Does the FE have any real evidence?

The FE model doesn't seem to really hold up against any real scrutiny. This is supposed to be more open ended, in the sense of where people can try to prove that the FE is better than the RE. As of now, I do not think it is possible for anyone to provide a legitimate argument of a FE. So, if you want to prove me wrong, this is the place.

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

Sweet, down to a sentence. The math is left as an exercise to the reader.

What does Einstein's relativity say about the shape of the earth in Euclidean space?

So funny. When someone talks about things he doesn't know a damn about.

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

It's Minkowski space which, like the Euclidean space of ordinary geometry, is said to be flat. That is, not affected by that intrinsic curvature that, in GR, accounts for gravitational interaction. In it, the straight world lines are those of particles NOT affected by ANY force (not even gravity)

(and yes, you CAN imagine a flat Earth in a Minkowski space. Or a spherical one, or cylindrical, or toroidal, or whatever...)

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

Sweet, down to a sentence. The math is left as an exercise to the reader.

Actually, no, in Minkowski space, the equidistant point will be shaped like a hyperbola, so I certainly don't see the flat plane coming from anywhere.

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space

No it doesn't.
Einstein's relativity has Earth round in space, with the surface expanding outwards through curved spacetime.

And Minkowski space, is spacetime in the ABSENCE of gravitation.
So that clearly is NOT describing Earth.

as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

No, it doesn't.
Again, these orbits are not straight lines in Minkowski space.
They are straight lines in curved spacetime.
And this curved spacetime is non-Euclidean, so you can't use the principles of parallel lines (or equidistant lines) in Euclidean geometry to pretend Earth is flat.

In curved spacetime, 2 lines can remain equidistant with one being curved and the other being straight.
2 straight lines can change distance between them including in a cyclic manner.

You have had all this pointed out before.

What does Einstein's relativity say about the shape of the earth in Euclidean space?

It doesn't. It explicitly talks of non-euclidean space.

Quote from: Username on September 22, 2024, 04:22:41 AM

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

Sweet, down to a sentence. The math is left as an exercise to the reader.

Actually, no, in Minkowski space, the equidistant point will be shaped like a hyperbola, so I certainly don't see the flat plane coming from anywhere.

You are confusing the concept of "equidistant points" in spatial geometry with hyperbolic spacetime intervals.

So funny. When someone talks about things he doesn't know a damn about.

Quote from: Username on September 22, 2024, 04:22:41 AM

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

It's Minkowski space which, like the Euclidean space of ordinary geometry, is said to be flat. That is, not affected by that intrinsic curvature that, in GR, accounts for gravitational interaction. In it, the straight world lines are those of particles NOT affected by ANY force (not even gravity)

(and yes, you CAN imagine a flat Earth in a Minkowski space. Or a spherical one, or cylindrical, or toroidal, or whatever...)

Aww, someone dipped into the chat gpt didn't he?

Quote from: marco mineri on September 22, 2024, 08:35:07 AM

So funny. When someone talks about things he doesn't know a damn about.

Quote from: Username on September 22, 2024, 04:22:41 AM

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

It's Minkowski space which, like the Euclidean space of ordinary geometry, is said to be flat. That is, not affected by that intrinsic curvature that, in GR, accounts for gravitational interaction. In it, the straight world lines are those of particles NOT affected by ANY force (not even gravity)

(and yes, you CAN imagine a flat Earth in a Minkowski space. Or a spherical one, or cylindrical, or toroidal, or whatever...)

Aww, someone dipped into the chat gpt didn't he?

such a learned and profound reply...

anyhow, there IS an easy way (though not too cheap) to prove that Earth is flat

You go to N. Dakota, at about 45° N latitude, and measure the distance, along route 94 (which runs almost straight in the E-W direction) between 2 locations A and B, whose longitudes differ by ONE degree.

Then you go to Argentina at 45° S latitude, and measure the distance between 2 locations C and D, whose longitudes differ also by ONE degree.

And if distance C-D is THREE times the distance A-B, then you have the proof! Earth is flat, and correctly represented by Gleason's map!

Because, on Gleason's map, the 45° S parallel is a circle whose radius (distance from the N Pole) is 3 times the radius of the 45° N parallel, so it has to be 3 times longer.

(but, if these distances turn out to be more or less equal? Impossible, the Earth would prove a globe then!)

Mind well. You need NO “MS source” to know the difference in longitude between locations. You only need a pal who stands, say, in B while you are in A. If he sees the Sun culminating 4 minutes later or sooner than you, then the difference in longitude is 1°.


