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

  • 285 Replies
  • 84210 Views
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #150 on: April 01, 2012, 02:33:06 PM »
It's funny, I found this forum 3 years ago when I was bored, I thought it was funny seeing people arguing about the stuff they were arguing about so I registered just to have some input.

I followed the forum for three days after making a lengthy post and including a video of TV presenter James May flying in a plane that the very edge of the atmosphere and showing the curvature of the Earth from such a high altitude. After posting and feeling happy about myself for inputting into a forum discussion for the first time I was happy to hear support from another RE believer who said I made a good point. I was also happy how the FE believers on the discussion took a whole day to reply. After a day, a FE believer finally came up with some bogus science he pulled out of his arse. An argument ensued and I sat back and watched as my point was swiftly forgotten and people descended into arguing like children again. I then left, forgot about this forum and got on with my life, which between then and now has changed very rapidly in numerous ways.

Three years later, here I am sat at home listening to a repeat of QI on dave when Stephen Fry asks a question about people believing if the earth was flat, this suddenly refilled my brain with memories of this site and the fun I had reading all your bitching.

And you're still bitching. And it would still be really funny...                                   ...if it wasn't so sad.

?

Graff

  • 538
  • ROBOSCORPIONS ATTACK!
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #151 on: April 01, 2012, 02:54:45 PM »
I still think it is funny.
But then, I just like arguing.
God bless the Enclave.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #152 on: April 01, 2012, 03:12:12 PM »
It's funny, I found this forum 3 years ago when I was bored, I thought it was funny seeing people arguing about the stuff they were arguing about so I registered just to have some input.

I followed the forum for three days after making a lengthy post and including a video of TV presenter James May flying in a plane that the very edge of the atmosphere and showing the curvature of the Earth from such a high altitude. After posting and feeling happy about myself for inputting into a forum discussion for the first time I was happy to hear support from another RE believer who said I made a good point. I was also happy how the FE believers on the discussion took a whole day to reply. After a day, a FE believer finally came up with some bogus science he pulled out of his arse. An argument ensued and I sat back and watched as my point was swiftly forgotten and people descended into arguing like children again. I then left, forgot about this forum and got on with my life, which between then and now has changed very rapidly in numerous ways.

Three years later, here I am sat at home listening to a repeat of QI on dave when Stephen Fry asks a question about people believing if the earth was flat, this suddenly refilled my brain with memories of this site and the fun I had reading all your bitching.

And you're still bitching. And it would still be really funny...                                   ...if it wasn't so sad.

I'm afraid you're making assumptions. We get that specific video once a month, and each time the newbs make it a long and tedious thread. Without knowing what your main accounts name is (really I should ban you for being an alt, but I'd be a hypocrite), I'd imagine nobody was interested enough to reply. Also, a day isn't very long to wait for a response. This is a forum, not an instant messaging service.

Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #153 on: April 01, 2012, 08:49:32 PM »
So why ask someone to look at it?

@StupidEarthSociety So, what did you want to demonstrate with that YouTube video?

Funny , so why do not understand what you see in that video??? Maybe "great cons."??!!!
Look,, I will tell you the solution for your misunderstanding: You see an earth from ther low orbit. I do not know why you telling me that this is hoax video.

Did you went to elementary school? Do you have internet , so try to learn something abotu our planet, great blue planet!
end please stop playing with yourself!!

Ofcourse....I know the answers....... do you?

Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #154 on: April 01, 2012, 09:00:35 PM »
It's funny, I found this forum 3 years ago when I was bored, I thought it was funny seeing people arguing about the stuff they were arguing about so I registered just to have some input.

I followed the forum for three days after making a lengthy post and including a video of TV presenter James May flying in a plane that the very edge of the atmosphere and showing the curvature of the Earth from such a high altitude. After posting and feeling happy about myself for inputting into a forum discussion for the first time I was happy to hear support from another RE believer who said I made a good point. I was also happy how the FE believers on the discussion took a whole day to reply. After a day, a FE believer finally came up with some bogus science he pulled out of his arse. An argument ensued and I sat back and watched as my point was swiftly forgotten and people descended into arguing like children again. I then left, forgot about this forum and got on with my life, which between then and now has changed very rapidly in numerous ways.

