The Earth is "Stationary" ? What do you mean?

That certainly seems like a stance of opinion to me. How do you quantify your claim that it supports one view better than the other?

Measured distances is one.

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

I don't know, it seems to me that's like if I said gravity is really a bunch of invisible undetectable fairies pulling things together, or bending space.  They act exactly like gravity acts.
Prove me wrong.

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Show me a flat earth map,  and I'll compare it with distances I can measure.   Let's try Sydney to Perth.  3300 km.  You can drive or take the Indian Pacific if you like trains.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 10:25:41 AM

Quote from: dutchy on August 15, 2017, 10:20:23 AM

Why are you such a bad person ? Did i treat you badly ?

Don't take it so personally,  just because you were wrong is not the end of the world.   Try not be so gullible in future.

Ahh sad,..... you continue your little attempt about a link i couldn't care less about....(me being gullible for trusting a link)
A shame because i thought you were more decent than that and was really looking forward to some discussions.

But not anymore,....after three attempt to try to pretend as if it was a link we were discussing instead a lengthy post of mine..
From now on don't expect any remotely decent reply unless you do confess your deliberate attempts to derail my honest intentions.
So what's it gonna be ?

You went on a rant about how horrible the world is, and cited a conspiracy web site as evidence of how bad it is.   I merely debunked the web site you put your faith in.

Sorry that you had to find out the truth this way,  It's a hard lesson,  but you can't believe things you read on the internet, especially things that are at first sight extreme.   

The world is not full of evil bogey men,  sure there are evil people,  but on the whole most people are reasonable and decent.   

You and I are finished,  just remember to be more critical in future about believing stuff you watch on youtube, or read on conspiracy web sites.


 

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

I don't know, it seems to me that's like if I said gravity is really a bunch of invisible undetectable fairies pulling things together, or bending space.  They act exactly like gravity acts.
Prove me wrong.

Cthulhu lives in my garage and I feed him grass clippings. Prove me wrong.

The problem with proof is that it's too subject to the whims of the individual observing it. Consider the classic "glass is half empty, glass is half full" scenario used to compare an optimist to a pessimist. In this case, as in all cases, proof (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. What to you proves gravity, to me only proves that everything moves downward when not supported by something else. In your case you say, "Well yes, that's because of gravity." Okay, sure. Does that lead us anywhere useful? Have we used our knowledge of this 'gravity' to overcome it? Have we figured out how to block gravity, for example, the way dense materials block radiation? Can we observe gravity in any meaningful way? No?

Well, in that case, to me I see no difference between "faeries" or "gravity" for an explanation of an invisible force that works in mysterious ways, except one is wrapped in the flag of "Science" and the other is far less pretentious.

Furthermore, if we are to assume that the Dunning-Kreuger effect applies in this instance as it would in any other, it would seem clear that the people who so zealously proclaim that "globe Earth is not an opinion, it is a known fact (as opposed to an unknown fact)!" are more likely to be less competent at least in the formation of their beliefs (yes, they are beliefs) than the people they constantly berate and deride as throwbacks to the dark ages.

Sum total for me is I remain skeptical of gravity, skeptical of the motives of science (whatever it really means in the year 2017) and skeptical of the institutions which promote an attitude of unquestioning loyalty to things which were drilled into the minds of children before they even learned algebra.

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Show me a flat earth map,  and I'll compare it with distances I can measure.   Let's try Sydney to Perth.  3300 km.  You can drive or take the Indian Pacific if you like trains.

I'd like him to support his claim first.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 08:25:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Show me a flat earth map,  and I'll compare it with distances I can measure.   Let's try Sydney to Perth.  3300 km.  You can drive or take the Indian Pacific if you like trains.

I'd like him to support his claim first.

We've been on this merry-go-round before, and before we take another spin,  lets' cut to the chase.  The sticking point ( as always ) is the lack of a flat earth map,  so let me re-formulate the question.

Do you think that your non-euclidean flat earth map ( when it gets made)  will differ in any great respect from the globe maps?

You went on a rant about how horrible the world is,

Correct !!

and cited a conspiracy web site as evidence of how bad it is.

False, i gave a link to show you that20-30 million were killed with involvement of the USA

  I merely debunked the web site you put your faith in.

You didnt debunk the numbers but tried to make the killing with involvement of the USA more understandable. I asked you several times to answer my rant instead of interpret a link that showed the actuall numbers of killing by the USA.

