The Earth, is in fact, not flat

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 57
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
What is your personally preferred "center-point of the cosmos"?
Currently it is believed that our finite Universe is 500 times larger that what we see or ever can see, or so says at least one scientist at the Fermi-lab.

Options for a spherical, if not slightly lumpy sphere, or as combination of many tori that sum total to lumpy spherical collection of tori;





We cannot see beyond the event horizon --the ship sailing away-- because of curvature.

Perhaps we cannot see beyond 10 to negative 13th, because the event horizon is curved.

Perhaps we cannot see beyond a current observe-able Universe, and our future Universe, because the event horizon is curved.

We do project  a trajectory of our current Universe, that leads to high state of entropy --aka thermal equilibrium--- an  that is what we see at the other end of the same  trajectory going back in time, a state of high entropic thermal equilibrium.,

Nature abhors equilibrium just a nature abhors a vacuum ergo, we identify the state of highest peak of curvature, as entropic, thermal equilibrium and assign it the label of zero space and time. O or as (), or as ( ) or as (  ), or as (     ), or even as (       ). 

However, the shape is still the same so all that is needed is to cancel out scale {observing clock } of  space and time, not the actual space and time events. I.e. the observer is key to the scale.

Ex (*) as the observer clock/scale  in the following;
 
((*)) > (*)  ) > (    (*)   ) > (         (*)       ) > (                      (*)                    >

So we have the above, next as follows we see the scale/clock observer becomes like the photon that does not see space or time, i.e. the observe scale/clock cancels out the space and time, even tho it it still exists around, them, but they cannot see beyond the event horizon of curvature and we will label this area as S with no T for Time.

 ((*))((*)SSS(*)) > ((*)SSSSSS(*)) > ((*)SSSSSSSSS(*))  > ((*)SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS(*))   > etc

So next,in all of the above have the (*) observer clock/scale be (T) for Time.  We see time but we cannot see beyond the horizon of time events ergo we cannot see the beyond a see beyond a our limit  peak of curvature events.  We speculate that something lies beyond that curvature, but we as Time on a scale of radiation as time,  cannot see beyond our more linear or 2D set of Time, to see beyond a limit Time as related to scale/clock of curvature of Space(?).

 ((T))((T)SSS(T)) > ((T)SSSSSS(T)) > ((T)SSSSSSSSS(T))  > ((T)SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS(T))   > etc

We cannot ever see beyond the curvature of (T) and cannot see observe/clock  Gravity and Dark Energy (  )(  )(  ) ergo we only have projections of their existence beyond our event horizon limits.

  ((T))((T)(S)(S)(S)(T)) > ((T)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(T)) > ((T)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(T))  > ((T)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S)(S(T))
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
If maintaining that the Sun Rotates around the Earth is not controversial, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then that sets quite a precedent with regard to what is or isn't axiomatic.

Nonetheless an axiom is not exclusively a philosophical premise, and so considering that we are discussing in a science forum rather than a philosophical forum, then in this context we are using a scientific axiom.

So from the point of view of an observer, the Sun may appear to revolve around the Earth. But nowadays as a statement of fact, this would be controversial and not axiomatic.
In this instance, the Earth is known to rotate and also revolve around the Sun, and so this is the scientifically established axiom.

Otherwise the Moon is made from cheese.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Otherwise the Moon is made from cheese.
Einstein's statement, "ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE" does not in any way suggest the moon is made of cheese.

What you claim are "facts" are actually INCOMPLETE SYLLOGISMS.

All of your hidden premises must be made explicit (specifically, your preferred reference point).

Consider the example of two people (Bethany and Daniel) in an open train carriage throwing a ball back and forth. The train is running west at a steady speed of 100 km/h.

When Bethany throws the ball up the carriage towards Daniel, the ball will appear to travel at 110 km/h (100 km/h for the moving train plus 10 km/h for the ball being thrown).

When Daniel throws the ball back, it will still be travelling west, but at a speed of 90 km/h (100 km/h minus 10 km/h).

For an observer watching the ball being thrown from outside the train, the ball is always travelling west. For Bethany and Daniel in the carriage, it appears that the ball is changing direction depending on who throws it.