Three years later, here I am sat at home listening to a repeat of QI on dave when Stephen Fry asks a question about people believing if the earth was flat, this suddenly refilled my brain with memories of this site and the fun I had reading all your bitching.

And you're still bitching. And it would still be really funny...                                   ...if it wasn't so sad.

great post man!
I am guite disapointed with FET forum, because, when you post them video about  earth filmed from low orbit,  they will say it's nasa hoax or "satellites are not real" :))) hahahaha

So, space station "mir" is also fake??? :)))
So, only state that thay have is "go to FAQ links".... you have all there....and they do not have any picture about FET thing, from the low orbit, or deep space.....

So I think that thay are funny little people, with no science competence.....and great amount of ignorance....

Etc, you have plenty of Hollow Earth believers who has evidence of the Hollow earth!! And there is going to be an expedition to north ploe to proove Hollow Earrth theory.........
So Why all of them FET believers ,  cca 32000, collect money for  real proof, an expedition to the end of the disc with "ice walls".... and photo that stuff.............. Hollow Earth Theory believers are going to do that! soon! All you have on Youtube! An interview....

So about FET,  it would still be really funny......if it wasn't so sad.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #155 on: April 01, 2012, 09:21:15 PM »
@Cat Earth Theory
The question for you, and the likes of you, is still (see above):
Where, in an Euclidean space, does the intersection point (between two straight lines, one of them rotating) and the mass attached to it, say, a globe, go, when the rotation angle reaches 90°?

It goes away because they no longer intersect.

And the question to you is still:  Why is there a mass attached to the intersection point?

As was written for people who can and do read, the mass is attached to the intersection point to demonstrate the point more clearly to dimwits like you.
Again, where exactly does the point and the mass go? "It goes away" is not an answer, or maybe that of a baby.
This situation does not exist in reality.  Mathematically, the intersection point disappears.  Since mass cannot disappear, this scenario is unrealistic.  No real force can allow this line to reach 90 degrees if the mass is constrained to its intersection with the other line.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #156 on: April 02, 2012, 01:30:25 PM »
@Cat Earth Theory
The question for you, and the likes of you, is still (see above):
Where, in an Euclidean space, does the intersection point (between two straight lines, one of them rotating) and the mass attached to it, say, a globe, go, when the rotation angle reaches 90°?

It goes away because they no longer intersect.

And the question to you is still:  Why is there a mass attached to the intersection point?

As was written for people who can and do read, the mass is attached to the intersection point to demonstrate the point more clearly to dimwits like you.
Again, where exactly does the point and the mass go? "It goes away" is not an answer, or maybe that of a baby.
This situation does not exist in reality.  Mathematically, the intersection point disappears.  Since mass cannot disappear, this scenario is unrealistic.  No real force can allow this line to reach 90 degrees if the mass is constrained to its intersection with the other line.

You are now trying to redefine reality, distort it so that it fits with your illusions. This is not how science or rigorous logical thinking in general are supposed to work. Our subjective thoughts, ideas, theories should correspond to objective reality, rather than invent a reality (or a geometry like e.g. the Euclidean one) which matches our personal imaginations. The problem and its solution are simple: your Euclidean fantasy of space does not exist in reality. Geometrically the intersection point cannot disappear. A point moving on a straight line through space can never disappear from space as a consequence of its motion, but must in any instance of time occupy a definite place in space, which has a definite distance from the starting place. This is true, irrespective of whether a mass is attached to the point or not. In the example above, the mass was only attached for people who can't think straight, who unfortunately are the vast majority. You seem to be one of them, but you go even further and just declare that "this scenario is unrealistic, since mass cannot disappear". You are right that the mass (as well as the point alone) cannot disappear, but there are no forces involved in this simple geometrical coupling of rotational and translational motion, which make "this scenario unrealistic". It's not like a giant lever in a gravitational field or something like that. There is simply a mass (attached to a point) moving on an infinite straight line, and thus it cannot and does not simply disappear. Hence there is a fundamental flaw in Euclidean geometry, because it does not describe real, objective space; only spherical geometry does. Space itself is cyclical, which means that when moving through it in any direction on a straight line one eventually comes back to the starting point. Like it or not, that's the truth of the matter.

