:
(https://i.imgur.com/mi940XX.gif)
So now we have both "sides", the Eastern & Western Hemispheres.
-
Stack I'm sorry I don't have anything more to contribute at this time.
-
According to this site's FAQ, the Earth is accelerating upwards at a constant rate, providing what we perceive of as gravity by acceleration. So, it seems it must be receding from some space that is below it, and the question of "what's down there" is a valid one. If we indeed have spacecraft, then we should be able to fly around the edge and take a peek. So far, this hasn't happened, so perhaps spacecraft don't exist and all those who claim to have them are in on the great conspiracy.
-
When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?
Would love to hear how satellites work on FE. Geostationary satellites have to be stationary, directly over the equator. What holds them up?
Two questions for MetaTron: Does RET explain this? Does FET have an explanation?
-
Drand did you read my disclaimer? I personally advocate that Gravity is more a function of Magnetism. And taking spacecraft around the edge may not be that easy. If the atmosphere is too thin beyond Central Earth we may not move well.
-
When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?
No it's like having your face to close to the clock numbers so you can only see part of the clock at once unless you spin around
Would love to hear how satellites work on FE. Geostationary satellites have to be stationary, directly over the equator. What holds them up?
I can understand they float in a vacuum but I'm more curious what holds them in orbit around the sun 🌞
Two questions for MetaTron: Does RET explain this? Does FET have an explanation?
Yes and it's a work in progress.
-
Drand did you read my disclaimer? I personally advocate that Gravity is more a function of Magnetism. And taking spacecraft around the edge may not be that easy. If the atmosphere is too thin beyond Central Earth we may not move well.
I was replying to the OP, not to you. Admittedly, taking a rocket anywhere is dicey, if we cant use physics.
-
Oh, sorry 😋. I think we can use physics, it's just the layout of things FErs question (as I can tell).
-
When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?
No it's like having your face to close to the clock numbers so you can only see part of the clock at once unless you spin around
You did see the satellite image I posted before, right? It's far enough away to capture the entirety of Earth in one frame - The GOES 16 maintains a similar altitude as the Himawari 8, 35,780.2 km (22,232.8 mi). What do you think about the GOES imagery?
-
22k miles sounds like it would be high enough so I'll keep considering it. Otherwise the animations look very cool, very fluid.
-
22k miles sounds like it would be high enough so I'll keep considering it. Otherwise the animations look very cool, very fluid.
In using the word "animations" are you implying that they are fake images?
Here's a non-animated image, caption, "A full disk image from GOES-17 captured from its new orbital position at 137.2 degrees west longitude. (11/2018)"
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/geocolor_20181113210041.jpg)
What's your take on this image? Real or fake?
-
Stake it's a real image, but even NOAA admits they composite some of its features.... But no, I wasn't saying its fake. I was talking about their short clips of moving clouds and such.
-
Stake it's a real image, but even NOAA admits they composite some of its features.... But no, I wasn't saying its fake. I was talking about their short clips of moving clouds and such.
Yes, they composite a lot of features, e.g., colors, bands, but not shape:
(https://i.imgur.com/KQBDXxV.png)
But what I'm asking is how does this work with your notion of a flat south pole centered earth? And your map? You know, like when presented with an image(s) of a spherical non-south pole centered non-flat earth. And don't be cagey, be specific.
-
Look at the first image. You'll maybe notice or 'interpret' this photo as a glimpse into a flat Earth. When you look at the daylight section notice how spherical it appears compared to the nighttime side which looks almost like a bowl. Look specifically at the termination line b/w night and day.. It looks like a shell is ending before you fall into a deeper and recessed Earth.
I think the atmosphere is reflecting the light which makes it look spherical. During night the Infrared image almost pierce's through the atmosphere (especially in the absence of light) and reveals a different perspective on Earth.
-
Look at the first image. You'll maybe notice or 'interpret' this photo as a glimpse into a flat Earth. When you look at the daylight section notice how spherical it appears compared to the nighttime side which looks almost like a bowl. Look specifically at the termination line b/w night and day.. It looks like a shell is ending before you fall into a deeper and recessed Earth.
I think the atmosphere is reflecting the light which makes it look spherical. During night the Infrared image almost pierce's through the atmosphere (especially in the absence of light) and reveals a different perspective on Earth.
I don't really understand your interpretation. The actual issue is if you look at any of the images, where's the other half of earth? Where's Europe, Asia, Australia? If you think that it's actually an image of flat earth, where did all of those continents run off to? And how is the image(s) not centered on the South Pole?
-
I don't know, I'm still considering it..
