Distances

Sorry if this has been asked before (it probably has, but I couldn't find it here and I am very curious):

When people are debating flat earth they always come up with some pretty weird things about the sun and the stars and whatnot, but you don't really have to look that far away to find something that doesn't quite fit. Just look at distances on earth.

According to the official "north pole is the center of the world" stance, then we would expect Australia and Chile to be extremely far away, while Europe and North America are much much closer. Also, the best route to perform most long distance travel would be to go straight across the north pole. Australia, by the way, is absolutely gigantic on that map, and much much further in the east-west direction than in the north-south direction. The same can be said for most of Africa.

Absolutely none of this is true. Anyone who has been to the southern hemisphere in a car can tell you that distances match up with what everyone expects from the round earth model, and people who fly a lot can tell you that an airplane trip from Australia to Chile is significantly shorter than one from Mexico to France.

How is this explained?

Typically that these people are either in on the conspiracy or being lied to.

Or they just claim that the map isn't a real map and is just as a guide to get an idea of how it might look.

Every person in the southern hemisphere with a car is part of a conspiracy?

I can see the claims that the government is conspiring, but this is a much grander scale. We would be talking a significant portion of the population of the Earth . . .

Also, I have flown in airplanes an awful lot, and no matter where I was going almost none of my travel ever took me over the north pole. Am I in on the conspiracy too? I certainly didn't think I was!

Also, I have flown in airplanes an awful lot, and no matter where I was going almost none of my travel ever took me over the north pole. Am I in on the conspiracy too? I certainly didn't think I was!

Many northern hemisphere fights do go over, or at least close to, the north pole because it lies on a great circle route for them. The north polar routes were opened up in the 1990s when the cold war ended and Russian air traffic control became useable:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

However, as can be seen, southern hemisphere flights do not use north polar routes.

Every person in the southern hemisphere with a car is part of a conspiracy?

I can see the claims that the government is conspiring, but this is a much grander scale. We would be talking a significant portion of the population of the Earth . . .

Also, I have flown in airplanes an awful lot, and no matter where I was going almost none of my travel ever took me over the north pole. Am I in on the conspiracy too? I certainly didn't think I was!

Not necessarily in on the conspiracy, potentially just getting fooled.
You wont find much logic from these people.

Every person in the southern hemisphere with a car is part of a conspiracy?

I can see the claims that the government is conspiring, but this is a much grander scale. We would be talking a significant portion of the population of the Earth . . .

Also, I have flown in airplanes an awful lot, and no matter where I was going almost none of my travel ever took me over the north pole. Am I in on the conspiracy too? I certainly didn't think I was!

I live in Australia and have driven over a large part of it, so I know its dimensions pretty well, and I have seen nothing to suggest that the "GPS" distances are not quite accurate.

I posted essentially this on another thread today, but a little copy'n'paste won't hurt!

Flat earthers can support their hypothesis only by claiming that millions of people of people are intentionally lying to them.
That number has to include this group would include at least:

• All those involved in the "Space Industry".
  
• All ships navigators. The used marine gyrocompasses, and need to be proficient in celestial navigation. They must plan the appropriate course and calculate the required fuel load. The distances on a flat earth are greatly larger than on a globe, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.
  
• All those involved in the "Space Industry".
  
• All airline pilots and first officers. They must plan the appropriate course and calculate the required fuel load. The distances on a flat earth are greatly larger than on a globe, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.
  
• All astronomers, both amateur and professional. Apart from all the differences in the detail of movement of celestial objects, all astronomers are aware of the "equatorial telescope mount", which simply could not work in the same way (if at all) on a flat earth.
  
• All geodetic surveyors. They take measurements over large areas of the earth, and would soon know its shape.
  
• All surveyors dealing in mining and tunnelling, where the Gyro-Theodolite is used for finding true directions celestial observations (or GPS fixes) are not possible.
  
• All engineers planning microwave links, where the maximum tower spacing is determined by the curve of the earth - and yes, they do know about refraction etc.
  
• All those installing satellite TV dishes and satellite communications links.

These people just go about their work based on the Globe Earth. If the earth were flat and not rotating many of these tasks would be performed quite differently and the people involved would certainly know the difference.

Add to that: Anyone who has traveled in both the southern and northern hemispheres, which was kinda the point. In an FE model travel in the southern hemisphere would necessarily take MUCH longer than in the northern hemisphere, so much longer that it would be impossible not to notice. The real issue is that this is not even a group of people which can easily be identified.

I came to this site out of curiosity: How is it than in the XXI century it is still possible to think that the earth is flat? Questions of motion of celestial bodies, gravitational anomalies, horizons, etc. all are strong arguments, but are also a bit opaque and abstract. I could see someone coming up with *some* kind of alternative explanation. The issue of distance, on the other hand, just seems impossible to explain -- and also really obvious.

The other one that seems weird to me is the conspiracy theory angle: *Why* would anyone want to cover up the shape of the earth?, and how have the -- constantly changing, and constantly at war with each other -- governments of the world agreed with each other on this one thing *and nothing else* for centuries?

I do not intend to prove flat earth wrong, or to mock it -- People have a right to believe pretty much whatever they want -- but for my own education, I was hoping to get some idea of how this particular idea still managed to thrive in our time.

Unfortunately everyone who has answered -- so far -- has not been someone who believes in Flat Earth.

This model does not share the issue of distances in the Southern Hemisphere: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

A flat non-euclidean earth need not have distances in the southern hemisphere that diverge from those represented on the incorrect globe.

To other points, you seem to be under the misunderstanding that knowledge progresses in a set of hierarchal if then motions, that eventually lead one to a singular truth.