Lactantius

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #157 on: April 02, 2012, 06:47:58 PM »
@Cat Earth Theory
The question for you, and the likes of you, is still (see above):
Where, in an Euclidean space, does the intersection point (between two straight lines, one of them rotating) and the mass attached to it, say, a globe, go, when the rotation angle reaches 90°?

It goes away because they no longer intersect.

And the question to you is still:  Why is there a mass attached to the intersection point?

As was written for people who can and do read, the mass is attached to the intersection point to demonstrate the point more clearly to dimwits like you.
Again, where exactly does the point and the mass go? "It goes away" is not an answer, or maybe that of a baby.
This situation does not exist in reality.  Mathematically, the intersection point disappears.  Since mass cannot disappear, this scenario is unrealistic.  No real force can allow this line to reach 90 degrees if the mass is constrained to its intersection with the other line.

You are now trying to redefine reality, distort it so that it fits with your illusions. This is not how science or rigorous logical thinking in general are supposed to work. Our subjective thoughts, ideas, theories should correspond to objective reality, rather than invent a reality (or a geometry like e.g. the Euclidean one) which matches our personal imaginations.
The mass attached to a line is your illusion and fantasy.  Please provide evidence of this situation applying to reality.  My answer is a fact of mechanics.  Masses are not governed by imaginary geometric lines.  Geometric lines are human inventions to define position of masses.

Quote
The problem and its solution are simple: your Euclidean fantasy of space does not exist in reality. Geometrically the intersection point cannot disappear. A point moving on a straight line through space can never disappear from space as a consequence of its motion, but must in any instance of time occupy a definite place in space, which has a definite distance from the starting place.  This is true, irrespective of whether a mass is attached to the point or not.
Why must the italicized be true if a zero dimentional point does not represent a real object?  If there is no mass or energy, then it is not subject to the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and therefore is allowed to disappear.  Remember that points and lines are abstract concepts and not real things, and are therefore not subject to any laws of physics.

Quote
In the example above, the mass was only attached for people who can't think straight, who unfortunately are the vast majority. You seem to be one of them, but you go even further and just declare that "this scenario is unrealistic, since mass cannot disappear". You are right that the mass (as well as the point alone) cannot disappear, but there are no forces involved in this simple geometrical coupling of rotational and translational motion, which make "this scenario unrealistic". It's not like a giant lever in a gravitational field or something like that. There is simply a mass (attached to a point) moving on an infinite straight line, and thus it cannot and does not simply disappear. Hence there is a fundamental flaw in Euclidean geometry, because it does not describe real, objective space; only spherical geometry does. Space itself is cyclical, which means that when moving through it in any direction on a straight line one eventually comes back to the starting point. Like it or not, that's the truth of the matter.

Lactantius
Your scenario is running under the assumption that two parallel lines can intersect.  If you're saying this is how reality works, you need to do more to prove that this happens in reality.  I have one eyewitness account from you and one book as the only evidence for a flat earth, and photographic evidence from Levee, a flat earther no less, that the horizon does in fact curve away.  In the case of a Euclidean sphere, any case of two people setting out on parallel paths eventually meeting each other does not count as evidence of two parallel lines intersecting, because they are not travelling along lines.  If you can prove that it happens, then yes, I'll buy spherical geometry.  It's not beyond my understanding.  But you want to argue about what's real, so get me to see that it's real.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #158 on: April 02, 2012, 07:03:59 PM »
StupidEarthSociety, please note that in Flat Earth Debate posting must be strictly on-topic. Please stop derailing the discussion at hand.
"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: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #159 on: April 03, 2012, 06:32:14 AM »
It's funny, I found this forum 3 years ago when I was bored, I thought it was funny seeing people arguing about the stuff they were arguing about so I registered just to have some input.

I followed the forum for three days after making a lengthy post and including a video of TV presenter James May flying in a plane that the very edge of the atmosphere and showing the curvature of the Earth from such a high altitude. After posting and feeling happy about myself for inputting into a forum discussion for the first time I was happy to hear support from another RE believer who said I made a good point. I was also happy how the FE believers on the discussion took a whole day to reply. After a day, a FE believer finally came up with some bogus science he pulled out of his arse. An argument ensued and I sat back and watched as my point was swiftly forgotten and people descended into arguing like children again. I then left, forgot about this forum and got on with my life, which between then and now has changed very rapidly in numerous ways.

