Teach a physicist (me) about FET

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

FET depends on two fact phsical claim: "The earth is flat, the earth is stationary". The earths to be stationary is a main principle of FET, oppositely our fool admins claim in wiki. He already a controlled opposite, but we are not. You can trust me.

Diffusion is the most strongest argument about there is a doom.

Mass gravity is debunked by us but there is atmospheric stringence causes accelerate to objects.

You can get radio signals in Istanbul from New York and this proves the earth is flat. Also you can get radio signals in Sydney from London. It is tecnically imossible if the earth is a spinning ball.

Our obversations, also calculations on any of round map proves the earth is flat.

You can examine my working about that issues and other by a looking at:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

Frankly, draw a velocity diagram depends on balance of gravity and centrifugal forces, by altitude. After look to the clouds, nothing is moving. This is a basic en strong proof for a physicist.

Quote from: tomato on May 31, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

FET depends on two fact phsical claim: "The earth is flat, the earth is stationary". The earths to be stationary is a main principle of FET, oppositely our fool admins claim in wiki. He already a controlled opposite, but we are not. You can trust me.

Diffusion is the most strongest argument about there is a doom.

Mass gravity is debunked by us but there is atmospheric stringence causes accelerate to objects.

You can get radio signals in Istanbul from New York and this proves the earth is flat. Also you can get radio signals in Sydney from London. It is tecnically imossible if the earth is a spinning ball.

Our obversations, also calculations on any of round map proves the earth is flat.

You can examine my working about that issues and other by a looking at:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

Frankly, draw a velocity diagram depends on balance of gravity and centrifugal forces, by altitude. After look to the clouds, nothing is moving. This is a basic en strong proof for a physicist.

There are actually quite a few topics here. I really like the point about radio waves between NY and Istanbul. Thanks Intikam (will give your thread a look)

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

No. When people do the math it shows Earth to be round.
There have been countless examples, lots focusing on the sun or stars and how they are pretty much never in the correct position for a flat Earth.
But some also focus on alternatives for gravity, showing how that is completely wrong.

The only case where the math has been done and it works is when you apply a transform to Earth to make it flat in not-flat space, to mimic a sphere in flat space.

FET depends on two fact phsical claim: "The earth is flat, the earth is stationary".

No. They are facts. They are baseless bullshit claims which are contradicted by reality.

Diffusion is the most strongest argument about there is a doom.

And just like all your arguments it is absolutely pathetic and just shows your ignorance.

Mass gravity is debunked by us but there is atmospheric stringence causes accelerate to objects.

Except every time you tried to debunk it, you failed.

You can get radio signals in Istanbul from New York and this proves the earth is flat. Also you can get radio signals in Sydney from London. It is tecnically imossible if the earth is a spinning ball.

No. You can get specific kinds of radio signals sent at specific times due to the ionosphere.
If Earth was flat, you should be able to get pretty much everything, but you can't.

Our obversations, also calculations on any of round map proves the earth is flat.

No, they don't.
You have failed to provide a single calculation or observation which showed Earth was flat or not round.
Instead you repeatedly showed your ignorance and dishonesty, with your data showing the method is completely wrong or Earth is round.

You can examine my working about that issues and other by a looking at:

Except it isn't working at all, and of course, you post it in the liars only section to avoid rebuttal.
Basically everything there has been brought up elsewhere and completely refuted.

Frankly, draw a velocity diagram depends on balance of gravity and centrifugal forces, by altitude. After look to the clouds, nothing is moving. This is a basic en strong proof for a physicist.

No, the clouds are moving.
How is that strong proof of anything?

The flat earth theory in a quick summary is a community of uneducated people and flawed theories and models.

Quote from: tomato on May 31, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

FET depends on two fact phsical claim: "The earth is flat, the earth is stationary". The earths to be stationary is a main principle of FET, oppositely our fool admins claim in wiki. He already a controlled opposite, but we are not. You can trust me.

Diffusion is the most strongest argument about there is a doom.

Mass gravity is debunked by us but there is atmospheric stringence causes accelerate to objects.

