Flat Earth Model isn't wrong: It is super-inefficient

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 53
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
What are you expecting entering this topic? I don't know. Either way, let me explain.

Heliocentrism isn't wrong, but inefficient: In that case, both the moon and the sun will orbit around the earth, while planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, with themselves many moons around them, are calculated to orbit a center that is closer to the sun than the earth. This would mean to calculate about Ganymede, you first have to calculate about the Sun's motion, then the motion of Jupiter, then Io. That is super inefficient. Instead of that, why don't we set the reference at the Sun?

It is the old religious who fixed the reference at Earth and accepted nothing else, not Galileo nor Copernicus. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, etc... just provided new references that made calculation and observation more efficient.

In reality, we technically can define the Earth's surface as flat and anything tangential to the Earth "above it". The problem becomes that if some object flys directly above the south pole, the position for that object on the "flat earth model"  would teleport from one side to another. All constellations would be on one side of "earth", the other side being what is "underneath the Earth", which we will have a mantle and core as wide as the surface of Earth itself. We can just fold space enough so that the Earth's curvature matches the morphed space so the Earth is flat according to that system. In that case, the earth is flat.

Due to astronomical, geological, geographical(continents in the South will be disproportionally enlarged), physical, and maybe even archaelogical inconvenience, we pretty much discard this model the moment it is being formed in one's mind. That is why this model wasn't being thought of before with great depths, hmm, I guess.
#2
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Your conclusion makes sense, but with that said the new theory is we all live in a simulation so flat or round really doesn't matter. Assuming of course one  believes  we live in a simulation. I think we live in a upside down ass backward retard world so I am leaning towards  simulation. My life wont change if the earth is flat or round. But in a simulation, that's a whole other story.
#3
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@sadolite
Your conclusion makes sense, but with that said the new theory is we all live in a simulation so flat or round really doesn't matter. Assuming of course one  believes  we live in a simulation. I think we live in a upside down ass backward retard world so I am leaning towards  simulation. My life wont change if the earth is flat or round. But in a simulation, that's a whole other story.
If we live in a simulation then God must be controlling the simulation. Why he picked you to live in a upside down ass backward retard world should not be difficult to guess. God figured, Your life wont change if the earth is flat or round. But in a simulation, that's a whole other story.

#4
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Shila
01000100011011110110111000100111011101000010000001110010011001010111001101110000011011110110111001100100001000000111010001101111001000000110110101111001001000000111000001101111011100110111010001110011001011000010000001001001001000000110100001100001011101100110010100100000011011100110111100100000011010010110111001110100011001010111001001100101011100110111010000100000011010010110111000100000011000010110111001111001011101000110100001101001011011100110011100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110100001100001011101100110010100100000011101000110111100100000011100110110000101111001001000000110000101100010011011110111010101110100001000000110000101101110011110010111010001101000011010010110111001100111001011100010000001010100011010000110100101110011001000000110100101110011001000000111010001101000011001010010000000110100011101000110100000100000011101000110100101101101011001010010000001001001001000000110100001100001011101100110010100100000011101000110111101101100011001000010000001111001011011110111010100101110
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
I genuinely do not understand what the hell you are saying.

Nothing explained a flaw with the flat Earth model. You just conceded it is entirely viable.
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your post reveals that you know jack shit about the flat earth model which has Antarctica as the edge of Earth 
#7
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
as the bible teaches, the world we live on is flat. there are many videos of "rockets" lifitng off however there is always a "bounce" effect, where the rocket ship goes up then down like a balloon (hence it being the balloon theory). his is it that this thousand pound rocket can bounce about? the moon landings are fake fake and nasa is a sham.
#8
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
If I'm reading this post correctly, the point is that the flat earth model works in most circumstances, but has some weird edge (hehe) cases where the model does weird stuff like your "south pole teleportation." This is already common knowledge, and the reason people navigate with 2D maps rather than globes, and Newtonian formulas for most physics problems. There are edge cases where the Newtonian model breaks down (high gravity and significant fraction of the speed of light) which Einstein's theories were so important and famous for solving.

I like the way you worded it but you basically just explained convenient simplification.
#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@K_Michael
Dude, he is an asbolute ignoramus that knows literally 0 of flat earth theory talking about a totally separate model that no flat earth believer thinks the Earth is.
#10
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I haven't looked into the flat earth model myself, nor am I particularly interested in doing so. You could call Inteligence's version the Mercator earth model if you prefer, after the map he seems to be thinking of.
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@K_Michael
There is no flat earth believer that thinks what he is saying is relevant to the flat earth model. Find me one.
#12
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't say there was. The Mercator map is just a tool for navigation, not something people seriously think the earth looks like, but that's what it sounds like Intelligence is describing to me.

