The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: bl4ke360 on September 15, 2009, 10:04:11 PM
-
It's actually a myth. Definition:
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.
Whereas theory means:
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
Looks like it needs to be referred to as FEM from now on.
-
totally agree
-
I disagree.
-
Care to explain why you disagree?
The OP has provided a reason to back up their statement.
Do you have one?
-
The earth is flat.
-
Right, well i know i'm not going to get a sensible answer now, but can you show me any proof that the earth is flat?
-
You are correct, The Flat Earth is not a theory. It is a large (possibly infinite) and generally flat body of matter.
However Flat Earth Theory is a theory, even by that definition. Do we analyse facts in relation to one another? Yes, of course we do. We analyse the same facts that are analysed as part of RET. We simply reach different conclusions about said facts. Here's an example of one fact, analysed by both theories:
FACT: The sun appears to move across the sky each day.
RET: This is due to the rotation of the Earth, which is spherical due to the attraction of mass.
FET: This is due to a trick of perspective/EAT/AET.
-
That's a great example Wilmore.
The RE solution to the problem, is explainable, and actually works.
The FE solution to the problem is a guess, a hypothesis at best.
-
You are correct, The Flat Earth is not a theory. It is a large (possibly infinite) and generally flat body of matter.
However Flat Earth Theory is a theory, even by that definition. Do we analyse facts in relation to one another? Yes, of course we do. We analyse the same facts that are analysed as part of RET. We simply reach different conclusions about said facts. Here's an example of one fact, analysed by both theories:
FACT: The sun appears to move across the sky each day.
RET: This is due to the rotation of the Earth, which is spherical due to the attraction of mass.
FET: This is due to a trick of perspective/EAT/AET.
Ummm.... Wilmore, I think that you need to brush up on your FET. The FE sun appears to move across the sky because it is in orbit above the FE at an altitude of (depending on how and where you measure it) about 3000 miles due to UA/photoelectric suspension. The FE sun appears to rise and set due to a trick of perspective/EAT/AET.
-
That's a great example Wilmore.
The RE solution to the problem, is explainable, and actually works.
The FE solution to the problem is a guess, a hypothesis at best.
The RE solution doesn't work, but hey, that isn't what we were discussing, was it? The example is great. A fact, and the explanation for a fact, are two different things. Hence this absurd topic is, well, absurd.
Ummm.... Wilmore, I think that you need to brush up on your FET. The FE sun appears to move across the sky because it is in orbit above the FE at an altitude of (depending on how and where you measure it) about 3000 miles due to UA/photoelectric suspension. The FE sun appears to rise and set due to a trick of perspective/EAT/AET.
Simple people require simple explanations. Based on the topic's premise, I felt big words might confuse the OP. If he's having trouble with a word like 'theory', then dumping a whopper like photoelectric suspension could lead to permanent health damage.
-
Well that wasn't insulting at all.
-
No, it was the truth.
-
Well that wasn't insulting at all.
We treat people the way they treat us. The OP has so far contributed not a single thing of value to us, and has been nothing but arrogant and rude to us.
-
You are correct, The Flat Earth is not a theory. It is a large (possibly infinite) and generally flat body of matter.
However Flat Earth Theory is a theory, even by that definition. Do we analyse facts in relation to one another? Yes, of course we do. We analyse the same facts that are analysed as part of RET. We simply reach different conclusions about said facts. Here's an example of one fact, analysed by both theories:
FACT: The sun appears to move across the sky each day.
RET: This is due to the rotation of the Earth, which is spherical due to the attraction of mass.
FET: This is due to a trick of perspective/EAT/AET.
Ummm.... Wilmore, I think that you need to brush up on your FEM.
Fixed.
-
You are correct, The Flat Earth is not a theory. It is a large (possibly infinite) and generally flat body of matter.
However Flat Earth Theory is a theory, even by that definition. Do we analyse facts in relation to one another? Yes, of course we do. We analyse the same facts that are analysed as part of RET. We simply reach different conclusions about said facts. Here's an example of one fact, analysed by both theories:
FACT: The sun appears to move across the sky each day.
RET: This is due to the rotation of the Earth, which is spherical due to the attraction of mass.
FET: This is due to a trick of perspective/EAT/AET.
Ummm.... Wilmore, I think that you need to brush up on your FET.
Unfix'd.
Fix'd
-
The RE solution doesn't work...
...because?
Simple people require simple explanations. Based on the topic's premise, I felt big words might confuse the OP. If he's having trouble with a word like 'theory', then dumping a whopper like photoelectric suspension could lead to permanent health damage.
Yeah ::)
You didn't dumb it down you wrote something entirely different.
-
Well that wasn't insulting at all.
We treat people the way they treat us. The OP has so far contributed not a single thing of value to us, and has been nothing been arrogant and rude to us.