PS: I see now that, unfortunately, there's no road in Argentina running straight in the E-W direction for a difference in longitude of 1° at 45° S. So, to avoid having to make complicated surveys, you might prefer going to Australia to measure distances along the longest straight road in the world, between Caiguna and Balladonia. Not exactly E-W (and 32° S instead of 45° S) but the difference is not so great. And you can easily correct the result with just a little math

You are confusing the concept of "equidistant points" in spatial geometry with hyperbolic spacetime intervals.

Time and space are united under relativity, so talking only about spatial coordinate will be pointless.

Plus just because the Earth looks flat doesn't mean it is flat.

it is flat because i said so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Einstein's relativity necessitates the earth is flat in Minkowski space as all theoretical stable orbits form straight lines, and those at equidistant positions to the surface of the earth form a flat plane in Minkowski space.

Minkowski space only applies where there is no gravity, so applying it to anything that has a gravitational pull (like Earth, which has gravity) is incorrect usage. Talking about orbits in Minkowski space does not necessarily make sense. Einstein's general relativity specifically states that gravity causes spacetime to warp, resulting in curved orbits. If you mean his theory of relativity, that only states that the laws of physics and the speed of light in a vacuum are the same for all observers, which doesn't appear to have any use here.
Along with this, here are two counter points/things that seem pretty basic but I have not seen a response to. Note that I found this stuff from the Globebusters on Youtube.
1. I have never seen a complete Flat Earth map. This is because a map requires a scale. It is impossible to create a Flat Earth map that has a somewhat accurate scale, as the southern hemisphere/outer ring of the Flat Earth map is greatly distorted.
2. From the Globebusters, I have seen that the seasons are described using the movement of the sun from the tropic of Cancer to the tropic of Capricorn over the course half a year (then back over the other half). However, this contradicts the Coriolis effect as explained by the Globebusters, they say that winds are rotated in different directions depending on which side of the equator the winds are on because the sun moves along the equator and pushes the air/winds in the direction of its motion. Why does the Coriolis effect not move with the sun as the sun moves between the tropics? This is to say that the Flat Earth model does not have a singular, complete model.

Wrong. No one has been able to debunk a single page of https://wiki.tfes.org for years. In over 10 years of constantly discussing this carefully curated encyclopedia of knowledge only one or two pages has been shown to be incorrect. The articles were made after prolonged and mass discussions about the subjects from both this site and the tfes.org forum, with everyone trying to show it wrong, and so the articles have been vetted and checked dozens of time over to be the correct state of science. These days every time an article is posted from it in a discussion we just get creative arguments for why the RE person doesn't need to argue against it.

If you move past youtube videos about FE you will find that the Round Earth theory is drastically losing.

Wrong. No one has been able to debunk a single page of https://wiki.tfes.org for years. In over 10 years of constantly discussing this carefully curated encyclopedia of knowledge only one or two pages has been shown to be incorrect. The articles were made after prolonged discussions about the subjects from both this site and the tfes.org forum. These days every time an article is posted from it in a discussion we just get creative arguments for why the RE person doesn't need to argue against it.

If you move past youtube videos about FE you will find that the Round Earth theory is drastically losing.

How about you address my questions on these two pages about your wiki?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92782.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92785.0

Plus I don't think other FEers agree with you:

Its almost like his wiki is on another site and has nothing to do with us because it was largely written by trolls kicked out of decent Society. What you engage in now is much like debating the ethics of philosophy against the engineering of siegecraft. You are but a fool, and a petulant one at that.

How about you address my questions on these two pages about your wiki?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92782.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92785.0

Plus I don't think other FEers agree with you:

Quote from: Username on September 22, 2024, 02:36:10 AM

Its almost like his wiki is on another site and has nothing to do with us because it was largely written by trolls kicked out of decent Society. What you engage in now is much like debating the ethics of philosophy against the engineering of siegecraft. You are but a fool, and a petulant one at that.

Just read the Wiki. It says that there are a few different possibilities on that subject. You are just letting us know that you haven't read it. Your goal should be to actually show something in the FE Wiki is incorrect. If the Wiki is saying that there are a few different possibilities for something, then it is not incorrect.

Your goal should be to actually show something in the FE Wiki is incorrect. If the Wiki is saying that there are a few different possibilities for something, then it is not incorrect.

If there are multiple different possibilities, then it stands to reason that at least one of those possibilities is incorrect.  Shouldn't it be your goal to determine which, if any, of those possibilities are correct?