This is against our understanding of knowledge and historical examples of advance which always come from view points that are empirically less valid. Galileo for example did not have the empirical basis for claiming his model was true. Tycho Brahe for one pointed out inconsistencies with its ability to predict parallax; he also predicted the incorrect number of tides per day, a fact known since antiquity. In spite of his views being patently incorrect, given knowledge of the time, we can still clearly see their use.

Some things that seem impossible to explain are only impossible because your vision is limited by so-called 'knowledge.' Hopefully this helps you understand why and where the flat earth fits in to a modern or post-modern world view.

Take any sphere. Create an elliptic projection of it. Presto! It is flat!

OK, that is true. In that case, all spheres are flat if we alter the geometry by which flatness is defined, but I am pretty sure that is not what is meant by people talking about flat earth is it?

As for everything else, what the hell are you talking about? I think that knowledge progresses in hierarchical if then motions? Huh?

I am well educated enough to actually know what that means, and it looks like that probably goes against your plan, because you phrased that in the most confusing way possible. It also happens to not have anything to do with what I said.

If you were well educated enough to know what I was talking about, you clearly would not have asked 'what the hell are you talking about.' Point being, you question how someone can believe in a flat earth in this century. This question doesn't make sense, as advance comes from an outside perspective - and the flat earth is one of these. One can believe in the flat earth, in this century, because it is the only logical and reasonable thing to believe.

Add to that: Anyone who has traveled in both the southern and northern hemispheres, which was kinda the point. In an FE model travel in the southern hemisphere would necessarily take MUCH longer than in the northern hemisphere, so much longer that it would be impossible not to notice. The real issue is that this is not even a group of people which can easily be identified.

I came to this site out of curiosity: How is it than in the XXI century it is still possible to think that the earth is flat? Questions of motion of celestial bodies, gravitational anomalies, horizons, etc. all are strong arguments, but are also a bit opaque and abstract. I could see someone coming up with *some* kind of alternative explanation. The issue of distance, on the other hand, just seems impossible to explain -- and also really obvious.

The other one that seems weird to me is the conspiracy theory angle: *Why* would anyone want to cover up the shape of the earth?, and how have the -- constantly changing, and constantly at war with each other -- governments of the world agreed with each other on this one thing *and nothing else* for centuries?

I do not intend to prove flat earth wrong, or to mock it -- People have a right to believe pretty much whatever they want -- but for my own education, I was hoping to get some idea of how this particular idea still managed to thrive in our time.

Unfortunately everyone who has answered -- so far -- has not been someone who believes in Flat Earth.

It is because far too many people are paranoid and what to be able to "prove" that the government is lying to them.
They don't think much about it and just accept it because they want to.

If you were well educated enough to know what I was talking about, you clearly would not have asked 'what the hell are you talking about.' Point being, you question how someone can believe in a flat earth in this century. This question doesn't make sense, as advance comes from an outside perspective - and the flat earth is one of these. One can believe in the flat earth, in this century, because it is the only logical and reasonable thing to believe.

No. It is completely irrational to believe Earth is flat.
The only logical and reasonable thing to believe is that it is round, as that is what every piece of evidence which actually shows anything shows.

If you need to manipulate space itself so much to try and pretend Earth is flat, producing the same results as if Earth was round in flat space, then it indicates Earth is likely round.

Your link is also nonsense.

The satellite is travelling is stationary in a non-inertial reference frame which is circling Earth.

It isn't travelling in a straight line.

So no, that doesn't prove Earth is flat.

You also completely ignore the other aspect of the equivalence principle, that the other object appears differently in the other reference frame.

In the non-inertial reference from of the Satellite, it is stationary and Earth is rotating around it.

It is not travelling in a straight path over a stationary Earth.

As such, everything that follows from that is based on pure nonsense and can be dismissed.

Saying that the earth is flat in elliptical geometry is the same as saying that the earth is round. All spheres are flat in elliptical geometry. I do not disagree with this claim, nor do I think it is unreasonable to use elliptical geometry to describe the Earth. Elliptical geometry is actually a very good way to study the surface of the Earth, and is the only thing that really allows us to seriously discuss things like how far China is from South Africa: If we believe in a round Earth and also insist on using Euclidean geometry we have to measure this distance in a straight line, which happens to be a tunnel through a bunch of rock. The way that makes sense to measure it is using lines that -- from a Euclidean perspective -- are curves, but in elliptical geometry are straight. Up to this point, while it is all more sophisticated than it has to be, it is still completely valid.

In this sense, what John Davis says is true, but this is not the way I have seen any other topic on this site discussed. Everyone else uses "flat earth" with the word "flat" in a Euclidean (or at least approximately Euclidean) sense. "The earth is flat if you define flatness in this way" is all well and good but it does not have anything to do with the earth as a disk centered around the north pole and surrounded by a wall of ice.

As for "what are you talking about?" . . . sigh . . . if you had answered me by saying "no way, Michael Jordan was a much better basketball player than Lebron James" I would have understood what the words meant, but still asked "what are you talking about?" because it would have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The same goes for all of this sesquipedalian stuff about cognition: I know what it means, but how on earth is it relevant? And what does it have to do with the question that was asked?

I know people who believe some pretty crazy stuff. With enough conspiracy theories and weird explanations you can come up with consistent ways to believe quite a lot of offbeat things. On the other hand, a flat Earth -- in the usual Euclidean sense -- is not something that I can really follow in an era where long distance travel is within the reach of such a large part of the human population. This has nothing to do with the advancement of knowledge or anything like that, it is about a specific issue.

In a word: magic!

