A New Scientist on the Forum

Dont get me wrong, I am all for questioning "common knowledge" and current science, FET does not however question science, it turns its back to it altogether.

If what you want to do is refine the known properties of light, then great, that is one thing.
Going on to say that light may be slightly different, therefore the world could be flat is not doing science. You have to fundamentally change everything to make a flat world work.

Basic geometric issues with a FE map are large, and could be an impossible one to solve. This is a far more complicated puzzle than the four colour therom you discussed earlier, known positions have to stay relative to each other.

You can start a thread asking for all the Observations that should be made on a FE world that do not correspond to reality. It will give you a good start on where the FE problem lies.

Quote

Also, if "A, B and C" refers to that post in Flat Earth Debate, where you listed off various pieces of knowledge about the universe, none of them have anything to do with the shape of the earth. They could all be true or not regardless of whether the earth was round, flat, or shaped like a teddy bear.

I was speaking generally. the post I believe you're referring to, however, were simple examples of how the RE model is incomplete: perhaps permanently so. It is only a reason to seek out an alternative.
Many of those facts did relate to the shape of the Earth, if indirectly. For example, if the world is flat, the Solar system as you know it would be very different: Eratosthenes would have proven the Sun is much closer to the Earth's surface, for one. The implications are not direct, but there are certainly some.

It would depend. There are, notably, shockingly few flights in the Southern Hemisphere/plane, so it may be easier than you believe. We'll see.

Okay. Although I know you are in no way interested in answering any questions and will most probably respond in another question as your last few posts have shown. I am going to draw these out here.



This map is the most used flat earth map proposal, so I am using it as the source of the flat earth model map.

Points on map are
A - Johannesburg
B- Sau Paulo
C- Dubai
D- Hong Kong
E- Sydney

flights from A-B, A-C, A-D I have personally flown
Flights from A-E have been flown by close family members

All the flight times can be verified as
A-B  Sau Paulo - Johannesburg; 8h 35min
A-C Johannesburg to Dubai; 8h15*
A-D Johannesburg to Hong Kong; 12h 55min*
A-E Sydney to Johannesburg; 14h 15min

* due to not having the fligh information available that myself/family member flew information was gathered from http://www.skyscanner.net/

Now the round earth distances from the points in italics and adjusted distances from the flat earth model Bold
A-B  Sau Paulo - Johannesburg; 7442km ; 16774km
A-C Johannesburg to Dubai; 6405km ; 6405km
A-D Johannesburg to Hong Kong; 10713km ; 24147km
A-E Sydney to Johannesburg; 11062km ; 24933km

Disclosure - distances calibrated from the Johannesburg to Dubai, if another distance of calibration is preferred please let me know

To summaries
Flat earth model suggests that
1 - A-B of 16774km takes approximately (only 20min more) the same flight time as A-C of 6405km
2 - Flight  A-E is done mostly over land
3 - Flight A-D is done mostly over land
4 - Flight A-B is done about 50% over land
5 - Flight A-B taking 8h;35 min over a distance of 16 774km travels on average       1973km/h, that is 1.6x the speed of sound

So the obvious question, how does this work in a flat earth model?

You mean, because something is incorrect? Not knowing everything about everything is not really a reason to start over from scratch.

The things that you listed have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. You didn't mention this greek person. You mentioned things like the birth of the universe, which really has nothing to do with the shape of 1 individual planet.

But I can shed some light on a few, from one of my early posts

Hello!

My name's Claire,

The things I have listed do not directly tie in to the shape of the Earth. They would still be very different if the world was flat. the Solar System would not be the same, the moon would not be the same: this is the point. Flaws in the RE model relating to the moon or Solar system or Sun would not translate to the FE model because the two would offer very different explanations.

They would still be very different if the world was flat.

More generally, If a measurement of an astronomical object in the Solar System depended on parallax, or the combination of two measurements from great distances apart, the earth being flat would be as to apply a graph transformation to the data. The sizes of local objects would become smaller or larger, closer or farther away.

So you're saying that the flaw of current knowledge is these distances?

Also, the observed movements of the planets and sun would still be the same if the earth were flat. It would not seem that the earth being flat would change the kinds of curves traced by moving objects in the Solar System.

They would still be very different if the world was flat.

However, to be clear, the other things mentioned originally, such as the birth of the universe and the higgs boson, would not change if the earth were flat or some other shape. Just trying to be clear.

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 12, 2015, 03:18:12 PM

More generally, If a measurement of an astronomical object in the Solar System depended on parallax, or the combination of two measurements from great distances apart, the earth being flat would be as to apply a graph transformation to the data. The sizes of local objects would become smaller or larger, closer or farther away.

