Can nobody explain satellites?

Quote from: Inkey on March 16, 2016, 02:58:14 PM

I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.

Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

Well done John. I learned a very long time ago when I was practicing engineers (thankfully this period did not last long) that a last cause (now called I do think a root cause) analysis must be completed when there is an error in either a theory or a practice.  What the hello-centrists can NOT (emphasis) accept, or perhaps more aptly WILL NOT accept is that they begin with a pre-supposition that the Earth is indeed a spinning ball. Fine, I accept that that is a theory of the universe and that one can then postulate other modes of reality.  However if one begins with the pre-supposition that the Earth is round then there are perfectly reasonable (and more elegant) explanations that you, have tendered. I mean no disrespect to you (impossible, I might add since my respect for you has grown after reading your writings) but you are simply explaining mathematically what the great ancient natural philosophers observed.

I will give you one small example of how this works.
The idea of non- euclidian space, when proposed by helio-centric scientists, is embraced with all ardor by the round earth believers on this fair forum. But when you, very elegantly I submit, proposed the same geometry that they so love for a flat earth theory they treat it as if it has all the appeal of small pox.

Quote from: Jane on March 15, 2016, 02:54:02 PM

John's getting topological. I offer my best wishes to anyone trying to understand it in any detail, I loathe topology.
That being said, he is actually kind of right. According to the Theory of Relativity, space is more accurately modelled by Riemannian geometry, which describes a non-Euclidean space. A few of the traits transfer: for example, as is pretty well known an object moving at high speeds may seem to contract in length. Distances do get manipulated.

The gist of John's model seems to be that the Earth is locally flat, but can be modelled as round: as is demonstrated by the distances he references. The Earth itself is flat: it's space that can be thought of as curved.

Curvature, strictly speaking, is defined by the eigenvalues of the second fundamental form (the tangent plane, the space of all derivations) which is defined under Riemannian geometry. Derivations are defined pretty generally, but offhand I can't think of any reason it wouldn't theoretically be possible to define a manifold with derivatives that have zero eigenvalues and yet meet in the way John describes, if we're working generally. 
That being said, I am very far from an expert at topology, which is what a full understanding of Riemannian geometry requires. It might be possible that the existing traits of the manifold require the existence of a derivative that causes curvature. I doubt I can say any more, without more knowledge both of his model and of topology.

He's right as far as modelling space as non-Euclidean goes, though I can't say much more as to the accuracy of the rest. If you want to know about group structure, I'm your girl. This stuff, good luck.

Thank you!

Quote from: odvetnik_irsic on March 15, 2016, 02:46:49 PM

John, you really seem like a nice guy.

Thank you!

Quote

  But really I have to tell you that I don't know where you come up with your theories.

Well, this theory can be directly found by looking at the Equivalence principle and Newton's Three Laws and of course by loosening some of Euclids postulates.

Quote

You seem to have a fetish with NASA and I am afraid that all of your focus on trying to prove the earth is flat is skewing your senses.

My dislike of NASAs practices actually came about after my flat earth belief. I honestly just disagree with what they are doing, and am passionate about it. And I'm not alone - the dangers of much of what I'm being talked about have been discussed in publication.

Quote

  You have to honestly keep in mind that so much of what you and your colleagues are trying to prove is just way off. 

Of course. This is why I'm trying to make flat earth theory better. I can't blame them for being wrong, but I can show them how far I've gotten in examining the flat earth.

Quote

Unfortunately too much of what you're claiming is simply contrived and without much merit because it is easily falsified.

If it is easily falsified, I'm sure someone would have falsified it by now.

Quote

The entire premise of your flat earth model is flawed and cannot be proven.

Nothing can be proven. I assume you mean it can't be falsified? I thought you just said its easily falsified. Now I'm confused!

Quote

  For example you claim in some statements that ISS is fake and space is also fake (or at least some of your compatriots)

You can hardly discredit my model because it contradicts some other model unrelated to it. It would be like me saying that being a democrat is wrong because republicans tend to drink more coffee. What other people say about the ISS and space is of no relevance to my work, other than its going to be super-ceded by my work.

Quote

and then you make claims that satellites do exist but now they operate according to theoretical principles that have no bearing on reality.

I had thought Newton's 3 Laws of Motion had quite a bit bearing on reality. If we accept Newton's 3 laws, and we accept that gravity is a pseudoforce, as we have ample evidence for, we must accept that in inertial FoR the ISS is travelling a straight line.

An object in a state of motion will stay in that state of motion unless acted upon by a force.

Quote

I could just as easily state that we live in Middle Earth and that everything we see in the sky is only a projection.  How could you prove me wrong?  Some people actually believe in this stuff and you might think they're crazy but in reality your theories and others like theirs really are cut from the same cloth.  Just keep that in mind.

