Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 08:38:05 PM

Tell me, how was oxygen discovered?

lol, you must be a troll, at this point you are just rejecting all observable and measurable science.

Hold that thought!

You are just plain ignorant, what is your experience/education in any professional science. Let me guess...none.

No, John Davis is most certainly not ignorant. Just read:

Quote from: rabinoz on July 28, 2017, 03:13:15 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 17, 2016, 11:53:35 AM

. . . . . . I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth. . . . . . . . .

Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.

Just how could "the most influential man of our time" on the authority of  the most influential man of our time be classed as ignorant.

So, I humbly suggest that you go with that first thought that I asked you to hold.

FE is something emerging, started not long ago and little by little will destroy the any existing false physics theories.

Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.

Yet FE is currently growing fast n fenomenal ~

Flat earth belief was created by the uneducated for the uneducated so maths physics or any other academic discipline will not be required to support their fictional beliefs.

Did you read the link you posted?  It tries to reference a theory that doesn’t exist or even apply to the earth. Gausses theory they use is regarding an infinite “charged” plane. But the link leaves out charged all together and just says plane. The Blog is absolutely nonsense. Putting up a made up formula doesn’t qualify as proof.

The page is to show that gravity works fine on an infinite flat Earth, and that it can be stable rather than collapse into a sphere.

Try calculating the stresses that the infinite plane would be under. I remember someone else working it out and I think the result was that the earth would be under infinite stress at some points.
Also ignoring stress problems, an infinite plane is still only metastable, any irregularities would cause a collapse.

If it was perfectly uniform, the stress would only act to make it thinner, not collapse it.

Only irregularities which produce stresses large enough to overcome the yield stress of the material would cause a collapse.
The same is true for Earth.
A perfect sphere is stable, but Earth is not a perfect sphere. It has mountains.

Anyway I am still working out on free fall object reality by UA perspective. I called UA with "AE" >> "Ascending Earth". (Some group of people are familiar with this term, yet with different connotation, not physics).

Have you read my previous posts regarding the math of AE?

Does the math show how the acceleration can vary across Earth without Earth tearing itself apart?

UA is an elegant early attempt at a solution to the fact that gravity as we know it is a complete farce. Its a simple word we hide our ignorance in. It could work in principle, but I feel it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.

But your infinite earth theory uses Newtonian gravity, so you agree with gravity as we know it??

UA is an elegant early attempt at a solution to the fact that gravity as we know it is a complete farce. Its a simple word we hide our ignorance in. It could work in principle, but I feel it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.

Before going far, I'd ask you once again: What prevents an object to go beyond light's speed.

I won't ask this matter to you again if you'll still ignore it.

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 06:09:26 PM

Anyway I am still working out on free fall object reality by UA perspective. I called UA with "AE" >> "Ascending Earth". (Some group of people are familiar with this term, yet with different connotation, not physics).

Have you read my previous posts regarding the math of AE?

Does the math show how the acceleration can vary across Earth without Earth tearing itself apart?

I spoke about free fall object. It has nothing to do with that silly reality which you misunderstood.

The point isn’t who discovered oxygen. That’s easy to answer.  The real question is why do we believe it exists?  You can’t smell it, taste it, see it or even feel it. Our air is made up of 78% nitrogen. Wouldn’t it make sense that we are breathing nitrogen? We all accept the fact we need oxygen to survive. Why don’t we consider that to be a lie?  Maybe it’s a government conspiracy?  We know it is true because it’s a fact. It has been mathematically proven and scientifically studied. It isn’t 99% true. It is 100% true! It can be proven. If we live on a flat earth it is our obligation to prove it by facts if you want someone to take you seriously. Lies and conspiracy theories don’t fly in the real world of science.

By using Reverse Flat Earth map, it's sufficient to disprove the globe model by refering the reality of 'north hemisplane'. Its huge distances from Europe to Greenland to North America - not to mention 'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge ocean - indicates that the globe model is just an imagination.

