The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...

Hi guys,

glad I found this interesting forum. Living at a large lake in Europe I have known for quite some time that the round earth, earth being a ball claims are nonsense and have been sharing my observations (e.g. seeing storm warning lights positioned approximately 12 meters above sea level at a distance of more than 40 kilometers) with other people standing on the shore. Fortunately there are no earth curvature denial laws in Europe, at least not yet, so that topic can (still) be discussed freely . Only problem is: most people don't want to know. Imagining that the earth might be flat after all is just too scary for most and, let's face it, most have lost touch with reality long ago anyway...

However, I have to disappoint the flat earth theorists here insofar as they still cling to that (primitive) disc theory. In reality it's simpler and at the same time more beautiful than that, albeit we humans can't visualize it at once: the earth's surface is a total plane. This total plane is flat, uncurved and yet closed within itself, it runs back on itself. All one needs for this to be possible is switch from Euclidian geometry to spherical or polar geometry. The surface of the earth then is a maximal sphere, which is flat...

This theory was first postulated by the Alsatian philosopher and mathematician Ernst Barthel in 1914 with strong (I would say forcing) geometrical and philosophical proofs. And he was never disproved, but simply declared crazy and his memory was made to go down the memory hole. Unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon world -- the only place AFAIK where there still are flat earthers! -- his works, which were written in German, have, to my knowledge, not been translated into English.
Here is an online copy of the first edition of his work "Polargeometrie" for those who read German:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ABR1507.0001.001?view=toc
He wrote many more books on this topic, they can be found in a few university libraries, but as said all in German.

Now, I don't want to start a fight about the "correct" flat earth theory here, all I can say is I know most, if not all of them, and after studying the subject for a while I have come to the conclusion that Barthel got it right.

A belated Happy New Year to all!

Lactantius

philosophical proofs.

lol

Unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon world -- the only place AFAIK where there still are flat earthers!

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

A belated Happy New Year to all!

James McIntyre would like a word with you.

Ok, zarg, it's clear from your quick incompetent response here and your other posts http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=49017
that you are a disinfo troll.
Would you mind trolling elsewhere now?
This thread is serious and intended for seriously interested people who would like to expand their horizon on the real shape of the earth and on the geometrical properties of space.

Lactantius

This thread is serious and intended for seriously interested people who would like to expand their horizon on the real shape of the earth and on the geometrical properties of space.

So are my posts. Please let me know where I have posted "disinfo" and I will check my sources accordingly. Don't forget to abide by the same standards yourself.

This theory was first postulated by the Alsatian philosopher and mathematician Ernst Barthel in 1914

Use the correct modern term - refer to him as a German Shepherd philosopher and mathematician.

Are you Mizuki's alt?

Ah, another lout without knowledge despite the user name... 

Interesting post, I'm afraid I do not know enough about polar geometry to engage you in any meaningful way.  There are however theories that state that the earth is an infinite plane and we just live in a habitable pocket.

Funny how both your theory and RET both rely on spherical geometry. Sounds suspicious hmmmm...

This theory was first postulated by the Alsatian philosopher and mathematician Ernst Barthel in 1914 with strong (I would say forcing) geometrical and philosophical proofs.

I have it on good authority that Ernst Barthel
is educated stupid. He knows nothing about
philosophy or geometry.  Dr. Gene Ray
is the Greatest Philosopher,
and is the Greatest Mathematician.



Now, I don't want to start a fight about the "correct" flat
earth theory here, all I can say is I know most, if not all
of them, and after studying the subject for a while I have
come to the conclusion that Ray got it right.

http://www.timecube.com/

Hi guys,

glad I found this interesting forum. Living at a large lake in Europe I have known for quite some time that the round earth, earth being a ball claims are nonsense and have been sharing my observations (e.g. seeing storm warning lights positioned approximately 12 meters above sea level at a distance of more than 40 kilometers) with other people standing on the shore. Fortunately there are no earth curvature denial laws in Europe, at least not yet, so that topic can (still) be discussed freely . Only problem is: most people don't want to know. Imagining that the earth might be flat after all is just too scary for most and, let's face it, most have lost touch with reality long ago anyway...

Does the lake have a name?

Interesting post, I'm afraid I do not know enough about polar geometry to engage you in any meaningful way.  There are however theories that state that the earth is an infinite plane and we just live in a habitable pocket.