Why would you sink down to that level? That just makes you as bad.
-
Well that wasn't insulting at all.
We treat people the way they treat us. The OP has so far contributed not a single thing of value to us, and has been nothing been arrogant and rude to us.
Why would you sink down to that level? That just makes you as bad.
What do you expect us to do, turn the other cheek? You can't blame members of this forum for being annoyed with obnoxious flamers who only spend time here to try and irritate everyone.
-
What do you expect us to do, turn the other cheek? You can't blame members of this forum for being annoyed with obnoxious flamers who only spend time here to try and irritate everyone.
Yeah, no kidding. It surprises me that so many round earthers even come to this forum anyway.
-
Back to topic:
It's actually a myth. Definition:
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.
If the Earth truly is infinite, then no test exists. It is impossible to chart and prove an unending surface.
In this case, the myth is no less deserving of respect than the theory. The myth is just an honest way of saying we can't proof it yet.
I recall the same thing happened with neutrinos. The man who predicted them said something along the lines that he had committed the ultimate scientific sin: he predicted a particle that couldn't be tested for. Of course, we eventually found a way and vindicated him. Until we can figure out how to proof an infinite surface short of traveling it, if we ever can, we are in the same boat he was.
-
Back to topic:
It's actually a myth. Definition:
A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.
It is impossible to chart and prove an unending surface.
It's a good thing we don't have to then, because Earth is not an unending surface.
-
If the Earth truly is infinite, then no test exists. It is impossible to chart and prove an unending surface.
In this case, the myth is no less deserving of respect than the theory. The myth is just an honest way of saying we can't proof it yet.
Of course the infinite plane model assumes that infinity can exist as a physical quantity.
-
The RE solution doesn't work...
...because?
Three body problem. Hilarious consequences.
-
The RE solution doesn't work...
...because?
Three body problem. Hilarious consequences.
Sundman's theorem for the 3-body problem
In 1912, the Finnish mathematician Karl Fritiof Sundman proved that there exists a series solution in powers of t1 / 3 for the 3-body problem. This series is convergent for all real t, except initial data which correspond to zero angular momentum. However these initial data are not generic since they have Lebesgue measure zero.
-
The RE solution doesn't work...
...because?
Three body problem. Hilarious consequences.
Sundman's theorem for the 3-body problem
In 1912, the Finnish mathematician Karl Fritiof Sundman proved that there exists a series solution in powers of t1 / 3 for the 3-body problem. This series is convergent for all real t, except initial data which correspond to zero angular momentum. However these initial data are not generic since they have Lebesgue measure zero.
Wilmore just got pwned.
Although, for the sake of fairness I'd like to see what FEers can put on the table as their solution to this problem.
-
Anybody can quote selectively. The very thing he quoted goes on to demonstrate why Sundman's solution is problematic. Furthermore, applying it to our solar system, or even the Sun, Earth and moon, is a different kettle of fish.
Did you really think I had never read that page before? =/
-
Anybody can quote selectively. The very thing he quoted goes on to demonstrate why Sundman's solution is problematic. Furthermore, applying it to our solar system, or even the Sun, Earth and moon, is a different kettle of fish.
Did you really think I had never read that page before? =/
You didn't indicate that you had read it before. Was I supposed to assume you had?
The only "problem" with Sundman's solution is defined here:
Unfortunately the corresponding convergent series converges very slowly. That is, getting the value to any useful precision requires so many terms that his solution is of little practical use.
Which is reasonable enough.
The n body problem is only one of pure mathematics, one of calculation, it doesn't mean n-body systems cannot exist, nor that they cannot be predicted with some accuracy given certain approximations.
I'd like to see what FEers can put on the table as their solution to this problem.
-
Markjo has been involved with discussions about this before. My comment about the page was directed at him (after all, he was the one who posted it). I'm fairly sure he's aware that I have brought this up a few times.
That approximations are required is, in my opinion, a flaw in RET. It exposes the fact that current explanations do not reflect reality, because we have to cut corners and do some very dodgy stuff which has no relation to reality in order to predict the movements of the Sun, Moon and Earth, such as pretending the Earth and Moon are one body.
-
That approximations are required is, in my opinion, a flaw in RET. It exposes the fact that current explanations do not reflect reality
No. You still don't get it. Approximations are introduced because of the monumental size of computation that is required. To reiterate (I'm sorry to have to do this) it does not mean that n-body systems cannot exist, only that the computation of their absolute predicted paths is difficult.
I'd like to see what FEers can put on the table as their solution to this problem.
-
I'm sorry, but any theory where you have to pretend that the Earth and Moon are one body in order to get accurate predictions has some serious flaws. Go outside and look at the sky tonight, and tell me if the Moon appears to be part of the Earth.
