So, what, every "pond" has it's own little sun that goes in a little circle directly above it? Oh, and the suns are actually spotlights that shine straight down and nowhere else, allowing night to happen. And you can't see the beams because the matter in the atmosphere is enough to completely block them when you're far away, but not enough that light is refracted when you're close.
LOL. I don't know if this is a joke, but I can assure you that mine was definitely a joke. I have got to be the biggest "globetard" here. I have this pathological masochistic tendency of patiently explaining the real physics behind the supposed FE proofs. I rarely get anywhere.
As far as toroidal planets go, I have never really studied them but as far as I understand some very smart people have and it is theoretically possible for a rocky toroidal planetary mass to exist under a balance of self gravitation and rotation. That said, the possibility that earth is toroidal is pretty much 0, just like the possibility that earth is flat or a "pond" on an "ice ball" of significantly larger radius than the conventional earth radius is also 0.
Now, to continue the joke a bit, and "answer" some of your questions, the "many earths as 'ponds' on a giant ice ball" theory actually provides a path for a possible explanation for the 24 hour sun observed in The Final Experiment. In effect, the 24 hour sun at "north pole" is our sun while it is in its northern / inner rotation period. The 24 hour sun in the south pole is the combined effect of our sun while it is in its southern / outer rotation and the suns from nearby "ponds" also at this part of their cycle.
Wow, I may have provided the answer to The Final Experiment.
Man, that sure sounds like something you could easily demonstrate and replicate under controlled conditions.
The reason I say toroid Earth is because that's essentially the only way to have the sun move as we observe it to move without a globe. So literally every other idea is retarded.
To answer your question: no, this is not a joke. This very image was sent to me by someone on this board, years ago, as an apologia for FE. People, who call themselves critical thinkers, actually think this is possible.
I am always polite to FE people. There are a variety of reasons for this, the nicest being that I actually agree that absolutely everything should be open to questioning, which means if someone is suspicious about the shape of the earth they have the right to ask questions. Those people deserve polite and accurate answers. On top of that, I think there are a lot of FE trolls that feed off of people melting down over this stuff, so rather than feed the trolls I provide very factual answers without any controversy.
That said, I personally just find the whole thing insane. I'm an engineer and a big math and physics nerd, so almost every argument sounds to me like a bad joke about physics from someone who wants to be Randall Monroe but is significantly less funny. Like, IMO Eric Dubay could be one of the best "corney jokes about bad physics" web comics ever.
A handful of FE arguments are actually semi correct and deserve a real answer. The most prolific of these is that despite what all the "believe science" shills say, you actually cannot reliably see the curve from the ground. This is just a fact of the small amount of curvature that the earth has and the interference that the earth surface atmosphere has on light propagation. So jackasses like Neal Degrasse Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, etc. are all showing themselves to be clowns. Unfortunately, we just have to tell the FE people that visual measurements restricted to the ground are too noisy to reliably demonstrate earth curvature.
This one should be called The Great Compromise.
Nope, still retarded.
So, what, every "pond" has it's own little sun that goes in a little circle directly above it? Oh, and the suns are actually spotlights that shine straight down and nowhere else, allowing night to happen. And you can't see the beams because the matter in the atmosphere is enough to completely block them when you're far away, but not enough that light is refracted when you're close.
I'll compromise on toroid Earth, that's it.
LOL. I don't know if this is a joke, but I can assure you that mine was definitely a joke. I have got to be the biggest "globetard" here. I have this pathological masochistic tendency of patiently explaining the real physics behind the supposed FE proofs. I rarely get anywhere.
As far as toroidal planets go, I have never really studied them but as far as I understand some very smart people have and it is theoretically possible for a rocky toroidal planetary mass to exist under a balance of self gravitation and rotation. That said, the possibility that earth is toroidal is pretty much 0, just like the possibility that earth is flat or a "pond" on an "ice ball" of significantly larger radius than the conventional earth radius is also 0.
Now, to continue the joke a bit, and "answer" some of your questions, the "many earths as 'ponds' on a giant ice ball" theory actually provides a path for a possible explanation for the 24 hour sun observed in The Final Experiment. In effect, the 24 hour sun at "north pole" is our sun while it is in its northern / inner rotation period. The 24 hour sun in the south pole is the combined effect of our sun while it is in its southern / outer rotation and the suns from nearby "ponds" also at this part of their cycle.
Wow, I may have provided the answer to The Final Experiment.
Man, that sure sounds like something you could easily demonstrate and replicate under controlled conditions.
The reason I say toroid Earth is because that's essentially the only way to have the sun move as we observe it to move without a globe. So literally every other idea is retarded.
To answer your question: no, this is not a joke. This very image was sent to me by someone on this board, years ago, as an apologia for FE. People, who call themselves critical thinkers, actually think this is possible.
I am always polite to FE people. There are a variety of reasons for this, the nicest being that I actually agree that absolutely everything should be open to questioning, which means if someone is suspicious about the shape of the earth they have the right to ask questions. Those people deserve polite and accurate answers. On top of that, I think there are a lot of FE trolls that feed off of people melting down over this stuff, so rather than feed the trolls I provide very factual answers without any controversy.
That said, I personally just find the whole thing insane. I'm an engineer and a big math and physics nerd, so almost every argument sounds to me like a bad joke about physics from someone who wants to be Randall Monroe but is significantly less funny. Like, IMO Eric Dubay could be one of the best "corney jokes about bad physics" web comics ever.
A handful of FE arguments are actually semi correct and deserve a real answer. The most prolific of these is that despite what all the "believe science" shills say, you actually cannot reliably see the curve from the ground. This is just a fact of the small amount of curvature that the earth has and the interference that the earth surface atmosphere has on light propagation. So jackasses like Neal Degrasse Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, etc. are all showing themselves to be clowns. Unfortunately, we just have to tell the FE people that visual measurements restricted to the ground are too noisy to reliably demonstrate earth curvature.