Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

From Wikipedia. He got a pretty good answer for the circumference of the earth

I wonder though how they communicated and knew the same time before clocks.

Akita Suggagaki said:

I wonder though how they communicated and knew the same time before clocks.

Click to expand...

They had clocks... but it isn't even needed. You don't have to take the measurements at the same time (though this increases the presentability to a general audience). All you have to do is take the measurement at the same orientation of the sun.

That's why the knowledge of the longitude was an important factor in this experiment. Thus you can know that at a certain day, at a certain time, the sun will be at the same spot again... even if you take your measurements in different years.

And that was 2,500 years ago.

Freodin said:

Hm... I must have misread that. I could swear you did say "I trust myself".


I would say that every specific solution for a problem is "unique". And I am really surprised that you as a mathematician would compare hitting a TV with mathematical systems.

Perhaps this is a communication problem. I have already said it: I never went that far into mathematics as you say you do, and it is quite difficult to express specific technical concepts in a foreign language when you are not intimately involved with the topic. But I do have a certain understanding of mathematics, and of English.

So when I say that something in mathematics "works", I do not mean that it might provide a solution to a problem, but that it fundamentally will.

An example from my days at university. In one lesson, we had to solve a certain problem. A fellow student presented his work in front of the course, went through all steps and came to his solution. The result was correct.
But the teacher asked him: you used this and that value in this step... how did you arrive at these values?
The students answer was surprising: "By experimentation. This is a set excercise for class, so it was reasonable to assume that this had to be a natural value not bigger than X. I tried a few values, and found that mine fit."

This "worked"... in this case. I would even say it is a "unique" solution. But of course, it wouldn't "work" generally.
But, because we were all there to learn, the teacher guided us to a method that "worked" in a general case.

The spherical model is such a "general solution". It works in all relevant cases, to explain the observed data.
If we assume that your specific model does the same... there is still the question why you chose yours over the standard model.


In what way? What advantages does your model have over the standard model.
This doesn't in any way touch the question whether your model is correct or consistent. But in order to prefer it to another, it has to have an advantage.

What is that?

Click to expand...

Hehe I did say I trust myself...I do trust myself though.

Well, I mistook context. I made the mistake of thinking you were about to imply something else.


Nevertheless, the current model is not the unique solution. Not every solution is unique at all. The whole point of uniqueness is finding one DISTINCT solution to one problem. It shouldn't be surprising what is going is is comparable to hitting a TV. The metaphor isn't so far removed. Uniqueness in mathematics is one of the most important foundations for building mathematical objects. You need to make sure a solution is unique before you apply it as a broad-stroke to all possible solutions. For example, if I wanted two BASIS VECTORS that added to a magnitude of sqrt{5} - whose entries must be real, , unitary in x for one vector, and less than five for all entries - SCALAR entries would not work, because I asked for two specific vectors that add and give a magnitude of 4. An example would be [1,0] and [0,sqrt{4}]. That is a unique solution. Those two vectors are bases vectors, and their vector sum

[1, sqrt{4}]

adds to give 5. This is an example of uniqueness; gravity isn't the unique solution. Its phenomenology can be explained by other mechanisms of nature.


If I wanted more uniqueness, I would restrict the conditions even more (only in certain fields/certain domains).

I also explained why I prefer my own analysis over the status quo. It is a psychological operation. I can derive my own mathematical analysis, so I do not need to trust another person and depend on them for the truth in math or science. And, in my own study, I find that is prudent.

Again, I am not telling anyone they SHOULDN'T believe in a ball earth, just that the hackneyed approaches to getting the point across (insult of intelligence, disdain and derision) are examples of psychological naivete used to pressure people into believing something. Religion, in a morphology. I don't follow religion.

EDITED

Kaon said:

Hehe I did say I trust myself...

Well, I mistook context.


Nevertheless, the current model is not the unique solution. Not every solution is unique at all. The whole point of uniqueness is finding one DISTINCT solution to one problem. It shouldn't be surprising what is going is is comparable to hitting a TV. The metaphor isn't so far removed.

