Is the earth round/spherical?

[Michael Sternbach]

While the planetary body as such is not a torus...

 

 

...its "aura" (radial belts) indeed forms that shape.

 

[Marblehead]

Nope.  My mind can't work with that.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

It is a dimension



 

[MooNiNite]

Maybe your friend should go back to school?

 

A lot of what they teach in school is not accurate. Many scientists including Steven Hawking often explain that their theories are off. 

[MooNiNite]

Nah... The Earth is heart-shaped.

 

 

Seriously: There are numerous pictures from space showing the spherical shape of our planet. Just do a quick google search. If they are all fake, there must be a BIG cover-up.

 

But if that doesn't convince some, I would suggest they go to their local observatory and have a look at some of the other planets. This will give strong support to the notion that our planet is spherical, just like every body of appreciable size in our solar system.

 

Well according to my knowledge, they are all fake. There has only been one picture of the earth taken from space.

[thelerner]

I wonder what they think about satellites?  The weather satellites (constantly taking pictures and various measurements, its what they do), the communication ones.  We put them up, you can see them racing across the sky, you can read about who designed them, how they were built and the mathematics to keep them in Geo-synchronous orbit. 

 

 

The last month has been wonderfully partly cloudy.  Its certainly not any kind of proof of any kind, but the clouds allow me to  'feel' the curvature of the earth.  Looking at the moon, the sun, the planets, knowing there relative distances allows me to get a tiny grasp of the spaciousness of the heaven.  

 

Scientists won't always be right, but in general they're moving in the right direction.  Creating and testing hypothesis and developing new models based on the current state of knowledge.  Nothing wrong with keeping the bible, but the idea that this iron age book should provide our scientific models should be tossed out.    

Edited October 17, 2015 by thelerner

[Miffymog]

Hi MooNiNite,

 

Questioning convention is easy - the challenging bit is coming up with a better idea

Edited October 17, 2015 by Miffymog

[Taomeow]

Hi MooNiNite,

 

Questioning convention is easy - the challenging bit is coming up with a better idea

 

There is a beautiful theory known as torsion field theory.   Too bad the entrenched institutionalized sciences act as a fortress against any and all challenges to their postulates, guarded by multiple vested interests.  

 

But if you approach the shape of the earth from the perspective of the torsion theory, turns out the ancient taoists were absolutely correct.  The real (not immobilized unchanging imaginary "object" of our petrified fiction, but a reality of what it is -- a field of manifestations and changes) earth is square, surrounded by circular heavens, and looks something like this:

 

[Miffymog]

Hi Taomeow,

 

I may have to look up that theory you mention

 

A couple of years ago I finished studying for a PhD in Physics. My supervisor, who was a professor in his field, taught me virtually nothing. It was my technician, on minimum wage, who taught me the most. When confronted with a difficult problem, you have to be able to sum it up in a sentence or two so that you can understand it. Only once you have done this can you start to make in-roads in solving it.

 

So, if you can explain a theory to me so that I understand it - (i.e. in a couple of sentences)  - then I can judge and comment on it.

 

I do like discussing 'flat world' ideas, and I also love reading Terry Pratchett and his elephants. But, unless it's explained in a way that most people can understand - I tend to question the theory behind it.

 

So .... I'm very sorry Taomeow ....  unless you can explain the torsion field theory to me in simple terms, I'm going to say that the world is, relatively, spherical (in 3D , a locus of points that have the same distance form a defined point) - (in 2D, this is describe as a circle)

 

Peace,

 

Miffymog.

[soaring crane]

Well according to my knowledge, they are all fake. There has only been one picture of the earth taken from space.

 

but the only source of knowledge you've cited thus far is some guys you hang out with who've read something on the internet, or something.... 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

[Taomeow]

Hi Taomeow,

 

I may have to look up that theory you mention

 

A couple of years ago I finished studying for a PhD in Physics. My supervisor, who was a professor in his field, taught me virtually nothing. It was my technician, on minimum wage, who taught me the most. When confronted with a difficult problem, you have to be able to sum it up in a sentence or two so that you can understand it. Only once you have done this can you start to make in-roads in solving it.

 

So, if you can explain a theory to me so that I understand it - (i.e. in a couple of sentences)  - then I can judge and comment on it.

