Admitting the falsity in Relativity FE/Ferrari effect

You have yet to show how it is in conflict with Newton's Laws, and how it does not directly follow from them. Until you can do this, it is your worldview that is nonsense.

You have yet to show how it is in conflict with Newton's Laws, and how it does not directly follow from them. Until you can do this, it is your worldview that is nonsense.

Yes I have.
I showed how it relied upon an axiom of Euclidean geometry, and tried to apply it to non-Euclidean geometry.

That might not have been such a problem, except it relied upon an axiom that differs between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, the one specific axiom which is used to distinguish between them.

I also explained how near the Earth's surface an "inertial" frame would put you down into Earth. The apparently parabolic paths are the inertial frames.
This would mean they are the straight lines. They intersect Earth's surface and thus Earth's surface is not flat.

Then the other issue is what you are trying to describe. It doesn't describe a surface as flat, it describes a trajectory as straight. The Earth's surface is not a trajectory, it is a surface.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 01:29:12 PM

You have yet to show how it is in conflict with Newton's Laws, and how it does not directly follow from them. Until you can do this, it is your worldview that is nonsense.

Yes I have.
I showed how it relied upon an axiom of Euclidean geometry, and tried to apply it to non-Euclidean geometry.

That might not have been such a problem, except it relied upon an axiom that differs between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, the one specific axiom which is used to distinguish between them.

I also explained how near the Earth's surface an "inertial" frame would put you down into Earth. The apparently parabolic paths are the inertial frames.
This would mean they are the straight lines. They intersect Earth's surface and thus Earth's surface is not flat.

Then the other issue is what you are trying to describe. It doesn't describe a surface as flat, it describes a trajectory as straight. The Earth's surface is not a trajectory, it is a surface.

There is not one specific axiom that is used to distinguish between the two. What makes you think there is? I'm thinking you spent a bunch of time arguing the point against somebody else that doesn't understand either theory as well. Myself and Jane have had no issues with it.

There is not one specific axiom that is used to distinguish between the two.

Yes there is. It is sometimes called the parallel postulate and can exist in one of several forms, the first form:
In Euclidean geometry 2 straight, parallel lines remain the same distance apart, ALWAYS!
The second form:
For a given point and a given straight line, there is a one and only one straight line through this point which is parallel to the first line.

In non-Euclidean geometry this is not always the case.
In spherical geometry, depending upon how you attempt to extend parallel lines to this geometry either they do not exist as it would require 2 straight lines to not intersect, or the distance between them changes such that they grow closer together, intersect, grow further apart, then back to growing closer together, with an infinite number existing.

In hyperbolic geometry, again it depends upon how you define it, but a similar thing happens, it is just no longer cyclic. There are infinitely many parallel lines, they start at some minimal distance apart at infinity and grow further apart as you move along the line.


The only reason you have no issues with it is because you are ignoring the issues.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 01:54:36 PM

There is not one specific axiom that is used to distinguish between the two.

Yes there is. It is sometimes called the parallel postulate and can exist in one of several forms, the first form:
In Euclidean geometry 2 straight, parallel lines remain the same distance apart, ALWAYS!
The second form:
For a given point and a given straight line, there is a one and only one straight line through this point which is parallel to the first line.

In non-Euclidean geometry this is not always the case.
In spherical geometry, depending upon how you attempt to extend parallel lines to this geometry either they do not exist as it would require 2 straight lines to not intersect, or the distance between them changes such that they grow closer together, intersect, grow further apart, then back to growing closer together, with an infinite number existing.

In hyperbolic geometry, again it depends upon how you define it, but a similar thing happens, it is just no longer cyclic. There are infinitely many parallel lines, they start at some minimal distance apart at infinity and grow further apart as you move along the line.


The only reason you have no issues with it is because you are ignoring the issues.

The parallel postulate is not the only axiom that can not be present in a non-euclidean geometry. There are up to five. This is why your disproof fails - you are arguing against a strawman.

The parallel postulate is not the only axiom that can not be present in a non-euclidean geometry. There are up to five.