I also explained why I prefer my own analysis over the status quo. It is a psychological operation. I can derive my own mathematical analysis, so I do not need to trust another person and depend on them for the truth in math or science. And, in my own study, I find that is prudent.

Click to expand...

I cannot but see the glaring problem here.
I will grant you that you can "derive [your] own mathematical analysis". I have no reason to believe you, but also no reason to doubt you.

But if you can do that, and you agree that the "status quo" is a valid derivation... then you have no mathematical reason to prefer your version over the "status quo". You believe, because you want to believe. Psychological reasons.

I can understand why you would prefer your own analysis over a "pressure into believing something."
Yet this is maths that we are talking about. You don't have to "believe" because someone tells you... you can - and should - always do your own analysis.
And such an analysis would lead you to a number of different conclusions: what you were told by others is correct, is incorrect, or is incomplete.

If it is incorrect... you should be able to point out the deficits. If it is incomplete, you should be able to point out what is lacking. And if it is correct... you would be a bad mathematician to reject it then.

Again, I am not telling anyone they SHOULDN'T believe in a ball earth, just that the hackneyed approaches to getting the point across (insult of intelligence, disdain and derision) are examples of psychological naivete used to pressure people into believing something. Religion, in a morphology. I don't follow religion.

Click to expand...

It is possible that you are an enormous exception, blessed with knowledge, intelligence and understanding, and have the ability to establish a cosmological model that fits your needs.
But that is ivory tower thinking. Most Flat Earthers do not have the knowledge, intelligence or understanding of the basic of the model they are rejecting. This has nothing to do with pressuring people into believing something... it has something to do with pointing out obvious flaws in someones reasoning, or even capability of reasoning.

When you go shopping, and the cashier gives you not enough change, because he miscalculated... and then insists that his calculation is correct and you are a liar... you are right to doubt his intelligence, not present him with an abstract mathematical model that explains how 10 cents are equal to 50 dollars.

You follow a religion. One of your own making.

Zetetica said:

Flat Earth
It's NOT Ridiculous
___

Far too many people make assumptions about “Flat Earth”. Everything from the model to assuming the matter is closed for discussion. There was a reason Barack Obama once said, “we don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society”. While the obvious is that he was mocking those who deny human-caused climate change, he also highlighted the fact that determining Earth's shape would take more time than he cared to give .

Is the Earth flat? To determine the answer, it's necessary to consider why we believe the world is a sphere. Is it because boats disappear over the horizon? Because of a lunar eclipse? Because an experiment done long ago which few of us have repeated, says so? Perhaps it's because of NASA's Blue Marble or other similar images? Maybe it's because Americans went to the Moon? Perhaps you remember seeing the curve at a beach? On a commercial flight? Maybe you have a friend who's a pilot and he showed you high altitude footage? Because experts told you it was?? What's your reason or reasons for believing the world is a sphere?

If you have only one reason, how many other things are you this certain of, yet only have one reason to believe is true? For example, do you believe in Bigfoot? Space aliens? Psychic powers? Past life experiences? Near death experiences? Heaven? Hell? Angels? Demons? Giants? Ancient technology? Do people get abducted by space aliens? Is the government hiding space aliens? Ancient astronauts? What proof for any of this do you have?

Does Earth orbit the Sun or does the Sun orbit the Earth? Is the Earth solid with a molten core or is it hollow? Is there land on Earth, hidden from modern maps? Does Eden exist? Was Atlantis real? Was Jesus Christ resurrected from death? Is the Holy Grail real? Do Satanists or Luciferians rule the world? Are there world-wide elite pedophilia rings? Are chemtrails real? Is there a depopulation agenda?

I could go on listing things people believe in. However, I think you get the point. So… Why do you believe the world is a globe, orbiting the Sun? Can your reasons have other explanations than what you currently accept?
___

I'd like to clarify that this thread isn't intended to make or assert the validity of any claims. Instead, it's here to promote discussion, encourage people to question, and correct the incorrect assumption that "it's ridiculous to think the world is flat" or even to question if it is.