Three years later, here I am sat at home listening to a repeat of QI on dave when Stephen Fry asks a question about people believing if the earth was flat, this suddenly refilled my brain with memories of this site and the fun I had reading all your bitching.

And you're still bitching. And it would still be really funny...                                   ...if it wasn't so sad.

great post man!
I am guite disapointed with FET forum, because, when you post them video about  earth filmed from low orbit,  they will say it's nasa hoax or "satellites are not real" :))) hahahaha

So, space station "mir" is also fake??? :)))
So, only state that thay have is "go to FAQ links".... you have all there....and they do not have any picture about FET thing, from the low orbit, or deep space.....

So I think that thay are funny little people, with no science competence.....and great amount of ignorance....

Etc, you have plenty of Hollow Earth believers who has evidence of the Hollow earth!! And there is going to be an expedition to north ploe to proove Hollow Earrth theory.........
So Why all of them FET believers ,  cca 32000, collect money for  real proof, an expedition to the end of the disc with "ice walls".... and photo that stuff.............. Hollow Earth Theory believers are going to do that! soon! All you have on Youtube! An interview....

So about FET,  it would still be really funny......if it wasn't so sad.
1. Read the FAQ
2. Provide some proof for RE, other than ur ignorant chatter
3. ur nickname fits u very well  ::)

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #160 on: April 03, 2012, 01:09:04 PM »
@Cat Earth Theory
The question for you, and the likes of you, is still (see above):
Where, in an Euclidean space, does the intersection point (between two straight lines, one of them rotating) and the mass attached to it, say, a globe, go, when the rotation angle reaches 90°?

It goes away because they no longer intersect.

And the question to you is still:  Why is there a mass attached to the intersection point?

As was written for people who can and do read, the mass is attached to the intersection point to demonstrate the point more clearly to dimwits like you.
Again, where exactly does the point and the mass go? "It goes away" is not an answer, or maybe that of a baby.
This situation does not exist in reality.  Mathematically, the intersection point disappears.  Since mass cannot disappear, this scenario is unrealistic.  No real force can allow this line to reach 90 degrees if the mass is constrained to its intersection with the other line.

You are now trying to redefine reality, distort it so that it fits with your illusions. This is not how science or rigorous logical thinking in general are supposed to work. Our subjective thoughts, ideas, theories should correspond to objective reality, rather than invent a reality (or a geometry like e.g. the Euclidean one) which matches our personal imaginations.
The mass attached to a line is your illusion and fantasy.  Please provide evidence of this situation applying to reality.  My answer is a fact of mechanics.  Masses are not governed by imaginary geometric lines.  Geometric lines are human inventions to define position of masses.

No, the mass attached to a line is not my "illusion and fantasy". It is a tool for concretizing a simple geometrical issue to people who can't think abstractly. It is perfectly legitimate to say: Let the intersection point of the two straights be the center of a mass. You can even walk alongside of it, if you like, just to make sure it doesn't misbehave and disappear. If this is still too difficult for you, make the geometrical line a thin physical beam (made of some material) and let the mass be a blue ball with a hole through its center for the beam. That ball now moves along the rod. Is that realistic enough for you? If there is no correspondence between geometric realities and physical realities as you seem to imply, you should ask architects and engineers why they first create drawings which contain points (zero-dimensional), lines (one-dimensional) and surfaces (two-dimensional) all of which do not exist in physical, material reality, which only contains three-dimensional objects.

Quote
Quote
The problem and its solution are simple: your Euclidean fantasy of space does not exist in reality. Geometrically the intersection point cannot disappear. A point moving on a straight line through space can never disappear from space as a consequence of its motion, but must in any instance of time occupy a definite place in space, which has a definite distance from the starting place.  This is true, irrespective of whether a mass is attached to the point or not.
Why must the italicized be true if a zero dimentional point does not represent a real object?  If there is no mass or energy, then it is not subject to the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and therefore is allowed to disappear.  Remember that points and lines are abstract concepts and not real things, and are therefore not subject to any laws of physics.