Just read the Wiki. It says that there are a few different possibilities on that subject. You are just letting us know that you haven't read it. Your goal should be to actually show something in the FE Wiki is incorrect. If the Wiki is saying that there are a few different possibilities for something, then it is not incorrect.

See, this is the question of you, a coherent model should contain only one set of rules, not a bunch of rules that describes the same thing. You thoroughly exhibits what a scientific model shouldn't be, a bunch of vague possibilities that are not compatible with each others. Like the map of the Earth, is it depicted by monopole model or bi-polar map? It is your responsibility to actually identify which one is correct, otherwise you are juts repeating Schrodinger's cat, your model is correct and not correct simultaneously, it doesn't make sense.

Wrong. No one has been able to debunk a single page of https://wiki.tfes.org for years. In over 10 years of constantly discussing this carefully curated encyclopedia of knowledge only one or two pages has been shown to be incorrect. The articles were made after prolonged and mass discussions about the subjects from both this site and the tfes.org forum, with everyone trying to show it wrong, and so the articles have been vetted and checked dozens of time over to be the correct state of science. These days every time an article is posted from it in a discussion we just get creative arguments for why the RE person doesn't need to argue against it.

If you move past youtube videos about FE you will find that the Round Earth theory is drastically losing.

Yeah I looked at the wiki, and I couldn't find a map with a scale. A scale is required for a legitimate map. Along with that, the wiki (and flat earth model in general) doesn't really explain sunsets well/at all. It makes the claim that a sunset is "the light of the Sun setting into the Flat Earth" and that's it, I have no idea what this means. It makes the claim that the round earth model doesn't make sense because "We do not see the horizon rising upwards into the Sun, or have any direct experience for that position." That is a strawman. We feel acceleration, not velocity. Our perspective moves with the Earth's rotation, meaning our viewing angles move the same way the horizon moves (and we do not ever see the horizon "moving up". We see the sun moving under the horizon as the Earth rotates.

Along with this, the main point I am getting to is simply how the sun, which we see moving below the horizon every time it sets, is literally impossible mathematically in a flat earth model. From everything I have seen, the FE model claims that the sun is constantly above Earth, meaning that it is above the disc that is the Earth. If you were to find the angle made by the sun compared to the horizon (0 degrees), then it would create a triangle that constantly has a positive angle above the horizon.
Let's call the horizontal distance from you to the sun "a" and the height of the sun above the Earth "h". You can make a triangle using you, the point of the Earth directly below the sun, and the sun as the three points, with legs with length "a", "h", and the hypoteneuse (which is not needed for this, but could be found with the pythogorean theorem). Now, do this equation: arctan(h/a). We know that both a and h are positive numbers (distances cannot be negative in the real world and the sun is always above the Earth), meaning that this angle will always be positive. It does not matter if "a" is some practically infinite number, it will technically still be above 0 degrees (it will get arbitrarily close, but still never drop below. But we see the sun go below the horizon, meaning the angle between observer and the sun is negative. How does this happen?

Wrong. No one has been able to debunk a single page of https://wiki.tfes.org for years.

You mean plenty of people have debunked it, with you proceeding to either intentionally ignore that, or set up strawmen of the refutation to deflect.

Your site is crap. It is not worth the bandwidth it takes up.

If you move past youtube videos about FE you will find that the Round Earth theory is drastically losing.

You mean if you move into delusional fantasy.
Back in reality, there is yet to be a single argument against the RE which actually withstands scrutiny, nor any argument in favour of the FE (over the RE).
And we have plenty of issues the FE can't solve at all and instead they appeal to vague BS which contradicts other vague BS they spout.
You don't even have a coherent FE model. Instead you have a bunch of different models you bring out for different reasons to pretend the FE can work.

Just read the Wiki. It says that there are a few different possibilities on that subject.

i.e. you have no idea at all, and are just spouting vague crap to pretend the FE can work.
You are just letting us know the FE doesn't work.

Your wiki is weaksauce. Your real research had at least mettle. Why are you simpin for some troll boys when you straight up legit bro? Some neopet tomo got your tongue by the torque?

Sorry to talk in their tongue to you, but apparently you deserve it.

Your wiki is weaksauce. Your real research had at least mettle. Why are you simpin for some troll boys when you straight up legit bro? Some neopet tomo got your tongue by the torque?

Sorry to talk in their tongue to you, but apparently you deserve it.

