Why FE vs RE?

Those who believe the Round Earth explanation of things posit that the Earth is a Sphere, and space is 3 dimensionally flat, and infinite in all directions.

Those who believe the Flat Earth explanation of things seem to posit that the Earth is a flat disk which is infinite in all direction, and explain space as being a 3 dimensionally curved surface - in essence a sphere.

It seems to me all that has happened is one viewpoint flips the properties of space and the earth compared to the other. In reality it seems to me there is NO difference between the two other than the frame of reference. RE is using space as a flat reference, and FE is using the earth's plane as a flat reference.

Definition of flat:
Flat: Smooth and even; without marked lumps or indentations.

Apparently the definition of flat has nothing to do with curvature or not. The earth can be regarded as flat even if you think it is a sphere, as for the most part on a whole earth scale it is smooth and even; without marked lumps or indentations.

This seems to me more like an argument of basal frame of reference than anything else. Though perhaps it could be used as a good excuse to believe in mass conspiracy.

The point I'm trying to make here is I want to understand why anyone thinks this is a debatable argument instead of just an effect of relativity.

a better way to say it would be planar vs spherical.

Well, to start I would say that most of the FEers don't accept a model of Earth as an infinite plane in a curved space. Seems like most of them are in favor of a flat and finite Earth, or if it is an infinite plane, the known world is a finite portion such that it can be described as a finite, flat disk. So it doesn't seem to be merely a frame of reference debate.

But, for a moment let's say that our choices are an infinite flat Earth in closed space, as you suggested, and a spherical Earth in flat space. Maybe it's just a frame of reference debate, but there's one important question and it would involve the nature of light or EM radiation: Does it travel in straight lines relative to the Earth's surface, or relative to space? If light follows the Earth, then that is a possible explanation for what Rowbotham observed in the Bedford Level experiment, the Earth would appear flat to the observer. If it follows space, then ships should disappear below the horizon just as we suppose they do in the RE model.

I understand generally you don't believe that earth goes on infinitely, but the at the end of the world the direction or axis still would go on infinitely. Its directional space is still an infinite plane where its surface might end. That direction doesn't just end, or the world wouldn't end.

Doesn't light travel in straight lines according to both?
In the flat space model light travels straight until it gets near a large object (like a planet) and then it is pulled into a curve.
In the flat earth model light is coming from some circular space, and when it gets close to the earth is then pulled by it into a 'straight' line.

If you shine a laser light parallel to the Earth's surface then the attraction to the Earth will cause it to drop. Is that then straight or not? From the photon's perspective it certainly was.

Doesn't light travel in straight lines according to both?
In the flat space model light travels straight until it gets near a large object (like a planet) and then it is pulled into a curve.
In the flat earth model light is coming from some circular space, and when it gets close to the earth is then pulled by it into a 'straight' line.

If you shine a laser light parallel to the Earth's surface then the attraction to the Earth will cause it to drop. Is that then straight or not? From the photon's perspective it certainly was.

I guess what I'm imagining the difference would be is that in the flat space model, light will be deflected by Earth's gravity, yes, but certainly not enough to wrap all the way around. You would still see ships sink below the horizon.

In the curved space model, light would follow closed paths, and Earth would appear totally flat. In other words, with a sufficiently powerful telescope (and if there was nothing in the way) I could look at the back of my own head.

In the curved space model, light would follow closed paths, and Earth would appear totally flat. In other words, with a sufficiently powerful telescope (and if there was nothing in the way) I could look at the back of my own head.

In my opinion that curved space model does not fit FE very well. What I'm proposing you think of it as is more like this:

The Earth exists on a flat plane with infinite dimensions in every direction. The Earth itself may or may not be infinite. Placed directly on top of the Earth is a cylinder, which is standing up on one of the flat end s. It has a central point which all Celestial bodies rotate around as they follow the models posited in the FAQ.

I suggest one could literally rewrite Newtonian physics to fit this model rather easily and make predictions about celestial bodies as accurately as any RE physicist.

At that level it becomes a matter of human perspective. Unless of course I misunderstand FE or the views presented in the FAQ.

In my opinion that curved space model does not fit FE very well. What I'm proposing you think of it as is more like this:

The Earth exists on a flat plane with infinite dimensions in every direction. The Earth itself may or may not be infinite. Placed directly on top of the Earth is a cylinder, which is standing up on one of the flat end s. It has a central point which all Celestial bodies rotate around as they follow the models posited in the FAQ.

I suggest one could literally rewrite Newtonian physics to fit this model rather easily and make predictions about celestial bodies as accurately as any RE physicist.