Someone asked me recently on facebook about the projection idea. I don't think it holds, mainly we can falsify it using lasers. A great book on this is Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism.

Quote

While you're at it, please try explaining the phenomenon of Venus transiting the sun, e.g. directly between earth and the sun.  We know Venus exists and have observed it for thousands of years.  It is a planet that is well documented and yet it periodically transits the sun.  I would appreciate a reasonable explanation.

Venus travels a straight line between the earth and the sun. This causes the phenomenon in question.

Quote from: odvetnik_irsic on March 23, 2016, 07:15:44 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 15, 2016, 12:35:52 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 15, 2016, 12:15:17 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 15, 2016, 10:53:34 AM

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.

Ooh, interesting one. Can I ask about the behaviour in the southern hemiplane? How would distances work? Are they similar to those as modelled by the typical NP-centred single circle, or are there distortions?

Distances are equivalent to what you would expect.  Its closest to an elliptic geometry.

Quote from: inquisitive on March 15, 2016, 11:31:33 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 15, 2016, 09:54:19 AM

They don't. The earth's surface is a finite closed space in non-euclidean space.

What does that mean?  Is it flat or not?

It means its flat and has no edge, but has a finite area. Space does not behave as if we were to draw triangles in the sand. Namely, if an object travels long enough along the plane of earth it will eventually get back to where it started.

That is quite a philosophical assumption, which you well know cannot be tested or known, only assumed. How can you conclude this to be the case if you do not have a testable model? How would you propose you validate this? 

It can be directed inferred from the assumption of Newton's Laws and that gravity is a pseudoforce.

Since we know they are in an inertial frame of reference we know they are not accelerating. This means, recall from physics, that they are travelling a straight line at a constant speed (or alternately are "still".) We see them end up at the same location they started at periodically. This justifies empirically us loosening our parallel postulate.

This is empirical evidence to support choosing the axiom that Euclid's postulates are incorrect (which are just another set of philosophical assumptions, mind you.)

Quote from: odvetnik_irsic on March 22, 2016, 12:27:48 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 20, 2016, 09:38:17 AM

Quote from: Inkey on March 16, 2016, 02:58:14 PM

I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.

Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

Rowbotham was a fraud...a charlatan.  And you take the word of this individual over the words of 100,000's of scientists that study a huge amount of converging topics. 

As a matter of fact, the "among others" include Hume and Popper. You can also find discussions on this in philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematical foundations.

Quote

Let's just boil it down to one point; please provide proof/verifiable evidence that the sun/moon are 1) at the distances you claim they are from the earth,

They are the same distance as the round earth model. Are you sure you still want proof?

Quote

2) measure the size and mass of the sun/moon,

Again the same.

Quote

3) offer proof that the moon is indeed self-illuminating (incontrovertible proof of course),

Proof has no place in science. We aren't in the Dark Ages, we've been Illuminated.

Quote

4) proof of the trajectories of both and that they should be measurable at all times of the day by sophisticated equipment. 

There you go. Instead of these ridiculous debates about fringe topics, go straight to the point. 

Again proof has no place in science. You ask for the impossible.

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 03:30:06 PM

John, although your view is a really interesting one, and kudos for that! Sadly there's a problem in that view. even though it would stand, theoretically if the observations of the details involved in space-time curvature weren't the way they were.

The problem is that space itself isn't actually that curved. The space component of space-time in gen-rel doesn't really alter that much. weirdly enough it's the time component that expresses large curvature in the worldline geodesics of events in minkowski space. That is that they (the time vectors) are the prominent components effecting the metric tensor in expressing the variance in coordinate systems.

time is curved. not space (that much). I'll let that sink in for a minute...

I am familiar with the model and interpretation. However, to say that these bodies are not travelling straight lines is to also say gravity is not a pseudo-force. This is something Relativity cannot live without. Unless you can

Quote

We can measure the curvature of space. We can see that it's pretty flat, even in the presence of large masses. We can see, for instance how light trajectories (space) bends around the sun by observing the displacement of a star, viewable in an eclipse, opposed to the lights trajectory when unaffected by mass. Space curvature can be (and is) measured, and it really doesn't bend that much. The same conclusion was come to by relativistic calculations before observations like this were taken to assess the validity of the predictions by the way.

To quote Einstein - "Damn the experiment, the theory is right." What we are measuring and assuming as "The curvature of space" could be any number of other phenomena. Gravitational Lensing, for example, could be any number of other things caused by the body it is being lensed by. 

