Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FEScientist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 23, 2015, 03:52:12 AM »
Quote from: Evar
But your hypothesis is pretty much built on yet-to-be-proven theories. Before you make your hypothesis you should check if your theories are actually viable and able to be scientifically proven. You are basing guesses on more guesses. First, you should make proper theories about major phenomenons that are detected, and how they would work on a flat earth, and if it can be scientifically proven to work that way. When you have a few of these hypothesis you should join them together to form a model. Make new theories as necessary. Base new theories on observations and make hypothesis for how they work. Experiment to see if your theory works. Add to the flat earth model. That's how you should work.
That's only a useful practise in small-scale experiments. When it comes to testing and validating an entire model, it's very hard to predict what we should observe without knowing what else to take into account. There's going to be overlap in effects: for example, take the RE model of gravity. It doesn't work on a large scale: should that knowledge be used to reject the model, or is there another aspect of the model (dark matter) which exists to provide an answer?

Quote from: Jimmy
* Ask a Question.
Is the Earth flat?
* Do Background Research.
If the Earth is flat, then what would govern these observations that we can find?
* Construct a Hypothesis.
The complete model, if/when it is done.
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
To be performed.

But he has stated that he is starting with a hypothesis, but I have no idea what his hypothesis is based on.
Cart before the Horse
Starting with constructing a hypothesis. I would be interested to know what science you are aware of that has an earlier step.

Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 22, 2015, 01:02:24 PM »
What is wrong is that you assume that everything that would disprove your theory is caused by and unknown phenomenon. This creates and endless loop where everything that disproves the theory gets explained by another theory, which either can't be proved or leads to a new theory to make that one work and so on.
I do not use explanations that cannot be proved. I do not seek out proofs immediately because they may be inconsistent with what is required to make the rest of the model work (in which case I will reject it) or may be flawed in a way I did not notice, in which case I will also reject it (as I have done). This does not mean they cannot be tested.
The idea is to gauge what is required for an FE model. If I end up with a mess of proposed explanations with no evidence, it is still reasonable so long as I test and confirm each before declaring the model as any more than a hypothesis. I'm not interested in infinite regresses or unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 22, 2015, 11:29:25 AM »
Verbosity is no replacement for the scientific method.
That is why I explained the method using 'verbosity'. It is very hard to explain something without using words.
I am testing the FE hypothesis: what must be true in order for it to hold? What is wrong with that?

Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 22, 2015, 09:31:55 AM »
Quote from: Jimmy
Perhaps you should falsify round earth theory before working on alternative hypotheses?

Developing a FE model that functions better than the RE would achieve just that: falisfication is rarely as direct as I've seen assumed here.

You've got one:  the earth is flat.  This is a falsifiable hypothesis.  The problem you face is that it's already falsified...
It predicts the earth is flat.  Test that hypothesis.
The Earth being flat is part of a hypothesis: what matters is what this would predict. That's what needs to be developed in order to find an accurate hypothesis.

Here's guidance on what a good hypothesis should be:
Please note that I do follow them. I take more reasonable, and often scientifically interesting areas, and examine how they would apply exclusively to an FE model: and how the subsequent implications would not be addressed or developed by the RE model.
I do use preliminary observations. You are the one arguing that I should not, it seems: you, according to the rest of your post, are of the opinion that because a cursory examination with no refinement or alteration (which may be well within the bounds of possibility) does not allow for an FE model, the FE model should be rejected. This is unscientific.
I am open to being wrong: I am one major error away from rejecting the FE model, having already acknowledged doing so twice.
However, this does not mean it is unscientific to work on a hypothesis. Every hypothesis necessarily begins undefined. No theory sprouts fully-formed into being. First you posit connections, then explanations, then formulae. A full replacement of a model is more complex than a typical hypothesis, so it will be slower going, and it can't be done in an effective piecemeal fashion because one replaced hypothesis will likely not be in line with the rest of the model: full replacement is required.

