Wow, I am just absolutely amazed at the existence of this site. But it intrigues me enough that I thought I'd go through the "Earth in Space" and "Geography" portions of the FAQ point by point:
A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles
For the uninitiated, the accepted circumference of the Earth is 24,900 miles. So this is indeed what the "circumference" of an Earth laid out flat in a polar projection would be.
A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.
In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.
The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)
Unfortunately, this does not explain why these objects don't just appear to get further away, but instead actually appear to move below the horizon. In this model, the Sun and the Moon could never drop below arctan(3000/24900) = 6.87 degrees above the horizon (this would be with one observer sitting at the edge of the ice wall, with the Sun or Moon at the opposite edge, a situation which would never actually happen, as both the Sun and Moon are both above some area of the Earth near the equator at all times...so the real angle would be significantly higher).
The deflection of the light from the Sun/Moon that is caused by refraction due to the atmosphere only serves to further raise the apparent positions of each in the sky.
One might resolve this by claiming that the space above our atmosphere has a higher index of refraction than the atmosphere, but this would be in direct contradiction with the observed thinning of the atmosphere with altitude.
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."
A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.
See above.
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"
A: When you look at these celestial bodies, even with a telescope, they're entirely two-dimensional.
Not true. For bodies within our own solar system, we can see evidence that they are actually spherical through their atmospheres, and through their rotation.
For an example of the effect of atmospheres that makes planets appear spherical, consider the following picture of Titan that I grabbed off of a Google image search:
http://www.planetary.org/saturn/images/titan_cassini_050331_approach-disk_cb3_800x834.jpgThe fuzziness on the edge of this moon, which is in direct contrast to the clarity near the center, is evidence that we are looking at an atmosphere edge-on, which is in turn evidence of curvature. Please note that this effect is most pronounced on smaller bodies which still have atmospheres.
For an example of the effect of rotations, see the animations of Jupiter on this page:
http://www.stargazing.net/David/jupiter/jupiter040426.htmlYou can clearly see features appearing on one side of the planet, and disappearing on the other, clear evidence of a spherical nature.
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"
A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.
Geosynchronous satellites orbit the Earth at about 35,000 miles. These are the satellites that appear stationary to observers on Earth, and include such consumer communications satellites as those used in satellite TV. The exact positioning of the source of the transmissions would be easily-verified by observing the pointings required to connect with a given satellite from different locations on the Earth (this is an easy thing to check if you have a satellite TV setup: most satellite TV setups have a utility that will tell you the correct pointing for your dish if you enter a zip code.
Now, if the Earth was flat, this would lower the calculated height of the source of the transmission, but not by any tremendous amount. No materials known to man could possibly stand up under their own weight to heights required to simulate the apparent height of geosynchronous satellites.
Q: "What's underneath the Earth?"
A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.
No comment (not really something that can be refuted).
Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.
A2: Gravity comes from an external source (to be discussed)
Quite true, but this fails to explain the apparent universalness of gravity. That is, Einsteinian gravitation (General Relativity) along with a round Earth model gives exact motions of all bodies in the Solar System. And one would need to give an explaination as to what is causing this acceleration: spontaneous acceleration would be against all known laws of physics. No comment on the second part, since it isn't discussed here.
Q: "Isn't this version of gravity (A1) flawed? Wouldn't planes/helicopters/paragliders crash into the Earth as the Earth rises up to them?"
A: No. If that were to happen, then no planes could fly right now as gravity would pull them into the Earth. The reason that planes do not crash is that their wings produce an upthrust which, when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, and so their altititude does not change.
The same thing happens if the Earth is moving up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.
Yes, this is indeed not a problem with the model of a Flat Earth.
Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be travelling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"
A: No, here is a detailed explanation.
Quite right. This is also not a problem.
Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"
A: You would enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped. The Earth would continue accelerating upwards past you at a rate of 1g, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space.
Then why are
all known bodies accelerating at 1g? If there is a rule that all bodies must be accelerating at 1g up, then why wouldn't a person do the same? For that matter, why do we need the ground to hold us, when the ground clearly doesn't hold the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, or any other astronomical objects?
Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"
A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field. Also, I'm not sure what FE's stance on the age of the world is, but it's plausible that it's a younger estimation than the RE claim.
A2: There is a counter-mass which pulls the Earth back into a disc shape.
An assumption that the Earth doesn't generate a gravitational field is enough to resolve this problem with the model. But such an assumption breaks a theory that seems to predict such a tremendous number of observations to great accuracy that Occam's Razor would seem to reject it out of hand.
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Since the distribution of stars with respect to the Earth is not uniform (if you're in an area with little to no human lighting, you can see the Milky Way quite well), this model would require a gradient in how the gravitational field varies with altitude depending upon where on the Earth you are with respect to the observed Milky Way. I don't believe that any such gradient has been found.
Q: Followup to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitiational pull, but stars and the moon do?
A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
A model that speaks of a universal property of matter (as General Relativity does) automatically wins out from one which places arbitrary properties on some types of matter over others, again due to Occam's Razor. Please note that my Occam's Razor statements are arguments of evidence against a flat Earth model, not attempts at proof: Occam's Razor arguments cannot be proved.
Q: Do you have a map?
A: See this one, created by one of our members. There is also this map attributed to a person named Wilbur Voliva.