Quote

On the same basic relativistic calculations, time is essentially the component that expresses curvature in minkowski space, applicable to inertially straight Newtonian vectors that appear radially curved in space-time. -> " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> - Notice which axis has curvature. More specifically, the principle of equivalence states that it is due to the acceleration of the non inertial reference frame of the observer, accelerating away from the center of mass that creates the impression of downward acceleration of inertial objects through time.


http://s23.postimg.org/wx3n8uvhl/principleequiv.jpg

This same principle creates the relativistic impression of inertial vectors with orthogonal trajectories appear to radially orbit through time. It isn't so much that gravitational attraction causes masses to attract, but that, masses "expand" radially outward such the the centers of masses end up traveling towards each other (principle of equivalence), where the orthogonal vectors 'curve' via the acceleration of the relative reference frames in a manner that causes inertial vectors in space to trace a radially circular motion through time. It's much more complicated than this, regarding which mass is larger and the radius of M given the radius of m creates various space-time trajectories and so forth...

It's really long to go in to to be honest and extremely dense. Lectures 5 and 6 (linked below) go in to it in much more detail. If you take the concept described therein and apply it to the mass of the sun and calculate the effect on space-time in the vicinity, it expresses what I've described here. (The same for Earth and the Moon e.t.c.) Where it is a function of the time component that expresses curvature. Really weird, yeah. And hard to get your head round. The point being though is that we're very definite on what's curved and what isn't. Space isn't what's curved, rendering the idea that earth could be a flat plane in curved space incorrect i'm afraid. Space really doesn't curve that much. The only time it does to any prominent degree is when the radius of M is getting very close to the Schwarzschild radius. (M = GM over C^2). At and below the Schwarzschild radius everything falls apart. Space becomes time, time becomes space and also becomes infinitely curved, and time both reaches infinity and both become the Schwarzschild radius and the singularity at the same time depending on reference frames yada yada yada. Basically! The only time space curves such that a closed surface is reached (as in your postulation) - everything melts. You're basically describing a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius of Earth is proximately 1 centimeter. Unless you're arguing that the earth is 2 cm in diameter and inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole(!) It sadly doesn't stand. Keep trying though, you've got the best ideas in the pro FE camp on here by far.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <- Ger Rel lecture 5
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> <- Gen Rel lecture 6

If you're interested in exploring this idea further, please do research as much as you can on Gen Rel, and, hopefully, eventually, Read Gravitation! -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physics-Series-Charles-Misner/dp/0716703440

I am actually quite educated in the matter. I will continue to review your post though tonight when time allows and reply in full, though I doubt its going to show me anything new, especially after glancing over it.

John, John, John...you just said that you can easily disprove the middle earth model using lasers?  Really?  You mean the same lasers that have proven the distance of the moon from the earth?  Or are you talking about some "black box" Flat Earth lasers that you produce in your basement?  The moon's distance has been measured already using both lasers AND radar technology and you want to deny this?  Yet you cannot use this "technology" to prove that your sun and moon are at the specific distances you so claim?  Come now...

In other words hello-centrists have no rational explanation for gravity and the supposed "curving of space time" associated with this phenomena. It just happens. Objects distort this so called space time. Poof.  Yet you continue to ridicule aether but stand upon a house built of straw "Magical gravity and its impact on "space time" whatever in the world "space time is".

How many times do we have to go over this. Gravity is a well-studied force with many accurate mathematical models which can predict the interaction of objects through this force. It has been observed and studied for hundreds of years with thousands of scholarly articles published about it. We even detected waves of gravity for pete's sake.

Aether, on the other hand, is just wild speculation. There is no experimental basis behind it. It really just is a something you can shove into the leaks of your theories as stopgap measures. Come back once you have significant evidence as to its existence.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 23, 2016, 07:57:35 AM

In other words hello-centrists have no rational explanation for gravity and the supposed "curving of space time" associated with this phenomena. It just happens. Objects distort this so called space time. Poof.  Yet you continue to ridicule aether but stand upon a house built of straw "Magical gravity and its impact on "space time" whatever in the world "space time is".

How many times do we have to go over this. Gravity is a well-studied force with many accurate mathematical models which can predict the interaction of objects through this force. It has been observed and studied for hundreds of years with thousands of scholarly articles published about it. We even detected waves of gravity for pete's sake.

Aether, on the other hand, is just wild speculation. There is no experimental basis behind it. It really just is a something you can shove into the leaks of your theories as stopgap measures. Come back once you have significant evidence as to its existence.

Tut tut my friend, remember my dictum if you lose your temper, why you lose the debate. Now lets parse your statement.
You suggest Gravity is a well studied force. I disagree. The reaction amongst celestial objects is a well studied force, that is a well studied phenomena. Newton's equation make no explanation of the force- he simply names it gravity and posits that there is some element by which objects travel, react and are held into their spheres or planes (as it may be). Thus we may say that the phenomena of attraction, reaction and the effect of this force are well studied (that is we drop an object, allowing for resistance, it will accelerate downward at ~32/f2 ). That is DIFFERENT than saying we (meaning Helio-Centrists) understand gravity- because they do no.

