Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

Altering the scale of an image or map without altering it's shape will produce an image with the same shape, but different size.

Altering the scale of an image or map while altering it's shape will produce an image with a different shape and size than the original.

With certain entirely inapplicable assumptions, yes.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 17, 2011, 01:48:54 PM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on February 17, 2011, 01:35:40 PM

again, google maps is a flat map of a round earth. the distortion is proof of round earth.

In your absence, they have invoked spherical geometry.

Spherical geometry on a disc, instead of spherical geometry on a sphere, ahh. Ockham ought to be rolling in his grave.

Yeah. It was only a matter of time before bendy space

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on February 16, 2011, 11:18:48 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 16, 2011, 07:22:28 PM

The surface area of the flat earth is pi*r^2

Incorrect. Would you like to double integrate that and then apply Demorgan's Theorem? Oh, and once you're done with that, double integrate it again. You will find that this conclusively proves Colorado to be larger than Colorado. That's right, x>x. As you can see, RE is clearly impossible, because I just told you to do something that doesn't work, and it didn't work.

i dont get what you are saying, his above quote is the surface area of a flat earth, and then you use the flat earth colorado, and it is bigger than colorado in re?

well seeing as the only way possible to achieve similar distances and areas on a flat earth is for their to be spherical space, then you actually calculated the distances as if radii were another angular measurement then take the integral like a sphere

If you take a flat circle and call it Earth (what you state that the Earth is) with a radius of say 10 to keep it simple.

The center of this circle represents the north pole.

Now, let us measure the circumference of a new circle A within circle Earth that has a radius of 2. This new circle represents one trip around the north pole.

The trip around the northpole is pi*2^2 = 12,57 long.

Now, let us measure the circumference of another new circle B within circle Earth that has a radius of 8. This new circle represents one trip around the south pole.

The trip around the southpole is pi*8^2 = 201,06 long.

Point: 12,57 != 201,06

In the real world, the circumferences of these two circles A and B within circle Earth have been measured to be the same.

In a flat earth model these CANNOT be the same. If you say that this does not work like euclidean geometry, do please tell me why it does not, as that means you are assuming some weird kind of space warping and twisting to get what could be called "impossible" geometry, and certainly not a flat earth model.

Tl;dr, A and B cannot be the same on a flat earth yet they are, and euclidean principles that do not apply = impossible geometry = cannot be real. (See: Necker cubes and penrose stairs)

Please don't ignore my post, it happens too much.

Please don't ignore my post, it happens too much.

If it gets ignored by FE'ers, you did something right.

Please don't ignore my post, it happens too much.

That's because it was plainly retarded and addressed things already drilled here over and over. Remember to read before posting!

If you take a flat circle and call it Earth (what you state that the Earth is) with a radius of say 10 to keep it simple.

No.

The center of this circle represents the north pole.

And the South Pole.

Now, let us measure the circumference of a new circle A within circle Earth that has a radius of 2. This new circle represents one trip around the north pole.

The trip around the northpole is pi*2^2 = 12,57 long.

Now, let us measure the circumference of another new circle B within circle Earth that has a radius of 8. This new circle represents one trip around the south pole.

The trip around the southpole is pi*8^2 = 201,06 long.

Of course, another noob posting prior to reading. We've been there, we've done that.
On another note, you've just measured areas. It's clear you don't even have a clue about Euclidean geometries...

Point: 12,57 != 201,06

a^2+b^2=c^2 ergo camels are blue and the Earth is a spoon frequently used by Zeus. QED

In the real world

Define "real world". After that, substantiate your claim.

the circumferences of these two circles A and B within circle Earth have been measured to be the same.

Indeed.

In a flat earth model these CANNOT be the same.

Incorrect.

If you say that this does not work like euclidean geometry, do please tell me why it does not, as that means you are assuming some weird kind of space warping and twisting to get what could be called "impossible" geometry, and certainly not a flat earth model.

Incorrect.

Tl;dr, A and B cannot be the same on a flat earth

Wrong.

yet they are

False.

and euclidean principles that do not apply = impossible geometry = cannot be real. (See: Necker cubes and penrose stairs)

Unsupported claim.

It seems that you are unable to see that simply saying "no" to an argument does not refute it. Reason for it, provide examples and say why what I have stated is false instead of simply saying it is and thinly veiling it in ad hominems, which does not make for a compelling argument!

I must say, you're certainly skilled at seeming like you're actually arguing. I'm not falling for it. Try better this time, please.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

Please don't ignore my post, it happens too much.

That's because it was plainly retarded and addressed things already drilled here over and over. Remember to read before posting!

Insulting your counterpart is hardly a sign of maturity and willingness to have a civilized discussion! Do try to keep a hold of your manners, dear sir.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

If you take a flat circle and call it Earth (what you state that the Earth is) with a radius of say 10 to keep it simple.

