Flat Earth not a theory.

  • 46 Replies
  • 11104 Views
Flat Earth not a theory.
« 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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2009, 10:12:36 PM by bl4ke360 »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Oh, for God's sake... ::)
Look out your window.
Quote from: Bl4ke360
http://i33.tinypic.com/350t5s8.jpg

Is this supposed to prove something here?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Looks pretty flat to me.

?

10Keane

Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2009, 12:32:31 AM »
totally agree

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2009, 06:16:25 AM »
I disagree.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2009, 06:27:49 AM »
Care to explain why you disagree?

The OP has provided a reason to back up their statement.

Do you have one?

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2009, 06:36:48 AM »
The earth is flat.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2009, 06:39:11 AM »
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?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2009, 06:54:27 AM »
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.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2009, 07:04:59 AM »
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2009, 09:38:59 AM »
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2009, 12:45:16 PM »
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.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2009, 01:59:01 PM »
Well that wasn't insulting at all.
Recently listened to:


?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10740
  • ...
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2009, 02:05:21 PM »
No, it was the truth.
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2009, 02:43:09 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 06:52:05 PM by Saddam Hussein »

Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2009, 04:01:23 PM »
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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Oh, for God's sake... ::)
Look out your window.
Quote from: Bl4ke360
http://i33.tinypic.com/350t5s8.jpg

Is this supposed to prove something here?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Looks pretty flat to me.

?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10740
  • ...
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2009, 04:03:10 PM »
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
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2009, 04:15:19 PM »
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.

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2009, 04:36:19 PM »
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.
Recently listened to:


*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2009, 06:55:57 PM »
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.

*

W

  • 2293
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2009, 09:41:31 PM »
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.
If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2009, 09:52:40 PM »
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.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2009, 09:57:49 PM »
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.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Oh, for God's sake... ::)
Look out your window.
Quote from: Bl4ke360
http://i33.tinypic.com/350t5s8.jpg

Is this supposed to prove something here?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Looks pretty flat to me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2009, 05:03:51 AM »
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2009, 05:37:12 AM »
The RE solution doesn't work...

...because?


Three body problem. Hilarious consequences.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2009, 06:06:28 AM »
The RE solution doesn't work...

...because?


Three body problem. Hilarious consequences.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#Sundman.27s_theorem_for_the_3-body_problem
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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2009, 06:16:49 AM »
The RE solution doesn't work...

...because?


Three body problem. Hilarious consequences.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#Sundman.27s_theorem_for_the_3-body_problem
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2009, 06:39:07 AM »
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? =/
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2009, 06:53:05 AM »
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:

Quote
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2009, 07:24:48 AM »
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.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2009, 07:37:26 AM »
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Flat Earth not a theory.
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2009, 07:40:45 AM »
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 want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord