Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

There are millions of facts that can never be argued.  We all breath oxygen.  If you are posting here you are using electricity. Math is an awesome source of facts.  That is why it is called the language of science.  There are 360 degrees in a circle.  A triangle is a polygon having three sides. Mathematical facts are irrefutable.  That is one glaring deficiency among FET. You rarely see mathematics used to prove a hypothesis.  I am not using the word "never". But it is exceedingly uncommon.  RE is overflowing with mathematical proofs. I know math may seem complicated and boring for a lot of people.  The nice thing is that math facts can not be refuted so it makes it a very efficient way to put an end to the discussion of a topic.  If you want to argue a fact, it is a waste of time and you are absolutely wrong.

Edit: I realize I missed the word "is" in the subject line.  But apparently I can't change it. Sorry.         

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 ~

That is because the math disagrees with FE.
By trying to keep it as vague as posisble they can pretend it matches reality.
When you start doing the numbers you realise it is crap.

A common one is the claim that you would be thrown off Earth if it was spinning, yet doing the math you find that the force is basically nothing for us standing on Earth.

The only time they seem to do math is with Eratosthenes's measurements (technically ones similar to it, not exactly the same) to try and show the sun is 5000 km above Earth, and when trying to claim that curvature is missing, which they typically do completely wrong.

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 ~

Pure BS.
FE has been around long before RE.
FE was simply assumed by people.
But then observations were made which showed that FE was wrong.
Thousands of years ago, your description of FE matches that of RE.
RE was something emerging, starting then, which little by little destroyed FE nonsense.

While the number of people that believe in FE may be growing, they don't believe in the same model, and they don't have a model that matches reality.
A bunch of fools believing it won't magically make it true.
All the evidence still points to a RE.

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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 ~

Pure BS.
FE has been around long before RE.
FE was simply assumed by people.
But then observations were made which showed that FE was wrong.
Thousands of years ago, your description of FE matches that of RE.
RE was something emerging, starting then, which little by little destroyed FE nonsense.

While the number of people that believe in FE may be growing, they don't believe in the same model, and they don't have a model that matches reality.
A bunch of fools believing it won't magically make it true.
All the evidence still points to a RE.

Actually the idea that people believed in a flat earth during the middle ages is bogus. Our belief system originated in the 1800s and differs from purely believing it flat as many vertical and horizontal cosmologies suggest in religions and worldviews. It also differs from some of the ancient belief systems that also held the earth to be flat.

Actually the idea that people believed in a flat earth during the middle ages is bogus.

Did you notice how I said thousands of years ago?
Last time I checked that wouldn't match the middle ages.

Our belief system

Well I'm glad you admit it is a belief system, rather than anything scientific.

It also differs from some of the ancient belief systems that also held the earth to be flat.

Yes, as these ancient belief systems often more closely resemble that of a round Earth.
For example, getting the current RE model, fixing Earth and having all motion be relative to it, with the stars as points on a celestial sphere that rotated around Earth. Then just remove the vast majority of Earth so you are left with a thin slice and flatten it.
That works fairly well.
But it would mean most of Earth doesn't exist, and results in your model matching reality less.

One simple example of the massive difference between the models is sunrise and sunset.
The ancients had a nice simple answer:
The sun went below Earth, so Earth got in the way and you couldn't see it.
Compared to reality (RE) this works quite well, but as it goes below Earth that means you can't see it while people elsewhere still can.
But for the new FE, they need all sorts of nonsense to make it work.
They can't have the sun go below Earth as it is always above some point on Earth.
But keeping it above Earth would mean everyone can always see it and it never sets.
So they need to invert all sorts of nonsense like magic bendy light or a magic spotlight sun.

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 02:03:33 PM

Our belief system

Well I'm glad you admit it is a belief system, rather than anything scientific.

Scientific consensus is a belief system. Otherwise, you'll need to find a replacement for falsification and empiricism.

Scientific consensus is a belief system. Otherwise, you'll need to find a replacement for falsification and empiricism.

Yes, science can be considered a belief system. The individual components of it are not.
So if you have a separate belief system, that means it isn't science.

Also when they actually use a formula to calculate something, they rarely use more data than it's degrees of freedom. Like when they calculate the height of the sun, they only use it's angle at two locations instead of three, otherwise they would get an error.

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 02:00:15 PM

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

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.

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 02:00:15 PM

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

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.

Of course I read it. I wrote it.

Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity

Shall I count you now amongst the believers?

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 03:34:19 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 02:00:15 PM

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

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.

Of course I read it. I wrote it.

Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity

Shall I count you now amongst the believers?

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.