All the phenomena you explain by the use of "Gravity" can just as easily be explained (and more simply) through the mechanisms of the flat earth. For example the upwards acceleration of the terrestrial and celestial plane at ~ 32f/s certainly explains why objects dropped accelerate at just that speed. The aether (described by Newton, then By Einstein, then dropped by Einstein, then recently "rediscovered") is a very cogent candidate for the reasons celestial objects stay in their appointed paths and continue to accelerate with the earth. Yet no one can explain what space time is, where the energy comes from and how it functions. That is very different from studying phenomena. You cannot explain what gravity is nor what space time is- not without blundering into a maze of meta-physics. If you do not believe it just try starting a thread on this fair forum explaining gravity and I will make mince meat of your explanation before you can say John Rabbit.

Lets discuss "gravitational waves" for a moment. I know you think me a Colonel Blimp but I did see the news in the Times or Guardian regarding this recording of gravitational waves in February of the current year. I remember reading it with some amusement and clucking my tongue at the audacious claims that were being made. What was supposedly measured? The change in refraction of mirrors by 1 millionth of the size of a helium atom caused by some far off event involving something no one has ever seen and defies common sense a black hole.

So now we have deduced gravitational waves from the change in mirror deflection by an almost infinitesimal amount (well lets go ahead and call it infinitesimal, shall we) from an event that is so far away and supposedly occurred so long ago that the numbers required to record the distance and time would not fit pad of A4 paper even if you in a very small and cramped hand.

Oh, this proves the Higgs Bosun particle exist they say! Oh my! Oh the joy is akin to learning a new heir to the throne has been borne I suppose! And exactly what did the Higg Field discovery tell us, you may wonder? That in nature objects tend towards a lower state of energy. I could have saved these experimenter 1 million £ and sent them my used Thermo-Dymanics Textbook (circa 1963) for return postage where, upon reading Chapter 6 on entropy, they could have learned that lesson.

You don't half ramble on about nothing.

Lets discuss "gravitational waves" for a moment. I know you think me a Colonel Blimp but I did see the news in the Times or Guardian regarding this recording of gravitational waves in February of the current year. I remember reading it with some amusement and clucking my tongue at the audacious claims that were being made. What was supposedly measured? The change in refraction of mirrors by 1 millionth of the size of a helium atom caused by some far off event involving something no one has ever seen and defies common sense a black hole.

So now we have deduced gravitational waves from the change in mirror deflection by an almost infinitesimal amount (well lets go ahead and call it infinitesimal, shall we) from an event that is so far away and supposedly occurred so long ago that the numbers required to record the distance and time would not fit pad of A4 paper even if you in a very small and cramped hand.

Oh, this proves the Higgs Bosun particle exist they say! Oh my! Oh the joy is akin to learning a new heir to the throne has been borne I suppose! And exactly what did the Higg Field discovery tell us, you may wonder? That in nature objects tend towards a lower state of energy. I could have saved these experimenter 1 million £ and sent them my used Thermo-Dymanics Textbook (circa 1963) for return postage where, upon reading Chapter 6 on entropy, they could have learned that lesson.

This is simply the argument from incredulity fallacy.

Quote from: John Davis on March 20, 2016, 09:38:17 AM

Quote from: Inkey on March 16, 2016, 02:58:14 PM

I have to say this explanation has me thinking. I have heard the motion of a satellite orbiting the Earth described as the satellite travelling in a straight line through curved space, assuming gravity being explained as a curvature of space. I suppose one could argue that the surface of the Earth is a flat plane following the curvature of gravity, forming the equivalent of a sphere.

Of course most flat Earthers don't believe in gravity, so this will never go anywhere.

Exactly. This proves the Earth is stationary, has gravity, is flat, and gives good reason to suspect there is no conspiracy. It also brings with it all empirical evidence that is supporting relativity and conventional cosmologies.

Firmament is revealed to be a fixed "coordinate system" that is revealed through inertial frames of reference. Aether gives us a mechanic by which space is bent and through which waves can propagate.

The issue with flat earthers not believing in gravity will hopefully die down over a year or two once they "#TESTIT". They will then be left with the UA model or mine. Buoyancy just won't hold. Neither will magnetism or other ad hocs. The only one that will last the test of time are those that reveal gravity to be a pseudo-force.

In addition, this highlights issues with our understanding of method and its role in society. Two off the top of my head:

Dialogues that do not pigeon-hole discussion to what is "reasonable" within the dialogue have more paths to discover "revolutionary" material.

This can be seen because we could have reached relativity from two directions; By assuming the Earth is flat we can directly derive relativity through use of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion.  With round, it also comes to existence. With everything else being equal this means it is more likely we would have discovered it sooner if we had allowed the flat earth into serious dialogue.

The mathematical layer of theory is not directly translatable to the explanatory / natural language layer of science.