So you're saying that the flaw of current knowledge is these distances?

Essentially. Eratosthenes is the classic example: he used the facts shadow vary in angle with distance to deduce, with the assumption the Sun was very distant, the curvature of the Earth. However, if the Earth is assumed to be flat, this would merely imply the Sun was far closer.

Quote

Also, the observed movements of the planets and sun would still be the same if the earth were flat. It would not seem that the earth being flat would change the kinds of curves traced by moving objects in the Solar System.

Not completely. After all, the paths in the FE model have all planets always the same direction away from the Earth. The change in the Sun's definition and position would shift everything. Certainly, this is ultimately just applying a transformation, but the observed movements would be very different in effect.

The birth of the universe may well vary: multiple physical laws may be altered to allow for the FE model. The fundamental forces are more unified in my current (tenuous) hypothesis, which could well translate to somewhat different traits for masses, for refractive objects... Things which would not necessarily seem, at first glance, connected to the shape of the Earth.
These are refinements, not replacements. However, scientific principles are often widely applicable. An alteration made to the RE model, to allow for the FE model, is unlikely to be exclusively relevant to the shape of the Earth.

So it's not that you know the distances to be wrong, it's that you think the earth is flat and Erat. didn't calculate it that way. Now, I know what forum i'm on, but how is that a flaw?

Right....well many things may be, but that doesn't mean they are. So i'm just telling you, that if I know anything about the two things I mentioned, the birth of the universe and the higgs boson, they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. The behavior of particles doesn't depend on the observations of astronomical objects.

Quote

So it's not that you know the distances to be wrong, it's that you think the earth is flat and Erat. didn't calculate it that way. Now, I know what forum i'm on, but how is that a flaw?

It's not a flaw in the experiment, it's an example of how the shape of the Earth has a knock-on effect to the rest of the Solar System, and the bodies therein.

I will need to reiterate the same point. There is no direct link, but that doesn't mean that any gaps or incomplete theories and hypotheses in the RE model wouldn't be easier to answer in the FE model.
For example, if the world is flat, our theories on cosmology, and the behavior of light, will vary. Our theories on gravity will probably also need refinement. It follows that there could be errors in cosmology, spectroscopy, quantum theory: which in turn relate to the fundamental forces, mass, radiation... It's not a certain thing, but what needs to be acknowledged is that the RE model is, if the world is flat, based on science which makes certain assumptions.

Evidence of those assumptions being untrue can be found by showing problems with the results of the science. It does not imply that the Earth is flat, but it does imply the probability. If A, then B: if not B, then not A. Showing B is the case wouldn't show A is true, but it would show A is possible.

Right...so what's the flaw you keep talking about, then?

Anything is possible. It's possible all problems with knowledge would be solved by thinking that the earth is shaped like a teddy bear. Possible doesn't mean true, or more likely.

The fundamental forces have nothing to do with extraterrestial bodies. They might relate in some vague way to cosmology, but they're all tested on the earth.  I'm not familiar with spectroscopy.  Quantum mechanics is all tested on earth.

What science? And what problems? Something being incomplete isn't an error. An error when comparing predictions of theory to data implies that something in all of the knowledge used is wrong. Which, in the case of modern sciences, is quite a lot of things.

If there was a difference between the predictions of ideas related to the birth of the universe and what was observed, this would mean that any number of the millions of different ideas which have been tested to various degrees throughout the ages is wrong, to some extent. It would not mean that a particular 1 of the millions was wrong and the rest were right.

In any case, I don't recall you pointing out any errors.

...

You keep saying there are flaws in the RE

Actually, the possibility itself doesn't mean anything. Almost anything is possible. There are infinite possibilities.

as far as specifically quantum mechanics and the fundamental forces, none of these are tested in ways which depend on the shape of the earth.

Incompleteness could refer to a lot of things, I suppose. What specifically are you referring to?

However, it's more likely to be

Quote

You keep saying there are flaws in the RE

No, I don't: I say there are gaps, which mean the explanations are by necessity currently flawed.

Quote

Actually, the possibility itself doesn't mean anything. Almost anything is possible. There are infinite possibilities.

Yes, and science is about applying Occam's Razor and testing those that remain.

So you assume. This is only true if you assume the current model is completely accurate: it may not be.
For example, if the world is flat, light would behave differently. Photons are clearly related to quantum mechanics: perhaps there is an undefined law there. This is unlikely to be true, it is only a simple illustration.
You cannot simply make a blanket claim that two topics are unrelated. Almost all of science is intimately connected.