This model does not share the issue of distances in the Southern Hemisphere:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

So would the "real flat earth" please stand up! We have

In the infinite plane model, this would be accounted for by different local densities that are minor . . . . . . . .

and now your "non-euclidean Leo Ferrari effect" earth.
So is the flat earth model this "non-euclidean" earth or is it your "infinite plane model" flat earth, or maybe even Rowbotham's as you try to push elsewhere?

Talk about having you cake and eating it too!

And I wish you would stop claiming that "Einstein's Relativity proves earth flat"! Einstein's Relativity certainly does not prove the earth flat.
Your imaginary "Leo Ferrari effect" might, but that is not "Einstein's Relativity".
The space-like component of Einstein's space-time is curved by such a small amount near earth that it is quite imperceptible.

By the way, look at what the prominent (and almost my least favourite) flat earther, Eric Dubay, has to say about Leo Ferrari, the one who proposed the Ferrari Effect you espouse.

The Flat Earth Society (of Canada) is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth.  Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.

See a lot more in The Atlantean Conspiracy, The Flat Earth Society (of Canada) is Controlled Opposition!

No, I don't believe all that Eric Dubay says, but Leo Ferrari was certainly no Flat Earther!

Yes, the "Ferrari Effect" is part of a spoof by Leo Ferrari and some others not so much to ridicule the idea of a flat earth, but to help students learn to be careful of the evidence they accept.

But, whatever you think of Leo Ferrari, you non-Euclidean earth is not based on Einstein's General Relativity but a vastly exaggerated verion put forward as part of a spoof by Leo Ferrari, et al.

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 10:10:51 PM

If you were well educated enough to know what I was talking about, you clearly would not have asked 'what the hell are you talking about.' Point being, you question how someone can believe in a flat earth in this century. This question doesn't make sense, as advance comes from an outside perspective - and the flat earth is one of these. One can believe in the flat earth, in this century, because it is the only logical and reasonable thing to believe.

No. It is completely irrational to believe Earth is flat.
The only logical and reasonable thing to believe is that it is round, as that is what every piece of evidence which actually shows anything shows.

If you need to manipulate space itself so much to try and pretend Earth is flat, producing the same results as if Earth was round in flat space, then it indicates Earth is likely round.

Your link is also nonsense.

The satellite is travelling is stationary in a non-inertial reference frame which is circling Earth.

It isn't travelling in a straight line.

So no, that doesn't prove Earth is flat.

You also completely ignore the other aspect of the equivalence principle, that the other object appears differently in the other reference frame.

In the non-inertial reference from of the Satellite, it is stationary and Earth is rotating around it.

It is not travelling in a straight path over a stationary Earth.

As such, everything that follows from that is based on pure nonsense and can be dismissed.

I am not 'manipulating' space at all. All I do is move forward with the almost universally accepted laws of Newton's Motion and the conjecture that gravity is a pseudo-force. If you accept those two tenants, which the bulk of modern physics is based upon, you must accept that satellites are traveling straight lines and thus the earth is flat.

First off, a perfectly orbiting satellite is in an inertial frame of reference. This can easily be seen by realizing that these silly balls are supposedly in 'free-fall' and exhibit microgravity. This is why the FoR are called inertial and non-inertial - based on whether from their FoR they exhibit the laws of inertia or as we often call them Newton's Laws of Motion. As we know from Newton's laws, if an object is in an inertial frame of reference it must either be still or traversing a straight line. If it were accelerating, which means a change in speed or direction, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference

Either perfect satellites do not exhibit weightlessness, or they are traveling in straight lines. You will have a very hard time avoiding this conclusion, but I'm eager to see you attempt it.

Every other aspect of the equivalence principle fits perfectly fine into my model and you have failed to show where a conflict may arise.

Saying that the earth is flat in elliptical geometry is the same as saying that the earth is round. All spheres are flat in elliptical geometry. I do not disagree with this claim, nor do I think it is unreasonable to use elliptical geometry to describe the Earth. Elliptical geometry is actually a very good way to study the surface of the Earth, and is the only thing that really allows us to seriously discuss things like how far China is from South Africa: If we believe in a round Earth and also insist on using Euclidean geometry we have to measure this distance in a straight line, which happens to be a tunnel through a bunch of rock. The way that makes sense to measure it is using lines that -- from a Euclidean perspective -- are curves, but in elliptical geometry are straight. Up to this point, while it is all more sophisticated than it has to be, it is still completely valid.

I am glad you agree, but I do go a step further. The reason I use the more general term "non-euclidean" rather than elliptical or parabolic is because the system I describe does not adhere to either of these two more specific geometries. Instead, I move forward from the two laws previously stated and create a new geometry.

In this sense, what John Davis says is true, but this is not the way I have seen any other topic on this site discussed. Everyone else uses "flat earth" with the word "flat" in a Euclidean (or at least approximately Euclidean) sense. "The earth is flat if you define flatness in this way" is all well and good but it does not have anything to do with the earth as a disk centered around the north pole and surrounded by a wall of ice.

Yes, this theory does not require the South to be around the disk, as saying something is 'around' the disk is somewhat nonsensical. The only tenant one has to hold to be a flat earther is that the earth is flat.

As for "what are you talking about?" . . . sigh . . . if you had answered me by saying "no way, Michael Jordan was a much better basketball player than Lebron James" I would have understood what the words meant, but still asked "what are you talking about?" because it would have nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The same goes for all of this sesquipedalian stuff about cognition: I know what it means, but how on earth is it relevant? And what does it have to do with the question that was asked?

