Rendered Picture of Flat Earth Universe

Is this an acceptable picture of the Flat Earth model of the universe?  Anything too big?  Too small?  Should Antarctica even be there?

The Sun and Moon are both 16x their supposed size because you'd almost not be able to see them if they're only 32 miles in diameter.  Their trails are not concentric so the two can be differentiated.

It's not complete yet.  I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult to get a small lightsource so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.  The earth disc has almost no thickness right now.  There are no stars, no sky-dome, and I think I'm also forgetting something important...

Oh and a 150ft wall around the perimeter is impossible to see at this scale.

There is no Antarctica but there is an ice wall, so just say the snowy part is the ice wall.

I can't see the Great Wall of China

The rest looks good. Apart from the fact that the Earth's not flat, it's still good.

The Sun and Moon are both 16x their supposed size because you'd almost not be able to see them if they're only 32 miles in diameter.

But I assume you're still lighting the surface with them as though they were 32 miles in diameter?

I don't like the way the sun shines, but it 's very difficult

-- some might say, "impossible" --

to get a small lightsource so close to ground to illuminate half of the Earth's area properly.

Turns out this is pretty strong evidence against FEism.  Of course, FEers will deny any claims about the area of the Earth that is lit at any point in time.

Anyway, very cool rendering... I am most impressed :)

-Erasmus

It looks a little too... strechy.

I would suggest going up to the ISS and getting a good picture of the Earth to work with first. Now that I'm thinking about it... and maybe I should start a new thread, but it looks like you hav plenty already.
 
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=international+space+station&btnG=Search

Man those Photoshop loving government agents have a lot of time on their hands.

How exactly do flat-earthers explain things like satellite images
(google maps for example), the massive amounts of scientific data collected by space stations and NASA operations, GPS, satellite TV, the MIR, etc?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that that the incredibly vast complex nature of this conspiracy, which you have no evidence for, makes it a statistical impossibility. At some point doesn't Occum's Razor slice open your throats and bring forth the gushing flow of truth?

I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that not one scientist in modern times has ever found scientific proof of the flat earth and then jsut spread the truth through the media. There is no way every government and media source on the planet is in on this, a conspiracy of that scale defies all logic and knowledge of the worlds political situations makes itimmpossible.

Also the 150ft ice wall, how can no one of ever seen it. I Also jsut thought of another error in your theory. Flying from Australia to South America should take days via the antarctic route, it doesn't.

Look at your flat earth map and tell me where is the south pole? you knwo the place all those antarctic travelers try and trek to. How can all those ships traveling around antarctica do it in any kind of responable time with that much distance to cover. The flat earth theory is self defeating by it's very nature. The dimensions it immposes on the world can be disproven by anyone who buys a seat on a flight that goes somewhere via the antarctic coast.

And yes there are flights that do that my friend flew to Africa from Australia via that route and sent me photos of the Antarctic coast.

Flatearthersareretards, I've decided that you're a government shill, spreading lies and discontent in the ranks of the beievers, and thus anything you say is invalid.  "Friends" flying from Australia to Africa through "Antarctica", psssh, your imaginary words don't fool me.

However, on the note of Occam's Razor; nice metaphore (analogy?).  There are only specific instances in which you can apply Occam's Razor, it only  comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power.  Otherwise I could say the following:
There are two theories as to how people live:
A) We are kept alive by a complicated system of veins, nerves, organs, etc.
B) Magic
Ergo, by Occam's razor, people are kept alive by magic
Granted this isn't a great example, but I think it kinda gets the point across.

Ok I like the rendering. Very good example of computer skills I don't have. That said, I have a few things to add.

1) There has been 1 thing that has consistently bothered me about this conspiracy. In order for it to work, you would have to get Israel And the rest of the Middle East working together. Personally I just can't see that happening. Ever.

2) The thing about Antarctica is that as well as being a great big lump of Ice, It also generates weather for most of the "southern" Hemisphere. It cant do that if you eliminate about 70% of it.

3) The orbits for the sun dont come anywhere close to representing the 24 hour daylight, either at the north or south pole.

4) As I understand it, the Earth's magnetic field is caused by currents in the Earth's Iron rich Mantle. This magnetic field causes the effects known as Aurora Borialis and Aurora Australis (the northern and southern lights) this magnetic field also causes the Van Allen belt. There is no way that this can work with a flat Earth.