And we can't leave that habitable pocket because it is surrounded by a wall of ice or something like that? That's basically the disc theory supplemented by "an infinite plane". This infinity (in the sense of endlessness) business is the problem with Euclidian geometry. Infinity is not a property of anything in nature including the cosmos as a whole, but a figment of man's (desire for) imagination. Actually, understanding spherical geometry is not hard at all, and those truly interested in FET should look into it. Here is an online article by Barthel from 1929 which was published in the astronomy journal "Astronomische Nachrichten" http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1929AN....236..139B&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=139%2F140&epage=139%2F140&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf which gives a good introduction into Barthel's thinking. Maybe someone of the FE-believers can read and translate it for the others here.

@jraffield1
No, RET depends on Euclidian geometry, RET is a product of the Euclidian error. Keep blathering on, preferably elsewhere though.

@hoppy
"Does the lake have a name?"
Yes, it's called the Great German Shepherd Lake.

Seriously, what is this here? Is this a serious discussion board or what? If you are a moderator could you advise zarg, jraffield et al. to stop their trolling nonsense? Or maybe I posted on the wrong board and should go to the believers section straight away. Would you let me in, please.

Lactantius

Seriously, what is this here? Is this a serious discussion board or what? If you are a moderator could you advise zarg, jraffield et al. to stop their trolling nonsense? Or maybe I posted on the wrong board and should go to the believers section straight away. Would you let me in, please.

Yes, you are definitely in the wrong place.

Mission Statement

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature.  Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65

If you would like to post your ideas without fear of people sharing negative opinions of them, you should make an account here and turn off comments.

Hi guys,

glad I found this interesting forum. Living at a large lake in Europe I have known for quite some time that the round earth, earth being a ball claims are nonsense and have been sharing my observations (e.g. seeing storm warning lights positioned approximately 12 meters above sea level at a distance of more than 40 kilometers) with other people standing on the shore. Fortunately there are no earth curvature denial laws in Europe, at least not yet, so that topic can (still) be discussed freely . Only problem is: most people don't want to know. Imagining that the earth might be flat after all is just too scary for most and, let's face it, most have lost touch with reality long ago anyway...

However, I have to disappoint the flat earth theorists here insofar as they still cling to that (primitive) disc theory. In reality it's simpler and at the same time more beautiful than that, albeit we humans can't visualize it at once: the earth's surface is a total plane. This total plane is flat, uncurved and yet closed within itself, it runs back on itself. All one needs for this to be possible is switch from Euclidian geometry to spherical or polar geometry. The surface of the earth then is a maximal sphere, which is flat...

This theory was first postulated by the Alsatian philosopher and mathematician Ernst Barthel in 1914 with strong (I would say forcing) geometrical and philosophical proofs. And he was never disproved, but simply declared crazy and his memory was made to go down the memory hole. Unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon world -- the only place AFAIK where there still are flat earthers! -- his works, which were written in German, have, to my knowledge, not been translated into English.
Here is an online copy of the first edition of his work "Polargeometrie" for those who read German:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ABR1507.0001.001?view=toc
He wrote many more books on this topic, they can be found in a few university libraries, but as said all in German.

Now, I don't want to start a fight about the "correct" flat earth theory here, all I can say is I know most, if not all of them, and after studying the subject for a while I have come to the conclusion that Barthel got it right.

A belated Happy New Year to all!

Lactantius

Sorry, Earth is a globe.

Is that you Frenchy?

Yes, it's called the Great German Shepherd Lake.

Nope. No such place according to Google search and Google Earth, especially one with width more than 40 km. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

Also, why do you believe that you shouldn't be able to see those lights across the lake. Have you measured your height above that lake's level? How did you calculate the distance to the lights? Have you done the math? Have you consider looming?

Considering that you're not lying down at the water level but rather up a 15 feet bank, I calculate 22 km as the maximum range.

Hi guys,

glad I found this interesting forum. Living at a large lake in Europe I have known for quite some time that the round earth, earth being a ball claims are nonsense and have been sharing my observations (e.g. seeing storm warning lights positioned approximately 12 meters above sea level at a distance of more than 40 kilometers) with other people standing on the shore. Fortunately there are no earth curvature denial laws in Europe, at least not yet, so that topic can (still) be discussed freely . Only problem is: most people don't want to know. Imagining that the earth might be flat after all is just too scary for most and, let's face it, most have lost touch with reality long ago anyway...

However, I have to disappoint the flat earth theorists here insofar as they still cling to that (primitive) disc theory. In reality it's simpler and at the same time more beautiful than that, albeit we humans can't visualize it at once: the earth's surface is a total plane. This total plane is flat, uncurved and yet closed within itself, it runs back on itself. All one needs for this to be possible is switch from Euclidian geometry to spherical or polar geometry. The surface of the earth then is a maximal sphere, which is flat...