No.

I fail to see how saying "no" here makes any sense unless you're saying that the Earth isn't flat anyways. Is that what you're saying? Please explain your argument.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

The center of this circle represents the north pole.

And the South Pole.

Well yes we can have them switch places and it has no effect on my point. What is your point? Please substantiate your claims and explain the logic behind your argument.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

Now, let us measure the circumference of a new circle A within circle Earth that has a radius of 2. This new circle represents one trip around the north pole.

The trip around the northpole is pi*2^2 = 12,57 long.

Now, let us measure the circumference of another new circle B within circle Earth that has a radius of 8. This new circle represents one trip around the south pole.

The trip around the southpole is pi*8^2 = 201,06 long.

Of course, another noob posting prior to reading. We've been there, we've done that.
On another note, you've just measured areas. It's clear you don't even have a clue about Euclidean geometries...

I have in no way or fashion measured areas. I have measured distances, circumferences. It seems that it is you who has no idea what you're talking about. Try to stay your hand with the ad hominems they're doing you no good by now.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

Point: 12,57 != 201,06

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on February 15, 2011, 02:38:14 AM

a^2+b^2=c^2 ergo camels are blue and the Earth is a spoon frequently used by Zeus. QED

I fail to see the point of your gibberish, what are you trying to explain with this nonsensical statement? As far as I can make out you're trying to make fun of pythagoras but surely you aren't disputing the validity of that equation? 

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

In the real world

Define "real world". After that, substantiate your claim.

Move away from your screen, find a window and look outside. That world. Really, I shouldn't have to explain this.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

the circumferences of these two circles A and B within circle Earth have been measured to be the same.

Indeed.

So you agree with me? That's a turn.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

In a flat earth model these CANNOT be the same.

Incorrect.

Explain the nature of a geometrically possible flat object upon which the circumferences of two different radii with the same center can be the same. The center is not the same in Ski's model and therefore it means nothing at all.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

If you say that this does not work like euclidean geometry, do please tell me why it does not, as that means you are assuming some weird kind of space warping and twisting to get what could be called "impossible" geometry, and certainly not a flat earth model.

Incorrect.

Why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

Tl;dr, A and B cannot be the same on a flat earth

Wrong.

Again, why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

yet they are

False.

Yet again, why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

Also, please decide what you think yourself! You agreed with this point just above, you know!

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on February 18, 2011, 11:39:49 AM

Indeed.

Quote from: silver on February 18, 2011, 04:49:33 AM

and euclidean principles that do not apply = impossible geometry = cannot be real. (See: Necker cubes and penrose stairs)

Unsupported claim.

It is logical to assume that principles that apply when measuring and calculating geometry would apply when, well, you're measuring and calculating geometry! Apply Occam's Razor and see where you stand. You are the claimant here, why don't euclidean principles apply in real life?

Yet again, why is this incorrect? Explain your arguments. I repeat, stating that something is false does not make it so.

Stating that something is true does not make it so. It is not my job to prove a negative. Now, chop chop.
Oh, and you might want to double check on what 2*pi*r is and how it differs from pi*r^2.
I misunderstood you with the "yet they are" - I change my answer to "Yeah", not "False".

Sorry, I mixed the two formulas together, indeed it is pi*r2. Nonetheless, my point still holds and nothing changes. Nitpicking does not satisfy your burden of proof.

If you refuse to argue with me, then that is not my problem. I guess that means you are unable to argue your point any further. You hardly address 10% of my post. However, let's be magnanimous and just repeat one of the more important questions.

Explain the nature of a geometrically possible flat object upon which the circumferences of two different radii with the same center can be the same. The center is not the same in Ski's model and therefore it means nothing at all.

I really do want to know. I can't imagine this working without some kind of space warping/bending, but maybe that's not right and your genius is so amazing that you have thought of a geometrically possible solution! Enlighten me

If they're invoking spherical geometry the real formula is 4pi*r^2
where r is a constant equal to the circumference of the equator divided by 2pi.
so we have 4*pi*c^2/(2^2*pi^2)=c^2/pi

A flat earther invoking spherical geometry when discussing the shape of the earth to support his own argument . . makes no sense

A flat earther invoking spherical geometry when discussing the shape of the earth to support his own argument . . makes no sense

in a very technical way it does. Imagine that the distance between two points on a flat plane was not a line, but the arc of a circle. Imagine that triangles had over 180 degrees between their three angles. That is what's going on. Of course this makes the flat earth for all intents and purposes a round earth.

Stating that something is true does not make it so. It is not my job to prove a negative.

On the contrary, if you claim that something is not so, then you have made a claim and do have the burden to support that claim.  Denial is not a valid debate tactic.

By the way, no one except for Thevoiceofreason has invoked spherical geometry. He's making things up. Just so you know.

