Could The Earth Be Flat *and* Spherical?

So nobody has to be wrong. Thoughts?

It is flat and round.
Observe:


However, it is not a globe.

It is flat and round.
Observe:


However, it is not a globe.

Fair point. I've changed the topic title, Vauxhall. Thoughts?

Well, it would be impossible for this to be true unless it periodically transformed between the two.
If this was true, it would most likely be caused by aetheric winds or maybe even black matter warping space/time around the Earth. It's plausible, but such a change would probably cause massive catastrophe on Earth before and after the change, however this might explain tornadoes & earthquakes and other such weather phenomenon that are harder to explain on a flat Earth model.

In conclusion: plausible, but further testing is needed.

What I'm thinking (and have thought for a long time) is something like the following:

Digital physics

"In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable. Therefore, according to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or mathematically isomorphic to such a device.

Digital physics is grounded in one or more of the following hypotheses; listed in order of decreasing strength. The universe, or reality:

is essentially informational (although not every informational ontology needs to be digital)
is essentially computable (the pancomputationalist position)
can be described digitally
is in essence digital
is itself a computer (pancomputationalism)
is the output of a simulated reality exercise"

source: wikipedia

Or the Simulation Hypothesis. Both seem reasonable to me.

What I'm thinking (and have thought for a long time) is something like the following:

Digital physics

In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable. Therefore, according to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or mathematically isomorphic to such a device.

"Digital physics is grounded in one or more of the following hypotheses; listed in order of decreasing strength. The universe, or reality:

is essentially informational (although not every informational ontology needs to be digital)
is essentially computable (the pancomputationalist position)
can be described digitally
is in essence digital
is itself a computer (pancomputationalism)
is the output of a simulated reality exercise"

source: wikipedia

Good points. We could certainly be living in a simulation where the Earth could be both flat and spherical at the same time. I did not consider this.

The best place to find information on the simulation theory is wikipedia, in my opinion. They detail it very well: here.

I have always suspected that we live in a simulation, because everyone around me seems unbelievably stupid and NPC-like. I thought I was just going crazy at first, but I'm glad that we both have similar ideas.

Quote from: legion on May 14, 2014, 11:17:23 AM

What I'm thinking (and have thought for a long time) is something like the following:

Digital physics

In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable. Therefore, according to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or mathematically isomorphic to such a device.

"Digital physics is grounded in one or more of the following hypotheses; listed in order of decreasing strength. The universe, or reality:

is essentially informational (although not every informational ontology needs to be digital)
is essentially computable (the pancomputationalist position)
can be described digitally
is in essence digital
is itself a computer (pancomputationalism)
is the output of a simulated reality exercise"

source: wikipedia

Good points. We could certainly be living in a simulation where the Earth could be both flat and spherical at the same time. I did not consider this.

The best place to find information on the simulation theory is wikipedia, in my opinion. They detail it very well: here.

I have always suspected that we live in a simulation, because everyone around me seems unbelievably stupid and NPC-like. I thought I was just going crazy at first, but I'm glad that we both have similar ideas.

You should look up Tom Campbell (lots of Youtube vids) and Brian Whitworth. Both have very interesting ideas.

Agreed, some people don't seem to even be able to think for themselves. Maybe they don't have that ability. Literally.

You should look up Tom Campbell (lots of Youtube vids) and Brian Whitworth. Both have very interesting ideas.

How would I know that they are not part of the simulation? How do I know what to trust? Are other humans just AI programs, or are we all AI programs? If so, we're obviously sentient... or at least I am.

Quote from: legion on May 14, 2014, 11:26:41 AM

You should look up Tom Campbell (lots of Youtube vids) and Brian Whitworth. Both have very interesting ideas.

How would I know that they are not part of the simulation? How do I know what to trust?

As I'm sure you know Vauxhall, the only existence you can ever truly prove is your own. Maybe! Everything may be preprogrammed. Including this discussion, tomorrows discussion etc. I think that unlikely, though not impossible.

That road leads to madness.

It sort of is both flat and spherical. The rate of curvature is so slight that on the scale in which we live, it might as well be flat. There is a great paper by Isaac Asimov which addresses this exact question and is just an enjoyable read in general.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Here is a small excerpt:

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Generally the paper is about the differences in correctness that exist when dealing with scientific inquiry. A correct answer today, might be less correct than a better answer in the future.

A correct answer today, might be less correct than a better answer in the future.

Indeed. That is the glory of science.

Anyways, great read from one of the great sci-fi visionaries.