The fact is, people ARE questioning the shape of the world and they have good reasons to do so. While many will inevitably disagree, claiming this multitude of people are ALL poorly educated, (and maybe some, even many are), the fact remains that not ALL are. So... Let's look at why we believe what we do?

Click to expand...

The people who say the earth is flat are the same people who look in the mirror and say their head is flat.

Kaon said:

Nevertheless, the current model is not the unique solution. Not every solution is unique at all. The whole point of uniqueness is finding one DISTINCT solution to one problem. It shouldn't be surprising what is going is is comparable to hitting a TV. The metaphor isn't so far removed. EDIT: Uniqueness in mathematics is one of the most important foundations for building mathematical objects. You need to make sure a solution is unique before you apply it as a broad-stroke to all possible solutions. For example, if I wanted two BASIS VECTORS that added to a magnitude of 5, the SCALARS 2 + 3 would not work, because I asked for two vectors that add and give a magnitude of 4. An example would be [1,0] and [0,sqrt{4}]. That is a unique solution. Those two vectors are bases vectors, and their vector sum

[1, sqrt{4}]

adds to give 5.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I cannot follow you. I would be grateful if you could explain further. There are some things I do not understand with your example here.
First problem: why chose a vector [0, sqrt{4}] instead of [0,2]? It wouldn't change anything about the magnitude of the resulting vector.
Second problem: Wouldn't the magnitude of the the resulting vector in this example be sqrt{5}?
Third and main problem: there is literally an infinite number of basis vectors that would add up to this result. So how is this a unique solution?

So why would you - mathematically - chose this solution over any of the others?

Freodin said:

Sorry, I cannot follow you. I would be grateful if you could explain further. There are some things I do not understand with your example here.
First problem: why chose a vector [0, sqrt{4}] instead of [0,2]? It wouldn't change anything about the magnitude of the resulting vector.
Second problem: Wouldn't the magnitude of the the resulting vector in this example be sqrt{5}?
Third and main problem: there is literally an infinite number of basis vectors that would add up to this result. So how is this a unique solution?

So why would you - mathematically - chose this solution over any of the others?

Click to expand...

I think Kaon did specify that one of the two vectors had to be unit (and also they were in a 2-space??)

But, you are correct, the solution is not [1,0] and [0,sqrt(4)], but [1,0] and [0,sqrt(24)] that, one thinks, he was looking for.

But even with those restrictions either (or both) vector could have the reverse sign (4 possibilities total) and the 1 and sqrt(24) could swap dimensions (assuming that the dimensions have meaning) for 4 additional possibilities. For example: [sqrt(24),0], and [0,-1].

Finite, but not unique.

Freodin said:

I cannot but see the glaring problem here.
I will grant you that you can "derive [your] own mathematical analysis". I have no reason to believe you, but also no reason to doubt you.

But if you can do that, and you agree that the "status quo" is a valid derivation... then you have no mathematical reason to prefer your version over the "status quo". You believe, because you want to believe. Psychological reasons.

Click to expand...

I do not think the status quo is a valid derivation; I think it works. I don't believe because I want to believe; that is a weak psychosis. I believe because, like people who pride themselves on their logic, I am presented with evidence, and I am drawing conclusions I compare with my own work (and check with colleagues) to ascertain the verocity. I also said that even though some of us navigate academia and are credentialed in our fields, we wouldn't dare voice our opinions on this.

I can understand why you would prefer your own analysis over a "pressure into believing something."
Yet this is maths that we are talking about. You don't have to "believe" because someone tells you... you can - and should - always do your own analysis.
And such an analysis would lead you to a number of different conclusions: what you were told by others is correct, is incorrect, or is incomplete.

If it is incorrect... you should be able to point out the deficits. If it is incomplete, you should be able to point out what is lacking. And if it is correct... you would be a bad mathematician to reject it then.

Click to expand...

People keep saying to write a scholarly article, or provide evidence for these discrepancies, but that isn't how academia works. I really need people to get past the naivete that academia is a well-oiled, honest to goodness machine all of the time. I have personally made a promise not to contribute anymore to academia, so I won't do anything to "correct" an idea except discuss it in a open forum. I still converse with people credentialed in their field, and we compare notes in a clandestine way - like was done in antiquity. That doesn't make one a bad mathematician; it makes one prudent in one's activity. I am not losing my livelihood on something I know won't be received.