You can get radio signals in Istanbul from New York and this proves the earth is flat. Also you can get radio signals in Sydney from London. It is tecnically imossible if the earth is a spinning ball.

Our obversations, also calculations on any of round map proves the earth is flat.

You can examine my working about that issues and other by a looking at:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.0

Frankly, draw a velocity diagram depends on balance of gravity and centrifugal forces, by altitude. After look to the clouds, nothing is moving. This is a basic en strong proof for a physicist.

Radio 570 WNAX
Welcome to WMCA 570am - New York | The Mission AM 570 WMCA - , NY
KLAC - AM 570 LA Sports Los Angeles, CA
570 KLIF - KLIF - AM 570 - Dallas, TX - Listen Online
570 KVI Radio Station 570 kHz, AM - Seattle, United States ...


Explain to me if you can, how these radio stations, can broadcast on the same frequency and not interfere with each other, on the flat Earth?

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

Self taught as in you watch V sauce?

Sorry there has been a few.

Quote from: tomato on May 31, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

Self taught as in you watch V sauce?

Sorry there has been a few.

Something like that.

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

Your question makes no sense whatsoever. You are expecting to apply scientific rigour to a heap of nonsense! I think that's an oxymoron in the truest sense. The earth is not flat...it's a sphere. There is no such thing as a flat earth model, instead there are a number of people on this site who belive in a number of fanciful ideas, and a fanciful idea no matter how it's spun does not constitute a model.

Quote from: disputeone on May 31, 2017, 07:24:28 PM

Quote from: tomato on May 31, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist - obviously raised around RET - but I'm open to anything. Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light.

Are there any FET topics, say, that have readily verifiable results, but no one has done the math or the physics involved in them yet?

I don't know FET well, so please help me out, with its basic principles, and with which ones might lead me to answers.

Self taught as in you watch V sauce?

Sorry there has been a few.

Something like that.

Oh no...

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist

Seriously, don't open with that. There used to be a supposed 'physics teacher' here that didn't know how to use suvat. if you've got good understanding, show it in discussions. Claiming it apropos of nothing just makes you look like one of the more trollish users. (Plus if you're trying to prove yourself you can overreach, speaking from experience).
Self-taught would depend on the caliber. How are you at topology and non-Euclidean metrics and related generalizations? There are a couple of models out there that use them.

A couple of models? Like?

Quote from: tomato on May 31, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist

Seriously, don't open with that. There used to be a supposed 'physics teacher' here that didn't know how to use suvat. if you've got good understanding, show it in discussions. Claiming it apropos of nothing just makes you look like one of the more trollish users. (Plus if you're trying to prove yourself you can overreach, speaking from experience).
Self-taught would depend on the caliber. How are you at topology and non-Euclidean metrics and related generalizations? There are a couple of models out there that use them.

Thanks. Keep in mind, I said self-taught "physicist", certainly not mathematician. On top of that, I'm not even in the process of learning string theory or anything of the sort, and I'm not sure if topology is used that often in GR and such (unless we're getting very deep?). I can handle hyperbolic geometry and the very basics of metrics (not any real tensor stuff), at least for the sake of SR, but you won't see me doing any mathematical proofs any time soon.

Again, I know a bit more physics, but a bit less math that will cover it. The typical undergrad/PhD path of a physicist, in my opinion, covers even less math than I do (at least in proportion). If we're discussing things like the topology of spacetime, well I'd love to be as informed as possible to contribute, but I didn't expect any FET or DET to delve that far. I guess I stand corrected.

Quote from: tomato on May 31, 2017, 05:36:43 AM

Hi, I'm a self-taught physicist

Seriously, don't open with that. There used to be a supposed 'physics teacher' here that didn't know how to use suvat. if you've got good understanding, show it in discussions. Claiming it apropos of nothing just makes you look like one of the more trollish users. (Plus if you're trying to prove yourself you can overreach, speaking from experience).
Self-taught would depend on the caliber. How are you at topology and non-Euclidean metrics and related generalizations? There are a couple of models out there that use them.