By using Reverse Flat Earth map, it's sufficient to disprove the globe model by refering the reality of 'north hemisplane'.
Its huge distances from Europe to Greenland to North America - not to mention 'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge ocean - indicates that the globe model is just an imagination.

Who says that the "'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge ocean"? Have you ever measured it?

So what? The "usual" flat earth has completely unrealistic distances in the Southern Hemisphere.
All that proves is that the the "usual" flat earth in not a correct flat earth map.

Since the so-called "Reverse Flat Earth map" is nothing more than a South Pole Centred Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Globe it proves nothing about the Globe.
If it's distances are incorrect, that simply proves that your "Reverse Flat Earth map" is also an incorrect flat earth map.

Read about the AEP projections in Azimuthal equidistant projection.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 13, 2017, 10:48:08 PM

Does the math show how the acceleration can vary across Earth without Earth tearing itself apart?

I spoke about free fall object. It has nothing to do with that silly reality which you misunderstood.

So you are just doing a purely hypothetical situation and not trying to deal with reality?

By using Reverse Flat Earth map, it's sufficient to disprove the globe model

No it isn't.
That requires baselessly assuming your delusional map is correct.
Until you prove your map is correct (which would requiring refuting the globe) it can only be used to prove your map is wrong.

by refering the reality of 'north hemisplane'.

You mean the northern hemisphere, which doesn't match your map at all and shows your map is pure BS?

For example, Polaris being due north for everyone, showing the north pole is a point, not a circle with a circumference of over 150 000 km.

Its huge distances from Europe to Greenland to North America

Yes, in your map, not in reality. In reality, the distance is quite small.

not to mention 'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge ocean

No, it is a small strait.

FE is something emerging, started not long ago and little by little will destroy the any existing false physics theories.

Good luck!

Let us know when this begins!

Quote from: Jane on December 13, 2017, 06:20:39 PM

They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.

If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.

What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.

I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said. You're switching definitions of 'fact' on a dime whenever it's convenient, from mathematically proven to scientifically proven, and those are not the same things. The methods of proof are completely different, and to equate the two is a fundamental misunderstanding of both disciplines.
Mathematical proof is 100% reliable, but also purely theoretical.
Scientific proof can only be 99.9999% reliable, but is primarily practical.

What we see can't be denied. How we explain that is up for grabs, and once upon a time the RE explanations would've been on par with the modern day FE ones, it's a bit silly to object that FET generally developed by individuals doesn't compare to RET after several centuries. Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 08:36:14 PM

UA is an elegant early attempt at a solution to the fact that gravity as we know it is a complete farce. Its a simple word we hide our ignorance in. It could work in principle, but I feel it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.

But your infinite earth theory uses Newtonian gravity, so you agree with gravity as we know it??

Gravity is simply a word we use to hide our ignorance. Do I deny that objects fall at a certain rate, which can be described roughly with a formula? Of course not. We all know things fall.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 07:20:49 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 13, 2017, 06:20:39 PM

They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.

If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.

What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.

I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said. You're switching definitions of 'fact' on a dime whenever it's convenient, from mathematically proven to scientifically proven, and those are not the same things. The methods of proof are completely different, and to equate the two is a fundamental misunderstanding of both disciplines.
Mathematical proof is 100% reliable, but also purely theoretical.
Scientific proof can only be 99.9999% reliable, but is primarily practical.

What we see can't be denied. How we explain that is up for grabs, and once upon a time the RE explanations would've been on par with the modern day FE ones, it's a bit silly to object that FET generally developed by individuals doesn't compare to RET after several centuries. Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

Well put!

I’ll state it again, mathematics is the language of science. It’s how we explain what we see. You don’t breathe oxygen because of scientific theory. I can calculate how much oxygen you breathe. Mathematical equations aren't magic. They are logical statements of factual information. The difference between math and normal language is that math is designed in such a way that it can't produce illogical results.  That’s the beauty of math. It can’t produce illogical results. I think that is part of the weakness of FE. It has so many unknown factors that it is impossible to prove. Or even substantiate. And if you choose to not use current data in calculations to mathematical determine the shape of the earth. You have chosen willful ignorance over the pursuit of truth.