Quote

Incompleteness could refer to a lot of things, I suppose. What specifically are you referring to?

A lack of an answer, or an open assumption in what answers there are.
No scientist claims the universe is fully understood. This is not a bad thing, it's what we'd expect in any case, but it is only honest to examine alternative possibilities.

Likeliness does not constitute fact.

You have asked me many questions, I feel I should be able to ask one in response:
What is wrong with determining a hypothesis in order to test whether or not the world is flat?

Is that the only way in which you think the idea that the earth is round flawed? Because that's not so much a flaw as something that will be true of everything forever. There's always something unknown about something.

As far as I know, quantum mechanics nor the field that is dedicated to the fundamental forces has never had any tests done which are dependent on incorporating two observations of the stars from such huge distances apart that the shape of the earth must be part of the calculation.

Nothing comes to mind. Although I've not actually mentioned this.

'Flawed' is a loaded term to use in this case. As you say, it's going to be true about everything, and every possible model.

Eratosphenes isn't what I'm talking about, that's easily explained by altering the distance to the Sun. I'm talking about the ship-over-horizon phenomenon, and the day length on the outer section of the disc: light, quantum objects, behave differently. This could well be implied by a FE, so quantum theory would be altered as a consequence.
Again, direct implications are not the only form of implication. You've already said relativity may be altered by the shape of the Earth, despite the lack of a direct connection. The changes are consequences of other things that must change (which may themselves be further consequences).

FEScientist, it makes more sense for the readers if you let us know whom you are quoting.  All you have to do is either click the quote button, or insert a name after the quote, such as quote=FEScientist, instead of just quote within the first brackets.

Yes, and apparently in order to correct the RE having this possibility of being incomplete, you're considering replacing it with another idea that has the exact same possibility.

In general quantum mechanics is to do with very small things. As far as i'm aware, quantum mechanics does not apply to distances several miles apart, nor to the observations of a detector as insensitive as the human eye (ships seen on the horizon). Quantum mechanics, as far as I know, predicts no change in an observation that on the human scale that would be detectable to the human eye. It is about the behavior of the very small, and interactions over very small distances.

So the reason why you're considering the earth being flat is that you think that's a better way to explain why ships on the horizon appear to be under the ocean?

Quote from: Sisyphus

Yes, and apparently in order to correct the RE having this possibility of being incomplete, you're considering replacing it with another idea that has the exact same possibility.

Yes. Every model has the same incompleteness. All this means is that alternatives should be explored. This is only scientific.

No, but certain assumptions are inherent in the RE model, which apply to quantum mechanics. These aren't observations, they're preconceptions which depend on other aspects of RE. For example, the behavior of photons.

If every idea has the same incompleteness, then in replacing the RE with FE, nothing will be changed in that regard.

There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?

If its of any interest, when i see a ship disappearing bottom first over the "horizon" i assume its because perspective makes the distant ship look so small that even the small waves between the ship and my eyes look about the same size as the bottom of the ship. 
I've posted this video before but it never gets old
 

Quote

There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?

Yes, by consequence. If you see a ship go over the horizon, do you assume it is sinking, that it is vanishing behind curvature, or that light is affected by a force you don't usually take into account?

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 16, 2015, 05:16:16 AM

If every idea has the same incompleteness, then in replacing the RE with FE, nothing will be changed in that regard.

Why the 'same' incompleteness? The FE model may be capable of answering more.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 05:21:22 AM

Quote

There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?

Yes, by consequence. If you see a ship go over the horizon, do you assume it is sinking, that it is vanishing behind curvature, or that light is affected by a force you don't usually take into account?

An assumption isn't there being an alternate explanation. And if it that's how it was to be defined, then all explanations of everything will always be assumptions, because there are always infinite alternate explanations.

If incompleteness is defined as an assumption or a lack of an answer, as you said, what you described as the assumption isn't one, and, without specifics on what exactly is needed for the shape of the earth to answer (round or otherwise), all ideas fail to answer something, and so the idea that the earth is flat and that it is round (and all the other different shapes which number in the infinite) are the same in this regard, as well as all other infinitely possible ideas about everything.

Yes and no. I'd argue the fact there is an alternate explanation directly implies you are assuming said alternative does not hold. That seems to be the definition of an assumption.
Likelihood is always going to be a key factor, though.

Incompleteness is a lack of an answer to certain questions. if there is an alternative theory which has no more assumptions inherent, answers all the same questions, and then answers at least one other question, it seems to me that theory would clearly be preferrable, even if it is itself incomplete.