So what's you take on Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry Jane. Do you agree with the Bolyai dude when he stated that its just not possible to decide through mathematical reasoning that the geometry of our physical universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean.....
But you do have to take what those Magyars say with a pinch of NaCl. Don't you think?

A couple of models? Like?

It's one of Jane's affections: she likes to call the collections of unevidenced ad-hoc responses a "model".

A couple of models? Like?

Davis' and DET are the ones that spring to mind. Sure, you don't hear those words bandied about, but the principles are at play.

Thanks. Keep in mind, I said self-taught "physicist", certainly not mathematician. On top of that, I'm not even in the process of learning string theory or anything of the sort, and I'm not sure if topology is used that often in GR and such (unless we're getting very deep?). I can handle hyperbolic geometry and the very basics of metrics (not any real tensor stuff), at least for the sake of SR, but you won't see me doing any mathematical proofs any time soon.

Again, I know a bit more physics, but a bit less math that will cover it. The typical undergrad/PhD path of a physicist, in my opinion, covers even less math than I do (at least in proportion). If we're discussing things like the topology of spacetime, well I'd love to be as informed as possible to contribute, but I didn't expect any FET or DET to delve that far. I guess I stand corrected.

Maths and physics are pretty unavoidably intertwined. As far as what FET goes into, you don't get too much depth in most of the models, but they touch on a lot of concepts in a non-rigorous fashion. There's one user that idly mentions a non-Euclidean flat Earth to explain topics such as distances, but if you want to get into a good explanation of that you end up with the likes of:
[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

You mentioned "Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light," which sounded like you were planning to go farther than FEers do. FET gets into complicated stuff fast, for better or for worse, so to test it you have to do likewise. DET relies entirely on altering the notion of space we have, Davis' non-Euclidean model leads to the above... If you want to avoid the topological, Scepti's denpressure model basically relies on reshaping the basic structure of molecules from the ground-up, postulating essentially an expanding ball-like object as the most fundamental particle and drawing conclusions from how they would vibrate, exert pressure...
There's a lot of pretty complicated stuff, basically. Physics isn't the biggest help because most of that gets rewritten.

So what's you take on Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry Jane. Do you agree with the Bolyai dude when he stated that its just not possible to decide through mathematical reasoning that the geometry of our physical universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean.....
But you do have to take what those Magyars say with a pinch of NaCl. Don't you think?

You could just say hyperbolic geometry. You can't deduce anything about the physical universe by mathematical reasoning alone, you have to go out and take measurements and run tests. When you do, well, it depends. In some geometries you'll find contradictions, in others you won't. However, we have found rather persuasive evidence that the geometry of our physical universe is best modeled by Minkowski space rather than Euclidean, so I'd have to say it is possible.
I mean, it's pretty clear you're just trolling, but there's your answer anyway.

DET doesn't use any math at all. JDs model is the only one as far as I know.

How did the ridiculously long equation come into being?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 04, 2017, 11:31:35 AM

A couple of models? Like?

Davis' and DET are the ones that spring to mind. Sure, you don't hear those words bandied about, but the principles are at play.

Quote from: tomato on June 04, 2017, 11:43:00 AM

Thanks. Keep in mind, I said self-taught "physicist", certainly not mathematician. On top of that, I'm not even in the process of learning string theory or anything of the sort, and I'm not sure if topology is used that often in GR and such (unless we're getting very deep?). I can handle hyperbolic geometry and the very basics of metrics (not any real tensor stuff), at least for the sake of SR, but you won't see me doing any mathematical proofs any time soon.

Again, I know a bit more physics, but a bit less math that will cover it. The typical undergrad/PhD path of a physicist, in my opinion, covers even less math than I do (at least in proportion). If we're discussing things like the topology of spacetime, well I'd love to be as informed as possible to contribute, but I didn't expect any FET or DET to delve that far. I guess I stand corrected.