I take it that you are a flat earther?
Topic's author
#13
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
About #5:

No, I didn’t say the flat earth model is theoretically incorrect. It is theoretically possible, but it is useless as a map.

Why would you use a flat earth disk map when we could use a globe or at the least the Mercator projection?
Topic's author
#14
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
As generally, you are the one making assumptions about what I am trying to talk about(that is what I get typing the first paragraph in #1, lol).

I am not contemplating the “traditionally accepted” flat earth but actually what I would think a “flat earth” would be like given the earth that we have accepted as round and spherical and merely folded space unwounded from the South Pole so it is made to be flat as a reference to the rest of known space. You know what? I think your “flat earth model” is scientifically wrong, but that is another story.

Let me just say, having the moon or anything else spherical but Earth a plane is absurd to me. In my “flat earth model”, they would just be distorted but still be a closed 3D shape, as we are looking through space in some kind of polar plot, I guess.
Topic's author
#15
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@K_Michael
Well, not far away. Plot the Mercator map on a XY-coordinate graph, then transform it to polar plot with the arctic North Pole being the origin, it becomes the “flat earth model” in which what I think many actual “flat earthers” believe in. That is where I started. We could unfold space like the Mercator projection and it becomes another “flat earth” as the entirety of Earth is a plane that is a reference frame of position, but then again, anything with size that is directly on top of the north or South Pole(directly in line with the pole on the surface and the center of the “round earth”, in the core) would be on either side of their respective poles. The Mercator projection is relatively useless at polar exploration, That is why we have better maps.
#16
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
What are you expecting entering this topic? I don't know. Either way, let me explain.

Heliocentrism isn't wrong, but inefficient: In that case, both the moon and the sun will orbit around the earth, while planets such as Jupiter and Saturn, with themselves many moons around them, are calculated to orbit a center that is closer to the sun than the earth. This would mean to calculate about Ganymede, you first have to calculate about the Sun's motion, then the motion of Jupiter, then Io. That is super inefficient. Instead of that, why don't we set the reference at the Sun?

It is the old religious who fixed the reference at Earth and accepted nothing else, not Galileo nor Copernicus. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, etc... just provided new references that made calculation and observation more efficient.

In reality, we technically can define the Earth's surface as flat and anything tangential to the Earth "above it". The problem becomes that if some object flys directly above the south pole, the position for that object on the "flat earth model"  would teleport from one side to another. All constellations would be on one side of "earth", the other side being what is "underneath the Earth", which we will have a mantle and core as wide as the surface of Earth itself. We can just fold space enough so that the Earth's curvature matches the morphed space so the Earth is flat according to that system. In that case, the earth is flat.

Due to astronomical, geological, geographical(continents in the South will be disproportionally enlarged), physical, and maybe even archaelogical inconvenience, we pretty much discard this model the moment it is being formed in one's mind. That is why this model wasn't being thought of before with great depths, hmm, I guess.
Are you aware today we have satellite images of planet earth and is very spherical. Before that it was logical to assume the earth was flat. But that is no longer the case. A picture tells a thousand words.
#17
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Intelligence_06
If I am reading this correctly, you are saying that if we redefine flat to "a side or a surface" then the world is flat relative to where we are standing and everything, Therefore, is realigned in reference to our position on earth.

While this is an interesting thought experiment, we already have mountains of data that prove the earth is not flat.

Also, fwiw, the Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. The Hebrew word translated "circle" (חוּג) in most Bibles actually means vault in the archaic meaning, or an arch. So when it says the vault of the earth, it is saying the earth is curved. [1] 

Additionally, ancient rabbinical commentaries on this passage also allude to the fact that the earth is both round and flat. To claim one was always the case is to ignore the Jerusalem Talmud. [2]

SOURCES:
#18
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @Intelligence_06
If I am reading this correctly, you are saying that if we redefine flat to "a side or a surface" then the world is flat relative to where we are standing and everything, Therefore, is realigned in reference to our position on earth.

While this is an interesting thought experiment, we already have mountains of data that prove the earth is not flat.

Also, fwiw, the Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. The Hebrew word translated "circle" (חוּג) in most Bibles actually means vault in the archaic meaning, or an arch. So when it says the vault of the earth, it is saying the earth is curved. [1] 

Additionally, ancient rabbinical commentaries on this passage also allude to the fact that the earth is both round and flat. To claim one was always the case is to ignore the Jerusalem Talmud. [2]

SOURCES:
Are you aware today we have satellite images of planet earth and it is very spherical?  Before that it was logical to assume the earth was flat. But that is no longer the case with modern technology. A picture tells a thousand words.
Topic's author
#19
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Shila
Our plane of reference is one in which the curvature of Earth in respect to it is a spheroid. This reference made calculation easy so we kept on using it.