Again you provide a nonsensical link to a subject that has no relationship to a flat plane. The information on the page references the gravitational flux through any closed surface is proportional to the enclosed mass. A globe is even shown as an example of a compact closed surface!  An infinite flat plane is not a compact closed surface. Do you even believe in gravity? Most FE believers don’t. Are you just posting random links?  Nothing you have linked are particularly complicated concepts. I’m starting to believe you don’t think I am particularly bright.

"Provide math, and I'll believe in a flat earth"

"I don't understand the math, therefore it is fake, and anything you say to the contrary is 'random'."

@empirical, I'm not convinced that the attempts to calculate stability were well formed. This can be realized by calculating the gravitational forces influencing any one point, which will always be 0 in the ideal case, and less than the minimum for issues in the actual case. What do you think will happen if it is unstable Empirical, assuming the calculations are correct? Would it not collapse to its center of gravity (it has none), and take an infinite amount of time doing so?

Also, it is not necessary for it to be completely uniform, just uniform enough.

The disk could be made unstable by having a large mass on top of it, maybe it would have to be ridiculously large, I'll do some calculations tomorrow.
The earth surrounding the large mass would be pulled towards it, making the higher concentration of mass at this part of the disk larger, which will cause feedback making the pull larger until it is strong enough to pull apart the rocket. Then you get a collapse for the rest of eternity into a lump.
The initial mass just needs to be large enough to warp the surrounding rocket enough to cause feedback.
I'm not familiar with the exact deformation of rock under forces, so I'll need to do a bit of researcher to work this out.

Maths doesn't just sprout fully formed into being. All you can derive there is pure maths, which is fun but of limited use if you want to model the world. There are no mathematical proofs of RET, mathematical proofs are a specific thing which apply to the realm of numbers only.
What I expect you're talking about is mathematical formulae used in RET to make predictions or gain data. Those aren't mathematical proofs, just either evidence or deduction depending on application. Things like Newton's laws weren't proven mathematically, some guy with silly hair observed a few things and realised what factors were involved and drew conclusions. You can make mathematical proofs that draw on them, creating identities becomes pretty easy, but they're not mathematically proven so much as they are scientifically. (And yes, there's a difference, maths gives you 100% certainty so long as axioms hold and your proof-readers aren't missing something, science can get you 99.9999%).

As far as FET goes, there's maths. People just don't discuss it. Davis gave a formula from the infinite plane model (which is one of those FE models that uses gravity), JRowe have a formula for aether, it's pretty easy to derive a formula for denpressure...
But there are two basic kinds of maths in this context. One, the trivial. Two, the obscene.
You don't get much new information with the denpressure formula or infinite plane model, beyond the fact the relevant details could work. if you want, for dome models you can calculate the height of the dome if you want to make specific assumptions (the problem being trying to confirm those assumptions).
The other case is the obscenely hard. JRowe's aether formula I'm still not entirely convinced was meant seriously, but it's about what I'd expect the phenomenon he'd describe to look like. Think four dimensional partial differential equation. The kind of people that can derive brand new physical formulae are the top-tier geniuses of the world. Pick something you want the maths for under FET, and then try to figure out how that maths would actually get derived.

Chances are it's either something you could do easily, or that you wouldn't know where to start. Either there's no point in discussing it, or it's an absurd thing to demand.
Besides, most of the interesting parts of FET are in the mechanisms. Wait until you're happy with the mechanisms as potential explanations before you start pushing for more.

I specifically said, “math fact”. Not some random references to subjects that don’t apply in anyway to FET. That is not exactly helping the cause of FE mathematics. Especially when you are trying to use gravity to prove a FE. There is a very good reason FET and gravity do not compliment each other. You should know this better than anyone.

I specifically said, “math fact”. Not some random references to subjects that don’t apply in anyway to FET. That is not exactly helping the cause of FE mathematics. Especially when you are trying to use gravity to prove a FE. There is a very good reason FET and gravity do not compliment each other. You should know this better than anyone.

Instead of assuming Davis is just saying something irrelevant, try to take on board what he actually said. Gravity and an infinite plane go hand in hand just fine, the normal issue with gravity is that a flat Earth would get pulled into a ball (though FEers have found ways around that), but for an infinite plane there's no centre to pull to. The leftwards and rightwards pull wherever you are would be completely balanced because there is the same infinite amount of Earth in each direction. There are a multitude of FE models that use gravity in some form, I have no idea where you're getting the idea it doesn't apply from.

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 02:00:15 PM

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

So funny . While no one thought that you belong to the "beginner" you got offended.

I wrote "most of them". Got it?

Or do you feel you're really a beginner?

That's what I feel about me. "I am a beginner".