None, there are 5 axioms or postulates which apply to Euclidean geometry. The first 4 apply to basically any geometry, at least any meaningful ones.
The parallel postulate is where the geometries differ.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide an example of a non-Euclidean geometry where the parallel postulate does hold.
Remember, the parallel postulate relies upon the first 2 axioms, regarding straight lines.
So your only other options are right angles and circles.

This is why your disproof fails - you are arguing against a strawman.

Nope, that would be you.
The simple fact remains that the parallel postulate does not hold in the space-time of GR.
The simple fact remains that the ferrari effect relies upon the parallel postulate holding in the space-time of GR.
As such, my disproof remains sound.

There is nothing wrong the Ferrari effect except folks here misunderstanding it.

Please define in detail the "Ferrari effect", because from all that I have seen, there is no such thing!

None, there are 5 axioms or postulates which apply to Euclidean geometry. The first 4 apply to basically any geometry, at least any meaningful ones.

If you can't support this claim (bolded above) discretely, then you have no business claiming it as true.  I can construct many meaningful geometries as counter cases that the first 4 do not apply to. I can probably go grab a textbook or two and find a few more, especially historical ones. What do you mean by 'meaningful'?

Your disproof is trash and doesn't apply to topic at hand. As the discoverer of the non-euclidean flat earth, I should know what my theory states and that your proof is against an entirely different idea.

If you can't support this claim (bolded above) discretely, then you have no business claiming it as true.  I can construct many meaningful geometries as counter cases that the first 4 do not apply to. I can probably go grab a textbook or two and find a few more, especially historical ones. What do you mean by 'meaningful'?

Care to provide such an example?

Remember, if the first 2 don't apply then the last one can't apply.

Regardless, that is entirely irrelevant.
You are trying to go off on a tangent to avoid admitting your claims are entirely baseless.

The simple fact is you are using axioms of Euclidean geometry in non-Euclidean geometry.
The burden is on you to establish that these axioms still hold in this non-Euclidean geometry.
Without that the Ferrari effect is entirely baseless.

Your disproof is trash and doesn't apply to topic at hand.

No, my disproof is rock solid, as shown by you needing to continually avoid the main issue.

As the discoverer of the non-euclidean flat earth, I should know what my theory states and that your proof is against an entirely different idea.

This is not about your non-flat flat Earth in general.
This is about one specific claim which is used to try and support it.
Knowing that I know my disproof is against it, not some other idea.
A claim which uses axioms from Euclidean geometry and pretend they apply in non-Euclidean geometry.

Here is a key part of it:

Let us again venture into thought experiment: eject some pods towards the earth from one such of our imaginary satellites at regular intervals along our orbit such that they are in free fall. Again, we can assume these are straight lines extending below to a translatable location on the surface of the earth, its geolocation. 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.

Notice how you are relying upon properties of parallel straight lines, which hold in Euclidean space, and not necessarily in non-Euclidean space?
Also note:
It requires the first axiom, as it has straight lines.
It requires the second axiom, as it extends these straight lines.
I would say it requires I think the third, the one on right angles, as it is discussing normals. If this didn't need it then you need to specifies these normals in a less ambiguous way.
So the only 2 axioms left are regarding circles and parallel lines.
Regardless, as it is not Euclidean geometry, you can't use the axioms of Euclidean geometry to claim things about lines being parallel.

As I pointed out in another thread, the surface of a ball is a wonderful example of this (but other orbits and/or trajectories are as well).
Note: this is discussing a ball, not specifically Earth, however it is describing its surface in terms of spherical geometry and thus will use terms like equator, latitude and longitude, and other terms typically associated with a round Earth.
The equator (or any great circle), is a straight line.
If you project lines from this equator, normal to it (i.e. at right angles), at equal increments along the lines, you will have lines of longitude drawn which are also great circles which wrap around the ball.
If you now draw lines of constant curvature (where a straight line would be one where the curvature is 0) that remain normal to these lines of longitude, you have the various lines of latitude.
But these lines of latitude are not straight lines.
If you were to go north 10 degrees from the equator (at 0 E) and draw a straight line, it would be a great circle.
This great circle does not remain 10 degrees north of the equator. Instead, at 90 E and 90 W, it crosses the equator.
At 180 E, it is 10 S of the equator.

