if science is fake, do you believe computers are made by hidden wizards?

Nah.  Just trying to keep you honest.

Good on ya.

I never claimed standing on the surface of the earth was an inertial frame of reference. In fact, my statement above implies the exact opposite. When you make statements like that it becomes very obvious to everyone that the issue isn't that you disagree with my work; its that you fail to understand it.

Or, does it demonstrate I do understand and can use your own arguments against you and cut to the point.

The interpretation of the mathematics behind a theory is not "semantic" games in any way that it should be dismissed out of hand because you don't like it and can't argue against it.

It is semantics when you try to redefine what flat and round mean to try to pretend a RE is flat by appealing to non flat spacetime and saying it just follows the curvature of that.

Skipping all the semantic BS, that planet is still round.

To demonstrate this, in this hypothetical world of yours, what is the angle sum of a triangle on the surface (ignoring irregularities like mountains)?

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

i.e. all we have is your claim.
Even then, did they agree Earth is flat?
Or did they just agree with minor points like a satellite orbiting this round Earth is following a geodesic in space-time?

However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

You say this, yet you cannot justify it.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

Yes, but before you say this means the planet itself is flat because this hypothetical orbit is one on a "flat" surface, that is not the surface, and the argument above demonstrates that this is not the case for the surface.

Likewise, before you try to appeal to common elements of Euclidean geometry, make sure you demonstrate they work in non-Euclidean geometry.

e.g. in Euclidean geometry, in 2D, if a line remains equidistant from a straight line, it itself is straight; but that is not necessarily the case for "straight lines" in non-Euclidean geometry.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 29, 2025, 04:25:47 PM

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 11:59:23 AM

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

Yes, it would appear round to us dumbos assuming we are living in a euclidean work in a non-inertial frame of reference. However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

I'll ignore your insults. Trying to claim I'm not a real flat earther even though I have done interviews with my real name and photo, am president of the flat earth society, have been at this over 2 decades, ran local groups and receive a significant amount of hate and flack in my real life due to it is pretty rich. Who would fake this this publicly? It has affected my career, personal life, and just about every aspect of life in general. So that's just a bit silly, isn't it?

So let's see if you can actually try attacking the argument rather than trying to claim I don't believe what I believe with no evidence or reason aside from you are bigoted towards the flat earth ideology.

The reason you think relativity says its round is the same reason people mis-attributed gravity to a force in spite of relativity.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

If you mean a low-mass artificial satellite such as the ISS, then people inside the satellite would experience micro-gravity. I.e. as near as their human senses could discern, they would feel weightless. This is because they are in free-fall around the planet. It is not necessary that the orbit of the satellite be "perfect." Just that it be in free-fall, that is, not using engines or any sort of self-contained propulsion.

There is always gravity, but if you are in free-fall you FEEL as though you are weightless.

You get the same feeling in the so-called "vomit comet," the airplane that flies a series of parabolic arcs so as to be in free-fall for a few minutes at a time.

If you found an actual physicist who agreed with you that relativity is consistent with a flat Earth, then they were just patronizing you. Real scientists live to disprove established hypotheses. It's a slow process because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it's an ongoing process, and is a characteristic of science: Scientists try to disprove their own theories, and accept them only when they cannot. Pseudoscientists just look for confirming evidence and reject disconfirming evidence out of hand, with claims of conspiracies; and they search out seeming anomalies in established science and then look no further into the explanations of those seeming anomalies.

Flat-earthers cannot even agree on a consistent theory. The details run all over the place. The only thing flat-earthers agree on is that the Earth is "flat." But is it a flat disc like a pancake? Is it flat on top and convex on the bottom? Is it an infinite plane? How thick is it? Is it infinitely thick? Is there anything underneath? Are the sun and Moon lamps or holograms, are they round or flat? Is the Earth covered by some kind of ceiling? Does it cover the whole Earth or just the part where people are? Flat-earthers cannot agree on any of this, and one often gets different answers from the same person depending on which aspect of FE theory is being challenged. In fact, there is no "flat-earth THEORY" because a "theory" is a unified and consistent system that explains something about the observable world. Flat-earth "theory" is just a jumble of unconnected claims that have nothing in common but the word "flat." And it doesn't actually explain anything, and it makes no testable predictions.

