Proof that earth isn't flat

[Strathos]

Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat | SmarterThanThat

Directed at certain people here...

 

[CryOfALion]

Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat | SmarterThanThat

Directed at certain people here...

Heh...

To be fair, I don't think anyone in the bible referred to the earth as FLAT definitely, rather the net of the solid. It has been said to consider the circle of the earth, and that the earth has four corners. Those were geometrical ways of relaying relevant information about earth: its shape, and the directions of the planet (N/S/E/W). Today, a mathematician would refer to the octets of earth. And, considering a sphere is the sum of all ellipsoids circumferences in a sphere times the respective arc length elements, the net of a sphere is flat (ellipsoids.) Like the sum of all circumferences of onion layers per arc length element gives us the volume of an onion. The base is flat. This seems to be the focus of the analogy of earth's flatness. It was a simplistic mapping to something more complex in nature. In a similar way, the four elements represent solids, liquids, gases, and plasma (earth, water, air, fire.) The four states of matter were already known by ancients, they presented it in a way that people would comprehend. And, yet I do not think the ancients looked at molten metals as "water," for example. It was a namesake for its state of matter.

Anyway, all that to say I give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Chesterton]

I have an idea - an experiment with two lighthouses and a laser. If the earth is flat you should be able to hit with a straight line, say, the northeast coast of Japan from the southern tip of Chile.

 

[CryOfALion]

Keep in mind curvature exists in two dimensions, so one can experience a "dipping horizon" by walking in a direction in which the tangent vector points outside of the face of the disk (or 2D face.) For example, walking around the circular edge of a disk, as opposed to across the disk (the latter would have the observer see flat attributes of a shape, like linear trajectories.)

Another possibility if the "flat" belief is that the earth is a hallow shell: spherical, but an element of arc length thick. There is, consequentially, much gnostic literature on hallow earth theory.

 

[CryOfALion]

Good deal, Sarah.

I see (maybe): you have more with the school of thought that says the earth is flat (salami slice) as opposed to having a curvature (spherical, cylindrical shell or solid?)

I am trying to find a common place and go from there.

(I believe the earth is more like a spherical tightly packed, but porous sponge ball: definitely solid in most places with uniform density, but non-uniform density throughout. I also believe some of those densities are infinitesimal i.e. a vacuum, or the "holes of the sponge" in my model. I will entertain a spherical she'll or cylindrical shell model - where there is a finite sum of concentric shells anywhere from the center to r' - x' , some sum of concentric shells before the next density = 0, and so on.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Good deal, Sarah.

I see (maybe): you have more with the school of thought that says the earth is flat (salami slice) as opposed to having a curvature (spherical, cylindrical shell or solid?)

I am trying to find a common place and go from there.

(I believe the earth is more like a spherical tightly packed, but porous sponge ball: definitely solid in most places with uniform density, but non-uniform density throughout. I also believe some of those densities are infinitesimal i.e. a vacuum, or the "holes of the sponge" in my model. I will entertain a spherical she'll or cylindrical shell model - where there is a finite sum of concentric shells anywhere from the center to r' - x' , some sum of concentric shells before the next density = 0, and so on.)

I briefly consider your heterogeneous flat earth model, and note that it doesn't match as well with what happens in earthquakes as my "salami slice" as you call it, would not earthquakes of equal intensity create more damage in certain areas than others as a result of a difference in density? I hope that doesn't burst your bubble as badly as the earthquakes would

And wouldn't there be places where one could observe the earth in the sky if it were like a fruit roll up? And if there are such places, where can I find them it would be worthy of a picture

Obviously, all so called spherical entities are in fact flat, the moon, the sun, all of it. I contend that the universe and everything in it is in fact 2D, the whole universe flat like a pancake, and that depth is an optical illusion. Look at a painting, it looks like it has depth, but it is in fact flat, and so too might we be like figures in a painting, thinking we have depth that doesn't exist. All is flat. (I had too much fun with this, I almost sound like I can rub two brain cells together. Almost)

 

[CryOfALion]

I briefly consider your heterogeneous flat earth model, and note that it doesn't match as well with what happens in earthquakes as my "salami slice" as you call it, would not earthquakes of equal intensity create more damage in certain areas than others as a result of a difference in density? I hope that doesn't burst your bubble as badly as the earthquakes would

My hypothetical earth is actually three dimensional. Imagine one of those eggs that open and reveal smaller eggs and so on. I am asserting an earth with concentric ellipsoids making up the total volume of the earth, with the outermost shell representing the surface of the earth r=R. I was referring to the salami slice as the flat model [I thought] that bothered you.

For my case, the earth would be a bunch of concentric ellipsoids, and depending on the densities the moment of inertia tensor for a hallow ellipsoids is about 6/5 that of a solid ellipsoid, and it gets closer to I the more the shell is filled toward solid. So, a purely hallow and purely solid earth would have close moments of inertias, and seismic activity and vulcanism, won't be touch more of a dramatic issue. For example, the 2004 Indonesia earthquake knocked the earth off a few degrees - as relatively completely solid earth. A hallow earth would have a comparable magnitude earthquake (+/- 0.5-1.5 M,) and comparable solid angle displacement (+/- pi/60 steradians.) The gravity and tides, as well as our planetary interaction may change drastically in a decreasing solid earth (toward hallow).