This theory was first postulated by the Alsatian philosopher and mathematician Ernst Barthel in 1914 with strong (I would say forcing) geometrical and philosophical proofs. And he was never disproved, but simply declared crazy and his memory was made to go down the memory hole. Unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon world -- the only place AFAIK where there still are flat earthers! -- his works, which were written in German, have, to my knowledge, not been translated into English.
Here is an online copy of the first edition of his work "Polargeometrie" for those who read German:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umhistmath/ABR1507.0001.001?view=toc
He wrote many more books on this topic, they can be found in a few university libraries, but as said all in German.

Now, I don't want to start a fight about the "correct" flat earth theory here, all I can say is I know most, if not all of them, and after studying the subject for a while I have come to the conclusion that Barthel got it right.

A belated Happy New Year to all!

Lactantius

The most interesting and thought-provoking post on these boards for quite some time.

Please do not be put off by the beligerent people who have posted in your thread, Lactantius. I hope you stay and contribute some more of what you have come to understand.

Happy new year x

Mizuki x

Ah, another lout without knowledge despite the user name... 

Immediate judging based on a single post with very little indication of my general angle is a clear indicator of you being an alt.
Your layout and paragraphs and your style of writing is exactly like that of Mizuki, only without the stupid kiss at the end.
So piss off.

Quote from: Lactantius on January 07, 2012, 06:34:54 PM

Ah, another lout without knowledge despite the user name... 

Immediate judging based on a single post with very little indication of my general angle is a clear indicator of you being an alt.
Your layout and paragraphs and your style of writing is exactly like that of Mizuki, only without the stupid kiss at the end.
So piss off.

Interesting... I believe that several other alts were built just to gain access to FEB.

I do like how pleading Lactantius is already...

Seriously, what is this here? Is this a serious discussion board or what? If you are a moderator could you advise zarg, jraffield et al. to stop their trolling nonsense? Or maybe I posted on the wrong board and should go to the believers section straight away. Would you let me in, please.

I also note how evangelical Lactantius is already...

Only problem is: most people don't want to know. Imagining that the earth might be flat after all is just too scary for most and, let's face it, most have lost touch with reality long ago anyway...

The most interesting and thought-provoking post on these boards for quite some time.

Please do not be put off by the beligerent people who have posted in your thread, Lactantius. I hope you stay and contribute some more of what you have come to understand.

Happy new year x

Mizuki x

Thanks for your encouraging words, Mizuki.

Immediate judging based on a single post with very little indication of my general angle is a clear indicator of you being an alt.
Your layout and paragraphs and your style of writing is exactly like that of Mizuki, only without the stupid kiss at the end.
So piss off.

Sorry for having to disappoint you: I'm not an "alt". As to judging your posts, just look at their content.

Interesting... I believe that several other alts were built just to gain access to FEB.

I don't know about that, but in any case, I'm not one of them.

I do like how pleading Lactantius is already...

I'm not pleading, just being polite. Maybe it's hard for you to understand because on this side of the great pond, we're used to a more urbane style of discussion than what seems to be the norm here.

I also note how evangelical Lactantius is already...

Well, if you think so. Anyway, the Gospel says that "The truth will make you free", and I believe that. If that's being evangelical, so be it.

Okay, can we now come to the point? My thesis, gleaned from Dr. Ernst Barthel's works, is this:
The Earth is not a globe (not an Euclidian sphere), but it is not a disc (surrounded by a huge ice wall or similar) either. Nevertheless the surface of mother Earth is flat. Flat as a pancake (except for some minor bumps and dents here and there). How is this possible? Tertium (semper) datur, a third possibility is (always) given. The solution: The surface of the Earth is a total plane in a Polar (Spherical, Riemannian) space.

I heartily and sincerely recommend all readers of this forum, especially the FE-believers, of course, to take this approach very seriously and give it an in depth look. I would also suggest including Barthel's pertinent works in the FE-library, even if they are only available in German for the time being.

Lactantius

I heartily and sincerely recommend all readers of this forum, especially the FE-believers, of course, to take this approach very seriously and give it an in depth look.

Okay. So, show us a map.

Quote from: Mizuki on January 08, 2012, 03:43:43 PM

The most interesting and thought-provoking post on these boards for quite some time.

Please do not be put off by the beligerent people who have posted in your thread, Lactantius. I hope you stay and contribute some more of what you have come to understand.