As an example, I was watching an excellent video (I can link to it if you like) referring to the claim in some versions of FE theory that the Moon is 3,000 miles above the equator of the "flat" Earth. The presenter demonstrates that if this were the case, the Moon would appear very different from different points on the Earth. But it in fact does not. The only difference in the appearance of the Moon is its apparent orientation, due to the fact that each observer is oriented with their feet toward the center of the ROUND Earth. But no matter where you are on the Earth, if the Moon is up you see the same face, and it appears the same size, with only a slight refractive "enlargement" near the horizon due to the atmosphere, but not nearly enough enlargement to account for the geometry of a Moon 3,000 miles over the equator of a flat Earth. Not to mention that the Moon would never set if it were 3,000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

And as for relativity: Stars and planets form because of the gravitational collapse of gas and dust, and above a certain size that same process forces them into approximately spherical shape. The greater the mass and the lower the spin rate, the more nearly spherical an object will be. Until you get to black holes where we cannot see what's going on inside the event horizon. But that's not relevant to the shape of the Earth. The Earth and the other planets and the sun and the other stars are approximately spherical BECAUSE of relativity. Or more precisely, because of gravity, which is explained by relativity.

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 03:19:44 PM

I never claimed standing on the surface of the earth was an inertial frame of reference. In fact, my statement above implies the exact opposite. When you make statements like that it becomes very obvious to everyone that the issue isn't that you disagree with my work; its that you fail to understand it.

Or, does it demonstrate I do understand and can use your own arguments against you and cut to the point.

Nope, and I have justified it time and time again. Looking at your Karma ratio, you might imagine why I don't want to suffer this conversation once more with you.

Your statement shows you don't know the argument you are fighting against and arguably shows you don't know relativity.

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 04:37:46 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 29, 2025, 04:25:47 PM

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 11:59:23 AM

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

Yes, it would appear round to us dumbos assuming we are living in a euclidean work in a non-inertial frame of reference. However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

I'll ignore your insults. Trying to claim I'm not a real flat earther even though I have done interviews with my real name and photo, am president of the flat earth society, have been at this over 2 decades, ran local groups and receive a significant amount of hate and flack in my real life due to it is pretty rich. Who would fake this this publicly? It has affected my career, personal life, and just about every aspect of life in general. So that's just a bit silly, isn't it?

So let's see if you can actually try attacking the argument rather than trying to claim I don't believe what I believe with no evidence or reason aside from you are bigoted towards the flat earth ideology.

The reason you think relativity says its round is the same reason people mis-attributed gravity to a force in spite of relativity.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

If you mean a low-mass artificial satellite such as the ISS, then people inside the satellite would experience micro-gravity. I.e. as near as their human senses could discern, they would feel weightless. This is because they are in free-fall around the planet. It is not necessary that the orbit of the satellite be "perfect." Just that it be in free-fall, that is, not using engines or any sort of self-contained propulsion.

There is always gravity, but if you are in free-fall you FEEL as though you are weightless.

You get the same feeling in the so-called "vomit comet," the airplane that flies a series of parabolic arcs so as to be in free-fall for a few minutes at a time.

If you found an actual physicist who agreed with you that relativity is consistent with a flat Earth, then they were just patronizing you. Real scientists live to disprove established hypotheses. It's a slow process because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it's an ongoing process, and is a characteristic of science: Scientists try to disprove their own theories, and accept them only when they cannot. Pseudoscientists just look for confirming evidence and reject disconfirming evidence out of hand, with claims of conspiracies; and they search out seeming anomalies in established science and then look no further into the explanations of those seeming anomalies.

Flat-earthers cannot even agree on a consistent theory. The details run all over the place. The only thing flat-earthers agree on is that the Earth is "flat." But is it a flat disc like a pancake? Is it flat on top and convex on the bottom? Is it an infinite plane? How thick is it? Is it infinitely thick? Is there anything underneath? Are the sun and Moon lamps or holograms, are they round or flat? Is the Earth covered by some kind of ceiling? Does it cover the whole Earth or just the part where people are? Flat-earthers cannot agree on any of this, and one often gets different answers from the same person depending on which aspect of FE theory is being challenged. In fact, there is no "flat-earth THEORY" because a "theory" is a unified and consistent system that explains something about the observable world. Flat-earth "theory" is just a jumble of unconnected claims that have nothing in common but the word "flat." And it doesn't actually explain anything, and it makes no testable predictions.