However, we COULD define the Earth’s surface as flat and every other point in space would be morphed, distorted in some way, to say that it is not impossible albeit futile.

That is why you are using the first kind of plane described above. 
#20
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
Before that it was logical to assume the earth was flat.
I think you completely missed my point. The point was that the "earth being flat" idea was not widely held at all except by the Catholic Church through censorship.

The Ancient Egyptians used calculus to determine the earth was arched. [1] And the Ancient Greeks also determined the earth was round. [2]

SOURCES:
[2] https://youtu.be/T0f6u39jlRA
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
No one believes that the Earth is flat as everyone knows that the Earth is spherical.

Though some people like to say that they believe the Earth is flat.

And I'm all for freedom of speech.

Flat Earth basically relies upon an infinite conspiracy theory.

Though who or what initially conspired with who or what would be difficult to say.
Topic's author
#22
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
What I am saying is that the “roundness of earth” can only make any sense after “flat” is defined.

If we define Earth’s surface as flat, earth is flat.
#23
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
Would you like to post which model you prefer RM? At least then it will give some of us the ability to poke potential holes in the actual beliefs of flat-Earthers.
#24
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @Shila
Before that it was logical to assume the earth was flat.
I think you completely missed my point. The point was that the "earth being flat" idea was not widely held at all except by the Catholic Church through censorship.

The Ancient Egyptians used calculus to determine the earth was arched. [1] And the Ancient Greeks also determined the earth was round. [2]

SOURCES:
How do you account for the flat earth believers on DebateArt, are they Catholics?

#25
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
How do you account for the flat earth believers on DebateArt, are they Catholics?
What? I never said all flat-earthers are Catholic. I said the Catholic Church strongly promulgated the flat earth myth and censored other viewpoints.

That is totally different than saying all flat-earthers alive today are Catholic.
#26
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @Shila
How do you account for the flat earth believers on DebateArt, are they Catholics?
What? I never said all flat-earthers are Catholic. I said the Catholic Church strongly promulgated the flat earth myth and censored other viewpoints.

That is totally different than saying all flat-earthers alive today are Catholic.
If according to you the Catholic Church strongly promulgated the flat earth myth and censored other viewpoints. 

Then all the flat-earthers who heard it from  the Catholic Church that strongly promulgated the flat earth myth and censored other viewpoints. are Catholics.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Planetary appearance depends upon the point of view of the observer.

Though a perfect sphere would have a flat surface. Wherever it was viewed from.

What you are referring to is a disc like object as opposed to a spherical object.

And the two main problems with a disc, are the edge and the underneath.

And because these problems never present themselves, it is therefore safe to say with all certainty that the Earth is a spherical object.

As I stated, Disc World relies upon an infinite conspiracy and human silliness.

And just take a look at facebook and you will see how silly some people like to be.


So "Flat Earth Model" is wrong in its interpretation of the Earth. (As every flat-earther knows).

But nonetheless fun to consider.
#28
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @Intelligence_06
Planetary appearance depends upon the point of view of the observer.

Though a perfect sphere would have a flat surface. Wherever it was viewed from.

What you are referring to is a disc like object as opposed to a spherical object.

And the two main problems with a disc, are the edge and the underneath.

And because these problems never present themselves, it is therefore safe to say with all certainty that the Earth is a spherical object.

As I stated, Disc World relies upon an infinite conspiracy and human silliness.

And just take a look at facebook and you will see how silly some people like to be.


So "Flat Earth Model" is wrong in its interpretation of the Earth. (As every flat-earther knows).

But nonetheless fun to consider.
You are out of your league. You couldn’t even  fill your membership details and left all personal information marked ‘unknown’.

To see the earth surface curve;

You should be able to detect it from an aeroplane at a cruising height of around 10,600 metres (35,000 feet), but you need a fairly wide field of view (ie 60 degrees) and a virtually cloud-free horizon. The reality is that clouds, hills and mountains mean we rarely get to see the kind of perfectly flat horizon where the curve would be most obvious.

However, you can detect the curve of the Earth from ground level at the coast with a pair of binoculars – just look for distant ships on the horizon and you’ll see that their hulls start to disappear before their masts and other superstructure. Ancient Greek scientists, who spotted this without any optical aids, used this to conclude that the Earth was round.

Earth's curvature
The Earth curves about 8 inches per mile. As a result, on a flat surface with your eyes 5 feet or so off the ground, the farthest edge that you can see is about 3 miles away.


#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Yep, as I stated the Earth is clearly spherical.



So, do you suggest that I re-enter some bogus profile details like your bogus profile details.

French Canadian Catholic........As if.
#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Your brain literally cannot think outside what it's been told.