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

Hi Lactantius.

I want to say thanks for bringing to people's attention the works of Ernst Barthel. And even though you seem quite grumpy, this is still my favourite thread.

Best wishes, Mizuki x

Hi Lactantius.

I want to say thanks for bringing to people's attention the works of Ernst Barthel. And even though you seem quite grumpy, this is still my favourite thread.

Best wishes, Mizuki x

Hi Mizuki x,

glad to see you managed to fix your keyboard problem. I'm generally not a grumpy person, however, I do sometimes get grumpy when I see trolls undermining constructive discussions, for which there are numerous examples in this thread also. And practically nothing is done about it, despite the so-called Rules & Guidelines. I'm afraid such a forum cannot function productively without strict moderation.
Anyway, I've seen enough here.

Best wishes to you also and happy trolling y'all,

Lactantius

So far, the only thing I see you have supporting spherical geometry is a law of conservation of geometrical elements.  I would like to know why anyone should accept this law.

An area A is smaller than an area A+x, even Round Earthers should understand that.

Unless of course the value of x is a negative number.

eurth is dohnut

pruf:

Uncle Dolan, please refrain from low content posting.  Believe it or not, you are not being original at all.

Lactantius, you can not see forty miles across a lake.  If you are six feet above sea level, the distance you can see to the horizon is THREE MILES.  I was in the navy and have seen ships come from over the horizon.  I didn't get any further into your post after reading this flagrantly retarded claim.  You just made that shit up.  Your guys' theories on here leave me in a state of horror but I just can't stop reading.  It's like driving by a bad car wreck, you can't help it.

Another thought.  If space is spherical, and travelling in one direction for long enough brings you to the same point you started from, what happens when you travel straight up?  Do you encounter the bottom of the earth and have to dig all the way through it?  If so, why can't we see the bottom of the earth?  What if you travelled at a 30 degree incline, or 1 degree incline? if the total distance you travel is the same to reach your starting point, then each angle has you ascending different amounts to reach that point?



The question marks in this diagram illustrate my confusion regarding what happens to the ground between you and yourself along inclined vectors.  If one such vector was at an angle so shallow that when reaching my starting position, I would have only ascended 1 metre, at what point do I encounter the change in ground level as I aproach my starting position?  Since there are an infinite number of possible angles, why am I not surrounded by an infinite number of gound levels?

Another thought.  If space is spherical, and travelling in one direction for long enough brings you to the same point you started from, what happens when you travel straight up?  Do you encounter the bottom of the earth and have to dig all the way through it?  If so, why can't we see the bottom of the earth?  What if you travelled at a 30 degree incline, or 1 degree incline? if the total distance you travel is the same to reach your starting point, then each angle has you ascending different amounts to reach that point?



The question marks in this diagram illustrate my confusion regarding what happens to the ground between you and yourself along inclined vectors.  If one such vector was at an angle so shallow that when reaching my starting position, I would have only ascended 1 metre, at what point do I encounter the change in ground level as I aproach my starting position?  Since there are an infinite number of possible angles, why am I not surrounded by an infinite number of gound levels?

Does anyone understand this?

Does anyone understand this?

It brings the concept that "travelling in one direction for long enough brings you to the same point you started from" (which I assume is something that Lactantius suggests, though I haven't read it in a while) to its logical conclusion: travelling upwards would bring you to the underside of Earth.

travelling upwards would bring you to the underside of Earth.

Still doesn't make sense.

If space is spherical, then travelling in one direction will bring you back to the same point in space.  This allows the earth to have spherical geometry, yet stay flat.  This is Lactantius' point of view.  But he does not consider that vertical and inclined directions would have that same property - that is travelling along one of these directions from a given starting point will bring you back to that same starting point.  So, if you start on the ground and travel upwards, you must eventually return to the same place, on the ground, having come up from under the ground.

Let me know if you follow before I continue.

If space is spherical, then travelling in one direction will bring you back to the same point in space.  This allows the earth to have spherical geometry, yet stay flat.  This is Lactantius' point of view.  But he does not consider that vertical and inclined directions would have that same property - that is travelling along one of these directions from a given starting point will bring you back to that same starting point.  So, if you start on the ground and travel upwards, you must eventually return to the same place, on the ground, having come up from under the ground.

Let me know if you follow before I continue.

I understand it as I understand a sci-fi book: ludicrous, but interesting!