RE has enough mathematical evidence to support it that it could fill a library?  Do you think RE claims to know the approximate weight of the earth because we put it on a scale or observed it?  Does RE claims to know the distance of The Sun and Moon because someone observed the celestial objects? Observation was not enough.  No, it was calculated using math. I can calculate the height of a building using trigonometry. You can observe a building and “guess” it’s height. Get a group people together and have them observe the building. How do you determine who is right? Trigonometry removes the guess work.  Get a group of people together that understand  basic trigonometry and have them look at my calculations. Everyone in the group can be 100% certain of my result.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 07:20:49 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 13, 2017, 06:20:39 PM

They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.

If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.

What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.

I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said. You're switching definitions of 'fact' on a dime whenever it's convenient, from mathematically proven to scientifically proven, and those are not the same things. The methods of proof are completely different, and to equate the two is a fundamental misunderstanding of both disciplines.
Mathematical proof is 100% reliable, but also purely theoretical.
Scientific proof can only be 99.9999% reliable, but is primarily practical.

What we see can't be denied. How we explain that is up for grabs, and once upon a time the RE explanations would've been on par with the modern day FE ones, it's a bit silly to object that FET generally developed by individuals doesn't compare to RET after several centuries. Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you are going to respond to something make sure to include at least a couple facts in your post. What we see CAN be denied.  We use math to explain what we see/observe. You "know" you breath oxygen because of "theory?" I'm sure glad I don't breathe "theoretical" oxygen. I breathe in the real thing. No one is going to take you seriously if you use words like, "pretty much exactly, how we explain that is up for grabs, once apon a time, silly, maybe, and maybe not. Those are words that are argumentative.  There are questions that be solved using math than can not be argued.  And that's the point where you show your hypocrisy.  Not everything can be argued.  Yet you use argumentative worlds to try and prove your point. Mathmatics is an excellent way to explain what we observe.  That can't be argued. 

The whole intent of this post is to understand why is math is so uncommon in FET. Is it because of the lack or data?  The lack of research? Is it because there is no particular desire to find an answer?  I haven't seen any explaination why math isn't more prevalent in FET. Math is absolutely critical in all other fields of study.  Why is so conspicuously missing in FET?   

And we now see why flat earthers don't often present mathematics to roundies:

Wow a Meme. How original. So I assume your post means math isn't prevalent in FE is because RE people can't grasp the mathematics involved?  I'm just a wee bit skeptical of the premise.     

Wow a Meme. How original. So I assume your post means math isn't prevalent in FE is because RE people can't grasp the mathematics involved?  I'm just a wee bit skeptical of the premise.     

You failed to understand Gauss' law yourself.

Quote from: suseuser on December 14, 2017, 10:44:55 AM

Wow a Meme. How original. So I assume your post means math isn't prevalent in FE is because RE people can't grasp the mathematics involved?  I'm just a wee bit skeptical of the premise.     

You failed to understand Gauss' law yourself.

You have to explain which of Gauss' laws you think I don't understand.  And apparently you forgot to add the "s" to law.  It is Gauss' laws. Not law.  He almost exclusively studied the effects of Electromagnetism. If you are referring to gravity that is sort of a moot point. You are not going to get a whole lot of support from the FE community if you support gravity in a FE scenario.  You might as well try to use satellites to prove the Earth is flat.  That's a discussion I would love to see! 
I'll shoot you an article specifically using one of Gauss's laws in a FE scenario.
  http://www.academia.edu/11774821/An_exercise_on_Gauss_law_for_gravitation_The_Flat_Earth_model

All I can see is a way to derail the subject of math and the FET. I'm not going to turn this into a argument over the proof of one law.  Gauss' law of gravitation does not prove a FE period.
And how can you think someone is every going to take you serious if you post a meme as part of a response to any post?   

