Uniform theory

After reading most of current topics, i decided to challenge you - try to make an uniform FET. On this forum, if anyone asks some basic question, the person is referred to FAQ, and if someone is using FAQ's data, FE'ers say that FAQ is not correct, or they say that they believe that that's not true. And, if someone is asking about questions without answers in FAQ, there are made up ad-hoc theories, typically about bending light(not always), that are trying to explain some phenomena that can't occur on FE. and they do explain. but only in one topic. these teories are usually forgotten, but IMO, if all they would be put together, they wouldn't make any sense. I'm not saying that they don't - i think they don't. Also, people are often posting links with informations that are scattered all over the topics with gigabytes of irrevelat bullshit(insults for example).

I'm not hoping for impossible things like map of the world. But i will request the basics - for example height of the sun, moon etc. above the earth or it's trajectory if these heights are not constant.
In this first post i will put together your data about the your world that will be requested by the RE'ers in this topic. And i'm begging both sides of this conflict - consider the issues one by one, and try to get to the roots of problems - do not repeat all the time same arguments that were proven to be flawed and, the most important things - achtung achtung - do NOT investigate the age, intelligence, sanity, or anything that refers to the interlocutor. Only thing that i ask you for is to consider only the proofs and theories proposed here.Work for RE'ers - ask here for basic parameters of FE, and, until they will give them to us and no one will have doubts about it's possibility/FE'ers will say that they are unable to, we will investigate only one issue - That is nessecary for keeping the order of discussion.

One thing - i think that asking all of the FE'ers to say their theories will cause conflicts - in theories, and in discussion. So, i am proposing turn based system - data/explanation is requested, then FE'ers will exchange their opinion in this topic (i hope that they won't argue with themselves) and send for investigation one, representative theory/answer. Then, RE'ers will lay heads together and create one, all-containing response - acceptance or refuse with all stipulations. when it will be sent, FE'ers will make their answer and then RE'ers will and etc, until the issue will be solved. Data will be collected, and FET will be something more than set of divergent beliefs.

One more thing - if you will quote any data - they have to be collected using scientific methods, and documented - if someone posts images from his holiday where he says that he was taking pictures from the beach(without undoubtly pointing where exactly, and in what stance, or from what level), and on the photo we se no curvate - that's not enought. If someone will post multiple(if that is possible/nessecary) images, with exactly described all relevant data about it, for example height above water level, camera and other apparatus used - then that should be enougth(it's 6 AM in my time zone and i wasn't sleeping, so it can be not full requirements.)

Ok, i hope that debate will start, so for clarification:
red - question/issue solving/data in progress
gray - question/issue solve/data not obtained
blue - question/issue solve/data for future
green - question/issue solved /data obtained


What are parameters of earth as a disc(max/min radius, flat in large scale or convex, or any other type of folding etc.)?
what's shape of the sun?
what's the distance between earth and sun? (only non light bending theories)
what's source of sun's energy?

I don't think it's possible to create one uniform flat earth hypothesis.  Simply because there are several ways things might work, and none of them quite explain everything.  Plus, different FE'ers believe different things.  Some like the EA hypothesis, some like UA, some worship Rowbotham (I'm looking at you, Tom).



That said, this thread would be a good place to collect a run down of the various hypotheses that are floating around the site.


_{Edited for Bendy Light/ EA.  Disn't know they were the same thing!  Put UA in post instead.}

The Earth is flat.

The Earth is flat.

Thanks for that wonderful insight, Bridget, but TS was actually asking for the evidence used, and the various hypotheses in the Flat Earth, such as EA, Rotating Heavens, and any accurate and reliable measurements and experiments performed.

Quote from: bridget on July 18, 2009, 12:36:42 AM

The Earth is flat.

Thanks for that wonderful insight, Bridget, but TS was actually asking for the evidence used, and the various hypotheses in the Flat Earth, such as EA, Rotating Heavens, and any accurate and reliable measurements and experiments performed.

How about the same from the RE'ers?

Quote from: Joeval on July 18, 2009, 12:43:16 AM

Quote from: bridget on July 18, 2009, 12:36:42 AM

The Earth is flat.

Thanks for that wonderful insight, Bridget, but TS was actually asking for the evidence used, and the various hypotheses in the Flat Earth, such as EA, Rotating Heavens, and any accurate and reliable measurements and experiments performed.

How about the same from the RE'ers?

Seek and you shall find.  Lots has been posted many a time.  The problem is, most of it is written off as a conspiracy, or dismissed, or ignored, or is found in ranting threads that no one reads or gives any attention to.