Beginner doesn't really mean they never learnt physics at schools before.
However, after graduation they are not into science stuff due to its boring nature. (Fake science is always boring).

Flat earth phenomenon has attracted so many beginners to become more intense getting in touch with science. I meant: real science.

"REAL Science Ain't Boring At All. It's MIND BLOWING, even ENTERTAINING n FULL OF JOY"

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

I have no idea who initiated Universal Acceleration. Anyone knows?

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?

Maths doesn't just sprout fully formed into being. All you can derive there is pure maths, which is fun but of limited use if you want to model the world. There are no mathematical proofs of RET, mathematical proofs are a specific thing which apply to the realm of numbers only.
What I expect you're talking about is mathematical formulae used in RET to make predictions or gain data. Those aren't mathematical proofs, just either evidence or deduction depending on application. Things like Newton's laws weren't proven mathematically, some guy with silly hair observed a few things and realised what factors were involved and drew conclusions. You can make mathematical proofs that draw on them, creating identities becomes pretty easy, but they're not mathematically proven so much as they are scientifically. (And yes, there's a difference, maths gives you 100% certainty so long as axioms hold and your proof-readers aren't missing something, science can get you 99.9999%).

As far as FET goes, there's maths. People just don't discuss it. Davis gave a formula from the infinite plane model (which is one of those FE models that uses gravity), JRowe have a formula for aether, it's pretty easy to derive a formula for denpressure...
But there are two basic kinds of maths in this context. One, the trivial. Two, the obscene.
You don't get much new information with the denpressure formula or infinite plane model, beyond the fact the relevant details could work. if you want, for dome models you can calculate the height of the dome if you want to make specific assumptions (the problem being trying to confirm those assumptions).
The other case is the obscenely hard. JRowe's aether formula I'm still not entirely convinced was meant seriously, but it's about what I'd expect the phenomenon he'd describe to look like. Think four dimensional partial differential equation. The kind of people that can derive brand new physical formulae are the top-tier geniuses of the world. Pick something you want the maths for under FET, and then try to figure out how that maths would actually get derived.

Chances are it's either something you could do easily, or that you wouldn't know where to start. Either there's no point in discussing it, or it's an absurd thing to demand.
Besides, most of the interesting parts of FET are in the mechanisms. Wait until you're happy with the mechanisms as potential explanations before you start pushing for more.

Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.”  Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.

Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.”  Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.

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.

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 02:00:15 PM

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

So funny . While no one thought that you belong to the "beginner" you got offended.

I wrote "most of them". Got it?

Or do you feel you're really a beginner?

That's what I feel about me. "I am a beginner".

Beginner doesn't really mean they never learnt physics at schools before.
However, after graduation they are not into science stuff due to its boring nature. (Fake science is always boring).

Flat earth phenomenon has attracted so many beginners to become more intense getting in touch with science. I meant: real science.

"REAL Science Ain't Boring At All. It's MIND BLOWING, even ENTERTAINING n FULL OF JOY"

Quote from: John Davis on December 13, 2017, 02:01:54 PM

Quote from: Danang on December 13, 2017, 12:50:05 PM

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

Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 02:00:15 PM

That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!

Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

So funny . While no one thought that you belong to the "beginner" you got offended.

I wrote "most of them". Got it?

Or do you feel you're really a beginner?

That's what I feel about me. "I am a beginner".

Beginner doesn't really mean they never learnt physics at schools before.
However, after graduation they are not into science stuff due to its boring nature. (Fake science is always boring).

Flat earth phenomenon has attracted so many beginners to become more intense getting in touch with science. I meant: real science.

"REAL Science Ain't Boring At All. It's MIND BLOWING, even ENTERTAINING n FULL OF JOY"

You are right on the money about getting people involved in the sciences. If FET gets people involved in the scientific process it’s awesome. Everyone needs to be a critical thinker.  I guess I didn’t particularly feel offended earlier as much as irritated by the links. It’s the same reason I refuse to open links to YouTube videos. I respect someone’s personal opinion over a video.

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 06:10:34 PM

Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.”  Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.

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.

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.

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

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 06:10:34 PM

Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.”  Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.

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.

Tell me, how was oxygen discovered?

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

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

Quote from: suseuser on December 13, 2017, 06:10:34 PM

Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.”  Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.

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.

Tell me, how was oxygen discovered?

lol, you must be a troll, at this point you are just rejecting all observable and measurable science. Your word over the millions of scientist experts, lol no... Every scientist that ever existed must of been hiding all these lies, your talking about a conspiracy bigger than NASA. You are just plain ignorant, what is your experience/education in any professional science. Let me guess...none.

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.