5) Assuming you have lit the Earth as if the sun was 32 miles in diametre, it seems that there are places on the Earth that never get sunlight. From looking at this model, one of those places is Tasmania (in Australia), and another is the tip of south America. So why is it green?

6) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this.

7) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, and yes that still bugs me.

If the orbit for the sun is correct, why is it that I see the sun high in the sky at midday when im along way North or South? Shouldnt it follow a long path to my right or left?

9) A note on Occam's Razor: If all things are Equal, (which in this case they aren't, given the mountain of evidence against the flat Earth) which is more likely? A spherical Earth? or A massive multi-Government conspiracy which has gotten bitter enemies to work seamlessly together, to create, for no purpose, the illusion that the Earth is round when it is in fact flat?
That first bit is important.
 Which is more likely, that human beings are kept alive by a network of blood vessels and organs, especially when we have good evidence (The various methods of instituting the death penalty come to mind) or Magic?

10) Even if Sun set and Sun rise are illusions, why dont we continually see their light whereever we are on Earth?

11) Explain for me this: The Antarctic food Chain. Whales Migrate to Antarctia in the summer to feed and Calve. What do they Eat? Krill. Its basically a shrimp that lives in the cold waters of the southern ocean. What does the Krill Eat? Plankton. Most plankton are single cell plants that photosynthesise. By this model there is no sunlight down there (down being relative) So there is no photosynthesis. So what do The Krill eat? Answer: Nothing. In this model they starve. So what do the Whales eat? In this model, Nothing. They Starve. So what the hell is the Japanese whaling fleet doing down there? (in the protectected waters of a Marine park I might add). Playing Poker? Blackjack? Charades?

12) in this model the sun and the moons paths differ slightly. I'll assume this is to create eclipses. Thus the sun and the moon have different "orbital" speeds. So why does the sun never eclipse the moon?

13) Phases of the moon. We all know what they are. In this model those phases occur over the course of one night. If they are part of the conspiracy, why have they been observed since the dawn of man? Think up something creative to rebut this one.

14) The moon is only 3000 miles away. Ok then, why did it take 3 days for the Apollo Astronauts to get there? It would make no difference to the "conspiracy" if it took them 3 hours.

15) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.

16) Satellites. More particularly, comunications satellites. How do they orbit the Earth? And why does every big telecommunications BUSINESS spend millions of dollars each year keeping them running? on a flat Earth, they Arent necessary, so why waste the cash? And Why are there parts of Australia without mobile phone service. It would be good business for telstra to say "we serve 100% of Australians", yet they dont. Why not? given all you need is line of sight for those services, it should be easy enough.

17) Has Anyone ever asked how far backwards in Time this "conspiracy" would have to reach? Well backwards of Galilleo, Methinks. so the United states and the united nations have been executing a massive coverup since before they were ever dreamed of? Yeah, right, sure, whatever. Maybe the flat Earthers could come out with a timeline of the conspiracy?

However, on the note of Occam's Razor; nice metaphore (analogy?).  There are only specific instances in which you can apply Occam's Razor, it only  comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power.  Otherwise I could say the following:
There are two theories as to how people live:
A) We are kept alive by a complicated system of veins, nerves, organs, etc.
B) Magic
Ergo, by Occam's razor, people are kept alive by magic
Granted this isn't a great example, but I think it kinda gets the point across.

I'm not sure that there's any point in *insisting* that Occam's Razor only be used in this way.  I could get around it by constructing a larger theory of "everything else"; i.e., a theory of, say, physics at everyday human scales that nevertheless doesn't explain how organisms stay alive.  Then I could add both your Anatomy and Magic hypotheses, realize the redundacy, and then try to determine which one to remove by seeing which leaves behind a simpler subtheory with equivalent predictive power.

In any case, I'm pretty sure I can interpret Occam's Razor so that it's useful for comparing two hypotheses, rather than only deciding whether to accept to reject an addendum to an existing theory.

-Erasmus

I'm working on the next version, which will have a little more details, if people would agree to the validity of the following:

The current FET should use a modified "geocentric" universe in that the center of the universe is an invisible point above the North Pole, except that the Sun also has an epicycle of North-South drift, creating seasons and 24-hour days in the Arctic circle (unfortunately not so for the Antarctic, but since it doesn't exist, nobody's hurt).