Sorry that you had to find out the truth this way,  It's a hard lesson,  but you can't believe things you read on the internet, especially things that are at first sight extreme.   

All i found out is that there are some poor grandchildren who have a granddaddy that likes to lie behind his computer Even when a decent person asks him to refrain from such tactics.

The world is not full of evil bogey men,  sure there are evil people,  but on the whole most people are reasonable and decent.   

You should really be more critical towards yourself.  Induviduals with good intensions are all part of a wicked financial system, but we can't change it .......can we ?
So you should have explained why you think Wallstreet and the financial system aren't evil.
My rant was addressing those things not "our friendly neighbour who helps out with the children and the garden when needed"
That was my rant all about and you denied it's content.
You should have explained why Wallstreet, trading, the petro dollar , debts to the third world are 'greys' like you claimed.
You did nothing of the sorts but started a rambling to justify killing, because there were really bad persons in Indonesia, contrary to your claims that there are no boogie men in numbrers , but decent folks for the vast majority.
Reconsider if an international forum with debators from all over the world really is your thing.
Because there are certain unwritten etiquettes that you seem not aware of.

You and I are finished,  just remember to be more critical in future about believing stuff you watch on youtube, or read on conspiracy web sites.

You are right , lying simply feels bad and people want to end it and not constandly reminded about it. Run away instead of acknowledging you treated me wrongly !
Most of my insight comes from researching history.

But like with many other things (geography, history, etiquettes despite free speech, political awareness) American education is severely lacking.
Therefor you really think these are ' exciting' times, untill China refuses to bail you out like they do every day financially.
Then the USA is bankrupt within 24 hours, because you live in a giant bubble.
I must say the indoctrination of the powers in control is functional, because this prospect cannot be 'exciting' for anyone.

If you don't live in the USA, i was wrong and you can skip over the last part that contained some emotional ingridients.

But like with many other things (geography, history, etiquettes despite free speech, political awareness) American education is severely lacking.
Therefor you really think these are ' exciting' times, untill China refuses to bail you out like they do every day financially.
Then the USA is bankrupt within 24 hours, because you live in a giant bubble.
I must say the indoctrination of the powers in control is functional, because this prospect cannot be 'exciting' for anyone.

If you don't live in the USA, i was wrong and you can skip over the last part that contained some emotional ingridients.

And what does any of this have to do with the shape of the earth or whether "The Earth is 'Stationary' " or not?
As you know, I do not live in the USA.

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

This has been discussed elsewhere. Why don't you look up some distances between a number of places and see if they fit together in 2D.  eg. Paris, New York, Cape Town, Buenos Aries etc.

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 09:25:19 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 08:25:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Show me a flat earth map,  and I'll compare it with distances I can measure.   Let's try Sydney to Perth.  3300 km.  You can drive or take the Indian Pacific if you like trains.

I'd like him to support his claim first.

We've been on this merry-go-round before, and before we take another spin,  lets' cut to the chase.  The sticking point ( as always ) is the lack of a flat earth map,  so let me re-formulate the question.

Do you think that your non-euclidean flat earth map ( when it gets made)  will differ in any great respect from the globe maps?

Not at first. But of course, that would be expected if the earth was flat and you were wrong - correct?

To the point, this is no ride. I want him to support his claim. People come here all the time saying flat earthers do not support their beliefs in action or argument. It looks to me like the globe trotters are the ones who hold their beliefs in undefended faith.

Literally hundreds of thousands of photos and videos of our beautiful, spinning globe.

Forensic empirical evidence that cannot be denied.

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Right, because distances on a round earth are non-euclidean.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a round earth and a non-euclidean flat earth again?

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 11:21:23 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 09:25:19 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 08:25:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Show me a flat earth map,  and I'll compare it with distances I can measure.   Let's try Sydney to Perth.  3300 km.  You can drive or take the Indian Pacific if you like trains.

I'd like him to support his claim first.

We've been on this merry-go-round before, and before we take another spin,  lets' cut to the chase.  The sticking point ( as always ) is the lack of a flat earth map,  so let me re-formulate the question.

Do you think that your non-euclidean flat earth map ( when it gets made)  will differ in any great respect from the globe maps?

Not at first. But of course, that would be expected if the earth was flat and you were wrong - correct?

