The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

Quote from: momentia on October 31, 2011, 03:39:33 PM

Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.

Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

So you were not speaking of Gaussian curvature.

Well, let's speak Gaussian curvature then. In your theory, what's the Gaussian curvature of the earth? I'm speaking of earth approximated by a two-dimensional manifold (not as fractal, neglecting mountains etc.), with metrics related to measured (not seen) distances. (The distances even a blind man could measure, e.g. with a tape measure, by rolling a barrel or measuring the time in a vehicle moving with constant speed.)

If it's zero, then said metrics are euclidean. Given that according to FET, earth has the topology of a disk, there must be a single, euclidean, isometric map. Please provide such a map.

If it's not zero (as we REers claim), then the earth cannot be called "flat", because "flat" means "locally isometric to a plane in the metrics of the embedding space", which implies "locally euclidean", which implies "zero Gaussian curvature".

Back to topic please! A map!

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 31, 2011, 03:41:49 PM

Quote from: momentia on October 31, 2011, 03:39:33 PM

Gaussian curvature is dependent only on what unit you use to measure distance.

Our definitions of "curvature" clearly differ.

So you were not speaking of Gaussian curvature.

Well, let's speak Gaussian curvature then. In your theory, what's the Gaussian curvature of the earth? I'm speaking of earth approximated by a two-dimensional manifold (not as fractal, neglecting mountains etc.), with metrics related to measured (not seen) distances. (The distances even a blind man could measure, e.g. with a tape measure, by rolling a barrel or measuring the time in a vehicle moving with constant speed.)

If it's zero, then said metrics are euclidean. Given that according to FET, earth has the topology of a disk, there must be a single, euclidean, isometric map. Please provide such a map.

If it's not zero (as we REers claim), then the earth cannot be called "flat", because "flat" means "locally isometric to a plane in the metrics of the embedding space", which implies "locally euclidean", which implies "zero Gaussian curvature".

You seem to be confused. You see, the measured differences are wrong, and thus you're special curvyness is irrelevant.

Yes, I did that on purpose.

You seem to be confused. You see, the measured differences are wrong, and thus you're special curvyness is irrelevant.

You are trying to confuse me, but you fail.  If the measured distances are wrong, this means measured distances differ from actual measurable distances, which is complete nonsense.

Quote from: Tausami on November 09, 2011, 01:19:51 PM

You seem to be confused. You see, the measured differences are wrong, and thus you're special curvyness is irrelevant.

You are trying to confuse me, but you fail.  If the measured distances are wrong, this means measured distances differ from actual measurable distances, which is complete nonsense.

Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

So, once a measurable distance is actually measured, it changes? How do you know?  I mean, you can't possibly know the value of a measurable distance without actually measuring it, and if it changes once you measure it, you can't know the value it had before.

This is funny. Now would be a good moment to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

Quote from: Tausami on November 09, 2011, 01:42:59 PM

Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

So, once a measurable distance is actually measured, it changes? How do you know?  I mean, you can't possibly know the value of a measurable distance without actually measuring it, and if it changes once you measure it, you can't know the value it had before.

This is funny. Now would be a good moment to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

No, it's much simpler than that. They were measured incorrectly.

Quote from: Zogg on November 09, 2011, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Tausami on November 09, 2011, 01:42:59 PM

Measured distances do indeed differ from measurable distances. I'm glad your catching on.

So, once a measurable distance is actually measured, it changes? How do you know?  I mean, you can't possibly know the value of a measurable distance without actually measuring it, and if it changes once you measure it, you can't know the value it had before.

This is funny. Now would be a good moment to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

No, it's much simpler than that. They were measured incorrectly.

How do you suppose we measure it "correctly?"

Odometers should work just fine.

Odometers should work just fine.

We shall eagerly await the results of your pan-global drive.

Almost two weeks, and still no FE map...

We shall eagerly await the results of your pan-global drive.

Why would I do that? I'm not the one asking for proof of what can be seen to be obvious with much less effort.

Almost two weeks, and still no FE map...

In fact, you were shown several. You just happen to dislike them. Can't do much about that.

You theories have widely discarded.

Flat Earth = Euclidian geometry = homothetic projection: if a FE map was possible, you should be able to provide one

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 09, 2011, 02:43:39 PM

We shall eagerly await the results of your pan-global drive.

Why would I do that? I'm not the one asking for proof of what can be seen to be obvious with much less effort.

Not being willing to perform an experiment does not negate the importance of the experiment. Also, I cannot see the entirety of the Earth just by looking out the window, and doubt you can either, so its not as obvious as you like to believe.

FE will remain a theory if no more proofs can be given.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 11, 2011, 12:30:02 AM

Almost two weeks, and still no FE map...

In fact, you were shown several. You just happen to dislike them. Can't do much about that.

Read the opening post. We are speaking of an isometric map (up to a scale factor), which should exist if the earth is flat.

