# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: KristaGurl on November 18, 2011, 11:51:16 AM

Title: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: KristaGurl on November 18, 2011, 11:51:16 AM
If you observe the distortion in the southern continets in an FE map, a FE'er explains those distortions by explaining that as you traverse outwards towards the edge, measurements become distorted.  They claim that this phenomenon causes the normal laws of geometry to not apply, and calls for a substitution of measurements they call "flat earth math."

As I started to think about what "flat earth math" would entail, I started to think about ratios in the flat earth map.  I started looking at the given lines of longitude in the flat earth map:

Notice how they're all straight and in equally distributed degree of separation all the way out.  However, when you look at the actual distances between landpoints going outwards, you notice that once you pass (what RE'ers consider) the equator, all of a sudden the ratios begin to get a lot more drastic (points of reference that do line up in geographic coordination don't line up with lines of longitude in a flat earth map).  In fact, if you drew a line between actual 1:1 distances on a flat earth map all the way towards the edge, you would see that the lines of longitude should actually curve backwards until they meet at a central point on the other side of the map.

Below, a very rough example of two lines of theoretic longitude that roughly retain 1:1 integrity:
(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Krista7714/2dscale.jpg)

This tells me that the outside of hypothetical flat earth doesn't actually conclude at a dropoff (or, "end of the world"), rather a point of circumfrencial unity where, one partcle located at the extreme edge of the world would actually wrap around the circumfrence of the Earth.  Meaning, if you stood on the south pole, and I pushed you away from Australia, rather than fall off the face of the earth, you would actually find yourself being pushed towards South America on the other side of the world.  This also means that, if you stand on the very outer rim of the earth, you would actually be surrounding the world.

The problem with this map is that every line of longitude would need to be split into two lines.  One wrapping around one way and one wrapping around another way.  Otherwise, there would be a split in the world somewhere to compensate for the distortions.  But, if this were the case, crossing lines of longitude would indicate that land masses would overlap.  This isn't the case.

Another problem with this map is that as the lines of longitude would curve, they would even out with the lines of latitude.  Eventually, on the other side of the earth from the point where the lines of longitude traversed perpendicular the lines of latitude, they now run parallel.  In order for them to stay perpendicular, lines of latitude would have the opposite effect.  They would curl upwards into the north pole to stay perpendicular.  This would result in the same condition of either overlapping land mass (which isn't happening), or a split planet.  This would cause the planet to be cut into 2 circles rather than 1.

There are 3 possibilities when it comes to fixing this error:

1. You split the earth into 2 circles like a figure 8.  This way, the continents retain their known distances and compensates for the integrity of longitude and latitude.  This doesn't work because the gap created by the split would still cause an inconsistency in proven geographic distance.

2. You put the meeting point outside of South America on the other side of the map so that the North pole is at one side, the equator in the middle and the South Pole on the other side.  This doesn't work because, in order to keep it flat in a 3-dimensional sense, you also have to keep it flat in a 2 dimensional sense, causing the earth to be a straight line.  Of course then, in order to keep geographical distance consistent, you also need to keep it flat in a 1 dimensional sense, which would then result in a purely non-existent object.

3.  You give the earth a third dimension.  You take the meeting point outside of South America and pull it downwards so that it's below the North Pole.  As a result, rather than a single point in the north pole and relying on skewed geometry to create circumfrencial unity on the edge, you simply have a mirroring point underneath the north pole.  This would also account for me pushing you away from Australia, and you being pushed towards South America on the other side.  And, it would also account for the multiple places currently at the north pole that are exactly that... one point.

It's important to note that it would be impossible for anything to exist on the edge of the world.  If flat earth math reconciles geographic coordination with the coordinates given on a flat earth map, the outermost rim would have to prove to be smaller than a particle (the rim of the earth carries a geographical measurement of a single point).  So, moving around on the earth would be much like the reflection of a concave mirror.  As you move across the mirror, objects go from wide to small to wide again, much like it does on the flat earth map.  However, when you stick an object INTO the curve of the mirror, things look more evenly distributed.  Of course, once you consider this map being pushed inwards into a concave mirror that was an exact semi-sphere, from the perspective of the mirror, you get the exact image of the earth... a spherical earth... with consistent geographic coordinates.

So, from what this logic tells me... is that in order for the flat earth map to even work if that IS the shape of the earth, it would have to at least APPEAR spherical.  And, it does.  The earth behaves exactly the way I've mentioned above.  There have been explorers who have gone across the south and ended up on the other side.  Even commercial flights... they don't have to go across the southernmost point to prove that you end up on the other side.  From the point I've argued above, you COULD, on this flat earth map, go southward from Sydney to end up at South Africa, and it would end up at the same point.

The problem is, in order for that to work, you have to assume that the earth is in a HIGHLY circumstancial, otherwise proven and unlikey shape, and that (otherwise correct) geometry does not apply in this case alone.  For this reason, the most likely scenario is that the earth is the spherical shape that has been proven and documented for over 2,000 years, and geometry consistent with the natural world proves it and backs up the claim.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: Parsifal on November 19, 2011, 01:11:08 AM
I started looking at the given lines of latitude in the flat earth map:

Notice how they're all straight

Incorrect.