 

I do like discussing 'flat world' ideas, and I also love reading Terry Pratchett and his elephants. But, unless it's explained in a way that most people can understand - I tend to question the theory behind it.

 

So .... I'm very sorry Taomeow ....  unless you can explain the torsion field theory to me in simple terms, I'm going to say that the world is, relatively, spherical (in 3D , a locus of points that have the same distance form a defined point) - (in 2D, this is describe as a circle)

 

Peace,

 

Miffymog.

 

 

Ah...  no need to be very sorry in advance for my projected failure to meet your requirements, I may still meet them.  Here goes.

 

A brief history of the theory.  Torsion fields refer to the advanced physics theory originating in 1922 and shelved for a few decades due to politics/competition in the field.  In Russia, starting in the 1980s, Academician Anatoly Akimov and Dr. Gennady Shipov began torsion field research at the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies in Moscow. Their theory was loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory and some variant solutions of Maxwell's equations.  However, in the early 1990s, following the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian science was taken over by Western "curators" who immediately disbanded the group and proclaimed their work "fraud" and "pseudoscience."

 

Summing up the complex theory in one sentence, per your request.  Massive objects, rotating at high speed, create torsion fields that propagate through space and interact with any matter they pass through, changing that matter's inertia.

 

Dixi.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Taomeow

[GreytoWhite]

Not quite round, the rocky portions are kinda misshapen but the water makes up for it in external appearance.

[Miffymog]

Thank you very much Taomeow,

 

There are a lot of similarities between what you've said and with Einstein's theories of gravity. It is a shame when more conventional ways of thinking dominate alternative points of view - open mindedness is a vital part of any type of inquiry.

 

Peace.

[Marblehead]

A lot of what they teach in school is not accurate. Many scientists including Steven Hawking often explain that their theories are off. 

How well I know that.  You don't start finding out the actual truth until you get into more advanced readings but most people don't get that far.

[Marblehead]

Ah...  no need to be very sorry in advance for my projected failure to meet your requirements, I may still meet them.  Here goes.

Well, that darn sure didn't help me any.  But thanks for trying for a deeper explanation.

[Nungali]

Earth is a torus. There are no spheres in nature.

 

8)

 

[Nungali]

So there are giant holes at the north and south?

 

A question about what, north and south of what ? If you mean that old silly idea about a hole at the top of the earth over the north pole, that came about as when early maps were stitched together there were no views of the north pole . It wasnt until later in the launching of satellites that some started taking a path over that area and mapping it , then it got added to those maps.

 

You may as well get an old map with "here be monsters of the deep" on it to justify some old silly  mistaken idea.

 

Besides if you are going to go down this holes in the poles idea, it inevitably  will lead to this *..... so how far will you go with this idea of '

 

 

I do believe that for what ever reason i think the governments don't want people seeing the north pole. There is visible photo shopping being done on google earth. 

 

 

* 

[Nungali]

Nah... The Earth is heart-shaped.

 

 

Unless you are down under ... then it is bum shaped. 

 

Seriously: There are numerous pictures from space showing the spherical shape of our planet. Just do a quick google search. If they are all fake, there must be a BIG cover-up.

 

But if that doesn't convince some, I would suggest they go to their local observatory and have a look at some of the other planets. This will give strong support to the notion that our planet is spherical, just like every body of appreciable size in our solar system.

 

 Ah yes ... but those planets do not have wack jobs on them supposing hollow spheres with entrances  at their poles ... so they dont have them  

 

... go on someone ... tell me about the hexagonal doorway that opens and closes on Saturn's pole  

[Marblehead]

 

... go on someone ... tell me about the hexagonal doorway that opens and closes on Saturn's pole  

Those are hellacious storms.  You nor anyone else would want to be there.

[Nungali]

While the planetary body as such is not a torus...

 

 

...its "aura" (radial belts) indeed forms that shape.

 

 

Only of you draw the fields the way they are drawn in that pic. Where are the lines of force that  come directly into the NTP at 90 deg ( from ? ) and go out the STP at 90 deg ( to ? )  - that is , they dont circulate and connect like all the other lines of force - unless we postulate that it is though 'another dimension' and the  vertical line of north being force in is the source of the vertical line of south, being force out ) 

 

Why do the 'force lines'  .... 'fade out'  the closer to the pole their position is ... we can see the circular path

 

 

 

What shape do we get if we include the 90 degree vertical lines and  continue the curves of the others so they join. 

