Flat Earth.... flame free, please.

[Radagast]

Also his trek would have been impossible on Flerf.
View attachment 247958

Well, I know that, obviously. Ditto for the 1955–58 Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition.

 

[A_Thinker]

It appears that Flat Earth promoter Eric Dubay is a Holocaust Denier.

Why the Holocaust Denial?

I wonder if Flat Earth enthusiasts understand that Dubay is the source for most of their arguments for Flat Earth and against the Globe Earth ?

Some of these are ...

"The horizon appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around ... "
"The horizon always rises to one's eye-level."
"Water always finds its level."
"Surveyors, engineers, and architects do not take curve into account."
"Planes would need to constantly dip their noses on a Globe Earth to maintain proper altitude."
"Antarctica is not a continent, but is an ice wall which surrounds the disk of the Flat Earth."

Dubay also references Airy's Failure, the Michelson_Morley and Sagnac experiments, and his incredulity regarding the ability of gravity to hold the oceans to a globe, while simultaneously allowing for bird and butterfly flight.

Just about every Flat Earth argument can find it's origin in Eric Dubay's "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball"

The PDF can be downloaded at the link below ...

http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Eric-Dubay-200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball

 

[Kaon]

Sorry if I have missed it: just what was it you "have done"?


Erathosthenes didn't set out to prove the earth was round. He accepted that as a given, as well as the "far away" sun, based on other calculations and experiments done previously by other people.

What he did try to establish was the circumference of this round earth... and he did that to a degree of exactness that all other different experiments have more or less confirmed.

What your cute little video tries to claim - and fails - is that because Erathostenes didn't use a third measurement to verify his "round earth" hypothesis, his experiment is invalid. The problem with this - the "primary flaw" - is that this experiment is very easy to repeat, especially with our modern means of communication.

And the results are incompatible with a flat earth with a close sun.

Hi @Freodin, I think it was you (and a couple of others) in which I was conversing about differential manifolds and topology of geodesic domed earth. In other words, I championed a manifold earth and it's implications.

It is unfortunate our discussion was cancelled, but I would implore you to have the same open mind you had in our thread - even and especially if there is disagreement. The thread was an odyssey of the mind; don't let the question and merit die out due to incredulity.

Cheers.

 

[Freodin]

Hi @Freodin, I think it was you (and a couple of others) in which I was conversing about differential manifolds and topology of geodesic domed earth. In other words, I championed a manifold earth and it's implications.

It is unfortunate our discussion was cancelled, but I would implore you to have the same open mind you had in our thread - even and especially if there is disagreement. The thread was an odyssey of the mind; don't let the question and merit die out due to incredulity.

Cheers.

Perhaps you should tell that to the Flat Earthers?

As much as they usually disregard mathematics, it remains a mathematical fact that you can use vastly different models to describe that same object.
Most Flat Earthers cannot accept that. They cannot accept that, because they do not understand it. At all.

I think the model you described was... questionable... but at least you made the effort to establish a model. If it is consistent and feasable... that remains to be seen. If it is in any way better than the current model... remains to be seen. But you at least do the work.

Most Flat Earthers on the other hand don't. Even those who do fancy experiments mostly do not understand the underlying mechanisms, or discard the results because they do not fit in their preestablished worldview. Famous example is the Globebuster's experiment with the laser gyroscope. They got exactly the results that the Globe model predicted, the results that they previously denied they would see... and they just made up a fancy explanation why it still shows a Flat Earth.

And I watched another video by renowned Flat Earther Phuket Word, where he proudly proclaim how observation xyz "does not work in a globe model"... while - by ignorance or deliberate deception - he misrepresents what this globe model really says.

That is the problem with the modern Flat Earthers and their victorian predecessors: they don't have a scientifical or mathematical way to describe their world. They have to rely to vague "it looks like", "it doesn't feel like" or "i just know" stuff. And at the same time, they criticize or ridicule the "Globe Model"... while demonstrating that they don't understand it.

And that is the problem with the whole modern Flat Earth movement: the Globe model works. It works extremely well. It works better than any other model that have been proposed. It works many times better than any pathetic attempt of modern Flat Earthers to present single facets of a model.

Yes, I think that you can build a consistent mathematical Flat Earth model. But it would necessarily be many times more complex than the current Globe model. It would need to incooperate completely unknown and unknowable mechanisms to bring it into alignment with real world observations.

SeventyOne here accused us of invoking "magic" to use gravity. That is not correct. There is nothing magical about destilling real world observations into a simple mechanic. Gravity is something that results in massive objects being attracted to each other. Simple. Testable. Even if we don't have a complete understand why it does that.

But Flat Earth mechanisms work in a "magical" way. Objects on the horizon disappear from the buttom up. How? Why? No idea, they just do, because Flat Earthers need such a mechanism to explain away the curvature of the Earth. That is magic: something happens because you need it to happen.

So I think your reminder is unwarrented. It is not my incredulity that is the basis for my rejection of the "Flat Earth"... it is the constant failures, inconsistencies and deceptions of the Flat Earthers.

 

[Kaon]

Perhaps you should tell that to the Flat Earthers?

As much as they usually disregard mathematics, it remains a mathematical fact that you can use vastly different models to describe that same object.
Most Flat Earthers cannot accept that. They cannot accept that, because they do not understand it. At all.

I think the model you described was... questionable... but at least you made the effort to establish a model. If it is consistent and feasable... that remains to be seen. If it is in any way better than the current model... remains to be seen. But you at least do the work.

Most Flat Earthers on the other hand don't. Even those who do fancy experiments mostly do not understand the underlying mechanisms, or discard the results because they do not fit in their preestablished worldview. Famous example is the Globebuster's experiment with the laser gyroscope. They got exactly the results that the Globe model predicted, the results that they previously denied they would see... and they just made up a fancy explanation why it still shows a Flat Earth.