To the point, this is no ride. I want him to support his claim. People come here all the time saying flat earthers do not support their beliefs in action or argument. It looks to me like the globe trotters are the ones who hold their beliefs in undefended faith.

Well, we could play word games and I could insist that a flat earth map, by definition must be euclidean,  wheras a globe earth map by definition must be non euclidean. 

So let's do an experiment,  I pick three places on the globe,  and draw a triangle,  the sum of the angles will add to greater than 180 degrees, thus proving the earth's surface is a non euclidean surface. 

Cased closed,  or is it?   

Enter your theory about a non euclidean flat earth.   On this non euclidean flat earth if I draw a triangle does the sum of the angles add up to 180 or is it greater?

Hence the question.

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Right, because distances on a round earth are non-euclidean.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a round earth and a non-euclidean flat earth again?

Indeed, since there is no way to falsify between the flat earth and round, round earther's must either resign to convention or faith - and no longer hold the earth is actually proven round - or instead acknowledge the earth is either round or flat. Anything else would be dishonest.

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 08:44:27 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 11:21:23 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 09:25:19 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on August 15, 2017, 08:25:05 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 02:43:38 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on August 15, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Measured distances prove a round earth.

Show me.

Show me a flat earth map,  and I'll compare it with distances I can measure.   Let's try Sydney to Perth.  3300 km.  You can drive or take the Indian Pacific if you like trains.

I'd like him to support his claim first.

We've been on this merry-go-round before, and before we take another spin,  lets' cut to the chase.  The sticking point ( as always ) is the lack of a flat earth map,  so let me re-formulate the question.

Do you think that your non-euclidean flat earth map ( when it gets made)  will differ in any great respect from the globe maps?

Not at first. But of course, that would be expected if the earth was flat and you were wrong - correct?

To the point, this is no ride. I want him to support his claim. People come here all the time saying flat earthers do not support their beliefs in action or argument. It looks to me like the globe trotters are the ones who hold their beliefs in undefended faith.

Well, we could play word games and I could insist that a flat earth map, by definition must be euclidean,  wheras a globe earth map by definition must be non euclidean. 

So let's do an experiment,  I pick three places on the globe,  and draw a triangle,  the sum of the angles will add to greater than 180 degrees, thus proving the earth's surface is a non euclidean surface. 

Cased closed,  or is it?   

Enter your theory about a non euclidean flat earth.   On this non euclidean flat earth if I draw a triangle does the sum of the angles add up to 180 or is it greater?

Hence the question.

The results would be identical.

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2017, 09:00:59 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Right, because distances on a round earth are non-euclidean.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a round earth and a non-euclidean flat earth again?

Indeed, since there is no way to falsify between the flat earth and round, round earther's must either resign to convention or faith - and no longer hold the earth is actually proven round - or instead acknowledge the earth is either round or flat. Anything else would be dishonest.

It seems to me that your non-euclidean flat earth theory requires just as much faith, if not more, than RET.

I forget.  Didn't you used to promote a recursive fractal earth model for a while way back when?

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 09:18:06 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2017, 09:00:59 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Right, because distances on a round earth are non-euclidean.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a round earth and a non-euclidean flat earth again?

Indeed, since there is no way to falsify between the flat earth and round, round earther's must either resign to convention or faith - and no longer hold the earth is actually proven round - or instead acknowledge the earth is either round or flat. Anything else would be dishonest.

It seems to me that your non-euclidean flat earth theory requires just as much faith, if not more, than RET.

I forget.  Didn't you used to promote a recursive fractal earth model for a while way back when?

Yes, it was a precursor in many ways to this theory and evolved into it once I made the appropriate shift. I have been researching the flat earth for a long time and in that time I have discovered many tenable world-views and some less than tenable ones (such as the water canopy theory I was holding before I came here.)

I agree, given that non-euclidean flat earth theory describes reality, it equally describes a round earth - and so it fits with my previous claims that the earth is both round and flat depending on which 'angle' you are observing it. I am of course, against tyranny of world-views and am happy to share the space with opposing views - unlike the tyrannical academic establishment. 

I agree, given that non-euclidean flat earth theory describes reality, it equally describes a round earth - and so it fits with my previous claims that the earth is both round and flat depending on which 'angle' you are observing it.