It is possible that you are an enormous exception, blessed with knowledge, intelligence and understanding, and have the ability to establish a cosmological model that fits your needs.
But that is ivory tower thinking. Most Flat Earthers do not have the knowledge, intelligence or understanding of the basic of the model they are rejecting. This has nothing to do with pressuring people into believing something... it has something to do with pointing out obvious flaws in someones reasoning, or even capability of reasoning.

Click to expand...

Maybe... which is why I am being vocal, and I have been very vocal about how both sides of the argument are asinine from a mathematical point of view. I just won't produce work to back up what I say; that comes with decades of becoming comfortable with my own processes, and being able to trust myself OVER other humans (this is what I meant by trusting myself, but I still don't trust myself because I am also human).

The 1-sphere and 2-sphere differ by projections only. So, both people who like to herald "knowledge" - who often insult others - are very wrong in psychology, but so is the misnomer flat in general. Anyone who is questioning the status quo should have their questions answered or entertained, and it should be refreshing to them (even if they don't have the knowledge) to see someone who does, and thinks like them.

In other words, if someone who is in academia, and is credentialed can entertain the model, then maybe those people aren't as stupid as people readily accuse them of being. I still think the entire argument is ridiculous from a mathematical POV; both sides are saying the same thing.

When you go shopping, and the cashier gives you not enough change, because he miscalculated... and then insists that his calculation is correct and you are a liar... you are right to doubt his intelligence, not present him with an abstract mathematical model that explains how 10 cents are equal to 50 dollars.

You follow a religion. One of your own making.

Click to expand...

You look at other attributes - like his psychology, prejudices, learning "abilities" like dyslexia, etc. You don't just throw people away and call them stupid because they get something wrong. And, even if he were to call me a liar I would still be thinking about what HE could be seeing that makes HIM believe HE is right. That is important in getting a resolution. Otherwise, everyone just calls everyone crazy, and you end up... where we are today. You should have patience with people.

I am not making my own religion. My Father is the Most High God, and the Word of God Himself is what I follow. I don't follow any man or dogma. I speak through math, but that isn't a religion. That is a philosophy.

Zetetica said:

Yeah... NASA....

1) Lost the Lunar data.

2) Lost the the Original footage.

3) Lost the technology.

4) Moon rocks were proven to have come from Earth. *Petrified wood* and *a chunk of Earth which flung at the Moon, when the astroid hit the Earth, killing the dinosaurs, and an astronaut happened to pick up that particular rock*.

5) Camera crosshairs behind objects in lunar photos

6) Bubbles in space.

7) Scuba tank in space.

8) Reflection of scuba diver in space helmet in space.

9) Harnesses used on the ISS.

10) Did they see stars or not?

11) Behavior of astronauts, post lunar mission.

12) Selective microgravity on ISS.

To name a few reasons. As for why they would lie? Using the funds to afford deep underground cities? Hiding more land? Hiding God and reinforcing the godless lie that is our entire cosmology? Pick one. However, those are still speculation and ultimately, they aren't evidence for anything.

Click to expand...

Lol. Have you noticed the many fake info / pics posted online to make people believe the moon landings didnt happen? Photoshop.

Hans Blaster said:

I think Kaon did specify that one of the two vectors had to be unit (and also they were in a 2-space??)

But, you are correct, the solution is not [1,0] and [0,sqrt(4)], but [1,0] and [0,sqrt(24)] that, one thinks, he was looking for.

But even with those restrictions either (or both) vector could have the reverse sign (4 possibilities total) and the 1 and sqrt(24) could swap dimensions (assuming that the dimensions have meaning) for 4 additional possibilities. For example: [sqrt(24),0], and [0,-1].

Finite, but not unique.

Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, not even finite.
I may be wrong here, but as far as I know, the definition of basis vector is a set of lineary independent vectors that can be used to express any potiental vector in this vector space.
So these two vectors don't have to be lined up to the coordinate axis. Or even be orthogonal.
You would have an infinite number of potential vectors.