I know people who believe some pretty crazy stuff. With enough conspiracy theories and weird explanations you can come up with consistent ways to believe quite a lot of offbeat things. On the other hand, a flat Earth -- in the usual Euclidean sense -- is not something that I can really follow in an era where long distance travel is within the reach of such a large part of the human population. This has nothing to do with the advancement of knowledge or anything like that, it is about a specific issue.

I disagree. Given our knowledge of philosophy of science, the flat earth - a revolutionary idea at odds with both theory and empirical data - is the correct methodological move as it presses a paradigm shift. It happened similarly during our last resurgence that also happened to lead to the relativistic revolution.

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:44:14 PM

This model does not share the issue of distances in the Southern Hemisphere:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

So would the "real flat earth" please stand up! We have

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 09:08:47 PM

In the infinite plane model, this would be accounted for by different local densities that are minor . . . . . . . .

and now your "non-euclidean Leo Ferrari effect" earth.
So is the flat earth model this "non-euclidean" earth or is it your "infinite plane model" flat earth, or maybe even Rowbotham's as you try to push elsewhere?

Yes, I am always happy to talk about different models and conjectures we might have. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest. I am also happy to loudly proclaim we are ignorant on which is correct - but we are certain the Earth is Not A Globe. You might have noticed how many books written over the years have held this moniker, and they have done so for a very good reason. I can't say which is correct. I can certainly point out which ones are incorrect though. This however does not disclude them from conversion, as they still have their worth both to me and others.

Talk about having you cake and eating it too!

And I wish you would stop claiming that "Einstein's Relativity proves earth flat"! Einstein's Relativity certainly does not prove the earth flat.
Your imaginary "Leo Ferrari effect" might, but that is not "Einstein's Relativity".

We've discussed this before. To me, the subject matter experts I've talked to agree. I agree, after careful study. You have yet to raise a serious concern that shows this is not the case. I have stopped saying as much, but I doubt I'll ever go back and rename the article. Simply accept that sometimes articles on the internet are ill named.

The space-like component of Einstein's space-time is curved by such a small amount near earth that it is quite imperceptible.

By the way, look at what the prominent (and almost my least favourite) flat earther, Eric Dubay, has to say about Leo Ferrari, the one who proposed the Ferrari Effect you espouse.

Quote

The Flat Earth Society (of Canada) is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth.  Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.

See a lot more in The Atlantean Conspiracy, The Flat Earth Society (of Canada) is Controlled Opposition!

No, I don't believe all that Eric Dubay says, but Leo Ferrari was certainly no Flat Earther!

Yes, and Dubay has also incorrectly claimed I was part of the conspiracy along with this organization. I obviously don't hold much weight in what he has to say about such matters. There is no doubt though that Ferrari was more on the 'free-thinking' and philosophy of science side than Dubay. However, how you think this poisons the well for an idea I lifted off him is well beyond me. Perhaps you could illuminate us.

Yes, the "Ferrari Effect" is part of a spoof by Leo Ferrari and some others not so much to ridicule the idea of a flat earth, but to help students learn to be careful of the evidence they accept.

But, whatever you think of Leo Ferrari, you non-Euclidean earth is not based on Einstein's General Relativity but a vastly exaggerated verion put forward as part of a spoof by Leo Ferrari, et al.

My work towards this idea actually predates my knowledge of Ferrari's interview answer. How cute of you to assume how I developed my world view, over getting the real story from the horses mouth.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 05, 2017, 04:14:55 AM

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:44:14 PM

This model does not share the issue of distances in the Southern Hemisphere:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

So would the "real flat earth" please stand up! We have

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 09:08:47 PM

In the infinite plane model, this would be accounted for by different local densities that are minor . . . . . . . .

and now your "non-euclidean Leo Ferrari effect" earth.
So is the flat earth model this "non-euclidean" earth or is it your "infinite plane model" flat earth, or maybe even Rowbotham's as you try to push elsewhere?

Yes, I am always happy to talk about different models and conjectures we might have. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest. I am also happy to loudly proclaim we are ignorant on which is correct - but we are certain the Earth is Not A Globe. You might have noticed how many books written over the years have held this moniker, and they have done so for a very good reason. I can't say which is correct. I can certainly point out which ones are incorrect though. This however does not disclude them from conversion, as they still have their worth both to me and others.

Quote

Talk about having you cake and eating it too!

And I wish you would stop claiming that "Einstein's Relativity proves earth flat"! Einstein's Relativity certainly does not prove the earth flat.
Your imaginary "Leo Ferrari effect" might, but that is not "Einstein's Relativity".

We've discussed this before. To me, the subject matter experts I've talked to agree. I agree, after careful study. You have yet to raise a serious concern that shows this is not the case. I have stopped saying as much, but I doubt I'll ever go back and rename the article. Simply accept that sometimes articles on the internet are ill named.

Quote

The space-like component of Einstein's space-time is curved by such a small amount near earth that it is quite imperceptible.

By the way, look at what the prominent (and almost my least favourite) flat earther, Eric Dubay, has to say about Leo Ferrari, the one who proposed the Ferrari Effect you espouse.

Quote

The Flat Earth Society (of Canada) is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth.  Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.

See a lot more in The Atlantean Conspiracy, The Flat Earth Society (of Canada) is Controlled Opposition!

No, I don't believe all that Eric Dubay says, but Leo Ferrari was certainly no Flat Earther!

Yes, and Dubay has also incorrectly claimed I was part of the conspiracy along with this organization. I obviously don't hold much weight in what he has to say about such matters. There is no doubt though that Ferrari was more on the 'free-thinking' and philosophy of science side than Dubay. However, how you think this poisons the well for an idea I lifted off him is well beyond me. Perhaps you could illuminate us.