I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but a bit of research seems to indicate that real mathematicians agree that planes and spheres are not homeomorphic to each other unless you add a point at infinity to make the math work.  What is your rationale for believing in this point at infinity?

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 10:06:34 AM

I agree, given that non-euclidean flat earth theory describes reality, it equally describes a round earth - and so it fits with my previous claims that the earth is both round and flat depending on which 'angle' you are observing it.

I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but a bit of research seems to indicate that real mathematicians agree that planes and spheres are not homeomorphic to each other unless you add a point at infinity to make the math work.  What is your rationale for believing in this point at infinity?

I don't believe in points at all. I am a nominalist.

That said, the basis for this idea is observation, and adherence with the 'known' laws. If topology disagrees, all the worse for topology. These are all based on a specific set of geometries that are in common use. I am suggesting one outside this scope, and thus any proofs outside of this new scope are irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2017, 10:24:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 10:06:34 AM

I agree, given that non-euclidean flat earth theory describes reality, it equally describes a round earth - and so it fits with my previous claims that the earth is both round and flat depending on which 'angle' you are observing it.

I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but a bit of research seems to indicate that real mathematicians agree that planes and spheres are not homeomorphic to each other unless you add a point at infinity to make the math work.  What is your rationale for believing in this point at infinity?

I don't believe in points at all. I am a nominalist.

That said, the basis for this idea is observation, and adherence with the 'known' laws. If topology disagrees, all the worse for topology. These are all based on a specific set of geometries that are in common use. I am suggesting one outside this scope, and thus any proofs outside of this new scope are irrelevant.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore generally accepted maths and invent your own to make your model work.  Good to know.

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Right, because distances on a round earth are non-euclidean.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a round earth and a non-euclidean flat earth again?

There is no apparent difference between John's non-euclidean flat earth and the real globe.  It's just a point of view,  which is observer dependent.

I could argue that non-euclidean and flat are mutually exclusive by definition?

Quote from: John Davis on August 15, 2017, 12:38:34 PM

Which are all consistent with a non-euclidean earth. What's another?

Right, because distances on a round earth are non-euclidean.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between a round earth and a non-euclidean flat earth again?

The curvature of space is measurable. Compare the measured curvature and see if it more closely matches that predicted by General Relativity or that required to make a flat plane look like a 13 thousand km diameter ball. I know which one I'd put my money on.

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 11:40:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2017, 10:24:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 10:06:34 AM

I agree, given that non-euclidean flat earth theory describes reality, it equally describes a round earth - and so it fits with my previous claims that the earth is both round and flat depending on which 'angle' you are observing it.

I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but a bit of research seems to indicate that real mathematicians agree that planes and spheres are not homeomorphic to each other unless you add a point at infinity to make the math work.  What is your rationale for believing in this point at infinity?

I don't believe in points at all. I am a nominalist.

That said, the basis for this idea is observation, and adherence with the 'known' laws. If topology disagrees, all the worse for topology. These are all based on a specific set of geometries that are in common use. I am suggesting one outside this scope, and thus any proofs outside of this new scope are irrelevant.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore generally accepted maths and invent your own to make your model work.  Good to know.

Choosing a different set of axioms is not 'inventing your own maths'.

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2017, 12:10:33 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 11:40:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 16, 2017, 10:24:57 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 16, 2017, 10:06:34 AM

I agree, given that non-euclidean flat earth theory describes reality, it equally describes a round earth - and so it fits with my previous claims that the earth is both round and flat depending on which 'angle' you are observing it.

I'll admit that I'm no mathematician, but a bit of research seems to indicate that real mathematicians agree that planes and spheres are not homeomorphic to each other unless you add a point at infinity to make the math work.  What is your rationale for believing in this point at infinity?

I don't believe in points at all. I am a nominalist.

That said, the basis for this idea is observation, and adherence with the 'known' laws. If topology disagrees, all the worse for topology. These are all based on a specific set of geometries that are in common use. I am suggesting one outside this scope, and thus any proofs outside of this new scope are irrelevant.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore generally accepted maths and invent your own to make your model work.  Good to know.

Choosing a different set of axioms is not 'inventing your own maths'.

It is if you're the only one who developed those axioms.

There was actually a german fellow about 100 years ago that published a paper on a very similar topic. I found it a bit ago. Not sure if I still have a copy, but I'll try to dig it up.