The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: RightRoundBabyRightRound on December 27, 2017, 07:28:27 PM
-
Hello I am quite new to the flat earth theory, and I have a few questions regarding the graphic that shows the sun and moon moving in circular paths above the earth. Ok so I understand how satellites (both man-made and natural) stay "aloft" in the round earth schematic, but what keeps them aloft (and moving in circular orbits) in the flat earth scheme? If their circular movements are due to magnetism, why aren't their concentric circles getting tighter and tighter? How are the sun and moon also accelerating upward at the same rate as the earth with no discernible force?
-
Easy.
Imagine a circular cake. Cut it into 64 segments and magnetise each one. North in the centre, south at the edge.
According to the wiki, this is a radial magnet (true) and is found in loudspeakers (presumably on the basis that, like the Bedford Level, it "looks right"). Sigh. Loudspeaker magnets are axial, because that's how they make the cone move in and out.
Presumably the Sun and Moon simply flip their own orientation to South when it's time to go North, and vice versa. That's it! The Sun and Moon are magnetic.
So not only does FET have to explain how a 32-mile diameter sun can burn for 4.6bn years, it now has to find a composition that is also magnetic. I'll get back to you on that.
Welcome to Wonderland.
-
Ok, but I am still confused as to how they stay at a constant distance from the earth, if the earth were to be constantly accelerating upward.
-
Ok, but I am still confused as to how they stay at a constant distance from the earth, if the earth were to be constantly accelerating upward.
The answer is that we don't know yet.
-
First, you have to understand that being the least popular of the two competing theories of earth's shape, the flat earth model hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth has gotten. Meaning: less progress and advancement of the flat earth model has taken place compared to the spherical earth model. So, much of flat earth remains unexplained.
-
First, you have to understand that being the least popular of the two competing theories of earth's shape, the flat earth model hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth has gotten. Meaning: less progress and advancement of the flat earth model has taken place compared to the spherical earth model. So, much of flat earth remains unexplained.
It isn't "less popular", it is wrong. Was proven wrong long ago. FEH doesn't match observed phenomena without making up a whole bunch of unsupported, unobserved nonsense. UA is a perfect example. If the Earth is being accelerated upwards and the sun and moon aren't, then there would be a collision and we wouldn't be having this conversation. You MADE UP some nonsense about an electro-magnetic field, but that has never been observed. Further, the Sun would lose its round shape in all of your theories. (the plasma would follow the force lines in an EM field and it would spread out against your imaginary dome) All you've done is throw words at a page with no backing at all.
"Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl" - please Google the overconfidence effect.
-
First, you have to understand that being the least popular of the two competing theories of earth's shape, the flat earth model hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth has gotten. Meaning: less progress and advancement of the flat earth model has taken place compared to the spherical earth model. So, much of flat earth remains unexplained.
What sort of tests would you start with to figure out the mechanics of a sun and moon that somehow stay fixed above a continuously accelerating infinite plane? What sort of grant proposal would you or any other FEs write?
Why reject all of the progress/advancements that the round earth has garnered? Why reject all of the evidence, funded tests, visual evidence that logically prove a round earth? Sure a flat earth is a fun hypothesis to disprove, and might be worth a novel, but is it anything worth spending money on? No. Do some reading on pubmed and request funding in areas that actually need it and would benefit the human race. Stand on the shoulders of giants; don’t knock the giants down.