Standard polar projection maps. These sorts of maps will inevitably show dramatic distortions of objects far from the pole at the center of the projection. Thus Australia, South America, and Africa are all significantly distorted in these maps, and would thus conflict with local mapping of these areas. Such distortions are a signature of curvature.
Q: Exactly what shape is the Earth if it's flat? Square or circle?
A: Circle, like in the UN logo
Okay.
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.
Antarctica as a continent does not exist.
Except that there have been some rather famous expeditions to the South Magnetic Pole. See:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/antarctica.shtmlNone of these expeditions have reported anything about an Ice Wall blocking their progress.
We also currently have science stations based in Antarctica (and scientists, as a rule, make their work publicly-available, see arxiv.org), making such existence easy to check. A telescope is currently being constructed at the South Pole for use in Astronomy:
http://spt.uchicago.edu/(The reason for the location is the temperature: the higher temperatures in climes further north interfere with infrared and microwave observations).
Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"
A1: Global warming is melting the ice wall, but the government isn't doing anything because cutting carbon emissions would damage the economy, and they only care about making money.
A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and it's counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasse" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
The idea that Global Warming and Global Cooling cancel one another don't explain how Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. Venus has a very thick atmosphere primarily composed of CO2. Global warming will be undeniable within a few decades, and governments that ignore it do so at their own peril. Global warming is going to damage economies around the globe.
Q: "What about tides?"
A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
This doesn't properly explain tides. If it was due to a see-saw effect, then one would expect to see high-tide on one side of the Earth, and a smooth gradient to low-tide on the opposite side. Instead we see high tides always happen simultaneously at opposite ends of the Earth (higher on the side closer to the Moon), which is consistent with a model of a round Earth with tides caused by the gravitational pulls of the Sun and Moon.
Q : "Why is the North pole colder than the equator?"
A: The sun orbits over the equator, not the North pole
Fine.
Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"
A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds it's way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard
I'm not sure how you can have a core without the Earth being a sphere. A more obvious explaination is that the rocky flat Earth floats on a sea of magma. This allows a model of volcanic eruptions that is identical to what is currently believed by scientists.
Unfortunately, it has the problems that one then needs to explain why there is this sea of molten magma (the existence of a molten core is a consequence of the model, not an input, in a round Earth model), as well as answer the question as to what happens to this sea at the edge of the Earth (particularly since the flat Earth model places an ice wall at the edge, which would seem to be contradictory).
Q: "What about time zones?"
A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
Yup, not an issue. Instead is the problem as to why the Sun goes in a circle like it does. One has to place this effect into the flat Earth model, whereas it is a natural consequence of a round Earth model (the probability of accreted bodies having zero angular momentum is essentially zero: there will always be some amount of rotation).
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"
(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.
Then the brightness of the moon would vary greatly each day as the Sun passes over oceans and land masses, and would further vary depending upon weather patterns. Instead, lunar eclipses are perfectly predictable by a round Earth model.
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
Deliberate conspiracy makes no sense: somebody would talk (airline pilots are civilians, after all). Airplane flight existed long before GPS. The observed flight times in the Southern hemisphere would likely require supersonic flight in a flat Earth theory, something which would be immediately obvious to observers on the ground.
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
This is true. One cannot actually perform this experiment, so it isn't really an argument against a flat Earth theory. Instead is the problem as to why there appears to be a symmetry between the North and South magnetic poles, where one is a point and the other is distributed along the circumference of a circle.
Q: If you go directly south won’t you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?
A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.
Yes, since it would be very hard to ever come back from such a trip, this isn't actually a problem with the theory. Instead is the problem that nobody has been to the ice wall and looked over the edge to report what they saw.
Q: How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it it goes clockwise?
You're mistaken. On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.
This underlies a misunderstanding of the Coriolis pseudo-force. The Coriolis effect has no direct connection with the frequency of rotation. Here is a description of where the Coriolis effect comes from:
Imagine you are an ant on a record player. You are sitting at some distance R from the from the center of the player, and moving at some speed v around the player. Your angular speed would be v/R, the angular speed of the player. If you move slightly outward from the center, the player is still moving at an angular speed v/R, but since R has increased, the speed of the record below your feet has increased. This causes you to feel an acceleration in the direction of motion of the record. If the player is moving counter-clockwise, this acceleration will be to your left, causing you to feel as if you were being pulled to the right (in the same way that the upward acceleration idea explains why we feel pulled down).
Similarly, if you move inward towards the center of the record, R decreases, causing the v of the record beneath your feet to decrease, causing an acceleration against the movement of the player. This acceleration will also be to your left, causing you to feel as if you were being pulled to the right again. This is why the Coriolis effect results in circular motion: you are always pulled to the right (or the left, depending upon the rotaition).
If you will notice, the description of the Coriolis effect requires a velocity gradient as you move from one position to another along a surface. One can indeed have a Coriolis effect on a disk-like Earth, then, but its effects would be very different from those obseved. In particular, you would either end up with a minimum of the Coriolis effect at the North pole (when R approaches zero, so does the gradient of the velocity), and a maximum near the ice wall. This is contrary to the observed minima at the North Pole, South Pole, and Equator (note: there is a minimum of the Coriolis effect at the Equator because one is not moving inward or outward from the center of rotation there, thus there is no gradient in velocity). Any flat Earth theory would have a very hard time explaining the nature of how the Coriolis effect varies over the surface of the Earth, which a round Earth model predicts exactly.