The italicized statement must be true because it is logically consistent and compelling in a coherent continuous space. If there is order and regularity in space it must be describable by a consistent geometry in which a law of conservation of geometrical elements applies. No mass or energy is needed to do consistent geometry. If space itself is chaotic without order then any geometry is useless.

Quote
Quote
In the example above, the mass was only attached for people who can't think straight, who unfortunately are the vast majority. You seem to be one of them, but you go even further and just declare that "this scenario is unrealistic, since mass cannot disappear". You are right that the mass (as well as the point alone) cannot disappear, but there are no forces involved in this simple geometrical coupling of rotational and translational motion, which make "this scenario unrealistic". It's not like a giant lever in a gravitational field or something like that. There is simply a mass (attached to a point) moving on an infinite straight line, and thus it cannot and does not simply disappear. Hence there is a fundamental flaw in Euclidean geometry, because it does not describe real, objective space; only spherical geometry does. Space itself is cyclical, which means that when moving through it in any direction on a straight line one eventually comes back to the starting point. Like it or not, that's the truth of the matter.

Lactantius
Your scenario is running under the assumption that two parallel lines can intersect.  If you're saying this is how reality works, you need to do more to prove that this happens in reality.  I have one eyewitness account from you and one book as the only evidence for a flat earth, and photographic evidence from Levee, a flat earther no less, that the horizon does in fact curve away.  In the case of a Euclidean sphere, any case of two people setting out on parallel paths eventually meeting each other does not count as evidence of two parallel lines intersecting, because they are not travelling along lines.  If you can prove that it happens, then yes, I'll buy spherical geometry.  It's not beyond my understanding.  But you want to argue about what's real, so get me to see that it's real.

First of all, you don't have to buy anything. I'm not a salesman, and frankly I don't care what you choose to believe. For truthloving reasonable people the proof provided above that space is cyclical and that therefore there can be no two straight lines, which never intersect is self-evident. And then what exactly does "real" mean to you? You seem to adhere to a quite reductionist materialist epistemology. Mass (matter) and energy are real to you, I guess. Is that all? What else is real? Is the statement that two plus two equals four real? Are thoughts, ideas real? Is truth real? Are values real? And what makes you so certain that Euclidean geometry is real? The fact that you have learned it in school, or that it has been the dominant system for 2000 years? Does that prove anything?

And it is totally irrelevant how many eyewitness accounts or books you have as evidence for a flat Earth (Do you know "Earth not a Globe"? There are quite a few in there, too). There are countless "accounts" of a flat Earth, in fact no human being on the surface of the Earth has ever seen anything else than a flat Earth. The surface of the Earth is itself the archetype of the plane. That's why all peoples took a flat Earth as a matter of course before they started sailing, and then since they didn't fall off an edge anywhere but rather returned home, they began developing the idea of the Earth as an ordinary sphere: for want of a better geometrical understanding.

Also, I don't have a "scenario". The question is, which of the existing geometrical systems does best describe space. And the answer to that question is: Spherical geometry (in which any two straight lines always have two intersection points 180° apart from each other). Spherical geometry accomplishes everything Euclidean geometry does but without containing the fundamental error of the latter, which suffers from discontinuities. In Euclidean geometry there are illogical jumps, miracles, dream-like elements so to speak. In the example above between a rotation angle of 89,999999999999... °, where the intersection point (the center of our moving mass) is still existent, and 90,0° where it has suddenly disappeared into nowhere, and this is impossible in the real world (physical and geometrical) since Natura non facit saltus.
Perhaps Plato's Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here would be a good motto for the FES forum.
       
Lactantius
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 11:53:03 AM by Lactantius »

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #161 on: April 03, 2012, 06:01:58 PM »
The italicized statement must be true because it is logically consistent and compelling in a coherent continuous space. If there is order and regularity in space it must be describable by a consistent geometry in which a law of conservation of geometrical elements applies. No mass or energy is needed to do consistent geometry. If space itself is chaotic without order then any geometry is useless.

I'm sorry but you mention a "law of conservation of geometrical elements."  Why must reality have a law of conservation of geometrical elements?  Why must an abstract concept be conserved?