Quote from: Nolhekh on May 20, 2012, 07:34:16 AM

If space is spherical, then travelling in one direction will bring you back to the same point in space.  This allows the earth to have spherical geometry, yet stay flat.  This is Lactantius' point of view.  But he does not consider that vertical and inclined directions would have that same property - that is travelling along one of these directions from a given starting point will bring you back to that same starting point.  So, if you start on the ground and travel upwards, you must eventually return to the same place, on the ground, having come up from under the ground.

Let me know if you follow before I continue.

I understand it as I understand a sci-fi book: ludicrous, but interesting!

I'm interested in how you think it doesn't make sense.  I agree with you on the conclusion, but what is your reasoning for dismissing the idea?  My eventual point is that it doesn't make sense, but I'm trying to show my reasoning.  You're just saying outright that it doesn't make sense or is ludicrous.  This makes me wonder if you understand what I'm talking about and where I'm going with it.

Another thought.  If space is spherical, and travelling in one direction for long enough brings you to the same point you started from, what happens when you travel straight up?  Do you encounter the bottom of the earth and have to dig all the way through it?  If so, why can't we see the bottom of the earth?  What if you travelled at a 30 degree incline, or 1 degree incline? if the total distance you travel is the same to reach your starting point, then each angle has you ascending different amounts to reach that point?



The question marks in this diagram illustrate my confusion regarding what happens to the ground between you and yourself along inclined vectors.  If one such vector was at an angle so shallow that when reaching my starting position, I would have only ascended 1 metre, at what point do I encounter the change in ground level as I aproach my starting position?  Since there are an infinite number of possible angles, why am I not surrounded by an infinite number of gound levels?

Nolhekh, are you really a trigonometer? It looks more like you are just another of the countless trolls here. If you really know something about trigonometry, you should also know a little bit about spherical trigonometry. In order to get answers to your silly pseudo-questions take a globe and observe the behavior of any pair of great circles. In spherical space every point has a corresponding opposite point 180° apart, regardless of the direction one travels. So to answer your question, any movement along a straight line will first bring you to the point opposite the starting point (take a globe to visualize this, it's also called the antipodal point), and eventually back to your starting point. So if you move upwards in any direction you will after 20000 km (180°) come to the antipodal point on the total plane of the Earth's surface, and then enter the body of the Earth. After another 20000km or 180°  digging through the Earth you will miraculously find yourself again at the point you started. You will never reach a "bottom" of the Earth, because none exists. Another question is whether the Earth is a massive body or whether it has cavities or is hollow, but that is not our problem here.
Why can't you "see the bottom of the Earth". Simple, because you can't see that far and furthermore in the real world light does not travel along straight lines. The only thing that is straight in the Cosmos is space itself. And yet it is closed!
If you can't imagine this explanation take a globe, start from any point on the equator and draw straight lines (that are great circles) in various directions, you will find they all "miraculously" meet the equator again at the same point. The Earth is a maximal sphere, so you can use a globe for visualizing its properties, however, keep in mind that the maximal sphere is one, whose surface curvature is zero.
Now, before blathering on with more nonsense here, people seriously interested in the true shape of the Earth should do a bit of reading and studying. Starting with the works of Ernst Barthel might be a good idea.

Lactantius

Nolhekh, are you really a trigonometer? It looks more like you are just another of the countless trolls here.

  I'm an amateur trigonometer.  I enjoy geometry, and have a great deal of strength in the area of spatial reasoning.  I'm not a troll.  If you call me one again, I will report you.  I don't apreciate it.  Calling people trolls incites unnecessary emotional responses which could result in the recipient finding it unnecesarily difficult to make a truely reasonable response to the debated issue.  I give you my word and swear on my continued allowed presence on this forum that I am responding to your posts with sincerity and the honest belief that my posts and arguments are as accurate as I can make them.  Despite my support of the idea of a spherical convex heliocentricly-orbiting earth,  I take debate subjects here seriously, and try my best to respect everyone on this site.  I suggest you try the same. I am kindly requesting that you respond to my debate points in an objective, logical, professional and above all, non-personal manner.  This is a highly interesting topic for me, and I'd enjoy this if it weren't for the fact that almost every one of your posts seems to contain some kind of personal attack.  I will respond to your arguments pertaining to the debate issue after a dinner break.  Any further argument containing personal attacks will be ignored and reported.
[/quote]

Quote from: Lactantius on June 06, 2012, 04:08:17 PM

Nolhekh, are you really a trigonometer? It looks more like you are just another of the countless trolls here.