I am testing to see if the Earth is flat. To do so, I conclude what would most likely be the case to justify our observations, and what these justifications would predict. These explanations are derived from scientific knowledge: hypothesized connections, unexpected gaps, and mysteries in modern science.
When a working model is found, I will then be able to test, and so confirm or reject a hypothesis.
Just because the hypothesis I am testing is whether the Earth is flat does not make what I am doing less scientific.

Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 22, 2015, 08:21:38 AM »
And this is what I mean with pseudoscience. Creating a model is done by fitting together observations and already known facts and connections. You assume from the beginning that the earth is flat, and despise of observations that proves otherwise. Sure, they are pointless if you wan't to make a flat earth model, but they are still observations, connections and facts. Despising them or blaming them on some unknown, undeveloped phenomenon is ignorant.
I am creating a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis, I must determine what it would predict, and what it would say would and would not be the case, and of course I should do so in line with current evidence.
I blame them on undeveloped phenomenon so that I may develop those phenomenon. When the model is complete, I will have a FE hypothesis. Then I may begin to test and verify or disprove.

This isn't pseudoscience. It may be an earlier stage of science than you are used to seeing, you tend to just view things at or past the peer review stage while this is the pre-hypothesis stage, but this is nonetheless science.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 22, 2015, 05:26:13 AM »
Well, sure then. But it definitely is most likely that the temperature readings we get are genuine, in any case.
Only if you assume there's no interference, which cannot be assumed as we already know there is odd behavior when the Sun's light meets the flat Earth. All I'm concerned with right now are possibilities: what could be used as a building block for a successful hypothesis.

Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 22, 2015, 05:24:53 AM »
Can you try the project with the data you already have using a globe instead of a flat map? Measure the distance between pairs of cities using a string, then compare the measured distances with the flight times.

You're on to something with your comment about the Earth being a higher-dimensional shape, but don't overthink it. You found that a flat plane (2D) doesn't work with the data you have. Next, try a sphere (3D) before worrying about anything more exotic.  Check it out. There will be some error, but if it's close, while not proof, it's more evidence that what almost everyone already knows is correct.
Maybe. That would still be a terrible way to develop and so test an FE hypothesis.

The Lounge / Re: A New Scientist on the Forum
« on: September 22, 2015, 05:22:45 AM »
These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model

Gaps in the idea or the 'model' that the earth is round? They might, but they don't. I've never heard of any. I have heard of, and you have mentioned, e.g. gaps in relativity and cosmology. Specifically the phenomenon referred to as 'dark matter,' which more precisely refers to, afaik, that galaxy cluster's movements, some of them have orbital speeds which are in excess of that predicted by cosmology and relativity. Which is then also a gap in knowledge in general.

We've discussed knock-on effects before. I am quite tired of repeating myself.

The Lounge / Re: A New Scientist on the Forum
« on: September 21, 2015, 02:37:26 PM »
Anything's possible, but you keep saying there are flaws and gaps in the idea that the earth is round. And that it's incomplete. Which apparently refers to either assumptions or questions not answered. But why is there a problem with the idea that the earth is round that it doesn't explain everything? Every idea doesn't explain something, and probably never will. Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain why leaves are green. This doesn't mean descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or have problems. They're not intended to explain why leaves are green, just how magnets work.
There's no inherent problem. I've said this before. These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model, so it is only honest and scientific to examine an alternative.
Why the opposition to simply testing the FE model?

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 21, 2015, 02:32:06 PM »
Something still needs to be very hot in order to get those temperature readings. If they come from the dome then the dome itself has to be so hot that it is made out of plasma. And again, it doesn't matter that there could be something else manipulating, bringing such points up doesn't get a discussion anywhere unless you can base it on something. If there is something that would change (in this case, increase drastically) the wavelength of light, you have to figure out what it would be (it can't be any matter, as this change apparently would occur in vacuum) and make an experiment which can prove it. Until then it is no point in bringing it up or to base another model on it. Actually, saying that light has to behave differently for an unproven and unfinished model to work is pseudoscience - you come to a conclusion that something has to be and try to find any evidence that would prove it.