Quote

Yes, the "Ferrari Effect" is part of a spoof by Leo Ferrari and some others not so much to ridicule the idea of a flat earth, but to help students learn to be careful of the evidence they accept.

But, whatever you think of Leo Ferrari, you non-Euclidean earth is not based on Einstein's General Relativity but a vastly exaggerated verion put forward as part of a spoof by Leo Ferrari, et al.

My work towards this idea actually predates my knowledge of Ferrari's interview answer. How cute of you to assume how I developed my world view, over getting the real story from the horses mouth.

Maybe measurements of distances to produce a map and the observing the angle of the sun from multiple locations at different times would help you confirm the shape of the earth.

The infamous Eratosthenes experiment does nothing to confirm the shape of the earth, as it assumes the earth is round. It might help us find the circumference of said imaginary globe if one were to exist. It has been repeated time and time again, so much so that we made a poster about it. There are obviously several other models that must exist that can explain this. The standard flat earth model derives its suns path as well as its movements throughout the year using this experiment. Rowbotham additionally goes into greater detail in Earth: Not A Globe.

OK, so I am not a physicist, and I have never studied Einstein's theory of general relativity enough to actually follow how it is that space/time curvature exists, but this claim that we have a form of geometry that is neither elliptical, hyperbolic or Euclidean is really really weird.

Euclid's fifth axiom can be violated in a way that does not conflict with the other four, but it can only be violated in two ways: Either the lines meet on the same side as . . . (Euclidean geometry), they do not necessarily meet on either side (hyperbolic geometry) or they may meet on both (elliptical geometry). If you don't follow one of these three systems then you must violate one of the other four axioms.

If you are violating one of the first four axioms, then pretty much any standard geometrical argument is going to fall flat instantly. Arguments such as "We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel." (from your post) for instance is an argument that depends on axioms 1-4 being valid. (Also, not being a geometer, I am not sure I know what "parallel" even means in a non-euclidean setting. I will refrain from actually going into the math here.)

So again, although I have not studied general relativity, everything I have read on the subject of space/time curvature has indicated that elliptical geometry is what we've got. I guess I could be wrong. Maybe physicists spend their time studying something that actually violates axioms 1-4, and the universe is just that weird . . . I have a friend who is a particle physicist. Maybe I will ask him about this the next time we talk.

Anyways, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think the phrase "a revolutionary idea at odds with both theory and empirical data" does describe one way to believe what you -- specifically -- believe. I was, however, hoping for an answer from one of the "disk with the north pole at the center and an ice wall around the edge" people to explain distances to me. That is the official model of the site after all.

I am not 'manipulating' space at all. All I do is move forward with the almost universally accepted laws of Newton's Motion and the conjecture that gravity is a pseudo-force. If you accept those two tenants, which the bulk of modern physics is based upon, you must accept that satellites are traveling straight lines and thus the earth is flat.

Yes. You are. Gravity being a pseudo-force doesn't mean the satellites are travelling in straight lines.

Again you completely misrepresent the equivalence principle.

What the principle actually states is that you cannot distinguish between a satellite orbiting Earth, and Earth orbiting that satellite. The 2 are equivalent.
In the first case the satellite is being accelerated towards Earth resulting in a circular orbit. In the second, instead Earth is accelerating towards the satellite producing a circular orbit around the satellite.

So using the equivalence principle, the satellite is stationary, not moving in a straight line, and the lines from it to Earth are not parallel. Instead they diverge from the centre.

So yes, you are manipulating space.

Also, if you think our understanding of physics is so flawed, why continue with Newton's laws?

If what you are suggesting is true, and gravity is a pseduo-force that doesn't cause acceleration such that objects travel in a straight line, then how do things fall?
There is no force to accelerate them towards Earth.

First off, a perfectly orbiting satellite is in an inertial frame of reference. This can easily be seen by realizing that these silly balls are supposedly in 'free-fall' and exhibit microgravity. This is why the FoR are called inertial and non-inertial - based on whether from their FoR they exhibit the laws of inertia or as we often call them Newton's Laws of Motion. As we know from Newton's laws, if an object is in an inertial frame of reference it must either be still or traversing a straight line. If it were accelerating, which means a change in speed or direction, they would not be in an inertial frame of reference

No. They aren't.
A free-fall condition is inherently non-inertial as it involves acceleration.

You even admitted that in your blog post:

They both are accelerating frames of reference.

An accelerating reference frame is a non-inertial one.

Do you notice how you are now going around in circles?
You claim it is an inertial reference frame to claim it is travelling in a straight line to claim it is in an inertial reference frame.
It doesn't work like that.

Your explanation is also completely wrong.
An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating. It has nothing to do with the objects inside it. It is entirely to do with the reference frame itself.
In the case of a frame orbiting Earth, or the case of a frame in free fall, it is accelerating.

Either perfect satellites do not exhibit weightlessness, or they are traveling in straight lines. You will have a very hard time avoiding this conclusion, but I'm eager to see you attempt it.

They don't even exist. If they did, in order to experience complete "weightlessness", the satellite would have to be massless and everything would be in a single point. But that wouldn't require it to be travelling in a straight line.

Otherwise, there would be weight, but so tiny it isn't funny and more complicated due to the orbit.

Some "simple" math:
The acceleration due to gravity is GM/r^2.
The acceleration required for a circular orbit is omega^2*r (I'm not sure if I should use this one or v^2/r, to try and maintain the same orbital period, as the fixed sections of the craft would, or to maintain the same velocity as passengers in the craft that are drifting back and forth would).
For the orbit, they need to be equal, thus GM/r^2=omega^2*r:
omega^2=GM/r^3.