As an example, I was watching an excellent video (I can link to it if you like) referring to the claim in some versions of FE theory that the Moon is 3,000 miles above the equator of the "flat" Earth. The presenter demonstrates that if this were the case, the Moon would appear very different from different points on the Earth. But it in fact does not. The only difference in the appearance of the Moon is its apparent orientation, due to the fact that each observer is oriented with their feet toward the center of the ROUND Earth. But no matter where you are on the Earth, if the Moon is up you see the same face, and it appears the same size, with only a slight refractive "enlargement" near the horizon due to the atmosphere, but not nearly enough enlargement to account for the geometry of a Moon 3,000 miles over the equator of a flat Earth. Not to mention that the Moon would never set if it were 3,000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

And as for relativity: Stars and planets form because of the gravitational collapse of gas and dust, and above a certain size that same process forces them into approximately spherical shape. The greater the mass and the lower the spin rate, the more nearly spherical an object will be. Until you get to black holes where we cannot see what's going on inside the event horizon. But that's not relevant to the shape of the Earth. The Earth and the other planets and the sun and the other stars are approximately spherical BECAUSE of relativity. Or more precisely, because of gravity, which is explained by relativity.

I am talking about a theoretically perfect satellite in perfect orbit as a thought experiment. Not sure what you are banging on about.

Is it in an inertial frame of reference or do you need me to explain what that is.

Mind you, I am asking you if the textbook example of an inertial frame of reference is an inertial frame of reference.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 30, 2025, 10:20:07 AM

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 04:37:46 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 29, 2025, 04:25:47 PM

Quote from: Username on April 29, 2025, 11:59:23 AM

... I believe Relativity describes a flat earth. ...

Your "belief" that "Relativity describes a flat earth" does not make it so. And every single physicist on earth, people who have actually studied relativity and are capable of doing the math, will tell you that relativity does not describe a flat Earth. In fact, as Markjo correctly points out, relativity predicts that an object in space the size of the Earth (or even much smaller) will collapse into a roughly spherical shape. For the Earth to be flat, relativity theory would have to be utterly and completely wrong. Which is why most flat-earthers reject it, rather than citing it in defense of flat-earthism.

And since you are obviously not a stupid person, I'm convinced that you know this and are just having fun pretending to believe the utterly preposterous notion of a flat Earth. I don't think you believe a word you've posted here.

I've talked with several physicists. Many agree in my interpretation, though I imagine would ultimately not say anything in public due to the flack they'd get off it.

Yes, it would appear round to us dumbos assuming we are living in a euclidean work in a non-inertial frame of reference. However in actuality, the very curvature you are trying to say collapses it into a sphere proves it is flat.

I'll ignore your insults. Trying to claim I'm not a real flat earther even though I have done interviews with my real name and photo, am president of the flat earth society, have been at this over 2 decades, ran local groups and receive a significant amount of hate and flack in my real life due to it is pretty rich. Who would fake this this publicly? It has affected my career, personal life, and just about every aspect of life in general. So that's just a bit silly, isn't it?

So let's see if you can actually try attacking the argument rather than trying to claim I don't believe what I believe with no evidence or reason aside from you are bigoted towards the flat earth ideology.

The reason you think relativity says its round is the same reason people mis-attributed gravity to a force in spite of relativity.

Let us take the instance of a theoretical planet, lets call it Terra. It has a satellite, but not just any one. Its a perfectly orbiting satellite - which is to say its at a stable orbit and will continue to be forever. Would you agree a person on said satellite would feel weightlessness, which is to say they would be in an inertial frame of reference? If so I'll continue to the next step.

If you mean a low-mass artificial satellite such as the ISS, then people inside the satellite would experience micro-gravity. I.e. as near as their human senses could discern, they would feel weightless. This is because they are in free-fall around the planet. It is not necessary that the orbit of the satellite be "perfect." Just that it be in free-fall, that is, not using engines or any sort of self-contained propulsion.

There is always gravity, but if you are in free-fall you FEEL as though you are weightless.

You get the same feeling in the so-called "vomit comet," the airplane that flies a series of parabolic arcs so as to be in free-fall for a few minutes at a time.