-
I'm sorry, but any theory where you have to pretend that the Earth and Moon are one body in order to get accurate predictions has some serious flaws.
No not at all. This displays an alarming misunderstanding of physics.
But anyway... I'd like to see what FEers can put on the table as their solution to this problem.
-
I'm sorry, but any theory where you have to pretend that the Earth and Moon are one body in order to get accurate predictions has some serious flaws. Go outside and look at the sky tonight, and tell me if the Moon appears to be part of the Earth.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the FE model is immune from n-body problems?
-
No not at all. This displays an alarming misunderstanding of physics.
Yeah, it's alarming that I don't consider the Earth and Moon to be one body ::)
But anyway... I'd like to see what FEers can put on the table as their solution to this problem.
What problem?
Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the FE model is immune from n-body problems?
What makes you think it isn't?
-
No not at all. This displays an alarming misunderstanding of physics.
Yeah, it's alarming that I don't consider the Earth and Moon to be one body ::)
This has been explained many, many times, but here's another take on it. If the sun is indeed ~93 million miles away, and if the moon is indeed ~235,000 miles away, then the moon and earth are about 400 times farther away from the sun than they are to each other. Surely you understand that accepted science maintains that the earth and moon are much, much closer together than the earth-moon system and the sun are? Gauss's Law implies that the gravitational field in a region is proportional to the mass enclosed divided by the surface area of the enclosed region. This means that the gravitational field through any region is approximately the same as if all the mass were concentrated at a single point in the center of the region. Because of this fact, we can show that if we were standing on the sun, the earth and moon would be so distant that the distance between the two would be insignificant, and we could treat them approximately as a single body at their center of mass. (a center of mass which would still be inside the earth)
Now imagine if we were to determine the Milky Way's gravitational influence on another distant galaxy. The galaxies are so far apart that they are approximately point masses located at the galactic center. Obviously, the billions of stars and nebulae in our galaxy are not all the same object, but the calculated gravitational influence would still be a very accurate description. After all, if we were to actually calculate billions of gravitational influences on billions of other gravitational influences, that would take far too long and yield very similar results, proving that our attempts were pretty much in vain.
In another example, potential energy of spring (1/2)kx^2 is only a first order power series approximation; it is only good for small angles, since sin(x) ≈ x for small angles. But would you deny that the energy stored in a spring is (1/2)kx^2? It is a very good approximation since the next few terms drop off with division by large factorials.
-
Accurate predictions != truth
-
Then we can never find truth.
-
But anyway... I'd like to see what FEers can put on the table as their solution to this problem.
What problem?
The problem of 3 body systems, that you carefully pointed out were difficult to calculate under Newton. Remember? It wasn't that long ago.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the FE model is immune from n-body problems?
What makes you think it isn't?
I guess we all assumed there was some kind of point to your posts.
-
I agree with Lord Wilmore. On some things, at least.
-
Accurate predictions != truth
Even if this is true (in most cases not) it's irrelevant to the Earth because it being a sphere is not a prediction, it's a fact.
-
Accurate predictions != truth
Even if this is true (in most cases not) it's irrelevant to the Earth because it being a sphere is not a prediction, it's a fact.
You keep saying our points are irrelevant because the earth is a sphere. Do you not realize that you are simply parroting your position and offering no substance to the debate?
-
Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that the FE model is immune from n-body problems?
What makes you think it isn't?
Well, let's see. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the FE solar system, the planets orbit the sun, correct? The planets have moons that orbit them, correct? And the sun orbits around... I'm sorry, but what does the sun orbit around again? Anyway, there are your n-bodies. Knock yourself out.
-
Surely they'd have to interact gravitationally for that to be the case, right?
-
Surely they'd have to interact gravitationally for that to be the case, right?
Please clarify. What would have to interact gravitationally?
-
Surely they'd have to interact gravitationally for that to be the case, right?
Please clarify. What would have to interact gravitationally?
Said bodies. You need interaction to have a problem.
-
Surely they'd have to interact gravitationally for that to be the case, right?
Please clarify. What would have to interact gravitationally?
Said bodies. You need interaction to have a problem.
Is it possible for the FE solar system not to have some sort of gravitational interaction with itself? Do the planets orbit the sun in FET? Does the sun orbit some center point above the north pole? Do the planets have moons that orbit them? Do the sun and moon have any gravitational effect on each other? If the stars are only 100 or so miles above the sun and moon, are the stars gravitationally affected by the sun and moon?
Which of these interactions are gravitational and which are the result of some other force or phenomenon?
-
I couldn't possibly say. But some people here don't believe there is any link between mass and gravitation.
-
I couldn't possibly say. But some people here don't believe there is any link between mass and gravitation.
And others do. Sounds like another issue that needs to be resolved among FE'ers before FET can hope to make any serious progress.