PlanetPizzaz doesn't know the first thing about maps. Don't let be trolled by him.

Not being willing to perform an experiment does not negate the importance of the experiment.

Of course. It may or may not be very important, which is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I feel like driving a car around the world just so that I can elaborate a point on an Internet forum.

Also, I cannot see the entirety of the Earth just by looking out the window, and doubt you can either

Of course, I can't. In fact, the view from my window is quite uninteresting. I can see a street, and then a row of houses on the other side.
However, I'm not sure why you think that I've said anything about observing the Earth just by looking out the window. To clarify: I haven't.

Read the opening post. We are speaking of an isometric map (up to a scale factor), which should exist if the earth is flat.

The problem with this is that you make assumptions about FET. You ask us to prove your theory, which you deliberately create to be impossible.
Two can play that game: Please explain RET without resorting to gravitation, as it is known that gravitation is not true due to its observed anomalies from reality. This should be doable if the Earth is round.

Nothing about this thread is ultimate nor a challenge.

Nothing about this thread is ultimate nor a challenge.

It has been merged, however!

It's a real challenge because you have yet to produce a FE map.

Ultimate was ironic, but since we've no answers, might be funally ultimate.

The problem with this is that you make assumptions about FET. You ask us to prove your theory, which you deliberately create to be impossible.

So you really do think a flat Earth map is impossible to create? Good to know.

So you really do think a flat Earth map is impossible to create? Good to know.

Not at all. I think that a flat Earth map that matches your theory is impossible to create. Your theory also happens to be entirely incompatible with FET, so that's not much of a problem.
How did you manage to miss the most important part of my post? I even emboldened it for emphasis.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 06:54:55 PM

So you really do think a flat Earth map is impossible to create? Good to know.

Not at all. I think that a flat Earth map that matches your theory is impossible to create. Your theory also happens to be entirely incompatible with FET, so that's not much of a problem.
How did you manage to miss the most important part of my post? I even emboldened it for emphasis.

In FET the Earth is flat, therefore a flat map exists that preserves distance and area and is of a constant scale. Is it possible to create such a map, yes or no?

It works the other way as well. In RET, without referencing gravity in the slightest, it is possible to construct a 3D map of the Earth that preserves distance and area, when you connect all the different places and move them so the distances match up, the shape you get is a sphere.

Your move.

In FET the Earth is flat, therefore a flat map exists that preserves distance and area and is of a constant scale.

This assumption is incorrect. The implication does not occur in real FET. It only occurs in the RE'ers version of it, which is simply incompatible with reality.

It works the other way as well. In RET, without referencing gravity in the slightest, it is possible to construct a 3D map of the Earth that preserves distance and area, when you connect all the different places and move them so the distances match up, the shape you get is a sphere.

Once again, you seem to be acting as if I said something I didn't say. I haven't asked you to produce a map. I asked you to explain how the model works without resorting to gravity. To save you some effort, I am specifically interested in how people manage to stay on the Earth, and why they don't float away.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 08:05:56 PM

In FET the Earth is flat, therefore a flat map exists that preserves distance and area and is of a constant scale.

This assumption is incorrect. The implication does not occur in real FET. It only occurs in the RE'ers version of it, which is simply incompatible with reality.

I've read all your made up reasons for why this is, so lets see if you can give me a real answer this time. Why can't a flat Earth have a flat map?

Why can't a flat Earth have a flat map?

Due to Electromagnetic Acceleration scaling issues, as well as it being impossible to draw a fractal without eventually limiting it.

Also, I like it how you've ignored the gravity challenge. I was hoping you would. It grants me much satisfaction.

Once again, you seem to be acting as if I said something I didn't say. I haven't asked you to produce a map. I asked you to explain how the model works without resorting to gravity. To save you some effort, I am specifically interested in how people manage to stay on the Earth, and why they don't float away.

In RET gravity is not in dispute, only the theory describing gravity. It doesn't make any sense to discuss RET without using gravity. But that's not what is being disputed here. Telling me to exclude gravity from RET doesn't make any sense, but asking for a flat map that describes a flat Earth makes perfect sense.

It seems to me that you think the Earth is both round and flat at the same time, I think it's time you reviewed your materials and literature again to make sure you didn't miss anything important.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 13, 2011, 09:08:11 PM

Why can't a flat Earth have a flat map?

Due to Electromagnetic Acceleration scaling issues, as well as it being impossible to draw a fractal without eventually limiting it.

Also, I like it how you've ignored the gravity challenge. I was hoping you would. It grants me much satisfaction.

Electromagnetic Acceleration has absolutely nothing to do with constructing a map. Try again. Also, the fractal nature of the Earth has never been observed.

As for your gravity challenge, I will give you an answer as soon as you express FET with mentioning the Earth accelerating. I'm quite looking forward to seeing why people don't float away.