At that level it becomes a matter of human perspective. Unless of course I misunderstand FE or the views presented in the FAQ.

This looks like it could be a fascinating idea. I'm a fairly visual person though and it's kinda hard to picture. How are you at drawing diagrams?

If the cylinder is standing up with one of the flat ends resting on Earth, does that mean the celestial bodies occupy the other flat end? Or are they wrapped around the sides too?

I'm basically imagining it as that the celestial bodies are on the top end of the cylinder, and that it is the curvature of space that makes it appear as a dome in the sky. Can this explain why we observe the stars rotating about two celestial poles? And if so, (and maybe this is the exact point you're trying to make) how is this any different from just saying "the Earth is round"? Would space travel work as we normally think of it in this model?

I think the distinction between the FE models that FES members accept and the RE model comes from different interpretations of observations. For example, in general I think the FEers accept Rowbotham's interpretation of his observation in the Bedford Level experiment, where he claimed that with a telescope set 8 inches above the surface of a level stretch of water, he was able to observe a boat at a distance where it should have been obscured by Earth's curvature. Thus they say "the Earth is flat". As a supporter of the RE model, I would say that, if Rowbotham correctly reported his observations, that it is likely he was observing an effect of refraction, and that without the refraction effect he would indeed have observed the horizon obscuring the boat.

Quote from: nate5700 on February 11, 2013, 12:28:19 AM

In the curved space model, light would follow closed paths, and Earth would appear totally flat. In other words, with a sufficiently powerful telescope (and if there was nothing in the way) I could look at the back of my own head.

In my opinion that curved space model does not fit FE very well. What I'm proposing you think of it as is more like this:

The Earth exists on a flat plane with infinite dimensions in every direction. The Earth itself may or may not be infinite. Placed directly on top of the Earth is a cylinder, which is standing up on one of the flat end s. It has a central point which all Celestial bodies rotate around as they follow the models posited in the FAQ.

I suggest one could literally rewrite Newtonian physics to fit this model rather easily and make predictions about celestial bodies as accurately as any RE physicist.

At that level it becomes a matter of human perspective. Unless of course I misunderstand FE or the views presented in the FAQ.

I think I understand your point of view, but I must digress from your argument. It is true that we can look at Earth as a plane in non-Euclidean spherical space, in which we do not have (x,y,z) coordinates but (latitude, longitude, height). And it is also true that we can, under specific circumstances, look at the immediate surroundings of ourselves as both an Euclidean and a non-Euclidean space.

But the problem is that all the Physical Laws and Theories work in an Euclidean space, not in a Non-Euclidean space. If you express your force and acceleration from the second Law of Motion from Newton in terms of latitude, longitude and height you will get all the wrong answers unless you are working in a very small space.

I'll be entirely honest here: I don't really know the physics of it well enough to determine how accurately you could change them. I do think that you could still make predictions based on that geometry, as it has clear rules, but I also think the formulas would look quite different to the point that even equations like f=ma might have to change to account for it.

Honestly I have a RE point of view myself. I'm moreso just attempting to prove that the two viewpoints aren't really very different in the first place.

It all goes by what you deem straight or flat, and judging by evidence you can sense alone both are going to appear flat.

Those who believe the Round Earth explanation of things posit that the Earth is a Sphere, and space is 3 dimensionally flat, and infinite in all directions.

Those who believe the Flat Earth explanation of things seem to posit that the Earth is a flat disk which is infinite in all direction, and explain space as being a 3 dimensionally curved surface - in essence a sphere.

It seems to me all that has happened is one viewpoint flips the properties of space and the earth compared to the other. In reality it seems to me there is NO difference between the two other than the frame of reference. RE is using space as a flat reference, and FE is using the earth's plane as a flat reference.

Definition of flat:
Flat: Smooth and even; without marked lumps or indentations.

Apparently the definition of flat has nothing to do with curvature or not. The earth can be regarded as flat even if you think it is a sphere, as for the most part on a whole earth scale it is smooth and even; without marked lumps or indentations.

This seems to me more like an argument of basal frame of reference than anything else. Though perhaps it could be used as a good excuse to believe in mass conspiracy.

The point I'm trying to make here is I want to understand why anyone thinks this is a debatable argument instead of just an effect of relativity.

Yes, if you want to get pedantic to the point of inhibiting discussion, you are correct.  However, the terminology that we use is an easy way to get across a point that is almost universally understood.  Flat and round. 