If you found an actual physicist who agreed with you that relativity is consistent with a flat Earth, then they were just patronizing you. Real scientists live to disprove established hypotheses. It's a slow process because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But it's an ongoing process, and is a characteristic of science: Scientists try to disprove their own theories, and accept them only when they cannot. Pseudoscientists just look for confirming evidence and reject disconfirming evidence out of hand, with claims of conspiracies; and they search out seeming anomalies in established science and then look no further into the explanations of those seeming anomalies.

Flat-earthers cannot even agree on a consistent theory. The details run all over the place. The only thing flat-earthers agree on is that the Earth is "flat." But is it a flat disc like a pancake? Is it flat on top and convex on the bottom? Is it an infinite plane? How thick is it? Is it infinitely thick? Is there anything underneath? Are the sun and Moon lamps or holograms, are they round or flat? Is the Earth covered by some kind of ceiling? Does it cover the whole Earth or just the part where people are? Flat-earthers cannot agree on any of this, and one often gets different answers from the same person depending on which aspect of FE theory is being challenged. In fact, there is no "flat-earth THEORY" because a "theory" is a unified and consistent system that explains something about the observable world. Flat-earth "theory" is just a jumble of unconnected claims that have nothing in common but the word "flat." And it doesn't actually explain anything, and it makes no testable predictions.

As an example, I was watching an excellent video (I can link to it if you like) referring to the claim in some versions of FE theory that the Moon is 3,000 miles above the equator of the "flat" Earth. The presenter demonstrates that if this were the case, the Moon would appear very different from different points on the Earth. But it in fact does not. The only difference in the appearance of the Moon is its apparent orientation, due to the fact that each observer is oriented with their feet toward the center of the ROUND Earth. But no matter where you are on the Earth, if the Moon is up you see the same face, and it appears the same size, with only a slight refractive "enlargement" near the horizon due to the atmosphere, but not nearly enough enlargement to account for the geometry of a Moon 3,000 miles over the equator of a flat Earth. Not to mention that the Moon would never set if it were 3,000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

And as for relativity: Stars and planets form because of the gravitational collapse of gas and dust, and above a certain size that same process forces them into approximately spherical shape. The greater the mass and the lower the spin rate, the more nearly spherical an object will be. Until you get to black holes where we cannot see what's going on inside the event horizon. But that's not relevant to the shape of the Earth. The Earth and the other planets and the sun and the other stars are approximately spherical BECAUSE of relativity. Or more precisely, because of gravity, which is explained by relativity.

I am talking about a theoretically perfect satellite in perfect orbit as a thought experiment. Not sure what you are banging on about.

Is it in an inertial frame of reference or do you need me to explain what that is.

Mind you, I am asking you if the textbook example of an inertial frame of reference is an inertial frame of reference.

And I did answer you that people inside a satellite in a "perfect" orbit would indeed experience the sensation of weightlessness, which was what you asked. I further stated that the orbit would not have to be "perfect" for this to be the case. And that there would indeed be microgravity, but too small for them to detect.

As for whether or not a satellite is an inertial frame of reference, I wasn't sure. I asked DeepSeek and here is its relevant quote (I can give you its full reply if you like):

Orbiting satellites are constantly accelerating toward Earth (due to gravity), violating the inertial condition.

So to answer both your questions: Yes, the people in the satellite would experience effective (but not absolute) weightlessness, and no, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference, due to the constant acceleration they experience. Even if the orbit was "perfect."

Nope, and I have justified it time and time again. Looking at your Karma ratio, you might imagine why I don't want to suffer this conversation once more with you.

Your statement shows you don't know the argument you are fighting against and arguably shows you don't know relativity.

No, you have pretended to justify it, and I have explained why it is wrong.

If I recall correctly, your justification goes something along the lines of this (simplified to show the important parts):
A satellite in an orbit around Earth is following a geodesic through space time. This is a "straight line".
You can then hypothetically measure from this satellite, straight down to Earth (ignoring terrain, etc), and see that Earth remains the same distance below it at all times.
So you have a line which remains the same distance from another straight line, making it straight itself.

This last part is wrong, as I have explained repeatedly.

