The Earth is Flat

[Khayr]

Flat Earth Society

For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled 'round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . .

 

Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"

 

Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . .

[Khayr]

One proof for 'FLAT EARTH'-From the view point of Science

The ether factor

 

In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

 

In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

 

Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

 

But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.

 

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Do you agree with the above quotes?

 

Flat Earth

 

How did the view that the earth is no longer 'FLAT' changed Man?

 

• Anthropologically

• Geographically

• Metaphysically

Was it a myth that need to be 'proven wrong'?

For what reason-To conquer earth? Is that a justifiable reason?

 

I came across these articles and found them to be interesting.

 

Fi Amanillah

[Simply_I]

I am not familiar with the scientific terminology used in article.like "ether".Still dont get what that is.oh well!

Since i dont work for NASA or make direct investigations for TV propaganda etc...

I cant state my opinion bcos..... i dont have any!!

However i blindly believe anything in the Quraan.

 

Although there is no reference in the Quraan that the earth was shaped like a globe, certain descriptions like the process of day and night are in accordance with the modern theory.

 

http://www.islamicfinder.org/articles/article.php?id=226&lang=

 

I wonder though did Neil Armstrong really go to the moon?

Because i heard that given the conditons of the moon its impossible for humans to go there according to some critics.(some say the video was made in hollywood)

And also heard that it says in the Quraan that none will be able to do so.

 

I am not sure if any of the two above are true so if anyone has any idea let me know.

[Castro]

^ They're both absolutely untrue. Where are you hearing this stuff from?

 

Man has landed on the moon. The Quran does not say man cannot land on the moon. The moon's atmosphere is inhospitable for humans but that does not mean it hasn't been landed upon.

 

P.S. The earth is not flat.

[Simply_I]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ They're both absolutely untrue. Where are you

hearing

this stuff from?

In places like these and friends etc...

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Google it!

 

Well i dont know whether to jus believe what ur saying castro. With no evidence....you are jus adding on to my hearsays.

[Castro]

^ I don't know about "proving" this to you but I want you to think along, and research, this idea: you must believe in flight and airplanes, right? Well, a plane such as the Concorde flies at altitudes of 60,000 ft. The stratosphere (the region between our atmosphere and outer space) is about 100,000 ft. So it's not inconceivable that man has reached outer space. Once you've reached that altitude, you break from earth's gravitational pull and you're 'roaming' free space. The distance to the moon is vast but quite doable compared to other celestial bodies out there.

 

Read more about it here.

 

P.S. Avoid the apfn.org site. It's not healthy for you.

[Khayr]

Do you think that the 'discovery' that the earth is 'round' and not 'flat' has changed

MAN and how he views himself, time and distance?

 

Because if the earth is round and not flat, then there is no 'edge to fall off', no 'limit' to discovering lands, no 'limit' to travelling etc.

 

Is it a concidence that that this discovery that the earth is 'ROUND' was made in the 'Renaissance Period' wherein, Secularity was given birth to.

[Cara.]

Khayr,

 

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you are a flat-earther. You've been giving off this vibe.

 

Is it a concidence that that this discovery that the earth is 'ROUND' was made in the 'Renaissance Period' wherein, Secularity was given birth to.

Not at all. Many scientific advancements (cures for diseases, the theory of evolution, etc) were made around that time for one obvious reason: the loosening of the anti-intellectual grip of the Church. The same goes for Islamic discoveries; the bulk of them occured during times of secular tolerance, when the findings of pagans (Indians, Greeks, Chinese) were not being heavily censored.

[Socod_badne]

Kheyr,

 

sxb I think you are dangerously teetering to the lunatic fringe, twillight zone, la-la land. Every post of yours I read is yet another peek into some1 who's either totally lost all grip on reality or is on the way. What prompted you to look for this flat earth balderdash in the first place? Did you see the edge of the earth, do you have any reason to believe the earth is flat? Have you looked at all the scientific data that show the earth is NOT flat?

 

Kheyr, if the earth is flat, what cosmological implications can we draw from it? Is it also your view that the sun rotates around the earth too?

 

...another possibility is you've been smoking too much jamaica. Or another case of gone mad on smack. God help you bro, you really need it.

 

Flat earth! Holy shmoly!

[Caano Geel]

^ of course the earth is flat and we have many illustrations to prove it:

 

 

 

 

[Pi]

^^^I didn't know that. Flat, my foot.

[Khayr]

) Maintaining speed

 

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

 

2) An accelerating world

 

A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.

 

The impossibilities of holding unsecured objects in place on a curved surface

 

1) Staying on top

 

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

 

2) Falling off

 

As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

 

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

 

In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.

Source

 

 

How did the view that the earth is no longer 'FLAT' changed Man?

 

 

Anthropologically

 

 

Geographically

 

 

Metaphysically

 

Was it a myth that need to be 'proven wrong'?

For what reason-To conquer earth? Is that a justifiable reason?

Where is the 'Open Mindedness' folks or

do some of you see everything 'two dimensionally' aka Right/Wrong???

 

Do your belief systems consist mostly of 'emprical evidences'?

 

What if someone shows that there are 'Other' valid view points through 'emprical evidences', would you continue to rejct them?

 

By the way, are any of you 'ASTRONOMERS'

[BonaFied_CriTic]

Just imagine, the same people who said the earth was flat wrote the bible.

 

Castro:- Man has landed on the moon. The Quran does not say man cannot land on the moon. The moon's atmosphere is inhospitable for humans but that does not mean it hasn't been landed upon.

I hardly doubt anyone landed on the moon. The only evidence we have is a digitally edited video of a man in a NASA space-suit waving at the camera while he is doing the moon-walk.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Despotic:

I hardly doubt anyone landed on the moon.

Neither do I.