What do you mean, he won't get support from the FE community? There are a few FE models that have gravity.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 07:20:49 PM

Quote from: Jane on December 13, 2017, 06:20:39 PM

The only facts are what we see.

What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen?

I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said.

Perhaps you should pay attention to what has been said.
I have removed all bar the key points.
You claimed facts are what we see, but now for your defence of breathing oxygen, you don't appeal to what we see.

Would you like to restate your position?

Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.

FE BS has had a lot longer than RET.
Yet it is still crap, completely incapable of explaining reality.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

That seems to be all you ever do.

Gravity is simply a word we use to hide our ignorance. Do I deny that objects fall at a certain rate, which can be described roughly with a formula? Of course not. We all know things fall.

Sure, just like electrostatic interactions is a word we use to hide our ignorance, and so on with the other forces.
Gravity isn't just things falling, it is masses attracting other masses (and even changing the path of light).

What do you mean, he won't get support from the FE community? There are a few FE models that have gravity.

That's actually good to know.  I don't see a lot of posts that include gravity as part of the FE model. I guess I was being a little narrow minded.  I still stand by my observation that most FET excludes gravity. I admire critical thinking.   

If you are going to respond to something make sure to include at least a couple facts in your post. What we see CAN be denied.  We use math to explain what we see/observe. You "know" you breath oxygen because of "theory?" I'm sure glad I don't breathe "theoretical" oxygen. I breathe in the real thing. No one is going to take you seriously if you use words like, "pretty much exactly, how we explain that is up for grabs, once apon a time, silly, maybe, and maybe not. Those are words that are argumentative.

No, they're words. I use a few hedging terms in an apparently vain attempt to stop the more bloody-minded users who'd throw a fit at anything else.
Yep, you breathe in real oxygen, but I would love to hear you define both oxygen and respiration without appealing to theory. And, fun fact, it is incredibly easy to explain and justify respiration without needing to appeal to maths, undercutting your point.

I haven't seen any explaination why math isn't more prevalent in FET.

Give that there have been several over the course of this thread, that seems to be entirely reflective of you rather than FET. You've had people actually provide maths, and had it explained how the mathematics used in a scientific context is not exactly easy to create, especially with what FEers have to work with. Like I said before:
"Pick something you want the maths for under FET, and then try to figure out how that maths would actually get derived."
If you can't even come up with a method for how what you want could be found, then it's a silly thing to ask for.

That’s the beauty of math. It can’t produce illogical results.

Logical and consistent with reality are 2 fundamentally different things.
Math, like logic, is only as good as the premises.
If you start with garbage you often get garbage.

Also, I would say math can produce illogical results.
Consider the series:
S1=1+2+3+4+...
What does this add up to?
According to some math, it is -1/12.
Does that seem logical?
You have a sum of positive numbers, equally a tiny negative number.

What about sets?
If you have 2 sets, with a 1:1 mapping, they are the same size.
If you have 2 sets with a 1:2 mapping, the second set (the one with the 2) is twice as large.

Consider the set of integers greater than 0 (P), and the set of integers excluding 0 (I).
There exists a quite simple 1:2 mapping between them
For every element in set P (p), there exists 2 elements in set I (i1 and i2):
i1=p
i2=-p.
That means I must be twice as large as P.

But there exists a 1:1 mapping as well:
i=(-1)^p*(p+0.5-0.5*(-1)^p)/2
So they are the same size.

So you have 2 sets, which are the same size, yet one is twice as large as the other.
That sure doesn't seem logical.

I think that is part of the weakness of FE. It has so many unknown factors that it is impossible to prove. Or even substantiate.

No, the big issue is that the evidence goes against it.

Again, some nice simple math exists, for example, calculating the height of the sun using the angle of elevation of the sun at the equinox from the equator and 5000 km north or south of the equator result in the sun being 5000 km above Earth.

And apparently you forgot to add the "s" to law.  It is Gauss' laws. Not law.