Now, the rate of change, to a first approximation:
For a circular orbit, da/dr=omega^2.

And for gravity, it is -2GM/r^3

So, if you are a little bit closer (dr), the acceleration required for a circular orbit drops by omega^2*dr.
The acceleration due to gravity increases by 2GMdr/r^3

So this means gravity wins and you would feel a slight acceleration towards Earth.
But what would this be?
Well, the increase in force, minus the difference in force required to maintain the orbit is:
2GMdr/r^3+omega^2*dr, and as omega^2=GM/r^3, this becomes:
GM/r^3*(2dr+dr)=3GMdr/r^3.

So lets say you are 100 m from the centre of a craft orbiting at 6800 km (6800000 m), what would the acceleration you perceive be?
well, taking G and M as their accepted values you get 3.8E-4.
To give you an idea, that is roughly 0.0039% that of gravity on the surface of Earth.
That means your "weight" in that circumstance would be roughly 0.0039% that of what it would be on the surface of Earth, or roughly one 25 000th.
Far too small for people to notice.

Every other aspect of the equivalence principle fits perfectly fine into my model and you have failed to show where a conflict may arise.

No. I explained quite clearly the problem.
The equivalence principle allows you to consider the situation as Earth orbiting the satellite or the satellite orbiting Earth.
Similar to how you either have the person falling to the floor of the elevator or the elevator rising to the person.

So if you change it so the satellite is stationary or moving in a straight line, then you need to have Earth orbiting the satellite.

It doesn't matter if you got the rest right. Having this fundamental aspect wrong destroys the whole argument.

Yes, this theory does not require the South to be around the disk, as saying something is 'around' the disk is somewhat nonsensical. The only tenant one has to hold to be a flat earther is that the earth is flat.

And flat in non-flat geometry is not what most people think of when they hear flat.

I disagree. Given our knowledge of philosophy of science, the flat earth - a revolutionary idea at odds with both theory and empirical data - is the correct methodological move as it presses a paradigm shift. It happened similarly during our last resurgence that also happened to lead to the relativistic revolution.

It isn't a revolutionary idea. It is an ancient, discredited idea. Yes, it is an idea at odds with all data.
The same was not true for relativity.

It being at odds with all data indicates it is wrong.
What lead to the "relativistic revolution" was that the data didn't match the current theory of relativity.
We had the speed of light (in a vacuum) being constant for all observers, and we had relative speeds add up such that if A, travelling at speed u relative to C, throws object B at speed v relative to themselves, then object B will travel at speed V=u+v, relative to C.
These produced a contradiction, as if you sub in light, with speed c, then v and V are both c, such that you have c=u+c, which only works for stationary objects.

Relativity wasn't something that completely didn't match the data. Instead it solved this problem to make the data match.
It needed a formula where V=u+v for low speeds, and V=v for high speeds, and u and v should be free to be swapped.
The one that works is V=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2), which for simplicity later =c^2*(u+v)/(c^2+uv) (if you like I can do the math for this as well).
This lead to a revolution because it matched both theory (relativity for low speeds and the speed of light being constant), and the empirical data of relative speeds and the speed of light.
When u<<c and v<<c, then uv/c^2<<1, thus (1+uv/c^2)~1 (the difference is so small it isn't funny, for example, if they are both 100 m/s, then you have (200 m/s)/(1+10000/299792458^2)=199.99999999997774699887893010734 m/s so the difference is ~-2E-11. That would be 20 pico meters over 200 m, or to travel those 200 m, it would take a time of 1.0000000000001112650056053618432 s, or 1E-13 seconds more than expected.)

When v=c (or u=c and you switch u and v), you get V=c^2(u+c)/(c^2+u*c)=c^2(u+c)/(c*(c+u))=c(u+c)/(c+u)=c.

The same is true for the quantum revolution.
We had what was known as the ultraviolet catastrophe, where the classical models were not able to predict black body radiation curves and instead predicted far more UV.
There was the issue of light behaving as a wave in numerous experiments, and the issue of it behaving as a particle in some.
This was solved by quantum mechanics, a theory which could explain this behaviour.
It led to a revolution because it matched the empirical data and harmonised the theories.

You don't start a scientific revolution by going against all the data.

Yes, I am always happy to talk about different models and conjectures we might have. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest. I am also happy to loudly proclaim we are ignorant on which is correct - but we are certain the Earth is Not A Globe. You might have noticed how many books written over the years have held this moniker, and they have done so for a very good reason. I can't say which is correct. I can certainly point out which ones are incorrect though. This however does not disclude them from conversion, as they still have their worth both to me and others.

They have that to sell or for self-promotion.
One thing I am certain of is that you are wrong, and that Earth is round and spinning.

Yes, you guys show conviction that Earth is not round, but you do not know that it isn't, as you have nothing to back up that nonsense claims.
I can point out which flat Earth models are incorrect, all of them that I have seen.

Quote

And I wish you would stop claiming that "Einstein's Relativity proves earth flat"! Einstein's Relativity certainly does not prove the earth flat.
Your imaginary "Leo Ferrari effect" might, but that is not "Einstein's Relativity".

We've discussed this before. To me, the subject matter experts I've talked to agree. I agree, after careful study. You have yet to raise a serious concern that shows this is not the case. I have stopped saying as much, but I doubt I'll ever go back and rename the article. Simply accept that sometimes articles on the internet are ill named.

I have pointed out why it isn't the case, with a very serious concern which you only dismissed.

Yes, lots of articles on the internet are named with (and contain) pure bullshit. That's only a reason if you are happy being as shit as everyone else.