And I watched another video by renowned Flat Earther Phuket Word, where he proudly proclaim how observation xyz "does not work in a globe model"... while - by ignorance or deliberate deception - he misrepresents what this globe model really says.

That is the problem with the modern Flat Earthers and their victorian predecessors: they don't have a scientifical or mathematical way to describe their world. They have to rely to vague "it looks like", "it doesn't feel like" or "i just know" stuff. And at the same time, they criticize or ridicule the "Globe Model"... while demonstrating that they don't understand it.

And that is the problem with the whole modern Flat Earth movement: the Globe model works. It works extremely well. It works better than any other model that have been proposed. It works many times better than any pathetic attempt of modern Flat Earthers to present single facets of a model.

Yes, I think that you can build a consistent mathematical Flat Earth model. But it would necessarily be many times more complex than the current Globe model. It would need to incooperate completely unknown and unknowable mechanisms to bring it into alignment with real world observations.

SeventyOne here accused us of invoking "magic" to use gravity. That is not correct. There is nothing magical about destilling real world observations into a simple mechanic. Gravity is something that results in massive objects being attracted to each other. Simple. Testable. Even if we don't have a complete understand why it does that.

But Flat Earth mechanisms work in a "magical" way. Objects on the horizon disappear from the buttom up. How? Why? No idea, they just do, because Flat Earthers need such a mechanism to explain away the curvature of the Earth. That is magic: something happens because you need it to happen.

So I think your reminder is unwarrented. It is not my incredulity that is the basis for my rejection of the "Flat Earth"... it is the constant failures, inconsistencies and deceptions of the Flat Earthers.

That is because I categorically said earth isn't FLAT - like an x-y plane. It is a manifold.

There is a subtlety in the geometry and topology of "flat", and "manifold." Even the more erudite of theorists against flat earth don't realise something can be a homeomorphism of a certain type of manifold.

Yes, I can show even further with math my argument, but we see what happened when we scratched the surface.

The earth isn't an x-y, y-z, or z-x PLANE. It has curvature which (by SR) is governed by certain perturbations. I would love to continue the PHYSICS and MATH of why this realm is an n-manifold, but it would be futility considering the mechanism that shorted our discussion, and what I have seen lately.

All I was saying is I hope you keep the same open mind as you did on our discussion. But, I won't contribute to any side anymore.

 

[Freodin]

That is because I categorically said earth isn't FLAT - like an x-y plane. It is a manifold.

There is a subtlety in the geometry and topology of "flat", and "manifold." Even the more erudite of theorists against flat earth don't realise something can be a homeomorphism of a certain type of manifold.

Yes, I can show even further with math my argument, but we see what happened when we scratched the surface.

The earth isn't an x-y, y-z, or z-x PLANE. It has curvature which (by SR) is governed by certain perturbations. I would love to continue the PHYSICS and MATH of why this realm is an n-manifold, but it would be futility considering the mechanism that shorted our discussion, and what I have seen lately.

All I was saying is I hope you keep the same open mind as you did on our discussion. But, I won't contribute to any side anymore.

The question remains: why would it be a manifold of a certain type (a limited and finite surface, which could be in layman's terms be called a "plane"), but definitly not a manifold of a certain other type (finite but unlimited, curved in a certain way that would represent the surface of a sphere)?

I think you would agree that the Globe model does work and is more simple than the model you propose... even if you manage to develope a physical and mathematical system to align it with real life observations.

In fact, your model would even be more complicated that the common Flat Earth ideas, inconsistent as they are.

So why not keep the Globe model, which doesn't seem to have any major problems?

(Hey, and BTW: a plane IS a manifold, too.)

 

[Kaon]

The question remains: why would it be a manifold of a certain type (a limited and finite surface, which could be in layman's terms be called a "plane"), but definitly not a manifold of a certain other type (finite but unlimited, curved in a certain way that would represent the surface of a sphere)?

I think you would agree that the Globe model does work and is more simple than the model you propose... even if you manage to develope a physical and mathematical system to align it with real life observations.

In fact, your model would even be more complicated that the common Flat Earth ideas, inconsistent as they are.

So why not keep the Globe model, which doesn't seem to have any major problems?

(Hey, and BTW: a plane IS a manifold, too.)

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square. Geometry is important, and people keep being lax about nomenclature.

Intricacies and subtleties in geometry make a difference. I am not going to present my mathematical argument on these forums again, nor will I present it in a paper.

The layperson doesn't realize what type of psychological operation this is - which is why it would be futility to explain further details on the ACTUAL geometry and topology.

All I was saying is that I hope you keep an open mind. The thread I last participated in related to this showed me how far I should/nt go with this psyop - especially when people keep mixing geometries.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Hey there is going to be a flat earth cruise. Anyone on this site going?

Flat-Earthers Are Organising a Massive Cruise And The Hypocrisy Is Just Too Much

 

[A_Thinker]

Hey there is going to be a flat earth cruise. Anyone on this site going?

Flat-Earthers Are Organising a Massive Cruise And The Hypocrisy Is Just Too Much

Perhaps they'll travel to Antarctica ...

 

[USincognito]

Hey there is going to be a flat earth cruise. Anyone on this site going?

Flat-Earthers Are Organising a Massive Cruise And The Hypocrisy Is Just Too Much

A convention is one thing. That smacks of crass profiteering.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

To be fair, it doesn't say where the cruise is going. It may be a cruise which doesn't leave site of land (Alaskan cruise?), or the ship may be in dry dock being refitted

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To be fair, it doesn't say where the cruise is going. It may be a cruise which doesn't leave site of land (Alaskan cruise?), or the ship may be in dry dock being refitted

Maybe they're going to cruise on the Ark Encounter