And wouldn't there be places where one could observe the earth in the sky if it were like a fruit roll up? And if there are such places, where can I find them it would be worthy of a picture

The thing about hallow earth theory is that some believe at certain altitudes you can see openings and "winds" leading inside the hallow. There is even conspiracy that NASA had a video leaked showing shuttle video of what looked like the nexus of magnetic energy suckling into the earth at the north pole. Sensational video, but I think it was debunked several times as fake or from a movie or produced. Fake, essentially. But it is interesting to think about - what it would be like if the earth were hallow and apparently a generator of incredible magnetic energy siphoning into its poles. I only entertain what I haven't seen with my own two eyes (since I only believe half of what I see,) and I haven't been to space yet to see the earth.

Obviously, all so called spherical entities are in fact flat, the moon, the sun, all of it. I contend that the universe and everything in it is in fact 2D, the whole universe flat like a pancake, and that depth is an optical illusion. Look at a painting, it looks like it has depth, but it is in fact flat, and so too might we be like figures in a painting, thinking we have depth that doesn't exist. All is flat. (I had too much fun with this, I almost sound like I can rub two brain cells together. Almost)

 

[PsychoSarah]

My hypothetical earth is actually three dimensional. Imagine one of those eggs that open and reveal smaller eggs and so on. I am asserting an earth with concentric ellipsoids making up the total volume of the earth, with the outermost shell representing the surface of the earth r=R. I was referring to the salami slice as the flat model [I thought] that bothered you.

For my case, the earth would be a bunch of concentric ellipsoids, and depending on the densities the moment of inertia tensor for a hallow ellipsoids is about 6/5 that of a solid ellipsoid, and it gets closer to I the more the shell is filled toward solid. So, a purely hallow and purely solid earth would have close moments of inertias, and seismic activity and vulcanism, won't be touch more of a dramatic issue. For example, the 2004 Indonesia earthquake knocked the earth off a few degrees - as relatively completely solid earth. A hallow earth would have a comparable magnitude earthquake (+/- 0.5-1.5 M,) and comparable solid angle displacement (+/- pi/60 steradians.) The gravity and tides, as well as our planetary interaction may change drastically in a decreasing solid earth (toward hallow).



The thing about hallow earth theory is that some believe at certain altitudes you can see openings and "winds" leading inside the hallow. There is even conspiracy that NASA had a video leaked showing shuttle video of what looked like the nexus of magnetic energy suckling into the earth at the north pole. Sensational video, but I think it was debunked several times as fake or from a movie or produced. Fake, essentially. But it is interesting to think about - what it would be like if the earth were hallow and apparently a generator of incredible magnetic energy siphoning into its poles. I only entertain what I haven't seen with my own two eyes (since I only believe half of what I see,) and I haven't been to space yet to see the earth.

We are too good at making an ignorant perspective sound intelligent, I tell you truthfully. All flat earth models bug the living crap out of me when people take them seriously in modern times, they really do, the salami thing is just where my patience decides to cease its existence entirely for the duration of the conversation. But as we are being tongue-in-cheek about this...

Yup, your gravity would be all wonky all over the place. Thank you for further damaging "your" position for me, makes my life ever so much easier to convince you of my own perspective, which you have no hope of ever disproving

One of the prevailing theories of how gravity works has space, spread out, with mass all over in it, pulling space down and thus pulling nearby masses towards the biggest "dip", much like a funnel. For this to be valid, space most assuredly must be flat, for this effect could not possibly work with a 3D space, no way. Since space appears all around us and must be 2D, and 3D objects could not possibly be surrounded in all apparent directions by something 2D, I conclude therefore that it all must be 2D for this prevailing gravitational theory to be valid.

My flat earth works with mainstream physics. Starting to look good, ain't it ? (I really hope no one is stupid enough to think I am serious, but just in case, I am not, for the record, being serious).

 

[CryOfALion]

We are too good at making an ignorant perspective sound intelligent, I tell you truthfully. All flat earth models bug the living crap out of me when people take them seriously in modern times, they really do, the salami thing is just where my patience decides to cease its existence entirely for the duration of the conversation. But as we are being tongue-in-cheek about this...

Yup, your gravity would be all wonky all over the place. Thank you for further damaging "your" position for me, makes my life ever so much easier to convince you of my own perspective, which you have no hope of ever disproving

I get away by setting limits to the space between each concentric ball: as it becomes more solid, it's moment tensor tends toward 1:1 . But yea, the hollow the earth, the more violent the earth becomes.

The philosophical views of earth - even if the earth was thought to be the shell of a turtle spirit - was usually always curved, not completely flat. I think the 100% salami slice, or matzoh cracker views of earth are deeply rooted in some political-scientific-religious monstrosity that has somehow survived through time. I think anything is possible, but a flat earth (matzoh) is a bit unrealistic. Though I can accept a certain degree of hollow earth/concentric balls theory because the math can work depending on what you account for.