 

Who decides where those lines 'go into another dimension' and emerge again ? 

 

I think , if we extend them  to an extent, even allowing 'blank areas' where the force is too weak to map with a line, we end up with a spherical shape

 

Edited October 17, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Those are hellacious storms.  You nor anyone else would want to be there.

 

 

Pfft !  A mere detail .... those doors open  ( with the appropriate sound effects  )

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv22oNyamTg

 

 

and inside is the whole Saturnian Galactic UFO  Fleet .

 

... or worse 

 

 

*  

[MooNiNite]

but the only source of knowledge you've cited thus far is some guys you hang out with who've read something on the internet, or something.... 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

 

actually they just took another one recently from a satellite. but yes for the most part, they are fake.

 

http://www.thejournal.ie/earth-one-million-miles-away-2227443-Jul2015/

[MooNiNite]

Hi MooNiNite,

 

Questioning convention is easy - the challenging bit is coming up with a better idea

 

Well if you follow convention but do not question the logic behind it, you will not have an understanding of your reality. 

[MooNiNite]

Let's take something as simple as pooping. 

 

Conventionally, people use toilets. However, sitting down on a toilet and pooping actually creates a kink in the intestine and is not efficient. 

 

If squatting when pooping, there is no kink created and it is much more healthy, efficient, effective, etc.

 

Want to replace all the toilets in the world? Most people would just change their own routine. 

 

Conventional understanding is sometimes just "convenient" understanding.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

 

The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.^[1]
 

The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.^[2][3][4][5]
 

Historical development Ancient Near East

In early Egyptian^[7] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account of the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."^[8] The Israelites likely had a similar cosmology, with the earth as a flat disc floating on water beneath an arced firmament separating it from the heavens.^[9]
 

The Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts reveal that the ancient Egyptians believed Nun (the Ocean) was a circular body surrounding nbwt (a term meaning "dry lands" or "Islands"), and therefore believed in a similar Ancient Near Eastern circular earth cosmography surrounded by water.^[10][11][12]
 

Ancient Mediterranean Poets

Both Homer^[13] and Hesiod^[14] described a flat disc cosmography on the Shield of Achilles.^[15][16] This poetic tradition of an earth-encircling (gaiaokhos) sea (Oceanus) and a flat disc also appears in Stasinus of Cyprus,^[17]Mimnermus,^[18]Aeschylus,^[19] and Apollonius Rhodius.^[20]
 

Homer's description of the flat disc cosmography on the shield of Achilles with the encircling ocean is repeated far later in Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica (4th century AD), which continues the narration of the Trojan War.^[21]

Philosophers

Several pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the world was flat: Thales (c. 550 BC) according to several sources,^[23] and Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460 – 370 BC) according to Aristotle.^[24][25][26]
 

Thales thought the earth floated in water like a log.^[27] It has been argued, however, that Thales actually believed in a round Earth.^[28][29]Anaximander (c. 550 BC) believed the Earth was a short cylinder with a flat, circular top that remained stable because it was the same distance from all things.^[30][31]Anaximenes of Miletus believed that "the earth is flat and rides on air; in the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are all fiery, ride the air because of their flatness."^[32]Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 500 BC) thought that the Earth was flat, with its upper side touching the air, and the lower side extending without limit.^[33]

 

Belief in a flat Earth continued into the 5th century BC. Anaxagoras (c. 450 BC) agreed that the Earth was flat,^[34] and his pupil Archelaus believed that the flat Earth was depressed in the middle like a saucer, to allow for the fact that the Sun does not rise and set at the same time for everyone.^[35]

Historians

Hecataeus of Miletus believed the earth was flat and surrounded by water.^[36]Herodotus in his Histories ridiculed the belief that water encircled the world,^[37] yet most classicists agree he still believed the earth was flat because of his descriptions of literal "ends" or "edges" of the earth.^[38]