The change would only occur in vacuum if you assume the RE model, or an FE model with space travel.
If you can't bring something up until it's confirmed in an experiment, that ruins most of science. It is necessary to construct a hypothesis which could possibly explain an observation, before tetsing it: that's what I'm doing, so bringing such points up is very relevant. It's not pseudoscience, it's an early and necessary step of real science.
Again, I'm not saying that it is the case, only that it should be acknowledged as a possibility.
And also again, I am constructing a hypothesis: I am developing the best FE model as a hypothesis, so that I may test whether or not the theory holds. It would be utterly ridiculous for me to do this by allowing the world to not be flat: it is a necessary step of developing a hypothesis to assume what you want to test is the case. Then you can look at what the testable consequences of that would be.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 21, 2015, 01:40:18 PM »
In any case, we should no matter the shape of the earth we take as fact assume that the temperature readings are correct. Nothing speaks against them, and wavelengths has nothing to do with the shape of the earth anyways.
Just because there isn't a direct, immediately obvious relationship doesn't mean there wouldn't be a knock-on effect. Take the dome model, for example: the Sun may be passing through matter in order to reach us.

Flat Earth General / Re: My challenge to flat earthers
« on: September 21, 2015, 12:06:43 PM »
This is a badly defined challenge. Earth-shape theories have a great deal of knock-on effects. if the Earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist as you predict, light behaves differently... theoretically I could point to any gap or apparent contradiction in the RE model and say that's because it doesn't take into account the changes expected by the FE model: or I could point at something like the origin of life where only hypotheses exist because true evidence is nearly impossible to come by, and say that as all you have is speculation it's not a sufficient answer. After all, that's how the FE model is judged.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 21, 2015, 12:02:15 PM »
As far as we now, there is no interference. You cannot base an hypothesis on loose speculations. We don't observe any interference, and it makes no sense that there'd be any interference. No interference has been observed by probes. The temperature of the sun is considered to be a fact. We COULD be wrong, but there's NO evidence against the current model.

I never said that you should assume your flat earth model wrong, only that you should assume the current light model to be at least mostly right. Otherwise we ain't getting anywhere.

And what spotlight shape? If you have the right telescope you can study the sun for a few days or weeks and see that it is round and mostly spherical.
As far as we know, yes. This does not preclude the possibility of it existing, that is all. I'm not saying it definitely does, simply that a hypothesis would still be valid even if it assumed there was.
The evidence against the current model would be in the FE aspect: I make no assumptions that do not immediately follow from the Earth being flat.
The spotlight shape is typicaly justified by the existence of night: light clearly doesn't cover the whole surface, as it would with an orb. Curved light wouldn't be a full answer, as some light would still make it to each part of the disc.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from an Airline pilot
« on: September 21, 2015, 11:59:35 AM »
Proven measured distances only work on a round earth.
Could you be more specific? Which distances, and proven how?
All.  Unless you can prove otherwise.

That's not how it works. You made the claim, you are expected to justify it. I cannot disprove a statement when there is no justification to disprove.
Further, I posed two questions. Which distances, and proven measured how? Even if your response were an answer (it is not), it remains incomplete.

the Earth being tilted through a higher dimension,
This doesn't mean anything.
Could you please be clearer? I thought the intent was obvious: the Earth is flat with respect to our dimensions, but the distances wont match with a 2-D object because it exists in another. Certainly, I am only suggesting this as wild speculation, as an idea it's fraught with convenient assumptions, but even so it is interesting.

Flat Earth General / Re: Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:50:49 AM »
The map project was a failure. Paris was to be placed at the intersection of two arcs with quite a difference between them.