Of course any geocentrism has problems, but let's not discuss it here.  This rendering is meant to be the defining picture of FET.  An accurate rendition of something flawed is obviously going to contain the flaws, and perhaps magnify them.

An accurate rendition of something flawed is obviously going to contain the flaws, and perhaps magnify them.

Which, let's admit it, is a big motivation for putting together this rendering in the first place...

Here's something that has been bugging me about this model: Eclipses.

Look at it from the flat Earth's point of view. No matter where you are on the Earth, looking up at an eclipse, you will never actually see one. All you can Possibly see is the sun and moon side by side. The orbits of the sun and moon mean they CANNOT pass in front of each other relative to the earth, thus no eclipses.

And another thing: the flat Earthers haven't made any attempt to come up with anything to dispel my other 17 points.

Hmmm... I wonder how you got to render that picture... Oh wait a minute, from the pictures we get from our satellites

These renderings have me wondering, do FE'ers believe that the map, as accepted today (shape notwithstanding, obviously, but with 7 continents, 5 oceans, etc.) is accurate? If the globe is wrong, why not the continents on it?

These renderings have me wondering, do FE'ers believe that the map, as accepted today (shape notwithstanding, obviously, but with 7 continents, 5 oceans, etc.) is accurate? If the globe is wrong, why not the continents on it?

Because the United Nations flag shows all the continents (except the fictitious Antarctica) and oceans.  Don't ask; just thinking about the astronomical degree of stupidity required for this sort of reasoning makes me nauseous.

-Erasmus

Just a second.

*Goes to phone the research bases in Antarctica to tell them it isnt real, and proceeds to contact the families of those who have reached the south poles and tell them that they are liers.*

The south pole and Antarctica exist you stupid flat earthers, shut up and jsut accept facts ok. Jesus how can anyone be as dense as a flat earther, it's insane.

Updated picture: note the high-lighted ice-wall on the left, epicycle for the sun, and crust thickness.  Both Sun and Moon are at about 40x their supposed size so they can be seen.

This should answer some FAQs.

[edit 1]Crap-on-a-stick, the gamma is too low (turn your screen brighter to see the details).  I'll fix it in a few days.

The light to the southern most regions of the earth is still to little, you've jsut made it more erratic.

ok... so the sun and the moon are flat now? I'd just like to be absolutely certain of this before I attack it.

On another note, this still does not explain 24 hour daylight in Antarctica at the south pole

Also, in this flat earth model, the Magnetic South pole and does not exist. It Has to exist, as there is a Magnetic north pole. Try this: take a bar magnet and cut along the line that divides the north pole from the south pole. What you will find is that instead of creating 2 lumps of metal, one totally positive and 1 totally negative, you will have created two smaller magnets each with a north and south pole.

Given the thickness of this model, we obviously have no molten core of iron in the earth. Fine, Then the Earth has no magnetic field. In this case, there are no southern or northern lights. Or compasses. And in the Absence of A magnetic field, we all cooked about 4.5 billion years ago due to the stellar radiation produced by the sun.

I'm still mystified as to why the sun and the moon orbit as they do. Gravity isn't a toy people. You cant just play around with it till it suits, you actually have to give a reason. If you had been paying attention in science classes you'd know this.

So about this big conspiracy. When Captain Cook went on his 1st voyage to observe the transit of venus, he was in on this conspiracy as well? It sounds to me like that a conspiracy this large would have to have every single person on Earth in on it for it to work, including flat Earther's.

And the fact remains that every modification of this theory has been holier than the popes swiss cheese.

The fact is anyone with a telescope and a calculator can disprove the flat earth theory. Anyone with a telescope a calculator and a mild understanding of phsycis and astronomy aan blow it out of the water.

The light to the southern most regions of the earth is still to little, you've jsut made it more erratic.

Elaborate, please.  The sun should only light ~1/2 of the earth's area at any given moment, and most of that lit area is lit at severe angles.  The shape of the lit area isn't quite correct, I have to admit.  That's sort of due to limitations on light placements in my rendering software.

so the sun and the moon are flat now?

Well, if the earth is flat, why should any other celestial body be spherical?  I seem to remember somewhere claiming they could be flat.

this still does not explain 24 hour daylight in Antarctica at the south pole

No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?