Alright, then I guess with such confidence, you can answer the simple question of what is the map of the Earth, bring up something valuable or go back to high school and learn some physics.

You, the foolish child will soon learn more pain than your soul can bear.

An accurate projection of the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed surfaced finite surface.

Alright, then I guess with such confidence, you can answer the simple question of what is the map of the Earth, bring up something valuable or go back to high school and learn some physics.

"Username" likes saying the RE is flat, using fancy words to pretend it to be so.
They are basically a flat Earther in name only, in that they call it flat, even though they accept the RE model.

You, the foolish child will soon learn more pain than your soul can bear.

An accurate projection of the surface of the earth is a non-euclidean closed surfaced finite surface.

You boneless dog will soon learn the importance of speaking proper English, instead of putting random words together and hope it make sense.

Proof that the Earth is round: I've been to Australia And the North and South poles, and my friend went to space, and saw the ROUND Earth with his own eyes.

Proof that the Earth is round: I've been to Australia And the North and South poles, and my friend went to space, and saw the ROUND Earth with his own eyes.

Too bad TFES is camping.

Could you elaborate on your travels for us? How did you reach Australia? Did you reach the actual geographical poles?

Thank you for your contribution thus far.

It’s measured as flat countless times every day.

A level flight of planes flying over thousands of miles above Earth at one altitude proves its flat.

The plane constantly measures for level flight along the way.

To fly over a curved Earth, we would have to measure for the curvature.

Planes would have to follow the curved surface below it, which would be very difficult to even do.

Level measures for a flat and horizontal path or surface, never for one that has any curve over it.

You cannot say there’s an unmeasurable and unseen curve because you want one to be there for a ball Earth.

Each planes speed would change their rate of descent to match the surface of Earth too.

Flying at 200 mph over a curve would have a smaller rate of descent than one flying at 1000 mph would.

We’d have to know Earths exact rate of curvature before all flights at various speeds.

A made up force within a ball Earths core is nonsense.

We have measurements for every surface, every curve and every flat surface, over any distances.

Levels don’t measure for things you need to save your fairy tale story.

It’s measured as flat countless times every day.

A level flight of planes flying over thousands of miles above Earth at one altitude proves its flat.

The plane constantly measures for level flight along the way.

To fly over a curved Earth, we would have to measure for the curvature.

Planes would have to follow the curved surface below it, which would be very difficult to even do.

Level measures for a flat and horizontal path or surface, never for one that has any curve over it.

You cannot say there’s an unmeasurable and unseen curve because you want one to be there for a ball Earth.

Each planes speed would change their rate of descent to match the surface of Earth too.

Flying at 200 mph over a curve would have a smaller rate of descent than one flying at 1000 mph would.

We’d have to know Earths exact rate of curvature before all flights at various speeds.

A made up force within a ball Earths core is nonsense.

We have measurements for every surface, every curve and every flat surface, over any distances.

Levels don’t measure for things you need to save your fairy tale story.

Which part of "Real Evidence" don't you understand?

It’s measured as flat countless times every day.

Now try again honestly, including the level of uncertainty.

A level flight of planes flying over thousands of miles above Earth at one altitude

Demonstrates they are flying level and nothing about the shape of Earth.
We have been over this countless time.

Your argument is entirely circular, basically saying Earth is flat so level is flat, so planes flying level is flying flat so Earth is flat.
Take out that assumption and it all falls apart.

To fly over a curved Earth, we would have to measure for the curvature.

No, they need to measure altitude and maintain it.

Planes would have to follow the curved surface below it

Which would be trivial, by maintaining their altitude.

Level measures for

perpendicular to down.
For plane, it is really just measuring air pressure and ensuring that doesn't change.

You cannot say there’s an unmeasurable and unseen curve

And we don't.
It has been measured countless times, and it has been seen countless times.
The horizon is the curve.
Seeing objects go over it is seeing the curve.
And measuring the angle of dip to the horizon, including how it changes with altitude is measuring the curve.

We’d have to know Earths exact rate of curvature before all flights at various speeds.

No, we wouldn't, as they would fly level.

How would the pilot know the difference between the distribution of mass being slightly off so the plane is pitching up because it is not trimmed for that exact distribution over a hypothetical flat Earth, vs they were flying straight but Earth curved below.
Both result in the same effect, the attitude of the plane relative to Earth pitches up resulting in them gaining altitude.

We have measurements for every surface, every curve and every flat surface, over any distances.

Including Earth.

So your best "evidence" is already refuted BS?
Why not just be honest and admit you have no evidence?