I was even nice and provided a pictorial representation of that:

The green and blue are straight.
The others are not, yet your method indicates the other 2 are straight as the green is straight.

Even your picture shows this problem:

That gravitationally affected path (i.e. the path of the ball), is a straight line as per your definition.
The curvature of space makes this a straight line.
Notice how it doesn't remain with lines connecting it to the orbital path being normal to both?

And as for your "non-gravitationally affected path", sure it appears straight here and parallel to the orbital path, but that is because of the small scale used.
Orbital paths are gravitationally affected to. A non-gravitationally affected does not remain the same distance from Earth.

I'll ask again: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MEANINGFUL.

You are also using a thought experiment as if it was the theory itself. That is foolish.

Your disproof is against a theory that simply said does not exist. It's trash.

I can set up strawmen for the round earth all day too, then fervently argue I'm right without supporting it. I'd still be beating on strawmen at the end of the day, just like you are right now.

The truth is, you don't even know what my definition of a straight line is, or if one even exists in my geometry.

I'll ask again: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MEANINGFUL.

And I'll point out again, you are just trying to go off on a tangent rather than admit the "Ferrari effect" is fundamentally flawed.
As for meaningful, I mean ones you can actually do things in it, like draw shapes.
After all, geometry is:
the branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogues.

The whole point of geometry is drawing things and being able to describe and define them.

If you don't have things akin to straight lines, how do you plan on drawing and defining shapes?

You are also using a thought experiment as if it was the theory itself. That is foolish.

No, you have no theory.
I am using a thought experiment to show that you can't simply take something as true in a non-Euclidean geometry just because it is true in a Euclidean geometry.
As such it is enough to show your claims are fundamentally flawed.
You need to show that this axiom holds. If you can't, your argument is baseless.

I'd still be beating on strawmen at the end of the day, just like you are right now.

No, I'm not.
My argument shows effectively that the claims of the Ferrari effect rely upon axioms of Euclidean geometry which do not necessarily hold in non-euclidean geometry, yet it applies them in this non-euclidean geometry.

Until you can justify this axiom, your argument is garbage.

Using an example to show why an argument is garbage doesn't make it a strawman.
Especially when the alternative ends up rather circular, where I point out Earth is round so the argument is flawed.

But I even used your example with the ball to show that you were wrong.

The truth is, you don't even know what my definition of a straight line is, or if one even exists in my geometry.

Hmm, lets see, what about this post of yours:

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.

Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it.

We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence points us to.

Is that enough?
For you, a straight line is an inertial path, like the orbit of a satellite (as gravity is no longer considered a force).
That means the ball in your picture is following a straight line.
This means someone standing on the surface of Earth is not following a straight line as the feel Earth pushing them up.

This also sure seems to indicate the Ferrari effect relies upon straight lines.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

I'll ask again: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY MEANINGFUL.

And I'll point out again, you are just trying to go off on a tangent rather than admit the "Ferrari effect" is fundamentally flawed.
As for meaningful, I mean ones you can actually do things in it, like draw shapes.
After all, geometry is:
the branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogues.

The whole point of geometry is drawing things and being able to describe and define them.

If you don't have things akin to straight lines, how do you plan on drawing and defining shapes?

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

You are also using a thought experiment as if it was the theory itself. That is foolish.

No, you have no theory.
I am using a thought experiment to show that you can't simply take something as true in a non-Euclidean geometry just because it is true in a Euclidean geometry.
As such it is enough to show your claims are fundamentally flawed.
You need to show that this axiom holds. If you can't, your argument is baseless.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

I'd still be beating on strawmen at the end of the day, just like you are right now.

No, I'm not.
My argument shows effectively that the claims of the Ferrari effect rely upon axioms of Euclidean geometry which do not necessarily hold in non-euclidean geometry, yet it applies them in this non-euclidean geometry.

Until you can justify this axiom, your argument is garbage.

Using an example to show why an argument is garbage doesn't make it a strawman.
Especially when the alternative ends up rather circular, where I point out Earth is round so the argument is flawed.

But I even used your example with the ball to show that you were wrong.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

The truth is, you don't even know what my definition of a straight line is, or if one even exists in my geometry.

Hmm, lets see, what about this post of yours:

Quote from: John Davis on January 29, 2014, 06:39:40 AM

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.

Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it.

We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence points us to.

Is that enough?
For you, a straight line is an inertial path, like the orbit of a satellite (as gravity is no longer considered a force).
That means the ball in your picture is following a straight line.
This means someone standing on the surface of Earth is not following a straight line as the feel Earth pushing them up.

This also sure seems to indicate the Ferrari effect relies upon straight lines.

Point being, you have no idea my axiom for straight lines or for points. Thus, your proof is fatally flawed as it ignores that these differ. No, that is not enough as it is not only not an axiom, it is not a definition.

I can set up strawmen for the round earth all day too, then fervently argue I'm right without supporting it.

Yes, we've noticed this habit.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

I can set up strawmen for the round earth all day too, then fervently argue I'm right without supporting it.

Yes, we've noticed this habit.

Save it for the out of context quotes thread, Jimmy.

Point being, you have no idea my axiom for straight lines or for points. Thus, your proof is fatally flawed as it ignores that these differ. No, that is not enough as it is not only not an axiom, it is not a definition.

Point being, we are not discussing your straight lines or any crap like that.
We are specifically discussing the Ferrari effect, which I have explained quite clearly why it is fundamentally flawed.

My disproof remains correct as it is pointing out the Ferrari effect is relying upon axioms of Euclidean geometry, yet applying them in the non-Euclidean geometry of GR (not your special BS geometry). This makes it fundamentally flawed.

I even appealed to the arguments you made, to show quite clearly why it is wrong.

Yet instead of focusing on any of that, you just bitch and moan about straight lines.
How about you deal with the topic at hand rather than trying to go off on a tangent.

Quote from: John Davis on December 11, 2017, 06:18:40 AM

Point being, you have no idea my axiom for straight lines or for points. Thus, your proof is fatally flawed as it ignores that these differ. No, that is not enough as it is not only not an axiom, it is not a definition.

Point being, we are not discussing your straight lines or any crap like that.
We are specifically discussing the Ferrari effect, which I have explained quite clearly why it is fundamentally flawed.

My disproof remains correct as it is pointing out the Ferrari effect is relying upon axioms of Euclidean geometry, yet applying them in the non-Euclidean geometry of GR (not your special BS geometry). This makes it fundamentally flawed.

I even appealed to the arguments you made, to show quite clearly why it is wrong.

Yet instead of focusing on any of that, you just bitch and moan about straight lines.
How about you deal with the topic at hand rather than trying to go off on a tangent.

The Ferrari Effect functions due to the non-euclidean geometry I discovered. You clearly don't understand it, and I find it funny and arrogant you think you know the intent of my words and diagrams better than I do myself.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on December 11, 2017, 06:32:53 AM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 01:16:05 PM

I can set up strawmen for the round earth all day too, then fervently argue I'm right without supporting it.

Yes, we've noticed this habit.

Save it for the out of context quotes thread, Jimmy.

What's out of context?  You do this shit all the time.

The Ferrari Effect functions due to the non-euclidean geometry I discovered. You clearly don't understand it, and I find it funny and arrogant you think you know the intent of my words and diagrams better than I do myself.

I find no evidence of that. Instead I find that it is a collection of a few simple claims.

But again, you ignore the main point:
YOU ARE USING AXIOMS WHICH DO NOT NECESSARILY APPLY!!!

I have also pointed out other massive problems.
You have a simple definition of straight line, which was defined in your post regarding the Ferrari effect.
It was such that a trajectory which was only affected by gravity, (such as an orbit) is straight.
But that means the path of the ball in your example is also straight.
It also means the path of a person standing or moving slowly on Earth is not straight.

The Ferrari Effect functions due to the non-euclidean geometry I discovered. You clearly don't understand it, and I find it funny and arrogant you think you know the intent of my words and diagrams better than I do myself.

Unless you can present some physical evidence or theoretical backing for the Ferrari Effect there is no such thing!

And I have claimed that your assertion: "EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT" is totally false and deceptive!

Einstein's relativity, special or general, does not "PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT"!
Is this EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT, May 23, 2016 JohnDavis where your justify it?
If so, all I see are empty meaningless words.

So please, prove your case or remove the claim!