Also, in this flat earth model, the Magnetic South pole and does not exist. It Has to exist, as there is a Magnetic north pole.

Exactly.  But if Magnetic North Pole is near the center of this disc, then it effectively makes the entire edge the Magnetic South Pole.  It's the same effect as if you're near the Mag. N. pole: anywhere away from it is "South".  The electromagnetic field will work just fine to produce Aurora Borealis (but not Aurora Australis, but even astronomers say the southern lights are rarely seen).

When some one who knows FET by heart tells me why the sun and moon orbits like that, I'll put it in the picture.

No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?

My dad spent 2 years in Deputatski (little settlement beyond the arctic circle in Russia) He sais it is dark for half a year and light for half a year. Would that count?

And, I, myself, spent 2.5 years in Saint-Petersburg (Russia) where, around May for a month or so, never gets completely dark (it will dim for about 2 hours and will be light again it is called "White Nights"). How does you model explain such phenomenon?

Quote

this still does not explain 24 hour daylight in Antarctica at the south pole

No it doesn't.  But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.  Who's to say who is wrong?

By that logic the US doesnt exist because there are more people who have never seen it then there are who have seen it. In fact by your logic there are more people who believe the earth is round therefore flat earthers are wrong.

Also, in this flat earth model, the Magnetic South pole and does not exist. It Has to exist, as there is a Magnetic north pole.

Exactly.  But if Magnetic North Pole is near the center of this disc, then it effectively makes the entire edge the Magnetic South Pole.  It's the same effect as if you're near the Mag. N. pole: anywhere away from it is "South".  The electromagnetic field will work just fine to produce Aurora Borealis (but not Aurora Australis, but even astronomers say the southern lights are rarely seen).

When some one who knows FET by heart tells me why the sun and moon orbits like that, I'll put it in the picture.[/quote]

The Southern lights are rarely seen because there is no city southern enough to see them. If Mcmurdo research base was a city we would have many more reports of seeing the lights.

Malrix, you misunderstand me.

How does you model explain such phenomenon?

Perpetual daylight near or in the Arctic circle is eazily explained in FET:  When the sun is in the innermost point of the epicycle, its light shines over the Arctic during its entire daily cycle around the North pole.  Millions have experienced the Arctic 24-hour-daylights, while considerably less have done so in the Antarctic.  I was referring to that group of people as small.

I was referring to that group of people as small.

Since when does it matter how many people witness or observe something? In flat earth theory, thousands, if not millions, of people have to be silent about the true shape of the earth. Whether or not you have 10 liars or 1,000,000 liars, FE relies on them.

But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society.

Well, if we are going to work on that basis, almost nothing exists, as there are guaranteed to be more people who haven't seen it than those who have.

 

But if Magnetic North Pole is near the center of this disc, then it effectively makes the entire edge the Magnetic South Pole. It's the same effect as if you're near the Mag. N. pole

But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

The electromagnetic field will work just fine to produce Aurora Borealis (but not Aurora Australis, but even astronomers say the southern lights are rarely seen).

Rarely seen. RARELY seen. But they are seen. They exist then. so the point stands. And where's the center of Antarctica anyway?

When some one who knows FET by heart tells me why the sun and moon orbits like that, I'll put it in the picture.

Don't hold your breath.

Well, if the earth is flat, why should any other celestial body be spherical?

Well the sun should be spherical. at 32 miles wide and flat, it lacks the mass for  stellar fusion to take place. In other words, there is no sun. So there never were any plants. then there never were any animals. Or people. Or the internet. Or this forum.

Anyone who can see the sun can prove its not flat. if you live a ways to the south or north, take a look at the sun (use some common sense relating to safety here). notice how its round . if the sun were flat, looking at it from that angle, it should appear as an oval which gets thinner the further north/south you go.  

No it doesn't. But the number of people who has seen this phenomenum and could testify to this is probably less than the amount of people in the Flat Earth Society. Who's to say who is wrong?

I'd say that more than 2000 people have seen an Antarctic Winter. Given that exploration there goes back a while. Not to mention you have all the Antarctic Bases. Australia has three, last time I checked, Casey, Mawson and Davis. America has McMurdo. Also lets not forget the "little America" bases of the sixties. There were six I think. there are also ones from a whole host of other countries. This means that at any given time, the population is around 1000. So in 3 year years, more people will have seen the Aurora Australis than believe in a flat Earth. These sort of numbers have existed for around 30 years.