It sort of is both flat and spherical. The rate of curvature is so slight that on the scale in which we live, it might as well be flat. There is a great paper by Isaac Asimov which addresses this exact question and is just an enjoyable read in general.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Here is a small excerpt:

Quote from: Isaac Asimov

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Generally the paper is about the differences in correctness that exist when dealing with scientific inquiry. A correct answer today, might be less correct than a better answer in the future.

Interesting read. Thanks.

What if the Earth is a square, and there are actually other civilizations on the other sides? We're only one side of the square. That would explain ufo's, lizard people, and why water is wet.

What if the Earth is a square, and there are actually other civilizations on the other sides? We're only one side of the square. That would explain ufo's, lizard people, and why water is wet.

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also. On that point why is the FE not oval or rectangular shape? There is a reason why the earth is round but the FE'ers don't know why.

It was only a matter of time before the NPC's showed up. And things were going so well...

It was only a matter of time before the NPC's showed up. And things were going so well...

NPC? New people conspiracy?

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

Quote from: Starman on May 14, 2014, 12:51:25 PM

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

I won't get into it but that is what separates logical thinking people with abstract thinking theorist.

Quote from: Starman on May 14, 2014, 12:51:25 PM

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

It's not the huge a leap in logic. There are enough similarities that we can at least infer some things. We can also confirm that planets have their own satellites (such as moons) which seem to behave as if gravity was happening. Then there is the fact that things seem to fall here on earth. As if gravity was happening. It's almost like gravity is happening.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 14, 2014, 12:56:47 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 14, 2014, 12:51:25 PM

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

It's not the huge a leap in logic. There are enough similarities that we can at least infer some things. We can also confirm that planets have their own satellites (such as moons) which seem to behave as if gravity was happening. Then there is the fact that things seem to fall here on earth. As if gravity was happening. It's almost like gravity is happening.

Have you not been paying attention at all to FET? UA explains gravity with 0% margin of error. Read the FAQS.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 14, 2014, 12:56:47 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 14, 2014, 12:51:25 PM

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

It's not the huge a leap in logic. There are enough similarities that we can at least infer some things. We can also confirm that planets have their own satellites (such as moons) which seem to behave as if gravity was happening. Then there is the fact that things seem to fall here on earth. As if gravity was happening. It's almost like gravity is happening.

Gravity could be happening because it's coded that way in our reality. Just like when someone plays Borderlands 2, they also seem to experience gravity. The sky is up, the ground is down. You can jump up and fall back to the ground. All very natural and similar to the 'real' world. Is the Borderlands 2 world flat or spherical?

Quote from: rottingroom on May 14, 2014, 01:05:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 14, 2014, 12:56:47 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 14, 2014, 12:51:25 PM

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

It's not the huge a leap in logic. There are enough similarities that we can at least infer some things. We can also confirm that planets have their own satellites (such as moons) which seem to behave as if gravity was happening. Then there is the fact that things seem to fall here on earth. As if gravity was happening. It's almost like gravity is happening.

Have you not been paying attention at all to FET? UA explains gravity with 0% margin of error. Read the FAQS.

No. I'm afraid not. I know you like to say that it does but you are wrong. UA requires that the effects of gravity be homogenous, but they are not, so you have to dream up things like aetheric wind. Also, the logical leap I'm talking about iswhat we observe from other planets seeming to behave as if there is gravity and everyday experiences here on earth which are consistent with that.

I get UA. It's not complicated. It's just wrong.

Quote from: rottingroom on May 14, 2014, 01:05:17 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 14, 2014, 12:56:47 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 14, 2014, 12:51:25 PM

And if the earth would be a square the sun, moon and planets would be square also.

No. You are making an assumption, not to mention that is a huge leap in logic. Just because the Earth is a certain way doesn't mean other planets conform to that.

It's not the huge a leap in logic. There are enough similarities that we can at least infer some things. We can also confirm that planets have their own satellites (such as moons) which seem to behave as if gravity was happening. Then there is the fact that things seem to fall here on earth. As if gravity was happening. It's almost like gravity is happening.

Gravity could be happening because it's coded that way in our reality. Just like when someone plays Borderlands 2, they also seem to experience gravity. The sky is up, the ground is down. You can jump up and fall back to the ground. All very natural and similar to the 'real' world. Is the Borderlands 2 world flat or spherical?

The borderlands 2 world is flat. There are games that take place on spheres too. Not sure where you are going with this. I'm not saying that just because our observation of moons rotating other planets having similarities to our experiences with "gravity" proves that gravity exists. There are other ways to prove that. I'm saying that it is not a huge logical leap. It's quite logical in fact.