Happy new year x

Mizuki x

Thanks for your encouraging words, Mizuki.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 08, 2012, 04:44:55 PM

Immediate judging based on a single post with very little indication of my general angle is a clear indicator of you being an alt.
Your layout and paragraphs and your style of writing is exactly like that of Mizuki, only without the stupid kiss at the end.
So piss off.

Sorry for having to disappoint you: I'm not an "alt". As to judging your posts, just look at their content.

And Mizuki supports you wholeheartedly - how strange considering you're not his alt.

Okay, can we now come to the point? My thesis, gleaned from Dr. Ernst Barthel's works, is this:
The Earth is not a globe (not an Euclidian sphere), but it is not a disc (surrounded by a huge ice wall or similar) either. Nevertheless the surface of mother Earth is flat. Flat as a pancake (except for some minor bumps and dents here and there). How is this possible? Tertium (semper) datur, a third possibility is (always) given. The solution: The surface of the Earth is a total plane in a Polar (Spherical, Riemannian) space.

I heartily and sincerely recommend all readers of this forum, especially the FE-believers, of course, to take this approach very seriously and give it an in depth look. I would also suggest including Barthel's pertinent works in the FE-library, even if they are only available in German for the time being.

Lactantius

Lactantius, can you please elaborate on your theory?

Although i did once study German at night school, i'm afraid my understanding of the German language leaves a lot to be desired!

Can you explain what you mean by 'a total plane in a polar space?'

Thank you, Mizuki x

Quote from: Lactantius on January 09, 2012, 09:58:19 AM

I heartily and sincerely recommend all readers of this forum, especially the FE-believers, of course, to take this approach very seriously and give it an in depth look.

Okay. So, show us a map.

A map, why? Don't you know the outline of the Earth? Take any map you like, there are different projections, each with its pros and cons. You can even take a globe, if you wish, so long as you keep in mind that the globe is just a symbol, that it does not represent the true shape of the Earth, that the Earth's surface is not curved like a globe. If you insist on a two-dimensional map the best way to do it would probably be what Barthel called a Lambertian coin (and the disk theorists here -- are there any? Is this website serious, or is it just a psyop to confuse people by ridiculing those 'nutty' flat earthers in case they suspect something might be wrong with our world view, that the Earth might be flat after all? -- should like it):
Cut a circle out of card board. On the front side put an azimuthal equidistant projection of the northern hemisphere, the north pole being in the center. (Just like on the UN flag, but only half of the earth, so that the equator runs along the edge.) Now turn the "disk" and on the back side put the southern hemisphere (again azimuthal, the south pole being the center). Voilą, there's your map of the world and it's disk shaped, too. It has the big advantage of not having an edge (surrounded by whatever), but instead being unlimited (like the total plane of the Earth). Whenever you come to the edge of the map you have to turn it upside down. (This does, of course, not mean that you have to do a 180° turn when you cross the equator of the Earth.)
There is no other way of depicting the entirety of the total plane of Earth (i.e. the equator plane of the cosmos) on a tiny fragment of the whole.

Quote from: zarg on January 09, 2012, 10:44:24 AM

Quote from: Lactantius on January 09, 2012, 09:58:19 AM

I heartily and sincerely recommend all readers of this forum, especially the FE-believers, of course, to take this approach very seriously and give it an in depth look.

Okay. So, show us a map.

A map, why? Don't you know the outline of the Earth? Take any map you like, there are different projections, each with its pros and cons. You can even take a globe, if you wish, so long as you keep in mind that the globe is just a symbol, that it does not represent the true shape of the Earth, that the Earth's surface is not curved like a globe. If you insist on a two-dimensional map the best way to do it would probably be what Barthel called a Lambertian coin (and the disk theorists here -- are there any? Is this website serious, or is it just a psyop to confuse people by ridiculing those 'nutty' flat earthers in case they suspect something might be wrong with our world view, that the Earth might be flat after all? -- should like it):
Cut a circle out of card board. On the front side put an azimuthal equidistant projection of the northern hemisphere, the north pole being in the center. (Just like on the UN flag, but only half of the earth, so that the equator runs along the edge.) Now turn the "disk" and on the back side put the southern hemisphere (again azimuthal, the south pole being the center). Voilą, there's your map of the world and it's disk shaped, too. It has the big advantage of not having an edge (surrounded by whatever), but instead being unlimited (like the total plane of the Earth). Whenever you come to the edge of the map you have to turn it upside down. (This does, of course, not mean that you have to do a 180° turn when you cross the equator of the Earth.)
There is no other way of depicting the entirety of the total plane of Earth (i.e. the equator plane of the cosmos) on a tiny fragment of the whole.