Well, if we are going to work on that basis, almost nothing exists, as there are guaranteed to be more people who haven't seen it than those who have.

Excellent point.  So we agree that the "more people have seen [so and so phenomenum], therefore Earth is Round" is not a valid argument against any Flat Earth opinion?

But it's too bad that the thickness of the disc precludes the Earth from having a magnetic field in the first place.

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field?  It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.

And where's the center of Antarctica anyway?

Huh?  The RE continent Antarctica?  Or the "ice wall" of Flat earth?

Well the sun should be spherical. at 32 miles wide and flat, it lacks the mass for  stellar fusion to take place.

Good point.  Though, I'm not too sure a 32-mile wide spherical sun has enough mass for stellar fusion either.

I'd say that more than 2000 people have seen an Antarctic Winter.<snipped> more people will have seen the Aurora Australis than believe in a flat Earth. These sort of numbers have existed for around 30 years.

Well, as you said, numbers of people on one side or the other don't really make a point any more or less valid.

Excellent point. So we agree that the "more people have seen [so and so phenomenum], therefore Earth is Round" is not a valid argument against any Flat Earth opinion?

This argument is valid because the flat Earth Theory is mired in blatant stupidity. But seriously, if you dont go out and do an experiment, can you say that it isn't valid because you haven't seen it to be true?

Why would the thickness of the crust of earth have anything to do with magnetic field? It's the what's underneath that creates the field anyway.

But there isnt anything underneath the crust, is there?
 

Huh? The RE continent Antarctica? Or the "ice wall" of Flat earth?

the geographic south pole. And I may have stated this elsewhere, but Antarctica generates weather for a good portion of the "southern" hemisphere. It cannot do this with 70% of its mass missing. And where do all those drilled ice cores from this missing area come from? They do exist even if this is a conspiracy.

Now about this conspiracy. Given the time it has to have been going on and its breadth, it seems that every man and his dog must have been in on it since the dawn of time. So given that we are all united in a single purpose, why isn't there world peace?

So what happens when we apply things like Kepplers law of periods to a flat Earth? It, along with every other piece of physics breaks down. It ceases to provide rational answers. So when these things are applied to actual observations they work, but when applied to your theoretical model they break down. In most areas, this would force a theory to be rewritten. yet it hasn't happened here. Why? Could it be because that no matter how much you change it, it still fails? Most theory's would be scrapped at this point, but not this one. Why?

the current orbit for the sun might solve a few problems, but it creates a whole lot more. If you watched its course during the day from somewhere like Egypt, you would probably wonder what you had been smoking. Try to imagine it and you'll see.

And because we might run out of material,

1) There has been 1 thing that has consistently bothered me about this conspiracy. In order for it to work, you would have to get Israel And Palestine (more particularly HAMAS) and the rest of the Middle East working together. Personally I just can't see that happening. Ever.

2) The orbits for the sun dont come anywhere close to representing the 24 hour daylight, either at the north or south pole. The new orbit of the sun does not represent 24 hour daylight for 6 months of the year, followed by continual night for another 6 months.

3) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this. Now its even more eratic, as there is even less reason.

4) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, yes that still bugs me, and yes gravity is still not a toy.

5) Even if Sun set and Sun rise are illusions, why dont we continually see sunlight whereever and whenever we are on Earth? The light from the sun will still exist.

6) The moon is only 3000 miles away. Ok then, why did it take 3 days for the Apollo Astronauts to get there? It would make no difference to the "conspiracy" if it took them 3 hours. And why could they only land on the moons equator? the moon is flat now. They could have landed anywhere. And how did they orbit it?

7) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.

the phases of the moon. They have been observed for thousands of years before anyone could have faked them with lights. And they still don't occur over the course of a single night.

9) so why is the atmosphere staying in proximity to the earth? You have no gravity, so it should diffuse out into space.

Being that this thread is about the picture and whether it fits into the FET model, and as much not about the validity of the FET model, I'll only answer the related questions and the few other points I mentioned before:

Quote

Excellent point. So we agree that the "more people have seen [so and so phenomenum], therefore Earth is Round" is not a valid argument against any Flat Earth opinion?