Maths and physics are pretty unavoidably intertwined. As far as what FET goes into, you don't get too much depth in most of the models, but they touch on a lot of concepts in a non-rigorous fashion. There's one user that idly mentions a non-Euclidean flat Earth to explain topics such as distances, but if you want to get into a good explanation of that you end up with the likes of:
[jsTex]d(P_1,P_2) = \cos^{-1} \left( \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \sin \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) +\cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_1^2 + y_1^2 -1}{2x_1} \right) \right) \cos \left(\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{x_2^2 + y_2^2 -1}{2x_2} \right) \right) \cos \left|\tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_1}{x_1}  \right) - \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{y_2}{x_2} \right) \right| \right)[/jsTex]

You mentioned "Actually, I'd like to contribute some mathematically rigorous and testable arguments for FET that could hold water in a scientific light," which sounded like you were planning to go farther than FEers do. FET gets into complicated stuff fast, for better or for worse, so to test it you have to do likewise. DET relies entirely on altering the notion of space we have, Davis' non-Euclidean model leads to the above... If you want to avoid the topological, Scepti's denpressure model basically relies on reshaping the basic structure of molecules from the ground-up, postulating essentially an expanding ball-like object as the most fundamental particle and drawing conclusions from how they would vibrate, exert pressure...
There's a lot of pretty complicated stuff, basically. Physics isn't the biggest help because most of that gets rewritten.

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 11:50:44 AM

So what's you take on Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry Jane. Do you agree with the Bolyai dude when he stated that its just not possible to decide through mathematical reasoning that the geometry of our physical universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean.....
But you do have to take what those Magyars say with a pinch of NaCl. Don't you think?

You could just say hyperbolic geometry. You can't deduce anything about the physical universe by mathematical reasoning alone, you have to go out and take measurements and run tests. When you do, well, it depends. In some geometries you'll find contradictions, in others you won't. However, we have found rather persuasive evidence that the geometry of our physical universe is best modeled by Minkowski space rather than Euclidean, so I'd have to say it is possible.
I mean, it's pretty clear you're just trolling, but there's your answer anyway.

Wrong again Jane...that's the third in a row. Trolling, I don't think so, I leave that type of nonesense to those of a flater  disposition. Having a small interest in the history of mathematics I'm always intrigued when it gets a mention.

Now I would have thought that a gal like you would have difficulties with old Minkowski given his very close entanglement with Einstein and SR. I thought those of your persuasion  would find his whole notion of Einstein and spacetime a difficult pill to swallow, as I remember you once jumping to the defence of JRowes dual earth codswallop, which is so farremoved from any know mathematical description of the universe as we know it.

DET doesn't use any math at all. JDs model is the only one as far as I know.

How did the ridiculously long equation come into being?

They don't use maths, but there's room for it. They're the kind of models which state enough that you could probably derive equations if you had a bit of familiarity with it. DET gets more applied than I'm comfortable with, the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

Wrong again Jane...that's the third in a row. Trolling, I don't think so, I leave that type of nonesense to those of a flater  dispensation. Having a small interest in the history of mathematics I'm always intrigued when it gets a mention.

Now I would have thought that a gal like you would have difficulties with old Minkowski given his very close entanglement with Einstein and SR. I thought those of your persecution would find his whole notion of Einstein and spacetime a difficult pill to swallow, as I remember you once jumping to the defence of JRowes dual earth codswallop, which is so farremoved from any know mathematical description of the universe as we know it.

I'm well aware of what Minkowski space is. What's my persuasion, exactly, REer mathematician? I don't defend FET, I don't think it's at all accurate, I just like to have a bit of fun in seeing how close it can get, and I find your brand of being obnoxious over being intelligent tiresome. Did go through a phase where people voted for me to defend DET, so there's that, but I never claimed to be a DEer.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 04, 2017, 12:20:41 PM

DET doesn't use any math at all. JDs model is the only one as far as I know.

How did the ridiculously long equation come into being?

They don't use maths, but there's room for it. They're the kind of models which state enough that you could probably derive equations if you had a bit of familiarity with it. DET gets more applied than I'm comfortable with, the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 12:36:17 PM

Wrong again Jane...that's the third in a row. Trolling, I don't think so, I leave that type of nonesense to those of a flater  dispensation. Having a small interest in the history of mathematics I'm always intrigued when it gets a mention.