This looks like it could be a fascinating idea. I'm a fairly visual person though and it's kinda hard to picture. How are you at drawing diagrams?

If the cylinder is standing up with one of the flat ends resting on Earth, does that mean the celestial bodies occupy the other flat end? Or are they wrapped around the sides too?

I'm basically imagining it as that the celestial bodies are on the top end of the cylinder, and that it is the curvature of space that makes it appear as a dome in the sky. Can this explain why we observe the stars rotating about two celestial poles? And if so, (and maybe this is the exact point you're trying to make) how is this any different from just saying "the Earth is round"? Would space travel work as we normally think of it in this model?

To be honest I'm not enough of a physicist to answer all the questions specifically, but I can provide a sort of diagram.

I'm also leaving this a little bit open. It can be interpreted that celestial bodies are on the other side of the cylinder, or that they are suspended in the middle. Another interpretation is there is only one end of the cylinder, and it extends infinitely upwards, and all Celestial bodies reside inside of it.

As far as space travel goes, there are two possible outcomes I can see based on how you navigate. Basically, one is that if you attempt to straight in one direction on the x or y plane you will simply circle around, as the celestial bodies do, and the other is that you might hit a wall or leave space, the same consequence as attempting to cross the south pole in the FE model.

A possible model of FE space:


Another possible model of FE space:

Yes, if you want to get pedantic to the point of inhibiting discussion, you are correct.  However, the terminology that we use is an easy way to get across a point that is almost universally understood.  Flat and round.

That's not quite my point, though. The definition of flat doesn't matter; that was just a sample to explain my thought. Say Planar and Spherical Earth to avoid it, if you'd like. My point is if they both equally provide a understandable definition of 3 dimensional space with a model of physics that describes interactions between objects in the same way, then there is no real difference between the two models other than basal frame of reference.

My point is if they both equally provide a understandable definition of 3 dimensional space with a model of physics that describes interactions between objects in the same way, then there is no real difference between the two models other than basal frame of reference.

You still have a problem because you are assigning properties to the frame of reference that the concept of frame of reference does not have.

If you decide to limit the extent of the location on which you will do your experiments and observations to, say one building with closed drapes and doors, then you can place your frame of reference where you prefer, and your universe is either a flat Earth, or a round Earth or maybe even a banana Earth, and you just don't know or care.

But if your location for your experiments includes, for example, the stars, Sun and Moon, then the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is a lot more than a difference in frames of reference.

You still have a problem because you are assigning properties to the frame of reference that the concept of frame of reference does not have.

If you decide to limit the extent of the location on which you will do your experiments and observations to, say one building with closed drapes and doors, then you can place your frame of reference where you prefer, and your universe is either a flat Earth, or a round Earth or maybe even a banana Earth, and you just don't know or care.

But if your location for your experiments includes, for example, the stars, Sun and Moon, then the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is a lot more than a difference in frames of reference.

As I understand if the FE viewpoint often entails that the lunar landing never happened, and no form of space travel has happened. Is this incorrect?

If I'm right about that then to them the aforementioned experimentation has never happened in their viewpoint, which would probably nullify your point to them.

Unless I misunderstand and what you're referring to is experiments involving the position of the sun, moon, stars, and earth. If thats the case as I understand it FE believers have explained that away already from their viewpoint.

I'm sure if you made a triangle on the Earth that was large enough that the total of angles totaled 270 degrees they'd then find a way to explain that away too.

Basically, all evidence to the contrary of their viewpoint gets some explanation from them, so the best you or I can hope to do is prove to them from their perspective on everything that it doesn't even matter anyway.

Unless I misunderstand and what you're referring to is experiments involving the position of the sun, moon, stars, and earth. If thats the case as I understand it FE believers have explained that away already from their viewpoint.

You must understand that explaining away is absolutely useless in science. I have no problem at all with them giving unscientific explanations for everything. What does matter is when they try to pass their garbage as science, or in some cases, as even better than science.

Explaining away is the resource of the weak of mind. Creating a model that stands up to real scrutiny is the true work of a scientist.

Those who believe the Round Earth explanation of things posit that the Earth is a Sphere, and space is 3 dimensionally flat, and infinite in all directions.

Would just like to point out that believing the earth is flat has nothing to do with believing space is infinite.

Would just like to point out that believing the earth is flat has nothing to do with believing space is infinite.

Okay I agree that you could also believe space is finite, but I didn't see anything in the FAQ that game me the impression that FE theorists general believed space to be finite. Am I mistaken? Is it generally believed by FE supporters that space is indeed finite, or perhaps a minority of them feel space is finite?