-
MetaTron,
This is the third thread where you have given up explaining FE in the last few days. "I have nothing to contribute", "I don't know", etc. If you look at RET, you can find answers to all these questions, consistent with physics, known facts, and a world where ships and planes reach their destination based on RET. You can understand how north star/sextant/latitude, equatorial telescope mount, gyrocompass, etc work, gps satellites, eclipse, so many more. You will no longer have to propose that NASA is a conspiracy, so many things will be consistent and make sense.
Or you can believe FE and have many things that make no sense, can't be explained, require additions or changes to physical laws.
-
I don't mind looking into new ideas. I have faith that ultimately I might be able to find a level of knowledge that does explain alot. Perhaps I need to brush up more on RE ideas (and Wiki ideas) to learn more.
-
MetaTron,
In mathematics, there are many impossible things people do "thought experiments" with. Non-Euclidean geometry, for instance. Or Klein bottles, the 3d version of a Mobius strip. It passes through the side of the bottle without making a hole. These are fun for mathematicians, and sometimes provide insight into real world problems. BUT ... they know they are not "real" as in they do not apply to day to day reality.
REs here do that all the time, they do logical conclusions bvased on flat earth. Sometimes just to flex their logic muscles, sometimes to do "proof by contradiction". Assume the earth is flat, see what this wuld mean, then observe that it can't possibly be true. You have done this yourself in recent threads, only when you get to the point of "this can't be true", instead you just stop, as I described in my prior post.
Keeping an open mind is a great idea. Are you open to the possibility that the earth is round? There is a simple answer to why you haven't been able to explain the problems with FE.
South pole centric FE, for instance. Where is the north star? Navigators have used it for thousands of years. On north pole FE, the southern cross is a problem, on south pole FE, the north star is a problem. In each case, they must be located at every point around the disk. On RE, no problem, the geometry works.
-
I explained the mechanics of star trails in the thread "stars above the night sky". I haven't worked out the details yet, but you can't say that's because everything is wrong..
-
I explained the mechanics of star trails in the thread "stars above the night sky". I haven't worked out the details yet, but you can't say that's because everything is wrong..
We're not talking about star "trails", we're talking about the North Star, Polaris. Your explanation in that other thread was, "The stars and constellations are actually members of the Asteroid belt!" Which isn't really an explanation, more of a simple assertion.
The question here is where is Polaris on your map?
-
I don't know. It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet.
-
I don't know. It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet.
I appreciate that you haven't worked it out yet. But it's not a detail. Polaris has been the most important star for navigation (in the northern hemisphere) for 1000's of years. It's a big deal. It's not complicated at all in RE. It's right there, for all to see, hovering approximately above the North Pole.
You can't seem to get real distances, continents are missing in full disc satellite images and you don't know where Polaris is. That's pretty much the whole shootin' match in terms of criticality regarding your model and map. None of which are details. They are massive inconsistencies.
So start at the top, figure out where Polaris is and then we can move forward from there.
-
I don't know. It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet.
I appreciate that you haven't worked it out yet. But it's not a detail. Polaris has been the most important star for navigation (in the northern hemisphere) for 1000's of years. It's a big deal. It's not complicated at all in RE. It's right there, for all to see, hovering approximately above the North Pole.
You can't seem to get real distances, continents are missing in full disc satellite images and you don't know where Polaris is. That's pretty much the whole shootin' match in terms of criticality regarding your model and map. None of which are details. They are massive inconsistencies.
So start at the top, figure out where Polaris is and then we can move forward from there.
I think what’s happening with MetaTron (and FE in general) is that they attempt to bend (pun intended) facts about the universe around their beliefs, instead of the other way around, like a normal person. If belief in FE comes first, facts second, then of course you will run into a million errors everywhere you go. A beliefs-first approach won’t get you anywhere, whether you’re a scientist or a bartender and everything in between.
Compare this to hypothesis testing, where the very first step is forming an antithesis to your belief (the null hypothesis) that you must then disprove. FE never makes it this far, it poses the hypothesis (that the Earth is flat) and just runs with it.
The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect, often what I see is FEs coming up with yet another theory, like a game of conceptual whack-a-mole.
FE theory leads to Celestial Dome theory which leads to Universal Acceleration theory which leads to no-Gravity theory which leads to.. who knows where the rabbit hole will go. On Reddit I saw something about NASA conspiring with the Clinton Foundation to traffic Haitian orphans to Antarctica.
-
The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect
What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.
-
The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect
What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.