Now I would have thought that a gal like you would have difficulties with old Minkowski given his very close entanglement with Einstein and SR. I thought those of your persecution would find his whole notion of Einstein and spacetime a difficult pill to swallow, as I remember you once jumping to the defence of JRowes dual earth codswallop, which is so farremoved from any know mathematical description of the universe as we know it.

I'm well aware of what Minkowski space is. What's my persuasion, exactly, REer mathematician? I don't defend FET, I don't think it's at all accurate, I just like to have a bit of fun in seeing how close it can get, and I find your brand of being obnoxious over being intelligent tiresome. Did go through a phase where people voted for me to defend DET, so there's that, but I never claimed to be a DEer.

Was that a raw nerve I touched?

Quote from: Jane on June 04, 2017, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 04, 2017, 12:20:41 PM

DET doesn't use any math at all. JDs model is the only one as far as I know.

How did the ridiculously long equation come into being?

They don't use maths, but there's room for it. They're the kind of models which state enough that you could probably derive equations if you had a bit of familiarity with it. DET gets more applied than I'm comfortable with, the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 12:36:17 PM

Wrong again Jane...that's the third in a row. Trolling, I don't think so, I leave that type of nonesense to those of a flater  dispensation. Having a small interest in the history of mathematics I'm always intrigued when it gets a mention.

Now I would have thought that a gal like you would have difficulties with old Minkowski given his very close entanglement with Einstein and SR. I thought those of your persecution would find his whole notion of Einstein and spacetime a difficult pill to swallow, as I remember you once jumping to the defence of JRowes dual earth codswallop, which is so farremoved from any know mathematical description of the universe as we know it.

I'm well aware of what Minkowski space is. What's my persuasion, exactly, REer mathematician? I don't defend FET, I don't think it's at all accurate, I just like to have a bit of fun in seeing how close it can get, and I find your brand of being obnoxious over being intelligent tiresome. Did go through a phase where people voted for me to defend DET, so there's that, but I never claimed to be a DEer.

Was that a raw nerve I touched?

Do I really sound even the slightest bit annoyed to you?

This is one thing about this site that I find hard to understand, and that's people who try and dress up flat earth beliefs with science and mathematics. It's like trying to put a size 6 dress on a size 24 lady.....it doesn't fit, no mater how lovely the lady or nice the dress.

In a flat earth universe that rejects gravity, the stars, galaxy and planetary formation one has to start with a blank sheet of paper and come up with new laws of physics, hey that might be a job for tomato 101, as our current understanding that underpins both quantum mechanics and the standard model don't work or operate in the flat earth universe.

Trying to make what we know already fit the flat earth concept will never fit, just ask the size 24 lady.......so why try?

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 12:51:21 PM

Quote from: Jane on June 04, 2017, 12:46:08 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 04, 2017, 12:20:41 PM

DET doesn't use any math at all. JDs model is the only one as far as I know.

How did the ridiculously long equation come into being?

They don't use maths, but there's room for it. They're the kind of models which state enough that you could probably derive equations if you had a bit of familiarity with it. DET gets more applied than I'm comfortable with, the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 12:36:17 PM

Wrong again Jane...that's the third in a row. Trolling, I don't think so, I leave that type of nonesense to those of a flater  dispensation. Having a small interest in the history of mathematics I'm always intrigued when it gets a mention.

Now I would have thought that a gal like you would have difficulties with old Minkowski given his very close entanglement with Einstein and SR. I thought those of your persecution would find his whole notion of Einstein and spacetime a difficult pill to swallow, as I remember you once jumping to the defence of JRowes dual earth codswallop, which is so farremoved from any know mathematical description of the universe as we know it.

I'm well aware of what Minkowski space is. What's my persuasion, exactly, REer mathematician? I don't defend FET, I don't think it's at all accurate, I just like to have a bit of fun in seeing how close it can get, and I find your brand of being obnoxious over being intelligent tiresome. Did go through a phase where people voted for me to defend DET, so there's that, but I never claimed to be a DEer.