The infamous Eratosthenes experiment does nothing to confirm the shape of the earth, as it assumes the earth is round. It might help us find the circumference of said imaginary globe if one were to exist. It has been repeated time and time again, so much so that we made a poster about it. There are obviously several other models that must exist that can explain this. The standard flat earth model derives its suns path as well as its movements throughout the year using this experiment. Rowbotham additionally goes into greater detail in Earth: Not A Globe.

Yes. It assumes Earth is round and the sun is far enough away that its rays are effectively coming in parallel.
However it can (with multiple points) be used to show that Earth cannot be flat, at least not in flat geometry.

No. There are not necessarily (or obviously) several other models that must exist that can explain it.

The standard model uses just sets of 2 points (or just 1), and only 1 set at a time. That is because if it uses any more, it shows it to be completely wrong. Depending upon which points you use and when, you get completely different numbers/locations.

The "standard model" uses 45 degrees north (or south) and the equator at the equinox at midday (astronomically speaking) to show that the sun is 5000 km high. It then uses the tropics at their respective solstice to show it is overhead then. It also uses several points along these lines to show that it moves in a circle above them, but only considering one longitude at a time.

If you use the north pole and the equator at the equinox, you still find the sun over the equator, but closer to a height of 0.
If you use 45 degrees north and the north pole, you get it just south of 45 degrees north.

If instead you use several points on the equator at the equinox to map the motion of the sun during the day, you find it travels in a straight line East-West, rather than following the curve of Earth. It rises due east, not north east as the model would indicate.
This indicates the equator must be a circle with the sun outside and in the same plane (and the ground "below" inside and in the same plane) as this circle, not "above" (or "below") it in a different plane.

In the southern hemisphere during summer it gets even more screwy for the standard model, with the sun rising from the south east, when it is only ever north of that position.

If you use multiple places on the equinox (excluding the very point of the pole where it will just be due south or due north as that is the only direction available), you find the sun rising effectively due east (while being directly overhead somewhere on the equator). This means the sun is so far away it isn't funny, and the only way for you to see it rising from that far away while directly overhead somewhere else is if Earth is round.

It is only by dishonestly using that experiment, picking points and times to give you what you want, that one can track the sun to produce the standard model.

OK, so I am not a physicist, and I have never studied Einstein's theory of general relativity enough to actually follow how it is that space/time curvature exists, but this claim that we have a form of geometry that is neither elliptical, hyperbolic or Euclidean is really really weird.

Euclid's fifth axiom can be violated in a way that does not conflict with the other four, but it can only be violated in two ways: Either the lines meet on the same side as . . . (Euclidean geometry), they do not necessarily meet on either side (hyperbolic geometry) or they may meet on both (elliptical geometry). If you don't follow one of these three systems then you must violate one of the other four axioms.

If you are violating one of the first four axioms, then pretty much any standard geometrical argument is going to fall flat instantly. Arguments such as "We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel." (from your post) for instance is an argument that depends on axioms 1-4 being valid. (Also, not being a geometer, I am not sure I know what "parallel" even means in a non-euclidean setting. I will refrain from actually going into the math here.)

So again, although I have not studied general relativity, everything I have read on the subject of space/time curvature has indicated that elliptical geometry is what we've got. I guess I could be wrong. Maybe physicists spend their time studying something that actually violates axioms 1-4, and the universe is just that weird . . . I have a friend who is a particle physicist. Maybe I will ask him about this the next time we talk.

Anyways, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think the phrase "a revolutionary idea at odds with both theory and empirical data" does describe one way to believe what you -- specifically -- believe. I was, however, hoping for an answer from one of the "disk with the north pole at the center and an ice wall around the edge" people to explain distances to me. That is the official model of the site after all.

A simple example of a non-elliptical, non hyperbolic, non euclidean geometry is the surface of a torus.
On the outside it is elliptical, on the inside it is hyperbolic.

Other examples exist when you consider how these get extended into 3D space instead of 2D.
You can have a elliptical geometry (which I will just use spherical for simplicity) extend to give you shells, extending it in a divergent flat manner., so you have 2 angles and a radius (or distance along the axis from the point). This is analogous to extending a circle into a cone.
At any particular radius, any point in this "plane" is the same distance from its centre, which would be an axis, similar to the cone.
Lines extending out from the centre would diverge, similar to lines diverging from a sphere, but they wouldn't meet like they would on a sphere, and wouldn't curve away like they would for hyperbolic geometry, they would also meet at a point.

Another option is to extend it in a purely flat manner such that it is analogous to a cylinder, which would be infinite in expanse. Instead of radius, you have distance along the axis from some arbitrary point on the axis. This way parallel lines along that axis remain parallel and the same distance.
Another option is to extend it in a spherical manner, such that all points on the 3D surface have the same 4D distance from the 4D centre.

And there are loads more combinations.

As for parallel lines, in lots of geometries, almost any 2 lines can be parallel.

Basically, draw a line. Then at 2 points along this line, draw 2 perpendicular lines.
These 2 new lines will be parallel.
Any 2 lines of longitude on Earth are parallel.

In circular geometry, these lines converge and meet.
In hyperbolic geometry, they diverge, getting further and further apart.

That is correct: The surface of a torus breaks axioms 1 through 4 so in order to study geometry on this surface you have to be extremely careful about what arguments you are willing to follow. It is pretty self evident that axiom 4 is broken, for instance, because the angles of line intersections add up to different values depending on where lines intersect (I am not completely sure the other 3 stand either, but that is beside the point). For this reason, arguments like the one you presented are not valid on the surface of a torus.