Quote
If there is no correspondence between geometric realities and physical realities as you seem to imply, you should ask architects and engineers why they first create drawings which contain points (zero-dimensional), lines (one-dimensional) and surfaces (two-dimensional) all of which do not exist in physical, material reality, which only contains three-dimensional objects.
Note that I did not claim there was no correspondence between geometry and reality, only that:
"Masses are not governed by imaginary geometric lines.  Geometric lines are human inventions to define position of masses."  That means that a geometric line does not determine reality, but is used rather to define it.  this is what architects do.  They can rotate beams and cables in their design to create or remove intersection points at will.  There seems to be no law that keeps them from doing this. 
Also, if they try to design two parallel beams but at the same time they want them to intersect, then its not as if they can say "This geometry sucks and is inconsistent, this new one is better."

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #162 on: April 03, 2012, 06:10:31 PM »
If space really was cyclical and based on spherical geometry, then it would be impossible to make a perfect square with right angles, and impossible to make an equilateral triangle with perfect 60 degree angles.  Centrelines going through a square would be longer than the sides of the squares.  This should be testable with lasers.  Use three laser measuring devices to form a triangle several kilometers to a side, and place one laser measuring device in the middle to measure the distance from that point to the opposite vertex.  Spherical geometry would cause this distance to be larger than it is in Euclidean geometry, so you should be able to tell which geometry is real.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #163 on: April 04, 2012, 02:31:37 PM »
If space really was cyclical and based on spherical geometry, then it would be impossible to make a perfect square with right angles, and impossible to make an equilateral triangle with perfect 60 degree angles.  Centrelines going through a square would be longer than the sides of the squares.  This should be testable with lasers.  Use three laser measuring devices to form a triangle several kilometers to a side, and place one laser measuring device in the middle to measure the distance from that point to the opposite vertex.  Spherical geometry would cause this distance to be larger than it is in Euclidean geometry, so you should be able to tell which geometry is real.

The question which geometry is "real", i.e. which is the true, objective geometry of space is answered above: it is Spherical geometry.
One doesn't need lasers to prove what is "real"; realistic and logical thinking suffices. (Who has four lasers anyway, and can one be sure that (laser-)light travels in absolutely straight lines even in the absence of matter or gravity? Or is that another science myth?)

If you want another geometrical proof, here's one with a triangle.
Draw a triangle and one of its exterior angles. The area covered by the exterior angle is composed of the area of the opposite angle of one of the opposite interior angles and a remaining piece. The remaining piece is the area of the other of the two opposite interior angles minus the area of the triangle. Therefore the sum of the two interior angles is greater than the opposite exterior angle, to wit, greater by the area of the triangle. Thus the Euclidean parallel axiom does not hold true, but the Riemannian one, and the plane is not an infinite, but a finite transition case between convex and concave surfaces of spheres. The spherical excess on the plane is not 0, but greater than 0. See the diagram.



The (area covered by the) exterior angle ζ is smaller than (the area covered by) the sum of the interior angles α+β. Consequently, the sum of the three interior angles of a triangle on a plane is (slightly) larger than 180°, too. This can only be explained if the plane is a sphere also, namely a sphere, whose curvature is 0, in other words, a maximal sphere in spherical space.

Rather simple, isn't it?
But please go ahead with that laser experiment, if you have more confidence in that...

Lactantius
« Last Edit: April 06, 2012, 05:09:37 AM by Lactantius »

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #164 on: April 04, 2012, 06:14:34 PM »
The (area covered by the) exterior angle ζ is smaller than (the area covered by) the sum of the interior angles α+β.

You may want to check your diagram.  The exterior angle ζ is not smaller than the sum of the interior angles α+β.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #165 on: April 04, 2012, 07:05:34 PM »
The (area covered by the) exterior angle ζ is smaller than (the area covered by) the sum of the interior angles α+β.

You may want to check your diagram.  The exterior angle ζ is not smaller than the sum of the interior angles α+β.