I should make clear that this does not refute the FE model. I did make a few assumptions, and the error bars were always going to be great. It was only ever to be an approximation. There are a number of ways I could have gone wrong: and flight times were my only accessible method of verification, and were not a good one.
There's also the possibility of higher-dimensional shapes of the Earth being involved. I've seen it proposed that the world is 'tilted' in a higher dimension, which would make my strictly 2-D map meaningless.

Even so, this counts as a strike two for me. I'm working on a basis that if three major elements of my hypothesis are struck down, then that's it. No excuses, no alterations, I'll reject the FE model as requiring too many assumptions and conveniences.
Master Evar pointed out a flaw with my model of light: which I have now refined, but even so it was a major error, so counts as strike one.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:41:04 AM »
Quote from: Evar
They go really close. Closer than the closest planet. And it doesn't matter. If our instruments shows us a certain temperature then it should be assumed that it is that temperature.
That's not particularly close on cosmic scales. Even so, instruments should only be trusted if you know there is no interference: if you measure someone's temperature with a mercury thermometer, while your fingers are touching the base, you're going to taint the readings. You shouldn't trust what the instrument says.

And that's what we should assume to be the right model.
Unless you're developing a hypothesis, in which case assuming your hypothesis is wrong is basically the worst possible first step.

Only in it's directions - wavelengths doesn't matter between flat or round earth. IR thermometers work, there is no doubt about that. If those thermometers tell us that the sun has a certain temperature, then the sun will have that temperature (more or less, may vary by a few degrees).
Without a well-defined or confirmed mechanism, there's no way to be certain if wavelengths would alter. The best thing we can say about IR thermometers is that they work without interference.
Personally I do like the idea that the Sun is indeed powered by fusion (theoretically the strong interaction component of the gravity exerted by hydrogen and helium would provide more gravity than the RE model predicts, to hold the Sun together), though that model isn't perfect: it wouldn't explain the spotlight shape, for example (though that may not be necessary, after all).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun as a spotlight?
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:35:30 AM »
If the force repelling light from earth is purely accelerating, then acceleration will only be added at a 90 angle to the direction of travel, and if the photon is travelling more or less straight down the horizontal acceleration will be minimal. Attraction/repulsion is just my way to describe it.
Acceleration is rarely the best way to think of light. Even so, I know what you mean, and an attractive force can usually be modelled the same as a repulsive force from the other direction, there are just too many issues with having the Earth itself as the source.
For me, it still feels better to have an attractive force higher up. This also makes more sense along the unification front. if we treat gravity as analogous to magnetism, then mass would be similar to metal in that it gets drawn in. Repulsion is harder to justify.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from an Airline pilot
« on: September 21, 2015, 09:31:08 AM »
Proven measured distances only work on a round earth.
Could you be more specific? Which distances, and proven how?

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 21, 2015, 07:03:09 AM »
Quote from: Evar
I posted elsewhere my only explanation for how light on a flat earth could possibly work (in a response to you). And it does not involve changing the wavelength anyways. And it's a pretty weak argument, it COULD be, but you don't have any kind of evidence. Until there are evidence of different behavior we should only assume that light behaves as currently recorded, observed and accepted.
You posted one explanation: it may be your only explanation, but there is no reason to think it the only explanation.
I don't need evidence: I'm constructing a hypothesis. All i need is what could be, and that explains observations: that's sufficient. Then when the model is complete, I can test it. Assuming a FE is all the justification I need to accept that light behaves differently, or that something that affects it is at play, because I am not yet proposing this is a complete theory. It's a hypothesis.

It doesn't matter. If probes near the sun get the same temperature readings as probes in earth orbit, or close to, then obviously nothing has changed as the light traveled to earth.
Or it's changing when close to the Sun: probes don't get that close. Or we get onto fun, if unlikely, bastardizations of the quantum observer effect. Or probes don't go as far as we think they do.