Was that a raw nerve I touched?

Do I really sound even the slightest bit annoyed to you?

Well yes actually....as the very act of asking it is a bit of a giveaway...

Trying to make what we know already fit the flat earth concept will never fit, just ask the size 24 lady.......so why try?

Who's trying that? The blank slate's the fun part. Most models I've seen, like DET, do start anew. It's just things like the basic rules of maths that are going to have to be constant, even if they're applied to something different.

Well yes actually....as the very act of asking it is a bit of a giveaway...

I think we've stumbled into Catch-22 territory.

the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

  A metric's still an equation...

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 01:02:12 PM

Trying to make what we know already fit the flat earth concept will never fit, just ask the size 24 lady.......so why try?

Who's trying that? The blank slate's the fun part. Most models I've seen, like DET, do start anew. It's just things like the basic rules of maths that are going to have to be constant, even if they're applied to something different.

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 01:03:24 PM

Well yes actually....as the very act of asking it is a bit of a giveaway...

I think we've stumbled into Catch-22 territory.

STOP!
You cant label the nonesense put out by JRowe as a model. It does not meet the specification required to be considered as one. You say you are a mathematician. I imagine you have read mathematical papers, have you read the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem ?
I met Sir Andrew John Wiles, to give him his full and proper title, very briefly at a conference I was luckily enough to attend in 1999, though I understood very very little of what went on, what I did understand was the meticulous work and effort that man put into proving The Theorem. The same goes for any other scientific model, it has to be robust and packed with both evidence and references to allow others that follow to replicate the work.
The rubbish put forward by JRowe should not be labelled a model as it's pure unadulterated popycock of the highest quality with not a picogram  of sense or science contained within its badly written lines.

There is no such thing as a flat earth model. To call any flat earth ideas a model is a travesty and misuse of the word. The best the could hope for would be a con-jackture.

Quote from: Jane on June 04, 2017, 12:46:08 PM

the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

  A metric's still an equation...

More a function. Technically should've used := instead of =

You cant label the nonesense put out by JRowe as a model. It does not meet the specification required to be considered as one.

No one's saying it's a good model. If you get so outraged by discussion of FET, I suggest you find another hobby.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 04, 2017, 01:13:35 PM

Quote from: Jane on June 04, 2017, 12:46:08 PM

the metric for Davis' model (not equation) was just the product of a bored afternoon to show how the distances on a sphere can exist on a flat surface in non-Euclidean space (by treating the plane as a stereographic projection).

  A metric's still an equation...

More a function. Technically should've used := instead of =

Quote from: Lonegranger on June 04, 2017, 01:18:00 PM

You cant label the nonesense put out by JRowe as a model. It does not meet the specification required to be considered as one.

No one's saying it's a good model. If you get so outraged by discussion of FET, I suggest you find another hobby.

Whose outraged? I just making a point.

Just to clarify as flT earthers are so cavalier with terminology, facts and the truth, it's on occasion good to touch base.

Scientific modelling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge. It requires selecting and identifying relevant aspects of a situation in the real world and then using different types of models for different aims, such as conceptual models to better understand, operational models to operationalize, mathematical models to quantify, and graphical models to visualize the subject. Modelling is an essential and inseparable part of many scientific disciplines, each of which have their own ideas about specific types of modelling.

Whose outraged? I just making a point.

Just to clarify as flT earthers are so cavalier with terminology, facts and the truth, it's on occasion good to touch base.

And 'base' can also mean headquarters, a type of jump, or the foot of a structure. Should I complain that you used the word 'base' in this context?

If you want to get technical FET doesn't match the definition of 'conjecture' either as I'm sure you'd argue it's not based on incomplete information, but rather false information. At a certain point you just need to breathe in, breathe out, and let it go. You do seem to get way more annoyed than is healthy at the idea of talking about FET, hence the 'outraged.' You're taking things way too seriously.