The best map would have no distortions, accurately portray distance and area, and every point would be simply connected to every other point. Interestingly enough, you will find that a spheroid is the only surface to which we could map the Earth and meet all the criteria.

Lactantius, can you please elaborate on your theory?

Although i did once study German at night school, i'm afraid my understanding of the German language leaves a lot to be desired!

Can you explain what you mean by 'a total plane in a polar space?'

Thank you, Mizuki x

Mizuki, it's not my theory, alas, I wish it were, because it is ingenious, and it is true or at least the closest to truth of any cosmological theory I've ever studied. Well, at least I think I've understood it, that's nice, too. It's all expounded in detail in Barthel's works, but the basic idea is actually quite simple. Space as a whole, the cosmos does not have the properties attributed to it by Euclidian geometry but is spherical, i.e. it is closed within itself. What happens on the Earth if you go in one direction long enough? You come back to your starting point. Now in spherical geometry this is true for all directions, so if you could go straight up, you would, after approx. 40000km, come back (through the earth) to the same point. Forget the billions of light years, that's hogwash anyway. And this applies for all directions. In spherical geometry parallel lines always have to intersection points, like great circles on a sphere, whereas the Euclidian parallel axiom claims that they have none, and that's the error. Euclidian geometry works well for small areas (with a tiny mistake), but it is wrong for cosmic distances or for space as a whole. Take a look at spherical geometry (sometimes also called "Riemannian geometry").
And it would really be worthwhile translating Barthel's work, maybe starting with the journal article I linked to above.
More another time.

Lactantius

The best map would have no distortions, accurately portray distance and area, and every point would be simply connected to every other point. Interestingly enough, you will find that a spheroid is the only surface to which we could map the Earth and meet all the criteria.

Fine. Then take the globe. It's also useful for studying spherical geometry. So long as you don't mistake the symbol for reality, it's fine. The Earth is not a big Euclidian sphere, not an inflated globe, so to speak, but a maximal sphere in spherical geometry, and it's surface is therefore flat.

Quote from: jraffield1 on January 10, 2012, 12:00:13 PM

The best map would have no distortions, accurately portray distance and area, and every point would be simply connected to every other point. Interestingly enough, you will find that a spheroid is the only surface to which we could map the Earth and meet all the criteria.

Fine. Then take the globe. It's also useful for studying spherical geometry. So long as you don't mistake the symbol for reality, it's fine. The Earth is not a big Euclidian sphere, not an inflated globe, so to speak, but a maximal sphere in spherical geometry, and it's surface is therefore flat.

If the curvature of the Earth were zero (flat as you claim), then it would not be possible to map it accurately to a globe. Since we can map it neatly this way, the Earth cannot be flat.

Are you suggesting that space itself is spherical and the Earth is a plane in that space?

Living at a large lake in Europe

I'm guessing Lake Constance (Bodensee).

Quote from: Lactantius on January 10, 2012, 12:23:52 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on January 10, 2012, 12:00:13 PM

The best map would have no distortions, accurately portray distance and area, and every point would be simply connected to every other point. Interestingly enough, you will find that a spheroid is the only surface to which we could map the Earth and meet all the criteria.

Fine. Then take the globe. It's also useful for studying spherical geometry. So long as you don't mistake the symbol for reality, it's fine. The Earth is not a big Euclidian sphere, not an inflated globe, so to speak, but a maximal sphere in spherical geometry, and it's surface is therefore flat.

If the curvature of the Earth were zero (flat as you claim), then it would not be possible to map it accurately to a globe. Since we can map it neatly this way, the Earth cannot be flat.

Are you suggesting that space itself is spherical and the Earth is a plane in that space?

We can map it "neatly" to a globe, yes, but is it absolutely correct?

Yes, that's what I'm "suggesting". I thought I had made that clear by now. Euclidian geometry is greek "floor geometry" as it were. It's useful for small areas (like on a board or even larger), but it's wrong when applied to the totality of space itself. For the reasons see Barthel...

Take any map you like, there are different projections, each with its pros and cons.

I want a projection of the entire Earth with uniform distance ratios.

Then take the globe.

Unacceptable, it does not conform to your theory.

I want a scale model of how the mass of Earth occupies physical space, and where all the continents are relative to each other on the surface of that mass.

Quote from: Lactantius on January 07, 2012, 03:06:48 PM

Living at a large lake in Europe

I'm guessing Lake Constance (Bodensee).

Maybe. It would in any case be large enough for pertinent experiments and observations. But you can take any large area of water. You know, water is very suitable because it forms an equipotential surface.