But that doesn't change the wavelength of light from the sun in any meaningful way.
As far as the current model goes.
As we observe light behaving in a certain way, we can only assume it does behave in that way until we make an observation that suggests a different behavior.
Yes, but if the world is flat, the way we observe it behaving is different.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from an Airline pilot
« on: September 21, 2015, 06:56:59 AM »
No, I'm not assuming anything. And if you tilt the landmasses, it'll distort the sea bed horribly, and distances between land masses will also be distorted.
Yes, it will. Multiple small distortions don't mean much. No one's claiming the FE and RE maps will be identical: they're not going to be. All that matters is that the FE map will be more accurate than the RE map. After all, we navigate by globes despite the Earth being oblate, even by the RE model. It isn't perfectly round, and yet the approximation works: all that matters is that the error bars in distance and direction for a map (FE or RE) aren't greater than the natural distortion of scaling down such a large object and factory errors.

Earth being tilted through dimensions has no scientific ground behind it. Might as well say that the edge bends space time, so if you try to cross it you walk through complicated bent space time and go out on the other side of the flat earth.
Nothing has scientific ground behind it: until it does. Higher dimensions certainly have promise, as far as hypothesizing goes: and they're far from impossible. It's very likely, borderline proven, that such dimensions exist, so it is almost more of a surprise that the Earth wouldn't exist, to some degree, in that direction, than if it did.
Hypothesizing doesn't need to have scientific ground behind it. It merely needs to be possible: then the scientific ground is found by experimentation once the model is complete and can be tested.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun as a spotlight?
« on: September 21, 2015, 06:50:40 AM »
If we assume that speed of light is genuine, light reaching earth would be no problem. Any light that travels more or less straight down will change it's direction by extremely little, and since light doesn't slow down it'll keep going.
The speed of light wouldn't mean much if light was repelled from an object. There's certainly some way for it to work, though I will admit to favoring the idea that light is attracted to something above the Earth rather than repelled by the Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from an Airline pilot
« on: September 21, 2015, 05:18:34 AM »
Quote from: Evar
No, my point is that the maps would not be compatible.

1. One has edges, the other have none.
2. The lesser the edges, the greater the distortion.

You won't get close to an accurate map. For this I'm assuming edges as an distortion. You could make many edges to avoid distortions, but edges themselves are distortions as they create borders which did not exist, or elliminate borders that did exist:
You're still assuming one way of constructing a map: and for that matter assuming Antarctica as a set point. That example would remain drastically different to any proposed FE map.
Close around the Arctic. Tilt the Americas so SA is still pointed towards Africa, while NA moves nearer to Russia. That's a hasty example of a better, if not perfect, map.
Keeping the angles each landmass is poised at constant between each map is purposefully limiting options.

I am aware of edges as errors: I did specifically bring up that problem in my last post. Fill in the gaps between edges with sea and that may help well enough: you'll be left with lots of little distortions from a globe, certainly, but a) that's only relevant if you assume the Earth is a globe, and b) it won't matter on the typical scale journeys occur in.
This is without getting onto the possibility of the Earth being tilted through a higher dimension, which I've seen proposed.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun as a spotlight?
« on: September 21, 2015, 05:12:13 AM »
Not sure about the following ideas at all, or if they have anything to do with your model.
"Compound Lens" theory:
Part 1.
Assuming that there is a dome over the flat earth, there are various theories about what it is composed of. Perhaps it is similar in some way to the opposite of a gravitational well of a black hole, or some similar type of force field. Could this dome affect the path of light within the dome?
Part 2.
Assuming that there is a dome over the earth, and that the air inside the dome increases density towards the ground. This would act like a gigantic hemispherical "compound lens" and would distort light as it travels through the air lens.

I don't yet have a model. I am in the process of developing one, so I'm always happy to hear proposed alternatives. i did favor the dome hypothesis when I began, though, I moved away from it because the laws and positionings required did tend to be very convenient: too much so.
Melding the dome and the light-magnet theory would definitely be powerful, as it would cause light to curve upwards, in addition to outwards, so that is definitely an idea to examine.