This is not the thread to debate RE evidence, it its for FE'ers to state their evidence/hypotheses.

try to make an uniform FET.

As I see it, things work reasonably well at The North Pole of a Flat Earth ...

But as you get further away things start to fall apart.

Sunrise and sunset bearings are wrong on The Equator during an Equinox ...  

And "The South Pole" is a nightmare because it has to be a single point (Scott and Amundsen both arrived there from different starting points on the coast) which is due south for all observers.

Edit - this is why Flat Earth theories seemed OK to ancient civilisations - they didn't/couldn't travel far enough to see the flaws.

try to make an uniform FET.

There are at least three models doing the rounds at the moment:

1. The Ice Wall map with The Sun in a circular orbit around The North Pole
(See:  FAQ *)

2. The Antarctic continent map with The Sun is a "figure of eight" orbit around the North Pole in the northern summer and around The South Pole during the northern winter
(See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29967.msg741015#msg741015)

3. The Star Sphere / Bendy Light Model where The Sun orbits a sphere of stars above The North Pole.
(See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30428.0)

There may be more ...

* Edit - this is wrong for a start, as it doesn't even try to explain why The Sun's apparent size changes through the year:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30206.0

I don't think it's possible to create one uniform flat earth hypothesis.  Simply because there are several ways things might work, and none of them quite explain everything.  Plus, different FE'ers believe different things.  Some like the EA hypothesis, some like UA, some worship Rowbotham (I'm looking at you, Tom).



That said, this thread would be a good place to collect a run down of the various hypotheses that are floating around the site.


Edited for Bendy Light/ EA.  Disn't know they were the same thing!  Put UA in post instead.

I think that this topic could be useful for making FE'ers theories convergent - for example fixing distance from the sun which is required to mach RE based earth radius measures - that should leave behind a lot of pure beliefs, and only parameters that are possible within FET will stay under investigation. for now, i think also that we can exclude EA - as i investigated, that theory for now would need highly direction, position and time dependant light 'bending' for explaining east/west sunrise/sunsets - we should give that theory some time so we can know what we're really working with. If there will be more theories, we may deal one by one - i think that all of them will have some flaws(blue/redshifts, west/east equinox, earth curvate (using self made photos - thats not so difficult that we have to use unknown person's holiday photos ), radio waves propagation, celestial navigation, sources of energy etc.), and if everyone would talk only about the theories - we will be unable to make any consistent FET due to it's impossibility, or we will have to congratulate some FE'er(s) a Nobel Prize

EDIT: I know that creating this theory is mission impossible. But that have one purpose - trying to show that their theory is flawed at their own, pure basics - using as less of 'possibly conspiracy' observations as possible, only comparing their own theories together, showing that nothing made on the flat earth basics can be even logic within knowledge that is undeniabe even in their point of view. That is also a big motivation for them - if they will success - they will convince me, and possibly a lot of people reading this, that FET may compete with RET. Period.

i think also that we can exclude EA - as i investigated, that theory for now would need highly direction, position and time dependant light 'bending' for explaining east/west sunrise/sunsets - we should give that theory some time so we can know what we're really working with.

How about an "appeal to ignorance" here?

Given that space-flight is impossible because The Earth is flat ...

We have no way of knowing anything about the "medium" between us and The Sun.

Therefore we cannot prove that it doesn't bend light to a huge degree ...

Therefore we cannot falsify the EA hypothesis.

1) All i said that we should give the time for that theory do develop - as i said, for now, there is almost nothing done in this theory
2) I think that bendy light theory can be excluded on basics of pure math. More phenomenas bendy light have to explain - more equations it's bending must satisfy. When we will thing about sunrises/sunsets + west/east equinox sunrises/sunsets + fullfilling it all in whatever time zone sun goes through + keeping sun circular + keeping other objects in the sky not distorted with changes of time + et cetera - combining all these equations together resulting in false might be proven even not finding most of these equations, using degrees of freedom. I hope that FE'ers don't deny math?
3) That bendy light would result in everything looked distorted as fuck, and as we aren't observing that ( unless we will use some ergoline derivative ) we can say that EA trying to explain all phenomenas is worth exactly nothing.

I hate to break this to you, but asking for one unifeide FE model is like asking modern RE physicists to choose one, unified model of the universe- they can't, because

there are several ways things might work, and none of them quite explain everything. Plus, different RE'ers believe different things.

Hands-up who believes in gravitons? Who believes in String Theory? QM or GR? Both?!!


RE'ers are still developing their theory, and I wouldn't assume to ask them to pick one for the sake of debate. You seem to be under the impression that we do this for the sake of argument. We don't. We do it because we want to uncover the truth, and the simple fact of the matter is that many of us are exploring different paths to see which ones will lead us there.