Well, in recent threads you yourself have agreed that the sun isn’t 3000 miles above the earth, but that’s still in the wiki. I seem to recall that you said it was 6500 miles high, and although I clearly disagree with that too, it would be good if you could actually change it to reflect your own views as a starting point. I would hazard a guess that your diameter estimate is also wrong if the height is different?
Elsewhere we have clearly demonstrated that the EA explanation of light rays cannot be correct as per the wiki - if that was how light rays travelled from the sun then the sun’s ‘footprint’ would be a circular shape on the FE, which does not make sense when you compare it with actual day/night location information.
When confronted with this you then wheeled out a very amateur shaky torch vs glass dome video and said this might be what happens, without addressing the fact that refraction of course depends on light rays travelling straight through media of constant density, which is completely odds with bendy light as per EA. Moreover, the ‘sun’ in that video is nowhere near being overhead the ‘earth’ - another thing that the wiki is at odds with. Given that the stars are allegedly at the same height as the sun, they too presumably are not actually above the earth?
Can we look forward to a wiki update?
-
The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect
What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.
Well, in recent threads you yourself have agreed that the sun isn’t 3000 miles above the earth, but that’s still in the wiki. I seem to recall that you said it was 6500 miles high, and although I clearly disagree with that too, it would be good if you could actually change it to reflect your own views as a starting point. I would hazard a guess that your diameter estimate is also wrong if the height is different?
Elsewhere we have clearly demonstrated that the EA explanation of light rays cannot be correct as per the wiki - if that was how light rays travelled from the sun then the sun’s ‘footprint’ would be a circular shape on the FE, which does not make sense when you compare it with actual day/night location information.
When confronted with this you then wheeled out a very amateur shaky torch vs glass dome video and said this might be what happens, without addressing the fact that refraction of course depends on light rays travelling straight through media of constant density, which is completely odds with bendy light as per EA. Moreover, the ‘sun’ in that video is nowhere near being overhead the ‘earth’ - another thing that the wiki is at odds with. Given that the stars are allegedly at the same height as the sun, they too presumably are not actually above the earth?
Can we look forward to a wiki update?
I fail to see where you have shown anything to be incorrect.
The sun distance page specifically says that the 3000 mile figure does not account for EA. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) If you had linked to the page in question side by side to the argument you made you would have found that you were incorrect and not the Wiki.
The rest of your arguments are based on speculative inferences about nature which you think is proof. The Wiki doesn't discuss much of what you are discussing, so it can't be incorrect. Much of that are assumptions which you have created, not what the Wiki has actually stated to be the case.
Again, please link a Wiki page and show the argument, side by side, where it has been shown incorrect. You will likely find that you assumed too much and that it is you who is, actually, incorrect.
-
I fail to see where you have shown anything to be incorrect.
The sun distance page specifically says that the 3000 mile figure does not account for EA. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) If you had linked to the page in question side by side to the argument you made you would have found that you were incorrect and not the Wiki.
The rest of your arguments are based on speculative inferences about nature which you think is proof. The Wiki doesn't discuss much of what you are discussing, so it can't be incorrect. Much of that are assumptions which you have created, not what the Wiki has actually stated to be the case.
Again, please link a Wiki page and show the argument, side by side, where it has been shown incorrect. You will likely find that you assumed too much and that it is you who is, actually, incorrect.
Well, the wiki says lots of things, and many of them directly contradict each other. For example, on subject of the vexed question of how far away the sun is, we have:
The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration
…and yet we also have:
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.
And at the same time, you yourself, who seem to have written most of the wiki, seem to think it is 6000 miles above the earth - see https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg250025#msg250025 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg250025#msg250025)
And yet you are also posting a video proposing that the sun is in fact laterally displaced from the flat earth, with its rays massively distorted by some kind of dome, in a manner which would render all of the ‘work’ done on EA and the elusive ‘bishop constant’ completely pointless.
As far as debating tactics go I suppose it’s pretty effective - you’re just switching position every time somebody points out a fundamental flaw in your argument. But the fundamental point here is that you don’t have a theory - you won’t commit to a particular layout, to a particular arrangement of the sun, moon and stars, or anything concrete. You claim that things are a matter ‘of debate’ in the FE community, but there’s never any debate visible here.
-
There is no "other side" of course.
If I start travelling due north on the RE earth's prime meridian, say in London, and keep going,
I'll obviously end up back at my starting point in London. This is impossible on the flat earth
model, as I'd simply eventually hit—or fly over—the perimeter ice wall. And never get back to
London! In fact, I'd have to do a U-turn at some stage if I wanted to return to my starting point.