This argument is valid because the flat Earth Theory is mired in blatant stupidity. But seriously, if you dont go out and do an experiment, can you say that it isn't valid because you haven't seen it to be true?

I take "experiment" to mean an experiment to prove the Earth to be Round and not a survey of believers, which is not an experiment, just a poll.  Anyway, we're not talking experiments here, just validity of arguments and populations.

The stupidity of your opponent does not make your argument any more valid.  What I'm saying is that just because more people believe in one thing does not make it automatically true.  If that were so, then the Roman Catholic idea of God is the true God and all other believes are absolutely false.

But there isnt anything underneath the crust, is there?

The FET doesn't say what's underneath the crust, so I left it empty.  Like I said, I don't have all the answers, I just made a picture and wanted it to be agreeable to FET.

the geographic south pole. And I may have stated this elsewhere, but Antarctica generates weather for a good portion of the "southern" hemisphere. It cannot do this with 70% of its mass missing. And where do all those drilled ice cores from this missing area come from? They do exist even if this is a conspiracy.

You should bring up another thread for this.  I don't think this line of argument has been properly discussed.  However, I think you might get "Near North Pole" as the answer to the origin of the ice core samples.

2) The orbits for the sun dont come anywhere close to representing the 24 hour daylight, either at the north or south pole. The new orbit of the sun does not represent 24 hour daylight for 6 months of the year, followed by continual night for another 6 months.

I'll have to make an animation to show this, but the Arctic 24-hour days/nights is very possible in this model.

3) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this. Now its even more eratic, as there is even less reason.

I still don't understand what you are referring to as "eratic"?  The orbit?  The lighting?

4) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, yes that still bugs me, and yes gravity is still not a toy.

Well, I am able to think like an FEer to make the picture.  Now I challenge you to do the same and make a reasonable hypothesis to answer your own question.  Besides, I can only act stubborn for so long...

7) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.

They would have regular orbits and epicycles, except that Mercury and Venus's epicycles are inclined so they some times are in front of the sun.  Basically take the old Ptolemic geocentric model and translate all spherical coordinates to cylindrical: theta => theta, R*phi => r, r => h

3) The deserts. On a round Earth, the deserts lie where they do, in short, because they exist near the Equator and are closer to the sun. (if anyone requires it, I will give you the LONG explanation on this). On a flat Earth, there is no reason adequately explaining this. Now its even more eratic, as there is even less reason.

Man, this is wrong in so many ways.

First off, deserts are not deserts because they are closer to the sun, just like the tops of mountains aren't deserts because they're closer to the sun, just like the summer isn't hotter because the Earth is closer to the sun in the summer (cuz it isn't, get it?).

Second: Antarctica, assuming you believe in it, is a big, cold, desert.

Third: If on a flat Earth the sun orbits in an imaginary cylinder whose intersection with the Earth is the circle we call the equator, then the sun shines overhead on the equator, so being over the equator makes it hotter.  So the FE model does go a little ways of explaining "deserts".

4) There is still no reason WHY the sun and moon orbit where they do. Yes they still need one, yes that still bugs me, and yes gravity is still not a toy.

Really good point, but I would note that RE theory is not free of such issues.  The question of why the various parameters of the laws of nature have the values they do is pretty much a mystery.

5) Even if Sun set and Sun rise are illusions, why dont we continually see sunlight whereever and whenever we are on Earth? The light from the sun will still exist.

FE model says that the sun and moon work like spot lights, not spherically symmetric point sources.

6) The moon is only 3000 miles away. Ok then, why did it take 3 days for the Apollo Astronauts to get there? It would make no difference to the "conspiracy" if it took them 3 hours. And why could they only land on the moons equator? the moon is flat now. They could have landed anywhere. And how did they orbit it?

FE theory asserts that the space program never happened.

7) Where do the other 8 (or 9, depending on your point of view) planets fit into this model? I'm Curious.

Irk?  Not mentioned by FE theory I think.

9) so why is the atmosphere staying in proximity to the earth? You have no gravity, so it should diffuse out into space.

FE model does have gravity, remember?  We had huge lengthy discussions about it.

All that said, I would like to echo flyingleaf in re:

Being that this thread is about the picture and whether it fits into the FET model

and thus apologize (in ernest) for interruption of the flow in conversation with my improperly-placed comments.