This is to say that even if we have the description mathematically of a phenomena, we have infinite ways to express and understand this in natural language. This was known by Rowbotham among others. Multiple mutually exclusive world-views can be supported through use of identical sets of empirical and mathematical evidence.

An axiomatic choice having been made to prefer inertial frames of reference (or a particular subset of them) in one. In the other no such preference has been made - we have loosened our axioms a bit and find a view where it is flat and round depending on frame of reference.

Well done John. I learned a very long time ago when I was practicing engineers (thankfully this period did not last long) that a last cause (now called I do think a root cause) analysis must be completed when there is an error in either a theory or a practice.  What the hello-centrists can NOT (emphasis) accept, or perhaps more aptly WILL NOT accept is that they begin with a pre-supposition that the Earth is indeed a spinning ball.

Thank you, and your statements prove to be very true. The issue is that the majority of folks (and even many scientists) think of science as proving things, when in reality its only power to prove is given by the axioms they choose to start with. Without those axioms "proof" is impossible, and with those axioms "proof" is relative to said axioms and choices; these axioms ultimately end up being decided by faith or convention to avoid "turtles all the way down."  This is why science "proves" nothing. It can only deductively 'prove' given a set of assumptions.

Fine, I accept that that is a theory of the universe and that one can then postulate other modes of reality.  However if one begins with the pre-supposition that the Earth is round then there are perfectly reasonable (and more elegant) explanations that you, have tendered. I mean no disrespect to you (impossible, I might add since my respect for you has grown after reading your writings) but you are simply explaining mathematically what the great ancient natural philosophers observed.

Thank you for your respect, I hope it's well placed. I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. You aren't claiming that I am tendering explanations for the Earth being Round, right? I agree, this is a well known principle and one easily deducted using common sense. It's amazing that when I suggest it all the roundies come out and are all like "OOOoooh so you trust Rowbotham who died so-and-so many years ago, and did such-and-such but not the thousands of others who studied this." Well actually, dear roundies, they are not mutually exclusive.

I will give you one small example of how this works.
The idea of non- euclidian space, when proposed by helio-centric scientists, is embraced with all ardor by the round earth believers on this fair forum. But when you, very elegantly I submit, proposed the same geometry that they so love for a flat earth theory they treat it as if it has all the appeal of small pox.

Thank you. And  I hope its well placed. 

Agreed - this happens a lot. For example, our facebook group posted the details to the infinite planes finite gravitational pull and I could count a good number of "This is fake math" or "I'm a mathematician and this is nonsense" posts. Honestly, I was taken a bit back and couldn't help but laugh. The math suits them fine when its about a round earth, but suddenly Gauss's law stops working when we are talking about a flat earth?

I can only imagine that they didn't understand the math which is understandable; when it supported what they already believed, they went with it and put their faith in it - when it was against what they believed it was rejected. No critical thought, no thinking - nothing but blind dogmatism. 

I touch on this phenomenon a bit in my upcoming book in one of the earlier chapters and call it conventional thought; this is similar to what I call conventional sight. A simple example is the case of the roundie at the beach. Their belief in the round earth is so strong many will claim they see a curvature to the horizon. One must marvel at the mental gymnastics an indoctrinated mind must perform to avoid questioning their beliefs; to avoid thinking at all.

Thank you for your respect, I hope it's well placed. I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. You aren't claiming that I am tendering explanations for the Earth being Round, right? I agree, this is a well known principle and one easily deducted using common sense. It's amazing that when I suggest it all the roundies come out and are all like "OOOoooh so you trust Rowbotham who died so-and-so many years ago, and did such-and-such but not the thousands of others who studied this." Well actually, dear roundies, they are not mutually exclusive.

I think I tripped myself up- rather I meant to communicate is "that you not original in your thinking but simply providing a mathematical  explanation for what they observed and postulated". This is no this.disrespect to you- your thinking is cogent and water tight. Rather that you are standing on the shoulders of great thinkers.

I was not aware of a book that you are currently working on. If you have expanded on your thesis and how you plan to support it elsewhere I would appreciate you pointing me towards

@John Davis, do you have any comments on this?

Another problem with the model of earth being flat, but curved by space so it appears to be a sphere, is that we can't know if it is really flat. It could be a square, curved into a sphere. It could be a tube. It could be a bicycle. Or it could be a sphere. Since every known particle in the universe is affected by space, there is nothing we can use to measure the "true" shape of the earth. And since there is nothing (as far as we know) which is unaffected by space, and simply follows perfectly the curvature that makes it behave as if the earth is indeed a sphere, then there is no practical, or really even theoretical value in knowing the "true" shape. If everything is made to behave as if earth was a sphere, because of curved space, then we might as well just assume it is a sphere, as it makes no difference and is a lot easier to work with.

@John Davis, do you have any comments on this?