Sorry, I mixed the two formulas together, indeed it is pi*r2

No, it's pi*r*2.
Also, your attempts at taunting don't accomplish much.

By the way, no one except for Thevoiceofreason has invoked spherical geometry. He's making things up. Just so you know.

Quote from: silver on February 19, 2011, 02:36:50 AM

Sorry, I mixed the two formulas together, indeed it is pi*r2

No, it's pi*r*2.
Also, your attempts at taunting don't accomplish much.

The only way distances will make sense, is if you invoke spherical geometry. You have 3 options, hyperbolic, euclidean, and spherical.  You said it was non-euclidean. And I doubt its hyperbolic. Feel free to be ashamed.

I now doubt you don't understand what it is exactly you're arguing about. So you'd do yourself and everyone else a favor by telling us why your world should work instead of just saying "NOOO". Without spherical geometry, the world must by euclidean or hyperbolic. But because euclidean and hyperbolic FE have been disproven by my above post, this means the only model left is spherical.

There is nothing wrong with the bendy space (spherical geometry) model of FE. It is perfectly possible, and you should know this.

The only way distances will make sense, is if you invoke spherical geometry.

Incorrect.

You have 3 options

Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me how many options I have? You need your head out of your ass, and quickly, before you suffocate.

hyperbolic, euclidean, and spherical.

None of those is the model me and John have described.

You said it was non-Euclidean.

That is correct.

And I doubt it's hyperbolic.

Indeed, it isn't!

Feel free to be ashamed

I am really ashamed of you, yes. What made you think we're even remotely close to talking about one of the three geometries you've mentioned (protip: we're not), Mr "Caltech"?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 05:51:27 PM

The only way distances will make sense, is if you invoke spherical geometry.

Incorrect.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 05:51:27 PM

You have 3 options

Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me how many options I have? You need your head out of your ass, and quickly, before you suffocate.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 05:51:27 PM

hyperbolic, euclidean, and spherical.

None of those is the model me and John have described.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 05:51:27 PM

You said it was non-Euclidean.

That is correct.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 05:51:27 PM

And I doubt it's hyperbolic.

Indeed, it isn't!

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 05:51:27 PM

Feel free to be ashamed

I am really ashamed of you, yes. What made you think we're even remotely close to talking about one of the three geometries you've mentioned (protip: we're not), Mr "Caltech"?

Yeah I think self righteous anger is a cool guy.

And would you mind proving that this is not the case?
that somehow, under a different coordinate scheme you'd arrive at the same areas and distances? That's equivalent to saying f=/=g, but f(x)=g(x) for all of x.

It's a phrase. And you, the reader, with me the text/speaker go on through this problem, have 3 options, for obvious reasons.

Discontinuous geometry makes no sense. Neither does toroidal. Or any of the other types you could concieve. With just 3 dimensions, if you apply coordinates to a different type of geometry, you will by default get different areas. This is a necessity of geometry. If you didn't want spherical geometry you should have made something up like Parsifal. Involve the fourth dimension.

Would you mind proving that this is not the case?

Would I like to prove a negative? Hmm... no.

that somehow, under a different coordinate scheme you'd arrive at the same areas and distances?

Yeah, read the OP.

3 options yes, for obvious reasons.

Name them.

Discontinuous geometry makes no sense.

Correct.

Neither does toroidal.

True.

Or any of the other types you could concieve.

Concieve? Conceive? Again, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot think of? What is this? Thought police?

With just 3 dimensions

With what?!
Okay, this conclusively proves you were lying about your identity before. No need for quotation marks or "(lol)" anymore. You're not a Caltech student. No one even vaguely interested in physics would claim that there only are three dimensions. Not in 2011. You are not worth my, or anyone else's, time. Your arguments will be ignored from now on, unless by some weird fluke you say something that makes sense.

if you apply coordinates to a different type of geometry, you will by default get different areas. This is a necessity of geometry. If you didn't want spherical geometry you should have made something up like Parsifal. Involve the fourth dimension.

Wait... you... you're serious about this, aren't you? You really think we live in a three-dimensional space (no matter what shape for now), don't you? Wow. I mean, really. Wow.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

Would you mind proving that this is not the case?

Would I like to prove a negative? Hmm... no.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

that somehow, under a different coordinate scheme you'd arrive at the same areas and distances?

Yeah, read the OP.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

3 options yes, for obvious reasons.

Name them.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

Discontinuous geometry makes no sense.

Correct.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

Neither does toroidal.

True.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

Or any of the other types you could concieve.