The result is that the speed of the ball depends on the “relative” position of the observer. [**]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Thank you for your contribution.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you aware what gish gallop is in debating?
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you for your contribution.
Welcome for what is worth.

1} the LINK to fermi lab scientists "before the big bang" I mentioned


2} ( ) = emblolden finite Universe spatial and time boundary in my previous,

......2a} (*) = our peak  curvature event horizon, beyond which,  we cannot see the past, or future of entropic thermal ship arriving from  the beyond the curved horizon .... (*)......,

.......2b} (T) = we are Time as linear radiation and do not Observe Relative Time relative of (*), and our linear trajectory looses sight of relative ship --beyond the curvature--- because of our speed and angle of trajectory going away from the ship,

..........2bb} caveat to the latter above: what if Gravity curves the seemingly linear radiation (T)?   It does but the rate of curvature is so small, that, relative to curvature of Universe of Gravity and Dark Energy, the angle of viewpoint is still to great to be of significance for observer as photon clock/scale to be tune-in to the ship ---also moving-- beyond the curvature.....

...........2c} (S)(S) = Occupied Space but now as take a 2nd look at my thoughts, I wonder if I have the S and T reversed.

Adjusting as follows so as we have Space-time (St) wherein smal t is relative time ergo Observed Time that includes linear radiation, and,
arrow of time as (T) i.e. time is eternal in it conceptual direction.  Sorry of the change. 

Just trying find clarity to complex view { expresiion } of eternally existent Universe that has repeating cycles of seemingly entropic thremal equilibrium.

  ((St))((T)(T)(T)(T)(St)) > ((St)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(St)) > ((St)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(St))  > ((St)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T)(T(St))

We start/iniitate with ((St)) however, that is really initiating arbitrary center point as entropic thermal equilibrium, that, eternally reoccurs.  

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Yup, its essentially shotgunning someone. A couple things - it is extremely arrogant of you to assume this was all specifically for you. Now, I made a single post with the intention of you seeing it, but I decided I wanted to create a page with all of the arguments against a flat earth, since you are certainly not the only flat earther. Furthermore, this was not a debate. You are, and I can guarantee this one, assuming each of these things are false due to your own position. 

Also, no, most of these were not using Nasa or any other corporation as a source. Just good old science. 
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
historically flat Earth philosopy was either;

1} it goes on infinitely, or,

2} you sail to the edge and fall off into infinite non-occupied space.

As I made clear previous.y, early sea-peoples with proper visual age, could see a ship with tall mast sailing out to sea, and gradually they can not see lower parts of ship and the only the taller mast of ship, and then gradually that too seems to be sinking away from our view. Erg;

either the ship is sinking or the horizon is curved.  So it is curved but eventually if get to the bottom of the curvature, then the ship will fall off into macro-infinite non-occupied space. H,mmm, just as in those days, such ideas were going to need a lot of deep or great cosmic thinking, these days we need similar thinking in regards to a finite, occupied space Universe.

With an eternally existent Arrow-of-Time  --->> (T)(T)(T(T)(Time)>>--- Universe, and seemingly expanding realtive space-time ---(( <S t> ))( ( ( <S t> ) ) )(  (  (  ( <S t> )  )  )  )---, with two end points-of-veiw as  entropic thermal equilibrium occuring as;

1} some terminal initiating Big Bang { tune-IN } point-of-view (S*t), and,

2] some  terminal ending Tuned-OUT point-of-view { (              S*t            ) }.

See this LINK to Conformal Cosmological Cyclic Universe to attempt to understand that scale, as clock  to point-of-view appears is seemingly shrunk at maximal expansion of Universe, as entropic thermal equilibrium and vice-versa.   Go too 2:15 in the video to get the idea of scale in Roger Penroses presentation.

 What interests me is to show this above in a linear fashion, and it occurred to me, that, if we are riding along on a seemingly, linear beam of a radiating photon what do we see in this scenario above? It occurs to me, that, we intuit in some direction, that an event horizon of curvature, that, is very slowly moving away from us, or.,the other way around, i.e.  we are getting further away from the event horizon curvature. Why?