I hate to break this to you, but asking for one unifeide FE model is like asking modern RE physicists to choose one, unified model of the universe- they can't, because

Quote from: Joeval on July 18, 2009, 12:34:51 AM

there are several ways things might work, and none of them quite explain everything. Plus, different RE'ers believe different things.

Come now:

A single, unified, internally-consistent model of the entire Universe ...

Is a vastly more complex proposition to a single, unified, internally-consistent model of the shape of The Earth.

Edit: it isn't a fair comparisson by several orders of magnitude.

A single, unified, internally-consistent model of the entire Universe ...

Is a vastly more complex proposition to a single, unified, internally-consistent model of the shape of The Earth.

Are you trying to suggest that the properties of the universe are irrelevant to the shape of the Earth?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 05:07:30 AM

I hate to break this to you, but asking for one unifeide FE model is like asking modern RE physicists to choose one, unified model of the universe- they can't, because

Quote from: Joeval on July 18, 2009, 12:34:51 AM

there are several ways things might work, and none of them quite explain everything. Plus, different RE'ers believe different things.

Come now:

A single, unified, internally-consistent model of the entire Universe ...

Is a vastly more complex proposition to a single, unified, internally-consistent model of the shape of The Earth.

Edit: it isn't a fair comparisson by several orders of magnitude.

Actually, it is a fair comparison. In RET, the 'universal' theories define the shape of the earth. They have to be consistent for RET to be consistent.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 05:07:30 AM

Hands-up who believes in gravitons? Who believes in String Theory? QM or GR? Both?!!

Nice strawman dude!

RE theory is agreed about the shape of the earth. FE theory isn't.

RET has agreed on the shape of the earth, but unfortunately has yet to agree on a theory that explains that shape.

a)There is possibility that there is NO theory of everything(because that's your request) - G?del's incompleteness theorem:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true

As every physical theory is in basics a mathematical theory, that theorem applies to the case - there is possibility that there will be no Theory of everything. There is also another Possibility - There will be working TOE, but there will be no proof that it's the real TOE.

b)RET can predict behaviour of most of the known world. FET doesn't. Everything that can be explained by FET(what am i writing lol?) can be explained by RET, and nothing that can't be explained by RET can be explained by FET. when i say RET i'm saying the theory chosen depending on the issue that have to be explained - if it's the issue of chemistry, we are using QED. If the issue is calculating position of the astronomical objects - we are using Theory of relativity. There is no such situation where FET theory explains something that any of RET can't explain, and there is no situation that can't be explained by any of RET theory and can be explained by FET. And yes, using distinct RET theories is justified - firstly, because it don't change the heigth of damn ice wall(it's existence is another thing), and secondly - because it fits all the experimental results, thirdly - because distinct theories are used when forces implicted by other theories are negligible.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 06:23:31 AM

RET has agreed on the shape of the earth, but unfortunately has yet to agree on a theory that explains that shape.

Correct. Kind of. The theory that explains the shape is "gravity". It is observed and undisputed. (Call it gravtiation if it helps)

I'm going to assume that you're talking about GR (if you're not, you should be more specific). The problem is that GR isn't very good at explaining a lot of other things- i.e. RET is not a self-consistent theory.

FET is even less self-consistent, so that's kinda stupid...( lets say that set of flaws of RET is the subset of set of flaws of FET, so every try of discrediting RET by pointing it's flaws is pointless, because FET have same flaws -> to prove the FET's existence sense you a)should point an issue that FET solves and RET doesn't, or b)solve all issues that RET solves, referring to a) as there no is any -> someone must find it, referring to b) this community have a lot of work)

EDIT!!

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 18, 2009, 05:40:07 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 05:07:30 AM

I hate to break this to you, but asking for one unifeide FE model is like asking modern RE physicists to choose one, unified model of the universe- they can't, because

Quote from: Joeval on July 18, 2009, 12:34:51 AM

there are several ways things might work, and none of them quite explain everything. Plus, different RE'ers believe different things.

Come now:

A single, unified, internally-consistent model of the entire Universe ...

Is a vastly more complex proposition to a single, unified, internally-consistent model of the shape of The Earth.

Edit: it isn't a fair comparisson by several orders of magnitude.

Actually, it is a fair comparison. In RET, the 'universal' theories define the shape of the earth. They have to be consistent for RET to be consistent.

You can determine the shape of The Earth just fine without knowing why it is that shape.

It's called surveying and they did a lot of it in the 1800s - just ask The Royal Geographical Society....

You can determine the shape of The Earth just fine without knowing why it is that shape.