Nope. There is one known as Guass' law.
The net electric flux through any hypothetical closed surface is equal to 1/ε times the net electric charge within that closed surface

He almost exclusively studied the effects of Electromagnetism. If you are referring to gravity that is sort of a moot point.

There are then extensions of this law to other fields, including gravity.

I'll shoot you an article specifically using one of Gauss's laws in a FE scenario.
http://www.academia.edu/11774821/An_exercise_on_Gauss_law_for_gravitation_The_Flat_Earth_model

Which is quite similar to what JD already linked.

All I can see is a way to derail the subject of math and the FET. I'm not going to turn this into a argument over the proof of one law.  Gauss' law of gravitation does not prove a FE period.

So?
When was that ever the challenge?

Notice it what it was:

If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Gauss' law for gravity on a FE is a math fact regarding FE.

No, they're words. I use a few hedging terms in an apparently vain attempt to stop the more bloody-minded users who'd throw a fit at anything else.

You mean that would object to you lying and claiming that FE works and has evidence to back it up, which you are yet to substantiate?

Gravity is simply a word we use to hide our ignorance.

But can you deny that masses appear to attract each other

But we also say that electric charges attract with a force described by virtually the same relationship.
Are you also going to claim that "electrostatic forces are simply words we use to hide our ignorance."

Do you know the ultimate cause of electrostatic forces any more than you know the ultimate cause of gravitation?
Yes, electrostatic forces can be said to be due to the exchange of "virtual photons", but is that the ultimate cause?
Why not then claim that gravitational forces can be said to be due to the exchange of "virtual gravitons"?

Photons have sufficient energy that they can be detected individually.
Even if gravitons do play a similar role in gravitational forces their energy would be so small that they probably could never be detected individually.

Electrostatic forces have been observed for millennia and measured quite accurately hundreds of years ago.
In the same way, gravitational forces have been observed for millennia and measured quite accurately hundreds of years ago.

Why do you accept the reality of electrostatic forces and reject gravitational forces?

Do I deny that objects fall at a certain rate, which can be described roughly with a formula?

You say, "can be described roughly with a formula". Please tell us just how roughly?
Would it be within ±10%, ±1%, ±0.1% or maybe even within ±0.0000001%?

Of course not. We all know things fall.

So, do you have a better explanation?
Apart from air resistance (which is calculable),
     things fall at exactly the same rate in air as in a vacuum - so it's not due to density or buoyancy.

So things fall, I claim that it is due to gravitation, what is your explanation?

And please, not any of the usual flat earthers usual, it might be this, it might be that or it might be something else.

Quote from: suseuser on December 14, 2017, 10:21:01 AM

If you are going to respond to something make sure to include at least a couple facts in your post. What we see CAN be denied.  We use math to explain what we see/observe. You "know" you breath oxygen because of "theory?" I'm sure glad I don't breathe "theoretical" oxygen. I breathe in the real thing. No one is going to take you seriously if you use words like, "pretty much exactly, how we explain that is up for grabs, once apon a time, silly, maybe, and maybe not. Those are words that are argumentative.

No, they're words. I use a few hedging terms in an apparently vain attempt to stop the more bloody-minded users who'd throw a fit at anything else.
Yep, you breathe in real oxygen, but I would love to hear you define both oxygen and respiration without appealing to theory. And, fun fact, it is incredibly easy to explain and justify respiration without needing to appeal to maths, undercutting your point.

Quote

I haven't seen any explaination why math isn't more prevalent in FET.

Give that there have been several over the course of this thread, that seems to be entirely reflective of you rather than FET. You've had people actually provide maths, and had it explained how the mathematics used in a scientific context is not exactly easy to create, especially with what FEers have to work with. Like I said before:
"Pick something you want the maths for under FET, and then try to figure out how that maths would actually get derived."
If you can't even come up with a method for how what you want could be found, then it's a silly thing to ask for.

Your totally correct, the grey matter all flat earther have to work with is obviously substandard. Case in point look at the irrational claims they make, bioluminescencent moon! Dangerous moonlight! Now that’s hard to beat and no mathematics even required.