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 22, 2016, 01:41:26 AM

Another problem with the model of earth being flat, but curved by space so it appears to be a sphere, is that we can't know if it is really flat. It could be a square, curved into a sphere. It could be a tube. It could be a bicycle. Or it could be a sphere. Since every known particle in the universe is affected by space, there is nothing we can use to measure the "true" shape of the earth. And since there is nothing (as far as we know) which is unaffected by space, and simply follows perfectly the curvature that makes it behave as if the earth is indeed a sphere, then there is no practical, or really even theoretical value in knowing the "true" shape. If everything is made to behave as if earth was a sphere, because of curved space, then we might as well just assume it is a sphere, as it makes no difference and is a lot easier to work with.

I'm not completely sure, but I think his model implies that the Earth is locally flat: that no curvature can be measured on it. While overall distances may be modelled as more akin to a sphere, if the Earth is directly viewed from above you'd more likely see a flat plane (contorted by length contraction).

I may be wrong mind you, and if so I agree that if the Earth appears, right down to curvature, as a sphere, then it basically is: there'd be no real difference between it and a genuine ball.

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2016, 01:14:32 PM

Thank you for your respect, I hope it's well placed. I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. You aren't claiming that I am tendering explanations for the Earth being Round, right? I agree, this is a well known principle and one easily deducted using common sense. It's amazing that when I suggest it all the roundies come out and are all like "OOOoooh so you trust Rowbotham who died so-and-so many years ago, and did such-and-such but not the thousands of others who studied this." Well actually, dear roundies, they are not mutually exclusive.

I think I tripped myself up- rather I meant to communicate is "that you not original in your thinking but simply providing a mathematical  explanation for what they observed and postulated". This is no this.disrespect to you- your thinking is cogent and water tight. Rather that you are standing on the shoulders of great thinkers.

I was not aware of a book that you are currently working on. If you have expanded on your thesis and how you plan to support it elsewhere I would appreciate you pointing me towards

Its been a work in progress for years, and its changed many times due to this. In fact it became a running joke for a bit that I would never get it done. Currently, it looks like I just have editing and diagrams to finish up. I plan to have it out very soon and before the end of the year definitely.

The book is divided three-fold.

I. Social, Logical, Common
The first section examines the Social, Logical, and Common sense aspects to Science and the Flat Earth.

Each chapter brings with it its own thesis and purpose supporting the overall worldview I am attempting to convey. For example in the first, we have a casual plain language examination of many of these caveats in thinking that are so often taken against a flat earth - or reason in general. This section also delves into some epistemology. The goal here is to first justify the right and reason to make the flat earth argument and to then open the eyes of those whose minds might be closed. I also discuss and highlight a few flat earth theories as examples, as well as debunk some common round earth myths. Other chapters are more based on a specific thesis.

II. Relative Earth
Secondly, I define my theory, in so much as can be related to my intended audience at least. I do so briefly simply because I intend the work to lead others to reason less so than a flat earth. From reason some will find the way to the flat earth on their own.

III. Dialogue
Finally, a dialogue section concerning the specifics of my model, as well as other models as relevant. In this I answer all the common questions one might have - the sun setting, ships sinking, Coriolis force, Foucault pendulums, and so on. I also dispel some non-questions like toilets flushing and the like.

I also have a good number of appendices gathered throughout the years of work on this. Included are short excursions into ideas like the religious justifications (both Abraham based and Pagan) of a flat earth, various mathematical support for previously made arguments, theories I have since moved on from (infinite flat earth, multi-state geography, and so on), numbered proofs of a globe being false and so on.  Some of these may not be included, others not listed might.

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 24, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

@John Davis, do you have any comments on this?

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 22, 2016, 01:41:26 AM

Another problem with the model of earth being flat, but curved by space so it appears to be a sphere, is that we can't know if it is really flat. It could be a square, curved into a sphere. It could be a tube. It could be a bicycle. Or it could be a sphere. Since every known particle in the universe is affected by space, there is nothing we can use to measure the "true" shape of the earth. And since there is nothing (as far as we know) which is unaffected by space, and simply follows perfectly the curvature that makes it behave as if the earth is indeed a sphere, then there is no practical, or really even theoretical value in knowing the "true" shape. If everything is made to behave as if earth was a sphere, because of curved space, then we might as well just assume it is a sphere, as it makes no difference and is a lot easier to work with.

I'm not completely sure, but I think his model implies that the Earth is locally flat: that no curvature can be measured on it. While overall distances may be modelled as more akin to a sphere, if the Earth is directly viewed from above you'd more likely see a flat plane (contorted by length contraction).

I may be wrong mind you, and if so I agree that if the Earth appears, right down to curvature, as a sphere, then it basically is: there'd be no real difference between it and a genuine ball.