You might want to read carefully what was written. Or is this too difficult for you again?
The exterior angle ζ is smaller than the sum of the interior angles α+β.
Look at the area it spans. On the right side that is the area spanned by the vertical angle of β (the part where the "B" is) plus that part of the area spanned by angle α, which lies beyond the line BC. That is, the triangle area is missing, which means that α+β>ζ. Since ζ+γ= 180° it follows that α+β+γ>180°
Thus the spherical excess of a triangle in the plane is greater than 0. qed

If you don't get this, I can't help you.

Lactantius
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 07:08:59 PM by Lactantius »

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #166 on: April 04, 2012, 09:05:07 PM »
what does area have to do with the angles to make them add up to more than 180o?  If we're just talking about the angles themselves, then I'm afraid ζ = α+β.  I checked.  If you take your diagram, put it in photoshop, cut α and β and overlay them onto ζ, they fill ζ perfectly.  Regardless of what mathematical proofs you think you're using, this is a visual proof that ζ = α+β.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 09:10:19 PM by Nolhekh »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #167 on: April 05, 2012, 06:02:07 AM »
Maybe he is being confused by the lack of precision on his graphing calculator.  This is a pretty common "Ah-ha" moment with high school trig students.  They have the angles set to integer precision and say "Huh? The angles do not add up as they should". ζ does in fact equal α+β
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #168 on: April 05, 2012, 07:57:01 AM »
what does area have to do with the angles to make them add up to more than 180o?  If we're just talking about the angles themselves, then I'm afraid ζ = α+β.  I checked.  If you take your diagram, put it in photoshop, cut α and β and overlay them onto ζ, they fill ζ perfectly.  Regardless of what mathematical proofs you think you're using, this is a visual proof that ζ = α+β.



You're joking, right? Angles are sectors of circles, that's why they are denoted with that little arc connecting the two sides, which can be seen as two radii of a circle. This means greater angles correspond to greater circular sector areas and vice versa: the greater the area enclosed by the two sides of an angle, the greater the angle itself. This is self-evident. Therefore, since the area enclosed by the two interior angles α and β is larger than the area enclosed by the exterior angle ζ, it logically follows that the sum of the two interior angles themselves must be larger than the exterior angle.
Your "visual proof" is absolutely ridiculous, and you perfectly well know that. Of course, the difference in the size of the angles in this example is way too small to be measured, it is almost 0, but not exactly 0. That's why Euclidean geometry works well for relatively (relative to the totality, the whole of space) small extensions, as was repeatedly stated in this thread.
With your ludicrous photoshop "proof" you can also deny that a small triangle on the surface of an Euclidean sphere has a spherical excess, i.e. the sum of its interior angles is larger than 180°.

From all this we can conclude that you are either quite slow on the uptake, or else you are dishonest and again one of the disinformation trolls on this forum. From the many experiences gathered here, the latter is more probable.
And since none of the alleged true Flat Earth believers has ever bothered to comment in this thread, it can also be concluded with sufficient certainty that none of them are seriously interested in the true shape of the Earth and the structure of the Cosmos, but only in promoting their silly disk theory, which they themselves do not believe, thus making Flat Earth belief look stupid. However, the most funny thing is that the top dogs here, regardless of the camp they pretend to fight in (RE vs. FE), perfectly well know that what has been presented in this thread is the truth, namely that, as jraffield1 put it on the second page of this thread: "[...] space itself is spherical and the Earth is a plane in that space?"
The Flat Earth Society, which should correctly call itself the Disk Earth Society, is nothing but a diabolical scheme intended to fool and confuse people, but it's not that hard to see through it... So, good luck, anyway.

Lactantius

PS: I fully subscribe to Lord Wilmore's sig:
"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
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 11:04:43 AM by Lactantius »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #169 on: April 05, 2012, 09:21:51 AM »
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.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #170 on: April 05, 2012, 11:07:35 AM »
*sigh* Google is your friend.
http://www.basic-mathematics.com/angle-sum-theorem.html

Apart from that Google, the modern Big Brother, certainly is not our friend, the so-called proof you linked to presupposes what needs to proven first, namely that there are two straight lines in a plane which never intersect. If "parallel" just means "keeping equal distance over the whole length of the line" it is not necessarily a straight line, cf. great circles vs. small circles on a sphere. Thus your "proof" actually proves nothing.
The proof I presented, taken again from Dr. Barthel's writings, however, does in fact prove, at least to people, who are capable of rigorous logical thinking, because it does not make any assumptions about the nature of so-called parallels, instead it only uses straight lines and angles and their corresponding vertical angles.
So, sorry to disappoint you, your "proof" might be enough to fool school children, but not us. Do better, please.