Ancient India

Ancient Jain^[39] and Buddhist cosmology held that the Earth is a disc consisting of four continents grouped around a central mountain (Mount Meru) like the petals of a flower. An outer ocean surrounds these continents.^[40] This view of traditional Buddhist and Jain cosmology depicts the cosmos as a vast, oceanic disk (of the magnitude of a small planetary system), bounded by mountains, in which the continents are set as small islands.^[40]
 

Norse and Germanic

The ancient Norse and Germanic peoples believed in a flat Earth cosmography with the Earth surrounded by an ocean, with the axis mundi, a world tree (Yggdrasil), or pillar (Irminsul) in the centre.^[41][42] The Norse believed that in the world-encircling ocean sat a snake called Jormungandr.^[43] In the Norse creation account preserved in Gylfaginning (VIII) it is stated that during the creation of the earth, an impassable sea was placed around the earth like a ring:

 

...And Jafnhárr said: "Of the blood, which ran and welled forth freely out of his wounds, they made the sea, when they had formed and made firm the earth together, and laid the sea in a ring round. about her; and it may well seem a hard thing to most men to cross over it."

[44]

 

The late Norse Konungs skuggsjá, on the other hand, states that:

>>

>

...If you take a lighted candle and set it in a room, you may expect it to light up the entire interior, unless something should hinder, though the room be quite large. But if you take an apple and hang it close to the flame, so near that it is heated, the apple will darken nearly half the room or even more. However, if you hang the apple near the wall, it will not get hot; the candle will light up the whole house; and the shadow on the wall where the apple hangs will be scarcely half as large as the apple itself. From this you may infer that the earth-circle is round like a ball and not equally near the sun at every point. But where the curved surface lies nearest the sun's path, there will the greatest heat be; and some of the lands that lie continuously under the unbroken rays cannot be inhabited."

[45]

 

Ancient China

In ancient China, the prevailing belief was that the Earth was flat and square, while the heavens were round,^[46] an assumption virtually unquestioned until the introduction of European astronomy in the 17th century.^[47][48][49] The English sinologist Cullen emphasizes the point that there was no concept of a round Earth in ancient Chinese astronomy:

 

Chinese thought on the form of the earth remained almost unchanged from early times until the first contacts with modern science through the medium of

Jesuit

missionaries in the seventeenth century. While the heavens were variously described as being like an umbrella covering the earth (the Kai Tian theory), or like a sphere surrounding it (the Hun Tian theory), or as being without substance while the heavenly bodies float freely (the Hsüan yeh theory), the earth was at all times flat, although perhaps bulging up slightly.

[50]

The model of an egg was often used by Chinese astronomers such as Zhang Heng (78–139 AD) to describe the heavens as spherical:

 

The heavens are like a hen's egg and as round as a crossbow bullet; the earth is like the yolk of the egg, and lies in the centre.

[51]

This analogy with a curved egg led some modern historians, notably Joseph Needham, to conjecture that Chinese astronomers were, after all, aware of the Earth's sphericity. The egg reference, however, was rather meant to clarify the relative position of the flat earth to the heavens:

 

In a passage of Zhang Heng's cosmogony not translated by Needham, Zhang himself says: "Heaven takes its body from the Yang, so it is round and in motion. Earth takes its body from the Yin, so it is flat and quiescent". The point of the egg analogy is simply to stress that the earth is completely enclosed by heaven, rather than merely covered from above as the Kai Tian describes. Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century; this surprising fact might be the starting-point for a re-examination of the apparent facility with which the idea of a spherical earth found acceptance in fifth-century BC Greece.

[52]

 

Further examples cited by Needham supposed to demonstrate dissenting voices from the ancient Chinese consensus actually refer without exception to the Earth being square, not to it being flat.^[53] Accordingly, the 13th-century scholar Li Ye, who argued that the movements of the round heaven would be hindered by a square Earth,^[46] did not advocate a spherical Earth, but rather that its edge should be rounded off so as to be circular.^[54]

 

As noted in the book Huainanzi,^[55] in the 2nd century BC Chinese astronomers effectively inverted Eratosthenes' calculation of the curvature of the Earth to calculate the height of the sun above the earth. By assuming the earth was flat, they arrived at a distance of 100,000 li (approximately 200,000 km), which is a value far short of the correct distance of 150 million km.

 

Edited October 18, 2015 by Sionnach