Well, we [ * * }  are in the tube-of-reality /\/\/\/ aka Observed Time /\/\/\/  Universe /\/\/\/,  with ultra-micro, Metaphysical-3, Gravity ( /\/\/\/ ) one side of us, and, ultra-micro Metaphysical-4, Dark Energy )( on the other side of us.

Those two or the diametric, 180 degree opposites as outer and inner curvature. And we have two other curvatures, that are at 90 degrees to outer { Gravity } and inner { Dark Energy } and those two are the transition points of flat curvature, between transition from outer to inner or inner to outer curvature.

S*t = our relative Space-time as follows below we see expanding Space of Universe over periods of the >>>>>Arrow-of-Time >>>>>

 >>>>>(S*t)(( <S*t> ))( (  (  <S*t>  )  ) )(  (  (  ( <S*t> ) (     (      (       (    ( <S*t> )       )         )     )    )>>>>

So next, how do we present the two terminal ending points-of-view associated with entropic thermal equilibrium? (<>S*t<>)?

>>>>>(<>S*t<>)(( <S*t> ))( (  (  <S*t>  )  ) )(  (  (  ( <S*t> ) (     (      (       (    ( <>S*t<> )       )         )     )    )(    <     >    S     *       t     <      >    ) >>>>

Ok so in the video of CCC, the speak of stretched out, yet being in thermal equilibrium, and that is what show in latter end of the line of text above.

So the geometry of what we are as equilibrium is the same and the scale transfer we still experience the same, even tho we are stretched out, we do not percieve ourselves any differrent from the terminal intiatin point-of-view (<>S*t<>).  So if the space is stretched out, how does it do that without violating law/principle of naught is created nor lost?






zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
"The Moon is made of cheese".

Is simply an example of a controversial axiom, (Not in any way intended to be related to the motion of celestial bodies or balls) where the basis of the axiom would not necessarily be known fact, but a contrived misrepresentation of fact, such as the Sun revolves around the Earth.

It would appear to all concerned that Daniel and Bethany were playing catch on a train, and should sit down and stop making a nuisance of themselves....No one would consider the information in the way that you describe.

46 days later

Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
The reason why you don't hear quality arguments for a flat earth is that FBI eliminates anyone smart enough to come up with those arguments.
- Stereotypical conspiracy theorist

22 days later

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I wonder what a flat earther would expect a spherical planet to look like from the ground.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
definitely hurtling through space at a faster and more panicky rate than the sereneness we experience.

We are apparently shooting through space spinning like a hedgehog on cocaine around the sun and the entire solar system and milky way galaxy are themselves shooting through space so fast you can't imagine.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
What would you expect that to look like if it was true?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Earthquakes, asteroids/meteors, shooting stars, supernovas, chaos in the sky and on our ground should be FAR more.

On top of this, something as universally true as gravity should surely result in even an atom, let alone a mosquito, being 'dragged' towards a massive object like a mountain, blue whale, submarine or whatever.

In fact, the concept of what Newton says gravity is is quite absurd indeed. Does a fat person, if tall and fat enough, suddenly make things near to them pull towards them? If so, i must wonder why the hairs on their bodies show absolutely not inclination either way, surely they'd be pulled in flat... Oh, right, it's all too weak...

Nothing is as massive as the Earth itself so therefore it's all too weak to show any sign of gravity to a lesser extent at all... Right...

Couldn't it just be that denser objects fall through less dense objects/substances/gases? That there really is a 'down' and a universal 'pull down' setting makes it happen at 9.8 ms^-2?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
RMM
No... because fat people don't have NEARLY enough mass to even noticeably affect another's gravity... but more than that, the only reason that you NOTICE gravity is because of normal force, so, even if they did, you would not notice it most likely. Furthermore, um... have you ever been in car that's driving really fast? And noticed that you weren't slamming against the seats until after the car stopped? The same thing happens with the earth, as we are all already on the earth, being affected by gravity, it doesn't suddenly reach out more and specifically grab mosquitoes. Gravity is the thing that bugs and such have to create lift to overcome in the first place... also - any gravity that mountains had would be overwhelmed by the gravity of the earth so... that's kinda a weird point to make.