Lactantius
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 12:00:39 PM by Lactantius »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #171 on: April 05, 2012, 11:31:27 AM »
Except for the fact that it is completely demonstrable. Sorry.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #172 on: April 05, 2012, 12:14:35 PM »
Except for the fact that it is completely demonstrable. Sorry.

What exactly is "completely demonstrable"? Sorry for you.

Lactantius

PS: If there are any serious moderators, they might want to take a close look at EireEngineer's (and "trig's" and other trolls') activities in this and other threads.
Then again, how can we know for sure that EireEngineer and Lord Wilmore are not one and the same person, one and the same spirit?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #173 on: April 05, 2012, 12:22:34 PM »
Therefore the sum of the two interior angles is greater than the opposite exterior angle, to wit, greater by the area of the triangle.

Nope.  I'm not seeing how you arrived at this conclusion.  It might be helpful if you showed your work a bit better.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #174 on: April 05, 2012, 12:35:36 PM »
Therefore the sum of the two interior angles is greater than the opposite exterior angle, to wit, greater by the area of the triangle.

Nope.  I'm not seeing how you arrived at this conclusion.  It might be helpful if you showed your work a bit better.

Fuck off, troll!
Or let me state that a bit more politely. Sir, uh, excuse me, Lord Wilmore, would you mind reprimanding and if necessary enforcing this rude, lying bastard of a troll to stop disrupting my serious attempts at enlightening people to the true shape of the Earth in this thread?
Thank you.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #175 on: April 05, 2012, 12:43:08 PM »
Therefore the sum of the two interior angles is greater than the opposite exterior angle, to wit, greater by the area of the triangle.

Nope.  I'm not seeing how you arrived at this conclusion.  It might be helpful if you showed your work a bit better.

Fuck off, troll!
Or let me state that a bit more politely. Sir, uh, excuse me, Lord Wilmore, would you mind reprimanding and if necessary enforcing this rude, lying bastard of a troll to stop disrupting my serious attempts at enlightening people to the true shape of the Earth in this thread?
Thank you.

If you're serious about this, you might want to explain yourself better.  What exactly do you mean when you talk about the areas of angles?  Do you mean their degrees?  That might be a good place to start.

You should also calm down.  There's no plot against you.  People just don't understand because you spout gibberish.  You're one of those tragic cranks who doesn't realize how insane he his.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #176 on: April 05, 2012, 12:56:05 PM »
Quote
[...] You're one of those tragic cranks who doesn't realize how insane he his.

That might be a projection of yours Sir, sorry, Lord Wilmore, uh I mean CatEarthTheory, names don't really matter here, do they?
You might be one of those tragic devils (wrongly believing they are "chosen ones") who go to hell for all their deceiving, lying, murdering (of truth) etc.
But, don't despair, there's hope for you, too. Just take your meds and everything will be fine, promised!  ;)
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 12:58:29 PM by Lactantius »

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #177 on: April 05, 2012, 12:57:40 PM »
Lol, ok.

So, my question again:

What exactly do you mean when you talk about the areas of angles?  Do you mean their degrees?
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Lactantius

  • 121
  • Earth is a flat total plane in spherical space.
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #178 on: April 05, 2012, 01:01:21 PM »
Lol, ok.

So, my question again:

What exactly do you mean when you talk about the areas of angles?  Do you mean their degrees?

No, I mean the area enclosed by an angle, which is a sector of a circle. Please do carefully read again what was written above. I will not repeat this any more, because it is self-evident. You're only fooling yourself, I'm afraid.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: The earth is flat, alright, but it's not a disc ...
« Reply #179 on: April 05, 2012, 01:03:23 PM »
No, I mean the area enclosed by an angle, which is a sector of a circle. Please do carefully read again what was written above. I will not repeat this any more, because it is self-evident. You're only fooling yourself, I'm afraid.

Alright, but the area enclosed with what length for the radius?
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.