It's called surveying and they did a lot of it in the 1800s - just ask The Royal Geographical Society....

We know of many surveys which took place in the 1800's.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 06:46:35 AM

I'm going to assume that you're talking about GR (if you're not, you should be more specific). The problem is that GR isn't very good at explaining a lot of other things- i.e. RET is not a self-consistent theory.

While GR might not be very good at explaining a lot of other things it is excellent at explaining the shape of the earth.

As is Newtons II.

Yes, but what's the point of a theory which concludes that gravitation causes the shape of the earth, but then comes apart when it comes to something as basic as the earth-moon system?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 08:05:32 AM

Yes, but what's the point of a theory which concludes that gravitation causes the shape of the earth, but then comes apart when it comes to something as basic as the earth-moon system?

You'll need to expand your argument a bit more.

Here's an excellent post which explains what I'm talking about:

Trying to calculate the interactions of two extended objects in GR is exceptionally hard and virtually impossible to do exactly - it can only be done by brute force computation.  Extend this to another extended body (say, the oceans or something) and the problem becomes unsolvable.  This is an inherent problem with GR and always has been - all the fancy astrophysical calculations that are used as 'proof' of GR only get away with it since the measurements have relatively large error bars.  Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory that is a massive improvement over those that went before it, but when it can't handle something as familiar as the Earth-Moon system (and that's assuming they're both rigid bodies) without resorting to huge supercomputers... well, let's say general relativists worship it a bit too much in my opinion.

Lord Wilmore - i presented my arguments and i would present one more, but after 30 unslept hours i sometimes lose orientation if i am writing/thinking in english or my national language, so before i'll make this heroical effort please deny my arguments and write yours or please, let me, with your moderating force, let me to start the debate.

EDIT!!!:

..

Quote

Trying to calculate the interactions of two extended objects in GR is exceptionally hard and virtually impossible to do exactly - it can only be done by brute force computation.  Extend this to another extended body (say, the oceans or something) and the problem becomes unsolvable.  This is an inherent problem with GR and always has been..

that part of citation was a attempt of supporting this:

RET is not a self-consistent theory.

But, i already said what is IMO pointing out flaws that occur in both theories, and i would sum it all as some kind of scientifically sounding fallacy, but i dont know any. Also about the brute force - i understand brute force is numerical integrating, because i dont know what else it could be. But to prove this is irrevelant - i hope you believe/know that atoms really exist then you should know how many of them exist. If you think that any equations that are made up(couldn't find right word) from forces working between them would be analitycally solvable, then i have to worry you. Also, i did some 'brute force computation' on my old computer - 1,6GHz Athlon. I was simulating all planets of solar system, earth's moon, some object in the Earth-Sun L4 or L5 and some planetoids. for couple of hours nothing went wrong - all bodies were on they orbits as they should. also, the dt was set big enougth to simulate 1 year per ~15 seconds, so staying on orbits is enougth to say that these problems really don't need supercomputers. If you need up to meter precision, you need supercomputers. Also, some equations for motion are solved, and i think you know it, but for making sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

can someone please tell me what EA, UA, Rowbotham stand for and mean, thanks

can someone please tell me what EA, UA, Rowbotham stand for and mean, thanks

Please read the FAQ; the answers you are looking for are in there.

So, i am asking FE'ers:
What are parameters of earth as a disc(max/min radius, flat in large scale or convex, or any other type of folding etc.)?

So, i am asking FE'ers:
What are parameters of earth as a disc(max/min radius, flat in large scale or convex, or any other type of folding etc.)?

This is unknown. No-one is sure of the exact extent of the Antarctic Rim Continent and what may lie beyond it.

So can you assume at least distance from north pole to bottom of South America (lets say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Toro,_Chile ) is smaller than equator's length and bigger than equator's length*3/16? I chose that values because voliating them would cause that the real sizes would be at least 2 times larger or 2 times smaller that RE maps are saying, which is quite unbelievable for me, and are not including southpole which is unknown. If no, is there other than *2 limit for RE maps to be stretched or shrinked(not including southpole)?

Quote from: djrelc on July 18, 2009, 09:33:49 AM

can someone please tell me what EA, UA, Rowbotham stand for and mean, thanks

Please read the FAQ; the answers you are looking for are in there.

I'm quite sure that "EA" is not in the FAQ.

I have been around here for over a year, now, and even I can't tell you what is stands for.

(Beyond "bendy light", that is!)

May I make a suggestion?

How about a "sticky thread" containing a glossary - especially a list of all those abbreviations and acronyms we keep using (FET, RET, FErs, RErs, UA, EA, etc.).