Finally, no... you are aware of the atmosphere right, and the vastness of space? there is literally an entirely new measure of distance (dealing specifically with how far light can travel) for space, because that's how far things are out in space, and anything that does get by is usually burnt up by the atmosphere... if anything did get through, well, we wouldn't be able to talk anymore cause it'd most likely be an extinction event. Most of this is just an argument from incredulity... which is sad, because I know most of this stuff has been explained to you countless times with no rebuttals on your end. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
In fact, the concept of what Newton says gravity is is quite absurd indeed. Does a fat person, if tall and fat enough, suddenly make things near to them pull towards them? If so, i must wonder why the hairs on their bodies show absolutely not inclination either way, surely they'd be pulled in flat... Oh, right, it's all too weak...

Nothing is as massive as the Earth itself so therefore it's all too weak to show any sign of gravity to a lesser extent at all... Right...
An absurdly overweight person weighing 250 kg has less than 0.00000000000000000000003% the mass of Earth.

You say "if gravity worked like Newton says then a fat person would have a noticeable gravitational field".

Imagine if I had two magnets of different sizes and I said "If magnetism works the way scientist say it does then this small magnets magnetic field should be noticeable despite being 0.00000000000000000000003% of the strength of the magnet it is adjacent to".

How would you respond to me saying that?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I expect you not to strawman and focus on atoms and mosquitoes next to mountains or small fish next to blue whales.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You are saying that these objects should have noticeable gravitational interactions while being within the gravity well of the Earth, is that correct?

I am not saying you are wrong, just making sure I understand correctly so as to avoid an unintended strawman. So... is that what you are saying?

16 days later

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
On a flat earth you would be able to triangulate the position of the sun in 3d from any pair of locations on the planet and always get the same answer.

Triangulation depends on knowing the distance between two observers, the angle between the observers and the object; and the two observers having the same orientation.

Given rulers and protractors would still work on a flat earth; and that you can’t triangulate the position of the sun on our plan run - that means the only possibility is that the observers don’t have the same orientation and therefore the earth cannot be flat.


sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I could not personally prove to anyone the earth is a sphere. Could you prove it without any help from anyone or anything written on the subject? You can use anything in your house as aids or tools to do it.  Its a task much harder to do than most people think.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
On top of this, something as universally true as gravity should surely result in even an atom, let alone a mosquito, being 'dragged' towards a massive object like a mountain, blue whale, submarine or whatever.
FYI: This is literally how they proved gravity existed as newton specified:

The small deflection of a Plum line whilst next to a large mountain in the Sciehellian experiment, and the attraction of lead masses in the cavendish experiment.

The force you experience due to gravitational attraction is F=G * mass1 * mass2 / r^2

G is very small, (-11th power), and r is squared meaning that force you experience has to be very big or very close to have an impact.

Gravity is an exceptionally weak force.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Seems to me, on that basis [with which I agree] that achieving escape velocity from a flat earth would be so easy to accomplish, we likely could have achieved it with a hot air balloon, because it might be possible even without propulsion, an absolute necessity with a spherical Earth, even of a smaller size.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
On a day of calm wind and clear dry air, it is possible to prove that the Earth is not flat simply
by looking at, or photographing, a sunset (or sunrise) over water. And, from a photograph
one can even estimate, albeit rather crudely, the diameter of the Earth by taking some simple
measurements from the photograph.
See: The Earth Is Not Flat: An Analysis of a Sunset Photo
           Robert J. Vanderbei

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
There are an infinite number of ways of measuring the curvature pr lack thereof of the earth.

All of them require you to accept the results for you you believe the conclusion is valid.

If you’re willing or able to simply assert any type of unprovable nonsense to explain why observations do not agree with you - you can believe anything
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I'm not sure I was clear. I do not support flat earth theory
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I know - I was using “you” in the generic sense:

Like “anyone can do science, but you have to follow the process” 




fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Okay, all good, then. 

Unrelated question re: your avatar, a glass of water. I have a theory about such: I try to be optimistic. I don't care if a glass of water is full, half-full, or whatever. I'll drink it. I just cannot pass up a drinking fountain. You?