  I'm an amateur trigonometer.  I enjoy geometry, and have a great deal of strength in the area of spatial reasoning.  I'm not a troll.  If you call me one again, I will report you.  I don't apreciate it.  Calling people trolls incites unnecessary emotional responses which could result in the recipient finding it unnecesarily difficult to make a truely reasonable response to the debated issue.  I give you my word and swear on my continued allowed presence on this forum that I am responding to your posts with sincerity and the honest belief that my posts and arguments are as accurate as I can make them.  Despite my support of the idea of a spherical convex heliocentricly-orbiting earth,  I take debate subjects here seriously, and try my best to respect everyone on this site.  I suggest you try the same. I am kindly requesting that you respond to my debate points in an objective, logical, professional and above all, non-personal manner.  This is a highly interesting topic for me, and I'd enjoy this if it weren't for the fact that almost every one of your posts seems to contain some kind of personal attack.  I will respond to your arguments pertaining to the debate issue after a dinner break.  Any further argument containing personal attacks will be ignored and reported.

[/quote]

Okay, if you truly are not a troll, I apologize. So, enjoy studying polar geometry, it is a rewarding pastime, contrary to reading through this forum...

Lactantius

This idea is actually starting to make sense to me now.  Before, I saw a paradox involving having a flat earth that extends the entire circumference of this maximal sphere.  Say, for example, I set off on an inclined trajectory 1 degree.  I would encounter the antipode upside down, on a surface that was parallel to the surface I left, but I realize now that this would not be the case.  Instead you would actually come across the antipode on a 1 degree decline.  The surface when you depart would go away from you, and as you reach 90 degrees, the surface would seem to curve up to become parallel to your trajectory, and curve up so that you return to the earth on a 1 degree decline, pass through the earth, and here the surface curves back down so that you return to your starting point on the 1 degree incline you started at.  Thanks to your persistence, I can actually see that spherical geometry is plausible.  My concern now is that the earth would, as you ascend, start to appear as a concave dish.  As you reach 90 degrees travelling upwards, the earth would appear to be on the inside of a sphere.  If you travelled to the core, the earth would appear (if you could see the surface) as a globe.  This apparent warping should be measurable.

Why can't you "see the bottom of the Earth". Simple, because you can't see that far and furthermore in the real world light does not travel along straight lines. The only thing that is straight in the Cosmos is space itself. And yet it is closed!

Sorry, I've studied perspective professionally, and need more depth of explanation than "because you can't see that far."  As far as I'm concerned the limit to your vision is the anular size of the object you're viewing, atmosphere and the amount of light drowning out the thing you are trying to see.  Could you be more specific?  I'm also curious as to how light bends aside from simple refraction.

This is my suffering, no one here willing to listen. As if they close their eyes and ears once I say "The earth is flat".
The earth is flat. It is flat. It is flat. This is the truth with no doubt. I know the full story and searching for people to be with me to raise the case.

What do you say?

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

This is my suffering, no one here willing to listen. As if they close their eyes and ears once I say "The earth is flat".
The earth is flat. It is flat. It is flat. This is the truth with no doubt. I know the full story and searching for people to be with me to raise the case.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Quote from: Happy Forever on July 05, 2012, 02:07:50 PM

This is my suffering, no one here willing to listen. As if they close their eyes and ears once I say "The earth is flat".
The earth is flat. It is flat. It is flat. This is the truth with no doubt. I know the full story and searching for people to be with me to raise the case.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

Nice picture

There is no need for this warning because there is nothing called gravitation. 

This is my suffering, no one here willing to listen. As if they close their eyes and ears once I say "The earth is flat".
The earth is flat. It is flat. It is flat. This is the truth with no doubt. I know the full story and searching for people to be with me to raise the case.

What do you say?

Another (female) troll, how sweet. Anyway, Happy Forever, if "Life is a big trick", you'd better run away quick, or I'll come after you with the big stick, and you'll be happy no more. 

If you would like to be added to the True Believers Category, then I can request it on your behalf.  I agree with you that this forum's stated purpose is unobtainable or at least seriously retarded by the unmitigated scorn which genuine believers who make posts have to endure.  Unfortunately, this has always been the status of this website.