Freodin said:

Sorry, I cannot follow you. I would be grateful if you could explain further. There are some things I do not understand with your example here.
First problem: why chose a vector [0, sqrt{4}] instead of [0,2]? It wouldn't change anything about the magnitude of the resulting vector.

Click to expand...

Because the unique solution I asked for required that one of the entries of the vector be UNITARY in x. That means neither of those vectors work. Additionally, I have to add the two vectors to get a resultant whose magnitude is equal to 5 Adding those two vectors gives me [0,2+sqrt(4)], and the magnitude would be 2+sqrt(4).

Second problem: Wouldn't the magnitude of the the resulting vector in this example be sqrt{5}?

Click to expand...

Yes, that was also my mistake. I should have asked for a vector that has a mag of sqrt(5)

In my example, it would be

Click to expand...

Not quite.

Third and main problem: there is literally an infinite number of basis vectors that would add up to this result. So how is this a unique solution?

Click to expand...

Restrictions, boundary conditions, and dimension.

So why would you - mathematically - chose this solution over any of the others?

Click to expand...

It depends on what I need to satisfy my problem. Some solutions require strict boundary conditions.

Hans Blaster said:

I think Kaon did specify that one of the two vectors had to be unit (and also they were in a 2-space??)

But, you are correct, the solution is not [1,0] and [0,sqrt(4)], but [1,0] and [0,sqrt(24)] that, one thinks, he was looking for.

But even with those restrictions either (or both) vector could have the reverse sign (4 possibilities total) and the 1 and sqrt(24) could swap dimensions (assuming that the dimensions have meaning) for 4 additional possibilities. For example: [sqrt(24),0], and [0,-1].

Finite, but not unique.

Click to expand...

I restricted the answers to this:

Two BASIS VECTORS
Resultant vector has a magnitude that gives sqrt{5}
Entries must be real
Unitary in x for one vector
Less than five for all entries

It is a linear algebra exercise to find the unique solution (if it exists) for these restrictions. The need for it to be real, and less than five for all entries is one that is a big restriction. Also, the need for the vector to be unitary in x for one vector restricts our cases. I could also add the restriction that all the entries need to be positive.

Kaon said:

Because the unique solution I asked for required that one of the entries of the vector be UNITARY in x. That means neither of those vectors work. Additionally, I have to add the two vectors to get a resultant whose magnitude is equal to 5 Adding those two vectors gives me [0,2+sqrt(4)], and the magnitude would be 2+sqrt(4).

Click to expand...

Häh?
That doesn't make any sense, at all.

1. If you want to have a solution that involves a unitary vector, that limits the options, sure. But not down to one set... as you should know.
[eta: ah, ok, seen it: unitary in x. Ok, that is a very restrictive limitation. Still... does not lead to a unique solution.]
2. If you limit your solution to a certain set of vectors, you should have a reason to do so. Just as in your preference of your own earth model over the standard model.
3. Additionally to what? Do you want to say that you are looking for a solution that is limited to one unitary vector and a second vector? Instead of a sum of three or more vectors?
4. Why are you now adding the same vector twice? And where have you left your unitary vector?
5. You still haven't explained why you include the squareroot at all.
6. And even then, with all your limits... you STILL have an infinite number of vectors. So in what regard is this solution "unique"?

Not quite.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you quoted there. This is not a part of my post.

Restrictions, boundary conditions, and dimension.

Click to expand...

Justify your restrictions then.

It depends on what I need to satisfy my problem. Some solutions require strict boundary conditions.

Click to expand...

Some solutions may do that... does the problem also?

Freodin said:

snip

Click to expand...

Ok, after your clarifications and the limit to an x-unitary that I missed, your example makes a little more sense. Some of my points still apply.

But there is still another question left open, leading back to my previous question.

You are presented with a solution that fulfills all of your requirements. So on what basis to you keep adding new requirements to your potential solution? If your only incentive to add requirements for your solution is to make it "unique"... isn't that rather contraproductive?

Freodin said:

Häh?
That doesn't make any sense, at all.

