Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

Freodin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am telling you exactly what the reasoning and rationale is. I don't think you don't have the background (you know enough about linear independence to recognize the requirement for bases). I think you may be ignorant - choosing to ignore, or ignoring by consequence very subtle details that make something go from infinitely possible, finite, and ultimately unique.

The restrictions I place on these problems are meant to highlight the restrictions in parameters we must meet in order to satisfy parts or all of a problem. I wish to find the unique solution; by consequence this solution will be highly restricted (otherwise, we would have a solution set).


My problem was made up by me to highlight the importance of uniqueness. The restrictions mimic the restrictions we see in nature (i.e. gravity doesn't act sideways, electric field does not curl around a source point charge). These are consequences of boundary conditions - the math - and allow us to determine unique solutions to problems (and, ultimately physics, chemistry and biology).

Freodin said:

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?

Click to expand...

Ah, you had [0,2] and [0,sqrt{4}] in the post I quoted.

Kaon said:

Ah, you had [0,1] and [0.sqrt{4}] in the post I quoted.

Click to expand...

Err... no? I didn't mention the [1,0] vector at all. I just referred to the values you gave. All I wanted to know is why you chose "sqrt{4}" instead of "2"... which would be absolutely identical in this example, and much easier on the keyboard.

Kaon said:

I am telling you exactly what the reasoning and rationale is. I don't think you don't have the background (you know enough about linear independence to recognize the requirement for bases). I think you may be ignorant - choosing to ignore, or ignoring by consequence very subtle details that make something go from infinitely possible, finite, and ultimately unique.

The restrictions I place on these problems are meant to highlight the restrictions in parameters we must meet in order to satisfy parts or all of a problem. I wish to find the unique solution; by consequence this solution will be highly restricted (otherwise, we would have a solution set).

My problem was made up by me to highlight the importance of uniqueness. The restrictions mimic the restrictions we see in nature (i.e. gravity doesn't act sideways, electric field does not curl around a source point charge). These are consequences of boundary conditions - the math - and allow us to determine unique solutions to problems (and, ultimately physics, chemistry and biology).

Click to expand...

I agree, the restrictions would in this case be given by what "we see in nature".
You still haven't mentioned what restrictions that would be that would make a solution other than the standard model necessary.

If you are a jungle tribesman or a nomadic herdsman or a coal miner, it really doesn't matter if the earth is flat or spherical. On the other hand if you are a sailor or an airline pilot or an astronaut or subscribe to satellite TV or have GPS then you certainly know the earth is not flat.

Freodin said:

I agree, the restrictions would in this case be given by what "we see in nature".
You still haven't mentioned what restrictions that would be that would make a solution other than the standard model necessary.

Click to expand...

Oh I see, you mean in terms of my analysis.

I won't. Remember I said I wouldn't contribute anything to academia? I mean it.

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.
...

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).

Click to expand...

Well, the Earth certainly isn't a "unique solution" to the problem "what does one earth mass of rock and metals look like under self gravity?" We know that we can move bits of it around (earthmoving, dams, etc.) and the internals are moving and pushing the surface, so Earth is not unique in its precise shape even when consisting of the same material.

I don't know if the various methods to measure the shape of the Earth mentioned up-thread give a unique solution mathematically (particularly, since all contain some measurement errors even if they are quite small), but I fail to see how a solution outside the general shape of spheroidal comes even close to fitting the various measurements.

Kaon said:

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...

The only psychology I see here is a failure to recognize that the easiest person to fool is oneself. Thus, relying on ones own analysis, particularly in opposition to the overwhelming agreement of other (expert) analyses seems unwise at best.

Kaon said:

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...

Coming to non-"Ball" Earth conclusions requires (as noted up-thread) one to not only ignore plain evidence, but concoct ridiculous (to use a word from the thread title) rejections of some of it (conspiracies, etc.). A quick trip to the opposite hemisphere (works best if at least one place is outside the tropics) with a viewing of the night's sky should be enough by itself. Hence, derision seems warranted, especially after presenting evidence.

Why, oh why, did I post to a flat-earth thread.

Hans Blaster said:

Why, oh why, did I post to a flat-earth thread.

Click to expand...

It's sort of like going through a portal into another dimension isn't it?

JackRT said:

It's sort of like going through a portal into another dimension isn't it?

Click to expand...

Yeah, one inhabited by triangles.

Freodin said:

Err... no? I didn't mention the [1,0] vector at all. I just referred to the values you gave. All I wanted to know is why you chose "sqrt{4}" instead of "2"... which would be absolutely identical in this example, and much easier on the keyboard.

Click to expand...

Yea yea, I misread this post:

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...

and assumed you meant you used those two vectors as the sums for the resultant.


I had no reasoning for using sqrt(4) instead of 2. I just chose it. I realize it is the same number as 2.

The point of this (assuming you get the juxtaposition between physics and mathematics) is that these restrictions come up without preparation, and often the physics depends on the math to determine the correct solutions.

The Legendre polynomials, for example, are an example of a linearly independent (basis) set of polynomials that are part of the unique solution that solves the angular solution for the Schrodinger Equation in spherical coordinates. The Legendre Polynomials themselves are unique up to a scalar (eigenvalue). This allows us to use the Legendre Polynomials as the set for describing the angular portion of the TISE or TDSE. There are plenty of other bases for polynomials, but the Legendre polynomials' uniqueness greatly benefits physics when discussing quantum mechanics. The Hermite polynomials are another example of a unique basis set of polynomials that are used for specific types of problems (harmonic oscillators).

