[GlobeEarth]

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.

[Tron]

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://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://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/the-milky-way-in-infrared/

[Tron]

I can't help posting another pic of a similar Galaxy called NGC 4217.   These are its magnetic field lines.


"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

[stack]

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://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/the-milky-way-in-infrared/

How was this image obtained?

[Tron]

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. 

[stack]

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:

[Tron]

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)

[stack]

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"?

[Tron]

The satellite may be to close to earth to capture a large field view which may be necessary to see a big big earth. 

[stack]

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:



From where I am, it's basically a shot of what's on the "other side" from me.

[Tron]

If its GeoStationary that means it always orbits above Japan/Austalia.  They cannot capture the entire Earth without a Composite.

[stack]

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?

[Tron]

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]

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:



So now we have both "sides", the Eastern & Western Hemispheres.

[Tron]

Stack I'm sorry I don't have anything more to contribute at this time.

[drand48]

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.

[jimster]

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?

[Tron]

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.

[Tron]

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.

[drand48]

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.