I do know the argument, and I know why it is wrong.
And I also know that it can be defeated by a simple question I saw you didn't answer.
What is the angle sum of a triangle on the surface?

As for karma, I thought you of all people would know such a system is basically just a popularity contest which doesn't really mean anything, and in no way demonstrates someone's understanding of a topic.
Especially when you have a FE website, which could presumably just have FEers "smite" those they don't agree with, who show they are wrong.

How about instead of appealing to such a useless metric, you try explaining why I am wrong, or provide your argument again for me to clearly pick out the part that is wrong and explain why?
Or just answer the simple question about the angle sum of a triangle.

As for whether or not a satellite is an inertial frame of reference, I wasn't sure. I asked DeepSeek and here is its relevant quote (I can give you its full reply if you like):

Quote

Orbiting satellites are constantly accelerating toward Earth (due to gravity), violating the inertial condition.

So to answer both your questions: Yes, the people in the satellite would experience effective (but not absolute) weightlessness, and no, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference, due to the constant acceleration they experience. Even if the orbit was "perfect."

Asking AI isn't all that helpful.
What determines the answer here is how you view gravity.
If you view it in the Newtonian sense, it is a force which accelerates objects so an orbiting satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference.

If you view it in the sense of general relativity, then at least locally it is an inertial frame of reference, as being in free fall is entirely indistinguishable from being in deep space with nothing around you, with you not accelerating at all.
In this view, standing on a hypothetical stationary planet would be a non-inertial reference frame where you are accelerating upwards, equivalent to being in an elevator in deep space accelerating upwards.

The issue then comes when you try to remove the locality of it, going from a local frame where you can consider the gravitational field to be uniform to a much larger frame where the gravitational field changes.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on April 30, 2025, 02:41:07 PM

As for whether or not a satellite is an inertial frame of reference, I wasn't sure. I asked DeepSeek and here is its relevant quote (I can give you its full reply if you like):

Quote

Orbiting satellites are constantly accelerating toward Earth (due to gravity), violating the inertial condition.

So to answer both your questions: Yes, the people in the satellite would experience effective (but not absolute) weightlessness, and no, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference, due to the constant acceleration they experience. Even if the orbit was "perfect."

Asking AI isn't all that helpful.
What determines the answer here is how you view gravity.
If you view it in the Newtonian sense, it is a force which accelerates objects so an orbiting satellite is not in an inertial frame of reference.

If you view it in the sense of general relativity, then at least locally it is an inertial frame of reference, as being in free fall is entirely indistinguishable from being in deep space with nothing around you, with you not accelerating at all.
In this view, standing on a hypothetical stationary planet would be a non-inertial reference frame where you are accelerating upwards, equivalent to being in an elevator in deep space accelerating upwards.

The issue then comes when you try to remove the locality of it, going from a local frame where you can consider the gravitational field to be uniform to a much larger frame where the gravitational field changes.

You are mistaken. Whether you use Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity, the satellite is experiencing acceleration. Under Newton, the gravitational force is pulling on the satellite. Under Einstein, the satellite, by virtue of being in the Earth's gravitational field, is experiencing acceleration.

Either way, the satellite is being accelerated, and is therefore not an inertial frame of reference.

It can be used as a frame of reference, just not an inertial one.

I think what you're trying to say is that because of relativity, the satellite is moving in a "straight" line (around the Earth) and maintaining a constant distance from the Earth's surface (since we've postulated a perfectly circular orbit) and therefore the Earth is "flat." But the satellite is going around and around it.

So are you saying that the surface of the Earth, which the satellite is going AROUND and AROUND is "flat" because Einstein?

If the satellite was accelerating you would feel a pull. When you are in a car and you accelerate you feel a pull.


A free-falling satellite is following its geodesic through space-time as its not feeling any acceleration. If the satellite were accelerating then you'd feel a force, a push against your back, like in a car. That’s proper acceleration, and that’s what general relativity distinguishes from the apparent gravitational "acceleration".

What's a geodesic? Oh, the shortest distance between two points. Remind you of anything? And what is a geodesic in flat space time? a straight line. And what kind of Minwonski spacetime does an object in an inertial frame of reference "live" in? Flat Minwonski space.

By round earth's own theory, you must admit relativity is bunk or that satellite is traveling a straight line through space-time.