Well, the only way I see light working on a flat earth is if light curves away from the earth by some unknown force or property. This would explain phenomenons such as the horizon, objects sinking bottom first, sunsets etc. I'll post a pic of how it'd look like if you want to.
I see what you mean, though the one problem is whether it would be feasible for light to reach the Earth in the first place, then.
I did consider that: moon phases are evidently caused by the Sun, and the moon is clearly beneath the Sun, so this would imply light curving upwards. The question would be the mechanism: a dome would be an obvious possibility, though part of my previous hypothesis was that gravity behaves similarly to a magnetic field, and the Earth was formed between the interference of the gravitational fields of two objects: theoretically the object above us could be responsible for attracting light.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 21, 2015, 05:01:15 AM »
It is not automatically true that everything would need to be different. Light can still, and should still, behave as it does on a round earth.
Everything would not need to be different, but observably many things would be. If light behaves identically on a FE and RE, how do you explain sunset and the horizon?
There clearly is a need for light to change its properties, or at the very least for something else to influence. You're working under the assumption that the RE model is the only necessary one, and should be treated as a default: that is a useless perspective when I'm trying to determine a FE model.

1. The extra energy come from? or:
2. The excess energy go?
There are many sources for energy. The excess energy may have gone into the light and heat produced by the Sun, or into the mechanism that keeps it moving: and could come from similar places. There are virtual particles, for another source of energy: and if you accept a UA model a near-infinite source of energy is involved.
Regardless, in reality there are knock-on effects. Something used to explain one thing may end up having an effect in a completely different setting: perhaps an atmospheric anomaly that causes the Coriolis force would also interfere with readings of things that pass through it. Sheer speculation, merely an illustration. Uncomfortable conveniences feel less like an assumption when the same principle applies over dozens of areas.

Probes going close to the sun has nothing with light to do. You don't need light to behave in a certain way to use rockets, as they don't depend on light. And my point was that any change in light behaviour would be noticeable  when you are much closer to the source. If no change then either there is no unknown force or it is way to weak to mess with our perception of the sun from earth. And you have admitted in another thread that you believe space travel is genuine.
I have said I favor that idea, I have not fully accepted it yet, until I can run the test.
Rockets don't depend on light, but their observations clearly do. Changes in the behavior of light are only noticable if you expect to see them: light is the one thing it's very difficulty to observe, because you rely on it in order to perform any observations.

And for the discussion, the important part is that light does not change it's wavelength as it travels. As this would require energy or create excess energy it won't work in an empty vacuum of space, where there is nothing to draw the energy from or give energy.
There is plenty of energy: vacuum is the lack of matter, not of energy. Cosmic radiation, sun and starlight, in just the RE model. In the FE possibilities we could have a dome or an accelerator.

The Lounge / Re: A New Scientist on the Forum
« on: September 21, 2015, 04:49:05 AM »
Quote from: Sisyphus
Right, well, we'd like to know those things, but why is this a problem with the idea that the earth is round? Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain or predict the orbit of Venus.This doesn't mean that descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or incomplete. They're not intended to explain the orbit of Venus, just how magnets work.
Quote from: Jimmy
And what have they got to do with the fundamental shape of the planet?  That the world is round is a fact, not a model.

We've been to this exact spot before. It's a knock-on effect: an FE model is going to do more than just change the shape of the world from the RE model. Laws would need to be different because RE laws would not explain a FE: there's the movement of light, the formation of the world... There are some things which would observably not be true on a RE, but would be on a FE (example: 'bendy light' or some force that alters the path of light).
It is well within the realms of possibility that the new direction required for a FE would lead to more accessible answers to certain quetsions. No, I can't say this for certain as the model does not yet exist, but the point is the possibility is what makes an alternative worth considering.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 20, 2015, 05:00:45 PM »
As far as I'm aware things like ships sinking over the horizon based on phenomenon x is just baseless unscientific claims from the FE side. There is no reason for light to depend on a certain model. If there is an unknown force affecting light it would and should not depend on the shape of the earth. But no such observations have been made. We have sent probes close to the sun, and any difference in observations made from these probes and objects in earth orbit would have been noticed, unless it is an extremely weak force in which case it wont mess with our readings of the sun. And bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them is not very scientific, but the opposite.