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 23, 2016, 01:22:51 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2016, 01:14:32 PM

Thank you for your respect, I hope it's well placed. I'm not entirely sure I understand you here. You aren't claiming that I am tendering explanations for the Earth being Round, right? I agree, this is a well known principle and one easily deducted using common sense. It's amazing that when I suggest it all the roundies come out and are all like "OOOoooh so you trust Rowbotham who died so-and-so many years ago, and did such-and-such but not the thousands of others who studied this." Well actually, dear roundies, they are not mutually exclusive.

I think I tripped myself up- rather I meant to communicate is "that you not original in your thinking but simply providing a mathematical  explanation for what they observed and postulated". This is no this.disrespect to you- your thinking is cogent and water tight. Rather that you are standing on the shoulders of great thinkers.

I was not aware of a book that you are currently working on. If you have expanded on your thesis and how you plan to support it elsewhere I would appreciate you pointing me towards

Its been a work in progress for years, and its changed many times due to this. In fact it became a running joke for a bit that I would never get it done. Currently, it looks like I just have editing and diagrams to finish up. I plan to have it out very soon and before the end of the year definitely.

The book is divided three-fold.

I. Social, Logical, Common
The first section examines the Social, Logical, and Common sense aspects to Science and the Flat Earth.

Each chapter brings with it its own thesis and purpose supporting the overall worldview I am attempting to convey. For example in the first, we have a casual plain language examination of many of these caveats in thinking that are so often taken against a flat earth - or reason in general. This section also delves into some epistemology. The goal here is to first justify the right and reason to make the flat earth argument and to then open the eyes of those whose minds might be closed. I also discuss and highlight a few flat earth theories as examples, as well as debunk some common round earth myths. Other chapters are more based on a specific thesis.

II. Relative Earth
Secondly, I define my theory, in so much as can be related to my intended audience at least. I do so briefly simply because I intend the work to lead others to reason less so than a flat earth. From reason some will find the way to the flat earth on their own.

III. Dialogue
Finally, a dialogue section concerning the specifics of my model, as well as other models as relevant. In this I answer all the common questions one might have - the sun setting, ships sinking, Coriolis force, Foucault pendulums, and so on. I also dispel some non-questions like toilets flushing and the like.

I also have a good number of appendices gathered throughout the years of work on this. Included are short excursions into ideas like the religious justifications (both Abraham based and Pagan) of a flat earth, various mathematical support for previously made arguments, theories I have since moved on from (infinite flat earth, multi-state geography, and so on), numbered proofs of a globe being false and so on.  Some of these may not be included, others not listed might.

Quote from: Jane on March 24, 2016, 05:30:18 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 24, 2016, 01:13:46 AM

@John Davis, do you have any comments on this?

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 22, 2016, 01:41:26 AM

Another problem with the model of earth being flat, but curved by space so it appears to be a sphere, is that we can't know if it is really flat. It could be a square, curved into a sphere. It could be a tube. It could be a bicycle. Or it could be a sphere. Since every known particle in the universe is affected by space, there is nothing we can use to measure the "true" shape of the earth. And since there is nothing (as far as we know) which is unaffected by space, and simply follows perfectly the curvature that makes it behave as if the earth is indeed a sphere, then there is no practical, or really even theoretical value in knowing the "true" shape. If everything is made to behave as if earth was a sphere, because of curved space, then we might as well just assume it is a sphere, as it makes no difference and is a lot easier to work with.

I'm not completely sure, but I think his model implies that the Earth is locally flat: that no curvature can be measured on it. While overall distances may be modelled as more akin to a sphere, if the Earth is directly viewed from above you'd more likely see a flat plane (contorted by length contraction).

I may be wrong mind you, and if so I agree that if the Earth appears, right down to curvature, as a sphere, then it basically is: there'd be no real difference between it and a genuine ball.

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

This something I will await with great anticipation. I wish you much good luck with your progress on such a work!

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

If we're in curved space (ie: acceleration is felt, as you say), how would you define an inertial frame of reference?

And a question related to what I said before, to try and understand your model: if we were to ascend to a sufficiently high altitude, how would the Earth look?
Would it be, say, an infinite plane (a flat surface connected to identical flat surfaces), or a flat disc, or would we observe curvature before the end of the Earth? (Note, I'm just asking how it would appear).

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

How? Sorry, but this is exactly what I talked about in my post. Yes, we know space (-time) is curved. And if you "unwrapped" it, we could define an inertial frame of reference, and from that a "true" coordinate system. But how do you know that earth would be flat, when there is no way to measure how much space is bent? Yes, we can measure acceleration between bodies, but that is space-time, time is also bent. How do we separate space from time?

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2016, 06:42:55 AM

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

If we're in curved space (ie: acceleration is felt, as you say), how would you define an inertial frame of reference?

One where newton's laws hold. For example, if you were in orbit around a body you would be in an inertial frame of reference as you would experience weightlessness.