Alright we don't have all week so I'll just go ahead and spill the rest.

So you have one satellite, free-falling, following a straight path through spacetime. Then imagine a set of identical perfect satellites all put into orbit. Each one with its own geodesic. But all of these geodesics in actuality belong to the same family of functions.

Put em all together - these worldlines form a smooth flat bundle of geodesics that fill out a particular region of spacetime - a geodesic congruence defined by the motion of all these free-falling straight line objects.

That congruence is flat by any meaningful definition of the word - and that flat region surrounds and defines the border area of earth.

Earth is flat. QED.

When I get some spare time I'll LaTex out the math for ya to keep me honest. I can say right now that the Raychaudhuri equation will show its stable and does not converge or diverge which further implies it surrounding that region of spacetime and it does so flatly.

So we now have another proof that you can believe its flat and not reject all science.

Another victory for the Flat Earth Society. Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

If the satellite was accelerating you would feel a pull. When you are in a car and you accelerate you feel a pull.

No, when the car pushes on a portion of us to accelerate us, we feel that force being transmitted through our body.

Here is a question for you, if you were to be levitated in an incredibly strong magnetic field, which acts on your entire body to levitate it, what would you feel?

You could even consider this for a water droplet or a magnet falling through a metal pipe or a piece of metal being levitated by an induction melter.

If the force acts equally on every part of a homogenous body, so there is no force transmitted through the body, does it feel anything?

What's a geodesic? Oh, the shortest distance between two points.

In general, no.
e.g. consider 2 points on the surface of a sphere at the equator. One is at 0 degrees east, the other is at 10 degrees east.
A geodesic connecting them can either go the short path, passing through 5 degrees east, or the long path, passing through 180 degrees east.

By round earth's own theory, you must admit relativity is bunk or that satellite is traveling a straight line through space-time.

Or we can admit it is travelling along a geodesic through space-time, tracing a curve in space.

Put em all together - these worldlines form a smooth flat bundle of geodesics that fill out a particular region of spacetime

Do they?
Do they actually fill out a region, or did you mean they define a boundary of a region?
If the latter, do they actually form a boundary of an enclosed region, or does it just divide the region?

Or are you saying it fills out a 3D region which defines the boundary between two 4D region?

That congruence is flat by any meaningful definition of the word

Before saying that I would ask if there is a meaningful definition of the word "flat" for non-euclidean (i.e. non-flat) geometry, and what that actually means.

For example, for Euclidean geometry a flat surface is a plane.
One way to define this is with a point and a normal.
Then if you take that point, and any direction perpendicular to that normal, and travel in a straight line, you remain in the plane.
But this is not necessarily the case with non-Euclidean geometry, at least not for the surface you have defined.
Instead, you can take a point on that surface and a normal to the surface, and then find a direction perpendicular to that normal, which in order to remain on the surface it is not a straight line.

e.g. if we take 2D space + time to get 3D space time, we can consider effectively 1 orbital plane of Earth.
So we can consider satellites in this perfect orbit, spaced apart by longitude or time.
Each path would appear as a helix when represented in a flat version of this curved spacetime (where we are representing a 1D line of a 2D surface in 3D space).
By considering all of them, we get a cylinder in this representation in space.
So why then can't we consider a path also along this cylinder which retains the same spatial coordinates and just moves through time.
Locally at the first point we consider, it is going straight still, like something at the peak of a toss, but then it doesn't continue moving along a geodesic.

So does the concept of a flat surface make sense in a non-Euclidean space?

and that flat region surrounds and defines the border area of earth.

Earth is flat. QED.

Far too much of a logical leap.

You had a satellite not Earth. So that would be defining some arbitrary region of space time which Earth is in, not Earth itself.
Why should Earth being inside a flat region make it flat?

Why not more directly consider all points on Earth's surface, which are not following geodesics and therefore Earth is not flat?

So we now have another proof that you can believe its flat and not reject all science.

Yet you can't bring yourself to answer a simple question:
In this hypothetical world of yours, what is the angle sum of a triangle on the surface (ignoring irregularities like mountains)?

If the satellite was accelerating you would feel a pull. When you are in a car and you accelerate you feel a pull.