-Erasmus

I take "experiment" to mean an experiment to prove the Earth to be Round and not a survey of believers, which is not an experiment, just a poll. Anyway, we're not talking experiments here, just validity of arguments and populations.

By experiment I mean getting up from the computer and climbing (or driving) up a mountain and taking a look at the horizon line. you can see the earth is curved. Or taking a plane somewhere and looking out the window. If you are worried about the window distorting your view, get your own plane and switch the window for one you make youself. Bit impractical I realise, but you can do it. Or going out to somewhere where it is flat (like the nullabor plain in Australia) and again looking at the Earths curve yourself. Alternatively, there are a number of scientific Experiments suggested on this site you can do.

The stupidity of your opponent does not make your argument any more valid.

The comment being refered to was intended in jest, not to be argued over. I dont think getting into an argument over it would be pertinent to this thread.

I just made a picture and wanted it to be agreeable to FET.

You could have saved alot of time by stating this a while back

You should bring up another thread for this

Will do.

However, I think you might get "Near North Pole" as the answer to the origin of the ice core samples

.

You cannot drill a verticle 3 km ice core at the north pole and find rock underneath, because neither is there 3 miles of ice, nor is there rock.

but the Arctic 24-hour days/nights is very possible in this model.

But not Antarctic 24 hour nights/Days. Do we have to go into that again?

I still don't understand what you are referring to as "eratic"? The orbit? The lighting?

The orbit, but I'll explain further down

Now I challenge you to do the same and make a reasonable hypothesis to answer your own question.

for the RE or FE?

They would have regular orbits and epicycles, except that Mercury and Venus's epicycles are inclined so they some times are in front of the sun. Basically take the old Ptolemic geocentric model and translate all spherical coordinates to cylindrical: theta =>theta,R*phi=>r,r=>h

Thank you. I am no longer curious.

FE model does have gravity, remember? We had huge lengthy discussions about it.

The earth Accelerating at 1g? I thought we agreed there were several problems with this and that it needed revision. Or maybe my memory on this is fuzzy.

FE theory asserts that the space program never happened.

Well if there's no space program there aren't any GPS satellites, but I think this belongs elsewhere.

Really good point, but I would note that RE theory is not free of such issues. The question of why the various parameters of the laws of nature have the values they do is pretty much a mystery.

There are less issues with gravity on a RE than a FE.

Man, this is wrong in so many ways.

Actually Erasmus, Here you're wrong.

First off, deserts are not deserts because they are closer to the sun, just like the tops of mountains aren't deserts because they're closer to the sun, just like the summer isn't hotter because the Earth is closer to the sun in the summer (cuz it isn't, get it?).

 As light travels through the Atmosphere it gets scattered by the particles in the atmosphere, in effect weakening it. At the equator, the sunlight has the least distance to go to the earth through the atmosphere, making it hotter at the equator. At the poles, the light has to travel through more of the atmosphere, which weakens it, making the suns light colder. Thus the equator is hotter because it is closer to the sun.

To clarify why deserts are where they are, lets use a case study, Africa. If we observe Africa from north to south, we will see a band of desert, the sahara, a band of jungle, and then another band of desert, the Kalahari. The band of Jungle is located at the Equator, with the deserts of either side. The air around the equator is always on the move. its circulation is caused by the suns heat, which as mentioned above, is greatest at the equator. Hot air at the equator rises, spreads north and south, cools and sinks again. As it moves over the land, back towards the equator, it heats up and picks up moisture, keeping the land dry. As it rises over the equator, it releases this moisture as rain. Thus the greatest deserts in Africa lie to the north and south of the equator.

I said that deserts exist where they do because they are closer to the sun. You said they didn't. It is fact that they exist where they do because of there proximity to the equator, and thus they exist where they do because they are closer to the sun. 8-)

And have you ever actually climbed any of the world's big mountain's? it gets pretty hot up there. And barren. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is a desert.

On a flat Earth, this difference does not exist, as all points are much closer to the sun. and Becasue of the Suns Orbit, it does not maintain a position above the equator. If you read the above, You will see what the problem is.

secondly Antarctica is considered by most to be the worlds biggest desert, as a desert is defined as an area that gets less than 10mm or rain per year.