The same is true for any other example you can come up with, including the ones you already mentioned.

Either way, it really is entirely beside the point. Can anyone please discuss distances according to the site's official model? That is the one that baffles me.

The infamous Eratosthenes experiment does nothing to confirm the shape of the earth, as it assumes the earth is round. It might help us find the circumference of said imaginary globe if one were to exist. It has been repeated time and time again, so much so that we made a poster about it. There are obviously several other models that must exist that can explain this. The standard flat earth model derives its suns path as well as its movements throughout the year using this experiment. Rowbotham additionally goes into greater detail in Earth: Not A Globe.

I'll bite!

Excuse me, just why is the measurement made by Eratosthenes "infamous"?

At the time that Eratosthenes performed his measurement, the accepted shape of the earth was the Globe with a distant sun.
So, Eratosthenes never set out to prove the earth was a Globe. He simply set out to estimate its circumference.

Of course, many Flat Earthers claim that the same measurements could be used to calculate the height of the sun.
So (rounding the figures a little (as Eratosthenes did)
the distance from Syene to Alexandria is 500 miles and the angle difference is 7.2° - it all seems a bit neat, bit let's carry on.

It is easy to show (it's in "the Wiki" anyway) that sun height =  distance/tan(angle) = 3,958 miles.
But but, I thought that the sun's height was 3,000 miles! Voliva and "the Wiki" say so, so it must be so!

OK, maybe we'd better double check Voliva's calculations.
He claimed that at midday at an equinox the sun is directly over the equator so the height of the sun can be calculated by noting that at 45° latitude,  the height of the the sun would be the same as the distance from the equator or this 45° latitude.
Now this is just one half the distance from the equator to the north pole (all in "the Wiki").
Now the overall diameter of the flat earth is given as 24,900 miles, so the distance from the equator to the north pole is 6,225 miles.
This makes the height of the sun 3,112 miles.  That's "better", but it's a bit far from the 3,958 miles from Eratosthenes method.

What about checking out another spot,  say  latitude 67.5°, an easy 3/4 distance to north pole or 4,669 miles from the equator?
A bit of similar working using  sun height = distance/tan(angle) leads to a sun height of 1,934 miles.

So is the sun's height
3,958 miles, 3,112 miles, 1,934 miles or maybe under the "edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth" by Rowbotham?

I dare anyone to apply that data (not Rowbotham's, it's simply a bad measurement) to the globe earth, and see the consistency.
Just use the original Eratosthenes method.  Maybe the "infamous Eratosthenes experiment" is infamous only in that it is more evidence in favour of the Globe!

These posts attempt to address that question
          So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « on: August 24, 2016, 02:22:33 PM »
          Re: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #47 on: August 26, 2016, 11:24:04 PM »

That is correct: The surface of a torus breaks axioms 1 through 4 so in order to study geometry on this surface you have to be extremely careful about what arguments you are willing to follow. It is pretty self evident that axiom 4 is broken, for instance, because the angles of line intersections add up to different values depending on where lines intersect (I am not completely sure the other 3 stand either, but that is beside the point). For this reason, arguments like the one you presented are not valid on the surface of a torus.

The same is true for any other example you can come up with, including the ones you already mentioned.

Either way, it really is entirely beside the point. Can anyone please discuss distances according to the site's official model? That is the one that baffles me.

There is no official model.
As soon as they make an official model it will be torn to shreds. By having it as just an idea, they can claim it isn't the real model and pretend there isn't an issue.

Anyone who has been to the southern hemisphere in a car can tell you that distances match up with what everyone expects from the round earth model, and people who fly a lot can tell you that an airplane trip from Australia to Chile is significantly shorter than one from Mexico to France.

How is this explained?

Non Euclidean flat earth, lurk moar noob.

Quote from: spivak on February 03, 2017, 10:53:07 PM

Anyone who has been to the southern hemisphere in a car can tell you that distances match up with what everyone expects from the round earth model, and people who fly a lot can tell you that an airplane trip from Australia to Chile is significantly shorter than one from Mexico to France.

How is this explained?

Non Euclidean flat earth, lurk moar noob.

You do mean that John Davis has hypothesised that it is "Non Euclidean flat earth" purely on the basis because of a thought experiment.

But John Davis has plenty of spare Flat Earth models to drag out to suit the occasion.
Sometimes I think he has more Flat Earth shapes than  Odo in DS9 has shapes  .

Quote from: spivak on February 03, 2017, 10:53:07 PM

Anyone who has been to the southern hemisphere in a car can tell you that distances match up with what everyone expects from the round earth model, and people who fly a lot can tell you that an airplane trip from Australia to Chile is significantly shorter than one from Mexico to France.

How is this explained?

Non Euclidean flat earth, lurk moar noob.

Why not give Euclidean it's more common name?

Non flat flat earth.

If you need to manipulate space so a flat plane would act like a sphere in flat space, chances are that Earth is actually a sphere.

There is indeed an official model, at least as stated by the site. In this model the Earth is a disk with the north pole at the center and an ice wall around the edge. Can someone please explain distances according to this model?

I am giving this one last try. Of all the places to ask, you would think the forum of a site that officially endorses this viewpoint would be the correct place. If nobody here is willing to answer, I am just going to give up.

There is indeed an official model, at least as stated by the site. In this model the Earth is a disk with the north pole at the center and an ice wall around the edge. Can someone please explain distances according to this model?

I am giving this one last try. Of all the places to ask, you would think the forum of a site that officially endorses this viewpoint would be the correct place. If nobody here is willing to answer, I am just going to give up.

Sometimes the lack of an answer IS your answer. It's especially true around here.