I'd rather first hear in this thread what the top dogs of Disk Earth theory, Tom Bishop, John Davis, Lord Wilmore et al. have to say about this alternative flat Earth theory proposed by Ernst Barthel 100 years ago, which just happens to be true. They have been suspiciously quiet on this one so far...

Lactantius

It seems that you are the one who's trolling here Mr Impolite.
The earth is flat, I have the evidence, would like to bear the message or continue your trolling?

Quote from: Happy Forever on July 05, 2012, 02:07:50 PM

This is my suffering, no one here willing to listen. As if they close their eyes and ears once I say "The earth is flat".
The earth is flat. It is flat. It is flat. This is the truth with no doubt. I know the full story and searching for people to be with me to raise the case.

What do you say?

Another (female) troll, how sweet. Anyway, Happy Forever, if "Life is a big trick", you'd better run away quick, or I'll come after you with the big stick, and you'll be happy no more. 

Quote from: 17 November on June 27, 2012, 09:15:13 PM

If you would like to be added to the True Believers Category, then I can request it on your behalf.  I agree with you that this forum's stated purpose is unobtainable or at least seriously retarded by the unmitigated scorn which genuine believers who make posts have to endure.  Unfortunately, this has always been the status of this website.

I'd rather first hear in this thread what the top dogs of Disk Earth theory, Tom Bishop, John Davis, Lord Wilmore et al. have to say about this alternative flat Earth theory proposed by Ernst Barthel 100 years ago, which just happens to be true. They have been suspiciously quiet on this one so far...

Lactantius

It seems that you are the one who's trolling here Mr Impolite.
The earth is flat, I have the evidence, would like to bear the message or continue your trolling?

Please start a new thread and present your evidence there. And unlike the one which has just been deleted (by whom?) put some substance in it...

Not deleted Blind man

I will not. Who knows? Maybe NASA Mavya are its maker or you're one of them.

Not deleted Blind man

I will not. Who knows? Maybe NASA Mavya are its maker or you're one of them.

Okay, so it has been moved here
But what (other than trolling) is the point of creating a thread or posting here for that matter if you won't put anything of substance into your posts?

From where you got this space?

There is no space, no universe. It is the heavens and the earth.

The earth means all what is under and the heaven means all what is up.

"Is there about Allah doubt Fatir the heavens and the earth".

Quote from: Nolhekh on June 06, 2012, 04:51:16 PM

Quote from: Lactantius on June 06, 2012, 04:08:17 PM

Nolhekh, are you really a trigonometer? It looks more like you are just another of the countless trolls here.

  I'm an amateur trigonometer.  I enjoy geometry, and have a great deal of strength in the area of spatial reasoning.  I'm not a troll.  If you call me one again, I will report you.  I don't apreciate it.  Calling people trolls incites unnecessary emotional responses which could result in the recipient finding it unnecesarily difficult to make a truely reasonable response to the debated issue.  I give you my word and swear on my continued allowed presence on this forum that I am responding to your posts with sincerity and the honest belief that my posts and arguments are as accurate as I can make them.  Despite my support of the idea of a spherical convex heliocentricly-orbiting earth,  I take debate subjects here seriously, and try my best to respect everyone on this site.  I suggest you try the same. I am kindly requesting that you respond to my debate points in an objective, logical, professional and above all, non-personal manner.  This is a highly interesting topic for me, and I'd enjoy this if it weren't for the fact that almost every one of your posts seems to contain some kind of personal attack.  I will respond to your arguments pertaining to the debate issue after a dinner break.  Any further argument containing personal attacks will be ignored and reported.

Okay, if you truly are not a troll, I apologize. So, enjoy studying polar geometry, it is a rewarding pastime, contrary to reading through this forum...

Lactantius
[/quote]

From where you got this space?

There is no space, no universe. It is the heavens and the earth.

The earth means all what is under and the heaven means all what is up.

"Is there about Allah doubt Fatir the heavens and the earth".

There is no doubt in my mind that Allah (God) made the Heavens and the flat Earth just perfect. However, you might want to rather go to a forum discussing religious questions. This one here happens to be about the physical properties of the Earth, in which such things as space are important...

Bye
Lactantius

God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the world. There you have it! The world cant be round.

God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the world. There you have it! The world cant be round.

Very impressive picture

Arabs say "He inserts his nose of what is not his concern" (nosy).