The example I made up was meant to highlight this need for uniqueness, and extrapolate it to why something that works isn't necessarily the solution for every single situation (uniqueness). It was not meant to be a distraction on minutia.

Hans Blaster said:

Well, the Earth certainly isn't a "unique solution" to the problem "what does one earth mass of rock and metals look like under self gravity?" We know that we can move bits of it around (earthmoving, dams, etc.) and the internals are moving and pushing the surface, so Earth is not unique in its precise shape even when consisting of the same material.

I don't know if the various methods to measure the shape of the Earth mentioned up-thread give a unique solution mathematically (particularly, since all contain some measurement errors even if they are quite small), but I fail to see how a solution outside the general shape of spheroidal comes even close to fitting the various measurements.



The only psychology I see here is a failure to recognize that the easiest person to fool is oneself. Thus, relying on ones own analysis, particularly in opposition to the overwhelming agreement of other (expert) analyses seems unwise at best.



Coming to non-"Ball" Earth conclusions requires (as noted up-thread) one to not only ignore plain evidence, but concoct ridiculous (to use a word from the thread title) rejections of some of it (conspiracies, etc.). A quick trip to the opposite hemisphere (works best if at least one place is outside the tropics) with a viewing of the night's sky should be enough by itself. Hence, derision seems warranted, especially after presenting evidence.

Click to expand...

Ok.

JackRT said:

It's sort of like going through a portal into another dimension isn't it?

Click to expand...

That dimension has grown since January 20, 2017.

Kaon said:

Oh I see, you mean in terms of my analysis.

I won't. Remember I said I wouldn't contribute anything to academia? I mean it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember.
I don't know if I should be honoured that you consider me "academia", or annoyed because you keep making assertions without bringing any form of backup.

But regardless, I have tried, and you refuse to offer something worthwhile to this discussion.

It was nice talking to you, but I am done.

Kaon said:

You can have a level curve surface, and maintain a "planar" topology.

In other words, this would be a local maximum (around a set of points) on the surface we call Terra Firma - it doesn't prove the earth is a ball.

This is why "flat" is a misnomer.

Click to expand...

Whatever...

Zetetica said:

Flat Earth
It's NOT Ridiculous
___

Click to expand...

In light of current discoveries, I would say Flat Earth is a fad belief that allows for a unique club to share fringe ideas.

Much like the fad beliefs of not going to the moon, 9/11 was facilitated by bombs placed throughout the building, and Elvis being alive.

AV1611VET said:

In light of current discoveries, I would say Flat Earth is a fad belief that allows for a unique club to share fringe ideas.

Much like the fad beliefs of not going to the moon, 9/11 was facilitated by bombs placed throughout the building, and Elvis being alive.

Click to expand...

I'd have to somewhat agree with this; however, those other fads seem more believable (not that I believe them), than a flat earth.

A Realist said:

I'd have to somewhat agree with this; however, those other fads seem more believable (not that I believe them), than a flat earth.

Click to expand...

I wonder what the hollow earthers believe about the flat earthers?

Freodin said:

Yes, I remember.
I don't know if I should be honoured that you consider me "academia", or annoyed because you keep making assertions without bringing any form of backup.

But regardless, I have tried, and you refuse to offer something worthwhile to this discussion.

It was nice talking to you, but I am done.

Click to expand...

If I offer anything worthwhile, the din of incredulity would silence the point(s), and it would put me in more and more of a professionally unwelcome circumstance. I don't think people realize this when they demand proof that can be found in a textbook: when you write papers and scholarly material, your style, flow and methodology are recognizable. I am not risking my career on people who cant even superficially read a textbook to become familiar with a debate topic. I am trying very hard already to camouflage my speech on these forums - for the very basic material I am putting up.

And, it has to be considered worthwhile - meaning all of my research and efforts must survive the superficial view of the layperson, and the ultimate rejection of a challenge to the status quo. A waste of time. Despite everything I am saying being found in a math or physics text, people still

If anything I have to offer is taken seriously, it will ultimately be used as a psychological, or physical weapon. There is no point in contributing something meaningful to the status quo - because in 100 years (or the next period) we will just repeat the same mistakes of ignorance, complacency and complicit activity.

I am willing to discuss philosophy with people who are respectful - even if they disagree. That is better than an academic; I know and work with them and an open mind layperson would get more done on the grand scheme than a closed-minded laureate.

tas8831 said:

Whatever...

Click to expand...

It isn't whatever; if you are knowledgeable enough to insult someone's intelligence because they believe something, you should also know more than the superficiality that makes up the prejudice for insulting one's intelligence. That means actually knowing the math and physics - not what someone has told you on TV or on NOVA/Nature (great shows, though) - and applying it by testing theories and observing changes/differences.If you don't know it, then don't act like what you don't know is nonsense.

It used to be considered a mark of decent intelligence to attempt to question the status quo instead of the mess going on in this time. Knowledge is scoffed at while human word of religion has become the new dominance. Trusting men over self, and giving self over to men is going to be the downfall of the human race again, and again.