It depends how you define baseless. if the world is flat, those laws would necessarily be different: for developing a FE hypothesis, as I am doing, it is automatically true that the laws that govern light are altered. The RE model would not test such a possibility because it would have no need of doing so.
Probes going close to the Sun assumes genuine space travel (possible under certain FE models, but not necessary), and still assumes light behaves as expected. It may be something at that altitude which behaves oddly.

As for "bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them," this is scientific at the correct stage. I am developing a hypothesis: it is necessary to examine 'random possibilities' that could be used as explanations. When one works, then it is tested, and then observations are made. Before that however, it's premature to run experiments and take observations without any concrete idea of what it is you're testing.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from an Airline pilot
« on: September 20, 2015, 04:56:37 PM »
If my point is not clear yet - you can't accurately turn a globe into a flat surface or vice versa. So a globe map of the full earth is not in any way accurately compatible with a flat map of the full earth. Which means if one map is accurate then the other cannot be accurate. Because they are incompatible, you'll have to terribly distort a map to turn it from a flat to a globe or vice versa.
I think what you mean is that you can't turn a globe into a flat surface with any meaningful area in which to have the continents. It would be easy to create a map using infinitely small sections. For example, one sphere map is made up of multiple lens shapes, arcs all joined together: make them arbitrarily thin, you could get a successful map. However, it would be impossible for a person to exist on that, let alone a continent.
What you can do, however, is fill in any gaps. The fact we can't perfectly map a globe to a plane doesn't mean much because if the world is flat, it is not a globe.

Even so, the uneven Earth-shape actually makes it far easier to map to a plane, as it can be described far more easily by means of a shape with distinct edges. Those clearly do have planar nets. A little tilting, maybe minor stretching, you could theoretically gain a planar map.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun as a spotlight?
« on: September 20, 2015, 04:50:21 PM »
Yup, your model didn't quite work for the rest. I can only think of one way light would work on a flat earth, but I don't think I should share it. It definitely has no scientific ground, and is as improbable as denpressure.
Please do feel free to share (or PM if you don't want to overtake the thread). Some absurd ideas can work far better if given a proper context: and if nothing else it may serve as inspiration.
Part of developing a hypothesis is examining every possibility; even the most ridiculous.

Flat Earth General / Re: How many stars?
« on: September 20, 2015, 02:50:22 PM »
Light behaviour has no connection to shape of earth what-so-ever. And IR thermometers work, you can buy them yourself.
Light would behave very differently on large scales in the FE model, and RE models. A ship going over the horizon demonstrates that.
IR thermometers may work fine on a small scale. This does not preclude a force not taken into account interfering on a large scale.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions from an Airline pilot
« on: September 20, 2015, 02:48:45 PM »
Take and orange and peel it. Try to recreate the peel but make it flat. It'll work out on about half of the peel, but the rest of the peel is not going to connect in any way. You wont be able to make a circle where the peel is connected where it should be. If you can find a way to recreate the full peel of an orange on a 2D plane as a full circle with the peel only connecting at the original rips I'll change my mind. But this is a perfect example of how incompatible a globe map and a flat map are.
Yes: what is your point? This only means something if you assume the world is a globe.
After all, globes are perfect spheres. The Earth is said to be more like:

Globe-maps are only ever meant to be approximately accurate, even in the RE model. That 'approximate' gives me a lot to work with. It's uneven, squashed: and all your orange peel shows is that I'm not infinitely dexterous and it's hard to work with infinitely small lengths. A net of a sphere can be made: ultimately a sphere can be treated as a shape with infinite faces. A net would be a fractal, but it could easily exist in nature: and that's even assuming a perfect sphere, which no one holds.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10