1. If you want to have a solution that involves a unitary vector, that limits the options, sure. But not down to one set... as you should know.

Click to expand...

I asked for a unitary entry of one vector in x, not a unitary vector.

[eta: ah, ok, seen it: unitary in x. Ok, that is a very restrictive limitation. Still... does not lead to a unique solution.]

Click to expand...

You need to consider all of the restrictions.

2. If you limit your solution to a certain set of vectors, you should have a reason to do so. Just as in your preference of your own earth model over the standard model.

Click to expand...

You do know I made up the problem for the sake of discussion right? It is meant to highlight what a unique solution is.

3. Additionally to what? Do you want to say that you are looking for a solution that is limited to one unitary vector and a second vector? Instead of a sum of three or more vectors?
4. Why are you now adding the same vector twice? And where have you left your unitary vector?
5. You still haven't explained why you include the squareroot at all.
6. And even then, with all your limits... you STILL have an infinite number of vectors. So in what regard is this solution "unique"?

Click to expand...

What I did was create a problem with conditions that highlight why a unique solution is important. What was suggested as vectors were not unique solutions (or solutions at all) because of the restrictions on the vectors. That matters. The square root comes from magnitude of a vector. There are not an infinite number of vectors that will give the correct answer given the restrictions mentioned. The solution set may be finite as stated before. But again, I made up the problem to highlight the importance of uniqueness. I can add more restrictions to bound our solution set to one solution - this happens in nature, so it is important not to run with a theory that may work, but is not the correct answer for every circumstance.

I have no idea what you quoted there. This is not a part of my post.

Click to expand...

You vector resultant does not give a magnitude of sqrt(5).

Justify your restrictions then.


Some solutions may do that... does the problem also?

Click to expand...

This was not a real problem, I made it up to highlight the importance of a unique solution.

Freodin said:

Ok, after your clarifications and the limit to an x-unitary that I missed, your example makes a little more sense. Some of my points still apply.

But there is still another question left open, leading back to my previous question.

You are presented with a solution that fulfills all of your requirements. So on what basis to you keep adding new requirements to your potential solution? If your only incentive to add requirements for your solution is to make it "unique"... isn't that rather contraproductive?

Click to expand...

The whole point is to highlight why uniqueness is important, and why a solution that works may not be the unique solution - the one that works for every possible situation.

If I asked for mathematical objects that give me a magnitude of 4, for example, I can use scalars. If I am asked for vectors whose resultant adds to 4, then scalars won't work - even though 2 + 2 = 4.

Kaon said:

The whole point is to highlight why uniqueness is important, and why a solution that works may not be the unique solution - the one that works for every possible situation.

If I asked for mathematical objects that give me a magnitude of 4, for example, I can use scalars. If I am asked for vectors whose resultant adds to 4, then scalars won't work - even though 2 + 2 = 4.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have to disagree. And it should be quite simple.
If you ask for a mathematical object with a magnitude of 4, then there is a multitude of potention solutions. As you said: no "unique" solution, but "working" (correct) solutions. Solutions that do indeed work for every possible situation.

But if you add further restrictions - like, vectors with a magnitude of 4... then a part of these previous solutions do not work.

Yet, in the question of our discussion... we have a solution that DOES work.
If you change your set of restrictions, so that this solution is excluded... you would have to justify your restrictions.
And as far as I understood it... you do not even exclude the "standard solution". You accept that it is a valid answer to the question... you just want to limit the question. But you won't say to what or for what reason.

I can only repeat: I don't know if you are on the right way with that or not. I may or may not have the necessary knowledge to understant that... but your not telling doesn't make it any easier.

If you don't want to present your reasons for your argumentation - for whatever personal reasons - maybe you should retreat from this discussion.

Kaon said:

You vector resultant does not give a magnitude of sqrt(5).

Click to expand...

Two dimensional vector. [1,0] and [0, sqrt{4}]. Resulting vector [1, sqrt{4}]
Magnitude of vector is sqrt{1^2+sqrt{4}^2}
That is sqrt {1+4} and that would be sqrt{5}.

Where is my mistake?