No. Because BOTH you and the satellite are being accelerated equally by being in the Earth's gravitational field. Both are in free-fall, constantly accelerated at an equal rate. You feel weightless because  you are in free-fall, but the acceleration of free-fall means that you are not in an inertial frame of reference.

Really, what you are claiming is silly: You are saying that the Earth is flat because a satellite going AROUND and AROUND it is following a "straight line" through spacetime. Note the part about the satellite going AROUND and AROUND!

I think your problem is that you misequate the relativistic concept of "shortest path between two events" in space-time, with the common conception of "flat." Relativity itself says that space-time is curved by the gravitational field. So the "shortest path" is actually curved, not straight, as you claim.

It is a characteristic of pseudoscientists to believe they understand things better than experts who have actually studied a field of knowledge. FET is pseudoscience, and it's proponents believe they know more than actual scientists.

Do you agree that Einstein said that gravity is a pseudo-force that arises from taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one, such as in his famous Elevator thought experiment?

Never the less I think we can confidently say there are some flat earthers that do not ignore all of science and the point of this thread is a bit moot, no?

Do you agree that Einstein said that gravity is a pseudo-force that arises from taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one, such as in his famous Elevator thought experiment?

I am not aware of everything that Einstein said, but no, I doubt he would have said that gravity arises from "taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one." Gravity is what we experience due to the curvature of space-time in the presence of mass. He might have said that we experience gravity as a force due to "taking a non-inertial frame of reference as an inertial one." But not that it arises by that reason.

Never the less I think we can confidently say there are some flat earthers that do not ignore all of science and the point of this thread is a bit moot, no?

In order to believe that the Earth is flat, in the usual sense of the word "flat," You either need to reject science, or you need to profoundly misunderstand it, or you need to assert that virtually all the world's scientists are lying to us. That last one is pathetically common among falt-earthers, with their grand conspiracy theories about NASA, and, presumably, all the world's other space agencies and astronomers.

In your case, it is clear that you profoundly misunderstand it, with your argument that the Earth is "flat" because of relativity and satellites being inertial frames of reference. (Which they are not.)

(I really hoped that you were joking, because a humorist, even one with a peculiar sense of humor, is more to be admired than someone who is delusional. FET is a delusion. Or rather, a category of delusions, since there are so many mutually-incompatible versions of it.

I hardly think every flat earther thinks lepidopterists are lying to them, but I guess you are free to believe whatever unreasonable position you wish to take.

I hardly think every flat earther thinks lepidopterists are lying to them, but I guess you are free to believe whatever unreasonable position you wish to take.

I wouldn't put it past FE'ers to question how migrating butterflies can overcome the 1000 mph rotation of the round earth.

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2025, 06:21:58 PM

I hardly think every flat earther thinks lepidopterists are lying to them, but I guess you are free to believe whatever unreasonable position you wish to take.

I wouldn't put it past FE'ers to question how migrating butterflies can overcome the 1000 mph rotation of the round earth.

You could fill libraries with the bad ideas round earthers had that they proved wrong.

Oh shit we have.

Maybe that's why they burned down Alexandria. Just wasn't worth sorting the silt from shite. The eastern sources I've always found more prolific.

I hardly think every flat earther thinks lepidopterists are lying to them, but I guess you are free to believe whatever unreasonable position you wish to take.

Ever heard of hyperbole?

You understand perfectly well what I'm saying and are pretending not to: The number of scientists that would have to be part of a conspiracy to perpetuate the lie that the Earth is round if it were actually flat, is incomprehensibly large. Not to mention all the amateur astronomers and high-school physics teachers and all the people who have visited Antarctica for work or adventure.

If the Earth were really flat, there would have to be a conspiracy so mind-bogglingly enormous that it would collapse under its own weight before it could even be formed. It is utterly absurd, just like FET itself.

Oh, yes, then there are all the people who have Starlink high-speed internet service in places where there are no cell phone towers or cable services. Starlink works by an enormous number of satellites constantly going around and around the round Earth. Everybody who has Starlink service in any remote location would have to be part of the conspiracy, and lying about it.

Speaking of satellites, I'm uncertain about your position in regard to them. A lot of FEers claim that satellites cannot exist, and/or even that space does not exist. But you've referred to satellites in orbit around a hypothetical planet, as well as an "elevator" in space.

Would you be willing to clarify what you believe with regard to space and satellites?