A way to make FE work!

Hi all,

I've been lurking here for a few days, reading the posts. I think I have a modification to the flat earth model that makes it work.

It explains everything: the horizon, the edge of the world, weather, satellites, stars, the Sun, the Moon, the view from space, the short distance between southern countries, the fact that no one has seen the Ice Wall. It also removes the need for that highly unlikely Round Earth Consipiracy(tm)!

We know that the Earth is flat - we can see it looking out our window. We know that the North Pole is the centre of the world, so many people have been there! We know that the edge of the world is the South Pole, as it is the furthest thing from anywhere.

To make the travel distances in the south match reality, all we need to do is assume a 4 dimensional warp field emmanating from the rim of the world. The closer you get to the rim, the more distance is warped, tending towards an infinite warp at the edge, and no warp at all at the North Pole.

So you see, as you get further South, more of the world is warped away, like a piece of paper folded like a fan. When you get as far South as you can, the world is so warped by that field that it is folded to a one dimensional point. There's no need for an ice wall, because anything "falling off the rim" will fall straight onto another bit of rim that due to the warping is is immediately adjacent!

What does this mean? As the warping is in the 4th dimension, we can't actually see the warped (folded away) bits, so in three dimensions the world appears (on a large scale) to curve towards a point (the south pole), while on the smaller scale, the earth is quite clearly flat (because on the smaller scale the warping is unnoticeable).

As it warps infinitely towards a point, the rim actually is percieved as a single point, right in the middle of Antarctica.

So, as a roundness is evident on a large, three dimensional scale many think that the world is round, and it behaves in the solar system as a round world. In fact, all weather, physics, space travel and all that works as if the world was round because it all acts on the large scale in three dimensions. But any given part of the world is clearly flat, when considered on a small enough scale. :!:

Oh, and what makes Earth so special that it's flat where everything else is spherical? Nothing! Everything else is flat just like the Earth, but warped towards one of its poles. A flat Earth, in a flat solar system, in a flat galaxy in a flat universe!

I think your theory is a bit warped as well! :shock:

So basically you are saying that the earth is round just like in the RE model, works just like in the RE model, and has effects on the rest of the universe as if it was a sphere, but actually all that is because the 4th dimension is hidden in a singularity on the south pole? Gj.

If you assume that spacetime consists of 4 spacial dimensions, of which we can only percieve 3, the 3 dimensional sphere of earth can be considered \'flat\', if you look from a 4 dimensional viewpoint.

Ya, basically, your theory is that the earth is flat, but to all intents and purposes, it is round.

So essentially, we have this flat universe, represented by the underscores, with bubbles on top of it, where the Disc-Spheres are?

  --------small, medium, and big objects.
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /\
   ___________o___O______\/

(As seen from side)

....................................
....................................
.......o...........................  the same.
....................................
.............O.....................
....................................
..................../\..............
....................\/..............
.....................................
.....................................

or is it that space is convoluted that the whole universe is not on a flat plane and actually at different "Elevations" to the unwarped version of the
FE in your theory.

Using both theories, that doesnt exactly seem fair.

The earth is clearly not flat you fucking cretins.

The earth is clearly not flat you fucking cretins.

You are clearly not a cretin.

So what you're saying is, the earth appears round because it is. But if it wasn't for this fourth dimension warp, it wouldn't be? WTF. You can't prove that, but because we can't perceive this fourth dimension we can't disprove it either. That makes it unfalsifiable, which means that it's not science.

And even if this warp really did exist, you're just saying that the earth would be flat if it weren't for the warp, but because of it it's round. Either way the earth is round and then there's no need for the rest of it. The conspiracy everything. Every other piece of FE material goes out the window with this unfalsifiable theory. Wow! I've seen some ridiculous ones, but this is beyond anything I ever expected to encounter in this forum.

That makes it unfalsifiable, which means that it's not science.

Are you saying that the study of string theory is not science?

Quote from: "Aralith"

That makes it unfalsifiable, which means that it's not science.

Are you saying that the study of string theory is not science?

Aha! You used the magic word though. Theory. Never once in his/her post did he/she say that this it was a theory. The only time he/she ever came even close to it was saying that "we must assume that there is a fourth dimension". Science is not about assumptions. It's about observation and hypothesizing. And then testing that hypothesis. Which is why string theory is still a theory. It has not been tested yet, and remains nothing more than a hypothesis based on an observation. He/she stated this fourth dimension thing as though it were fact. That's why it's not science. Because it's an assumed position, not a theorized one.

Nothing was said about it being fact.

Anyway, you said that unfalsafiable things can't be science.  At the present time, string theory is unfalsafiable, so you are saying that it can't be thought of as science.  Correct?

Well, I don't know how you would officially classify String Theory, but most scienctists dismiss the notion as nothing more than a weak attempt to describe things that are currently undescribable by science. Plus, I've found that most String Theory supports (not all, so I mean no offense if any of you do support the notion) ridiculous fantasies such as the alleged "Philadelphia Experiment" the "Montauk Project" and other such inter-dimensional nonsense. Most of them are just cooks that will believe anything that anyone throws at them. At least in my experience with them. I personally do not believe that the String Theory is true.

string theory is interesting, but yes, it is still just theory.
it could end up being the explanation to the universe, but it could also turn out to be completely wrong.
either way, I wouldn't care. I simply want to know what's right and what's not.
I would like to know if string theory is right. if it is, then great. if it's not, then I'd at least want to know.

as to whether string theory is science: I would say no, it's technically not science. it's theory. but it's very good theory nonetheless, because it is a very effective explanation as to how things work, which thus far appears to agree with observations, and especially mathematics.

About the string theory=science.
It is a common problem of string theory that it cannot be proven (according to current science). If it can not be proven then it isnt science, its a philosophy. That is a problem because alot of scientists refuse to work on a philosophy. This causes many to doubt the potential of string theory and therefore it isnt too popular. But it is a briliant theory. It is the first one to describe ALL of nature, and fit in our current proven model (RE). No other theory has ever been able to do this.

Here is a very interesting watch, a nice documentary about string theory. For anyone who is interested.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

It would be brilliant, but the main problem with it is it makes an assumption. Very much like the original topic starter did. It continues to build off of this assumption using modern-day science, and for that it is brilliant I must say. The reason I cannot accept the string theory is because of that first assumption. If that holds up to be true, then the string theory is correct, if not, then the whole thing tumbles down. Nothing of the string theory will be left if that assumption is wrong, because everything else is based upon it. That's the main problem with string theory.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my language (using assumptions rather than hypotheses), let me restate my hypothesis as such:

Hypothesis: The earth is flat, but is given the appearance and nature of approximate sphericity by a warp field which tends towards infinity at the south pole and zero at the north pole.

Evidence: On small scales the Earth looks flat. On large scales it looks round.

I think this fails Occam's razor. The alternative theory (The Earth is round, it appears flat because humans are unable to perceive curvature over such a small scale) is simpler.

Of course it still blows the FE conspiracy theory out of the water for plausability.

String theory is neither science nor philosophy; in its present state it is nothing more than math. String theory is currently untestable, but it is not inherently untestable, unlike this four-dimensional hypothesis. So it is not at the moment science, but once we are able to test it, it will be falsified or confirmed, and become science. However this 'theory' of Risratha's fails. Not because it cannot explain the facts- it can. The reason it fails is because, though both it and RE explain the same facts, the RE model predicted many of these currently know facts, whereas Risratha's model only explains them post-hoc. If two theories have equal explanatory power, but one has no predictive power and requires the invocation of a massive assumption in the first place, then that theory fails.