One of the prevailing theories of how gravity works has space, spread out, with mass all over in it, pulling space down and thus pulling nearby masses towards the biggest "dip", much like a funnel. For this to be valid, space most assuredly must be flat, for this effect could not possibly work with a 3D space, no way. Since space appears all around us and must be 2D, and 3D objects could not possibly be surrounded in all apparent directions by something 2D, I conclude therefore that it all must be 2D for this prevailing gravitational theory to be valid.

My flat earth works with mainstream physics. Starting to look good, ain't it ? (I really hope no one is stupid enough to think I am serious, but just in case, I am not, for the record, being serious).

I really don't want to fan a flame, but quantum gravity kinda says no to the potential gravity wells masses make (cones/vortices.) They would be resonating and emitting radiation through galactic media as waves, and would act more like fields as opposed to classical potential wells. It has been theorized that light goes into a black hole inescapably because of the magnetism of the dead/dying star in the center, not because of gravity. This raises an eyebrow especially since photons have zero mass. So, I could see a bunch of stars and planets all suspended in a sheet like olive loaf, and instead of gravity potential interacting with other bodies, gravity instead radiates a field that interacts with the other bodies, as they move along the field lines.

But yes I am for the most part just imagining and being fantastic. I do think the earth is solid with your classical layers. My only main renegade thoughts would be that I do believe some areas in the earth are vacuous. They may not be the size of a small moon, just existent.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I get away by setting limits to the space between each concentric ball: as it becomes more solid, it's moment tensor tends toward 1:1 . But yea, the hollow the earth, the more violent the earth becomes.

The philosophical views of earth - even if the earth was thought to be the shell of a turtle spirit - was usually always curved, not completely flat. I think the 100% salami slice, or matzoh cracker views of earth are deeply rooted in some political-scientific-religious monstrosity that has somehow survived through time. I think anything is possible, but a flat earth (matzoh) is a bit unrealistic. Though I can accept a certain degree of hollow earth/concentric balls theory because the math can work depending on what you account for.



I really don't want to fan a flame, but quantum gravity kinda says no to the potential gravity wells masses make (cones/vortices.) They would be resonating and emitting radiation through galactic media as waves, and would act more like fields as opposed to classical potential wells. It has been theorized that light goes into a black hole inescapably because of the magnetism of the dead/dying star in the center, not because of gravity. This raises an eyebrow especially since photons have zero mass. So, I could see a bunch of stars and planets all suspended in a sheet like olive loaf, and instead of gravity potential interacting with other bodies, gravity instead radiates a field that interacts with the other bodies, as they move along the field lines.

But yes I am for the most part just imagining and being fantastic. I do think the earth is solid with your classical layers. My only main renegade thoughts would be that I do believe some areas in the earth are vacuous. They may not be the size of a small moon, just existent.

It can work depending on what values you account for? Is that not the definition of cherry picking, and physics no less! You must account for all the numbers. ALL THE NUMBERS. Your concentric balls can't handle the numbers, effectively you can have no balls then. No Balls.

Quantum physics also says that at any point my foot can randomly pop off my foot and kick your behind. But I don't see that happening so I will have to verbally kick your butt in a figurative, non-literal way instead. Although you seem to be doing all the work for me again, I do so prefer a challenge but I suppose an easy victory has its perks

Hmm, you bring up a good point, perhaps my 2D universe model needs some work, but you haven't exactly disproved it by any means (I was under the impression we were doing a fake debate between various flat earth perspectives, was I off? I was aiming to be funny with all of this)

 

[CryOfALion]

Spoiler: The earth is diamond shape...

Vollying fakes like a game of "make the insane theory work."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Spoiler: The earth is diamond shape...

Vollying fakes like a game of "make the insane theory work."

just checking, when you are a person with autism, it never hurts to double check

 

[Freodin]

This raises an eyebrow especially since photons have zero mass.

Photons have zero mass at rest. This is an important fact to consider.

 

[CryOfALion]

Photons have zero mass at rest, but that is more to make the math pretty, and so that there would be no loss of conservstion. Photons have to have a rest mass of zero for the math to work. But, the math looking pretty can still be wrong. And, in the case of determining noninvariant mass, momentum and energy, you need enough reference frames to ensure you are getting a thorough analysis.

Considering it took the Super Kaminokande until 1985 to observe the neutrino existed, and another 10-15 years before the Standard Model changed the mass of the neutrino from zero to variant (because of flavor oscillations,) as well as other fundamental particles more misunderstood by scientists than a pubescent artistic teenager with mild acne - I am inclined to take the standard model's fetishes for invariance very lightly.

Tachyons and bradyons are still theoretical particles, despite what Cherenkov Radiation suggests. The standard model has a ways to go before they catch up to the erroneous theoretical physics concepts proposed by the likes of Stephen Hawkins.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please remember to address the content of the post, not the poster personally. If a post of yours is missing, it was deleted in the cleanup.

MOD HAT OFF