Concieve? Conceive? Again, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot think of? What is this? Thought police?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

With just 3 dimensions

With what?!
Okay, this conclusively proves you were lying about your identity before. No need for quotation marks or "(lol)" anymore. You're not a Caltech student. No one even vaguely interested in physics would claim that there only are three dimensions. Not in 2011. You are not worth my, or anyone else's, time. Your arguments will be ignored from now on, unless by some weird fluke you say something that makes sense.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:12:42 PM

if you apply coordinates to a different type of geometry, you will by default get different areas. This is a necessity of geometry. If you didn't want spherical geometry you should have made something up like Parsifal. Involve the fourth dimension.

Wait... you... you're serious about this, aren't you? You really think we live in a three-dimensional space (no matter what shape for now), don't you? Wow. I mean, really. Wow.

Yeah because the dimension of time, and the 5-11th dimensions rolled up into space really factor into the surface area of the earth. When we do calculus and geometry, we totally consider the non spatial dimensions and the ones that don't fact into anything. /sarcasm.

Again you don't seem to get the difference between the geometric model of the earth and the physical reality of it. In our search for the equation for surface area we need only consider 3 dimensions for a geometric model of the earth.

At Tech, we're taught not only information, but how to apply it. I don't get kicks out of learning stuff in a lecture hall, then randomly bringing it up to intellectually fight my opponent, like you seem to be doing. I could easily verify my identity, but why would I do so to feed an obvious troll?

But perhaps you'd like to show me how the 6 or 7 rolled up spatial dimensions and time are a factor for the surface area of the Earth. But I doubt you have any evidence to this claim, or the other ones you've made in the past few posts. And I'm still curious how you could have different geometric systems with the exact same coordinate system, distances, and areas.

In the end, all you did was make many unverified and unproven claims, and then tried to troll your way out. At least most members would have the decency to leave the thread after 20 pages of being wrong, but you've succeeded were all else have failed. Or is it the other way around?

I don't know what's going on. I will now call you names.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 06:38:06 PM

I don't know what's going on. I will now call you names.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

please point to the part of my post where it appeared as though I didn't know what I was talking about, and where because of that I called you a name. Still no more evidence?
How sad. Perhaps you've discovered that you have been wrong once again, and are now resorting to blatant trolling, or is it that you knew you were wrong from the get go. Surely you didn't think that no one would be disillusioned to your glaringly obvious gaps in logic.

Gentlemen, please! Can we at least agree that this exchange of personal attacks should stop, and that Curse of Monkey island is an awesome game? [/nooberating]

I have such nostalgic feelings for that game, and I've never even played it.

PizzaPlanet, I'm interested too. What kind of geometry does your model use?

Gentlemen, please! Can we at least agree that this exchange of personal attacks should stop, and that Curse of Monkey island is an awesome game? [/nooberating]

I'm not a noob :/
and I'm still trying to argue about the subject not the debators

PizzaPlanet, I'm interested too. What kind of geometry does your model use?

Refer to the diagram John Davis posted in this thread. It's an excellent descriptor!

reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry should bemandatory for everyone ITT.
also origins

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2010, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 13, 2010, 12:15:49 PM

This has been discussed before in terms of a fractal earth that "collapses" (much like a wave function).

Shouldn't that be a quantum earth?  Last I heard, fractals don't "collapse" into anything.

Long story short, in the discussion it was both.  It was a silly idea anyways.

also origins

Quote from: John Davis on March 15, 2010, 02:07:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2010, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 13, 2010, 12:15:49 PM

This has been discussed before in terms of a fractal earth that "collapses" (much like a wave function).

Shouldn't that be a quantum earth?  Last I heard, fractals don't "collapse" into anything.

Long story short, in the discussion it was both.  It was a silly idea anyways.

That summarization of non-euclidean geometry is incorrect.

For reasons I won't state now, I don't hold the diagram to be compatible with my model.  This may change with further study and was brought up because I know think I was too hasty in throwing it out so easily.  However, I see no issues with it with other models. 

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 20, 2011, 04:32:07 PM

also origins

Quote from: John Davis on March 15, 2010, 02:07:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 13, 2010, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 13, 2010, 12:15:49 PM

This has been discussed before in terms of a fractal earth that "collapses" (much like a wave function).

Shouldn't that be a quantum earth?  Last I heard, fractals don't "collapse" into anything.

Long story short, in the discussion it was both.  It was a silly idea anyways.

That summarization of non-euclidean geometry is incorrect.

For reasons I won't state now, I don't hold the diagram to be compatible with my model.  This may change with further study and was brought up because I know think I was too hasty in throwing it out so easily.  However, I see no issues with it with other models. 

that's fair enough.

What's wrong with the Wikipedia entry on non-euclidean geometry? It's fairly standard, unless you want to go into some very obscure types of geometry.

Using non-euclidean space and looking at the earth in a fractal manner we solve all issues with geography on a flat earth.

Nature does have a unique 'order' to things, which is where fractals are unique, but it has something called a fractal dimension, which describes how much smaller the repeatable order seems to be.

How does that take this into account?