And a question related to what I said before, to try and understand your model: if we were to ascend to a sufficiently high altitude, how would the Earth look?
Would it be, say, an infinite plane (a flat surface connected to identical flat surfaces), or a flat disc, or would we observe curvature before the end of the Earth? (Note, I'm just asking how it would appear).

It would appear rounded from space. I have named this the Ferrari effect as Leo Ferrari first pointed out that a flat earth would appear rounded in curved space.

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2016, 06:42:55 AM

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

How? Sorry, but this is exactly what I talked about in my post. Yes, we know space (-time) is curved. And if you "unwrapped" it, we could define an inertial frame of reference, and from that a "true" coordinate system. But how do you know that earth would be flat, when there is no way to measure how much space is bent? Yes, we can measure acceleration between bodies, but that is space-time, time is also bent. How do we separate space from time?

We can define an inertial frame of reference by simply finding one in which all pseudo-forces cancel out and you are essentially weightless. A perfectly stable orbiting body accomplishes this. We know its inertial because we know Newton's 3 Laws hold.

Quote from: Jane on March 24, 2016, 09:41:00 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2016, 06:42:55 AM

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

If we're in curved space (ie: acceleration is felt, as you say), how would you define an inertial frame of reference?

One where newton's laws hold. For example, if you were in orbit around a body you would be in an inertial frame of reference as you would experience weightlessness.

Quote

And a question related to what I said before, to try and understand your model: if we were to ascend to a sufficiently high altitude, how would the Earth look?
Would it be, say, an infinite plane (a flat surface connected to identical flat surfaces), or a flat disc, or would we observe curvature before the end of the Earth? (Note, I'm just asking how it would appear).

It would appear rounded from space. I have named this the Ferrari effect as Leo Ferrari first pointed out that a flat earth would appear rounded in curved space.

If it's flat, but in curved space, then explain why neutrinos are detected from the other side of the earth.  For instance, we detect the sun's neutrinos at night, coming from exactly where we know it is because the earth is curved. 

In other words hello-centrists have no rational explanation for gravity and the supposed "curving of space time" associated with this phenomena. It just happens. Objects distort this so called space time. Poof.  Yet you continue to ridicule aether but stand upon a house built of straw "Magical gravity and its impact on "space time" whatever in the world "space time is".

This point has been addressed multiple times. We can make predictions with our understanding of gravity. We have equations, and they work every time. Whether it's an interaction, foreseen consequence, or its applications in quantum physics, gravity works. The long defunct hypothesis of "aether" does not. That's why it's defunct. Get over it.

One where newton's laws hold. For example, if you were in orbit around a body you would be in an inertial frame of reference as you would experience weightlessness.

Actually, the weightlessness is the exact reason we can't define it as an inertial frame of reference. There is acceleration, without any forces acting. Newton's laws doesn't hold, because gravity is not a newtonian force. Gravity is an effect of curved space-time, and the effect is acceleration without forces. But we can turn acceleration into a force using F=ma. It's not actually a force, but there is acceleration, so a pseudo-force can be created to describe the acceleration.

Quote from: John Davis on March 24, 2016, 06:42:55 AM

Well can measure the curvature by assuming gravity is a pseudo-force and that Newton's 3 Laws of Motion hold. If acceleration is felt we know space is being curved. So we take inertial Frames of Reference as something akin (but not exactly like) an absolute coordinate system. This is how we know it would be flat in curved space and not curved in flat space or curved in curved space.

How? Sorry, but this is exactly what I talked about in my post. Yes, we know space (-time) is curved. And if you "unwrapped" it, we could define an inertial frame of reference, and from that a "true" coordinate system. But how do you know that earth would be flat, when there is no way to measure how much space is bent? Yes, we can measure acceleration between bodies, but that is space-time, time is also bent. How do we separate space from time?

We can define an inertial frame of reference by simply finding one in which all pseudo-forces cancel out and you are essentially weightless. A perfectly stable orbiting body accomplishes this. We know its inertial because we know Newton's 3 Laws hold.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstand the concept of "pseudo-forces". The thing with pseudo-forces is that they can't be felt, because the don't exist. Acceleration caused by pseudo-forces are non-inertial, hence objects subjected to pseudo-forces are truly non-inertial frames. We can create pseudo-inertial frames by saying that objects are subjected to these pseudo-forces, but of course there are no real forces, so this pseudo-inertial frame won't be a true inertial frame.


Then there's also another thing - general relativity is currently just the most used and accepted model for gravity. In the standard model, it has been discovered that there hypothetically could exist a particle they call the graviton, which would carry the force of gravity. This field would be mostly indistinguishable from general relativity. This would mean that space doesn't actually bend (as described by general relativity, at least), and that gravity is indeed a force (according to the standard model's definition of a force). The graviton is really hard to detect, so this can't be confirmed yet.