Once you are able to recognise a straight line, please feel free to come back and make a point that isn't founded upon false claims.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: trig on November 19, 2011, 04:34:23 AM
This is exactly what happens with every FE "theory". It may sound acceptable if you do not look too carefully, but as soon as you dig even a millimeter deep you start to need some curvature to make things work. Every explanation that sort of solves one problem causes even more problems than it solves.

So nobody can even start to refute Krista's argument (except with one word idiocies, like Parsifal) because anything you counter just digs a bigger hole for the FE "theories".
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 19, 2011, 04:42:06 AM
(except with one word idiocies, like Parsifal)
So you disagree with Parsifal's claim that circles are not straight lines? Why?
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: jraffield1 on November 20, 2011, 11:59:21 AM
I started looking at the given lines of latitude in the flat earth map:

Notice how they're all straight

Incorrect.

I believe she was talking about lines of longitude.
Once you are able to recognise a straight line, please feel free to come back and make a point that isn't founded upon false claims.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: KristaGurl on November 20, 2011, 07:05:23 PM
This is exactly what happens with every FE "theory". It may sound acceptable if you do not look too carefully, but as soon as you dig even a millimeter deep you start to need some curvature to make things work. Every explanation that sort of solves one problem causes even more problems than it solves.

So nobody can even start to refute Krista's argument (except with one word idiocies, like Parsifal) because anything you counter just digs a bigger hole for the FE "theories".

Just like a magic trick
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: KristaGurl on November 20, 2011, 07:07:17 PM
I started looking at the given lines of latitude in the flat earth map:

Notice how they're all straight

Incorrect.

I believe she was talking about lines of longitude.
Once you are able to recognise a straight line, please feel free to come back and make a point that isn't founded upon false claims.

I was talking about the lines going from the center to the outer perimeter.  Sorry, longitude.  I shall adjust the post now.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: NoFlatChicks on November 25, 2011, 01:08:15 PM
It may sound acceptable if you do not look too carefully, but as soon as you dig even a millimeter deep you start to need some curvature to make things work.

Unless you're towards the outer edge of the world, because then millimeters become distorted if I recall correctly.  Perhaps then one would need to dig a decimeter deep?
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 28, 2011, 03:47:33 PM
This tells me that the outside of hypothetical flat earth doesn't actually conclude at a dropoff (or, "end of the world"), rather a point of circumfrencial unity where, one partcle located at the extreme edge of the world would actually wrap around the circumfrence of the Earth.  Meaning, if you stood on the south pole, and I pushed you away from Australia, rather than fall off the face of the earth, you would actually find yourself being pushed towards South America on the other side of the world.  This also means that, if you stand on the very outer rim of the earth, you would actually be surrounding the world.
Yes. Welcome to my model's geometry.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: jraffield1 on November 28, 2011, 04:01:47 PM
This tells me that the outside of hypothetical flat earth doesn't actually conclude at a dropoff (or, "end of the world"), rather a point of circumfrencial unity where, one partcle located at the extreme edge of the world would actually wrap around the circumfrence of the Earth.  Meaning, if you stood on the south pole, and I pushed you away from Australia, rather than fall off the face of the earth, you would actually find yourself being pushed towards South America on the other side of the world.  This also means that, if you stand on the very outer rim of the earth, you would actually be surrounding the world.
Yes. Welcome to my model's geometry.

Ironically, your model's geometry is identical to that of a sphere, and is no sense of the word flat  ;D
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 28, 2011, 04:32:18 PM
Ironically, your model's geometry is identical to that of a sphere, and is no sense of the word flat  ;D
Incorrect. That's just your imagination of something that isn't my model, based on confirmation bias and unwillingness to discuss.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: jraffield1 on November 28, 2011, 04:45:33 PM
Ironically, your model's geometry is identical to that of a sphere, and is no sense of the word flat  ;D
Incorrect. That's just your imagination of something that isn't my model, based on confirmation bias and unwillingness to discuss.

I have discussed this with you before and your model doesn't make sense, physically or mathematically.

Speaking of models though, the only thing you say about your model is "it matches reality" and "its flat I swear." You have yet to provide any other description of your model. If you want your "model" to be taken seriously, express your ideas with mathematics; just knowing the metric of your model would do wonders for your explanation.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: PizzaPlanet on November 28, 2011, 04:53:08 PM
I have discussed this with you before and your model doesn't make sense, physically or mathematically.
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: momentia on November 28, 2011, 05:14:35 PM
I have discussed this with you before and your model doesn't make sense, physically or mathematically.

Yet, there is nothing supporting the model, theoretically or physically.

Can you come up with an experimental procedure that would give different out comes on your FET and RET?
How can we tell which theory is wrong with an experiment?
Title: Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
Post by: toolpot462 on December 06, 2011, 07:11:41 PM
I have discussed this with you before and your model doesn't make sense, physically or mathematically.