Modern flat earth theory is a psyop.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 08, 2018, 05:16:40 PM

Quote from: Shifter on February 08, 2018, 03:06:30 PM

The point was if you were travelling at the speed of light, due to time no longer being a thing, literally every point in the universe is on top of each other. You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'.

Sure, time is no longer a thing.

But only massless objects like photons can travel at the speed of light and they certainly do not always "travel one end of the universe to the other".
If a photon strikes a material object it could travel through it but is usually either reflected or simply ceases to exist.
The photon can't "magically" travel unimpeded.

You are missing the point. I use photon as an example because everyone is familiar with them and because they travel at a speed where time is no longer part of the equation. Obviously it is likely there will be obstacles in their way across the universe, but every possible point to point anywhere in the universe the photon from its own 'perspective' takes zero time to get there. For failing to grasp such a simple concept and theory I'm afraid I'll have to add you to my signature too.

You claimed that,
"You could travel one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. There is no curvature to 'go around'." Which is clearly not true.

A photon might only travel a fraction of a millimetre before being anhialated.
That might be the end of its universe,  but that hardly qualifies as "one end of the universe to the other".

Some people seem to have their head so high in the clouds that they are of no earthly use.

But what has all this to do with the shape of a huge physical object like the earth anyway. What about sticking to our reality for a change?

By the way, I'm not here to win or lose at a personal level, I'm a bit past caring about that.
I'm far more concerned with those that look in seeing proper explanations for what they see about them.

So you big-note yourself all you like if it makes you feel more important.

But I'm not quite as "closed minded" as you like to make out.
I'm quite open to more than the four dimensions of spacetime as an explanation of why certain things (like gravitation) happen.
It is also always possibly that there is one or more dimensions that has "access" to all of our "spacetime" simultaneously - maybe it's a spiritual realm?

I am, however, quite confident that we know how these things behave, at least at a local level - and my local level more or less extends to the "nearer" stars.

The holographic principle does not say Earth is a point on the surface.
It says it is a hologram produced by information on the surface, not a point on the surface.

Thank you for providing an actual rebuttal.

Yes, the Earth is a hologram produced by information on the surface (in this theory). So are you saying that since the hologram looks curved, the actual Earth is? So the hologram is the actual Earth? Because I, and most scientists, would say that if you took away the hologram, the information would still go on, indicating that the information is the actual Earth.

Or, to put it another way, if I switch my TV to Starman footage, is the actual rocket on my television? Or is it where the information for that image of a rocket originates?

So are you saying that since the hologram looks curved, the actual Earth is?

The "actual" Earth would be the holographic projection of Earth.

Because I, and most scientists, would say that if you took away the hologram, the information would still go on, indicating that the information is the actual Earth.

I highly doubt most scientists will agree. It completely ignores emergent phenomenon.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying if you build a house out of lego, and then dismantle it, as the lego is still there, that must be the house.
When in reality, it is now just a bunch of lego bricks. If you build it into something else that doesn't make that something else the house.

Or, to put it another way, if I switch my TV to Starman footage, is the actual rocket on my television? Or is it where the information for that image of a rocket originates?

Notice how this doesn't even match?
The rocket is the rocket itself.
The information being projected to your TV is information that is captured as a view of the rocket.
This information is transmitted and used in your TV to produce an image.
The image on your TV is not the rocket.
The information used to make the image is not the rocket.

What you are suggesting is more akin to suggesting the rocket itself is the image of the rocket you see on your TV.

Or, to put it another way, if I switch my TV to Starman footage, is the actual rocket on my television? Or is it where the information for that image of a rocket originates?

I've seen cats and dogs confused about this but never real people.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:03:37 PM

Because I, and most scientists, would say that if you took away the hologram, the information would still go on, indicating that the information is the actual Earth.

I highly doubt most scientists will agree. It completely ignores emergent phenomenon.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying if you build a house out of lego, and then dismantle it, as the lego is still there, that must be the house.

The information encoding the house is no longer directly there. Therefore the house is no longer there. I'm glad we agree that things don't exist if there's no information for them.

Here's a video which pretty concisely explains the holographic principle:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

From the wikipedia article on the holographic principle:
"In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon..."
I agree that 'two-dimensional' doesn't necessarily mean flat, but nor does it necessarily mean curved either, and so romanticism dictates I pick flat. Notice how the people in the video, also romantic sceptics, also describe it as 'flat'.

The information encoding the house is no longer directly there. Therefore the house is no longer there. I'm glad we agree that things don't exist if there's no information for them.

Sure there is. It exists in your mind at the very least, often it can also be found in an instruction manual.
You also seem ignorant of the idea of information in the universe, yet refer to the black hole information paradox.
According to physics, information cannot be destroyed. So how did the information for the house magically cease to exist?
All the information is still there, it is just no longer arranged to form a house.
The information itself is not the house. The way it is arranged is.

The point of this was to show an emergent property.

Here's a video which pretty concisely explains the holographic principle:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The vast majority of the video is just a complete waste of time. You might want to add concise to the list of words you clearly don't understand.

I agree that 'two-dimensional' doesn't necessarily mean flat, but nor does it necessarily mean curved either, and so romanticism dictates I pick flat.

No, being a pathetic troll would dictate that.
It requires ignoring what is meant by various words and because it doesn't specifically say it is flat, you are going to pretend it can be flat.

You know, kind of like if they said 2D information on the surface of a sphere. They didn't say it can't be flat so it can be right? NO!
The cosmological horizon is all around us.

If you bothered watching the video and understanding the holographic principle you would see that it completely surrounds the universe.
The only way to do that is with a round object.

Notice how the people in the video, also romantic sceptics, also describe it as 'flat'.

There is no indication that they are romantics or sceptics.
They erroneously referred to it is flat. What they meant was 2D.
This is quite apparent with their comparison and depiction of it.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:27:23 PM

The information encoding the house is no longer directly there. Therefore the house is no longer there. I'm glad we agree that things don't exist if there's no information for them.

Sure there is. It exists in your mind at the very least, often it can also be found in an instruction manual.
You also seem ignorant of the idea of information in the universe, yet refer to the black hole information paradox.
According to physics, information cannot be destroyed. So how did the information for the house magically cease to exist?
All the information is still there, it is just no longer arranged to form a house.
The information itself is not the house. The way it is arranged is.

The point of this was to show an emergent property.

This is why I used the term "directly", but I apologise, I admit I worded that very poorly and my example was critically flawed. I'll give a better one:

If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)

The vast majority of the video is just a complete waste of time. You might want to add concise to the list of words you clearly don't understand.

I'm sorry you feel science is a waste of your time.

If you bothered watching the video and understanding the holographic principle you would see that it completely surrounds the universe.
The only way to do that is with a round object.

It's impossible to completely surround something with something that isn't round? Guess I'd better stop putting water in my recangular ice tray, since it's just going to all flow out. Is there any reason why the universe can't be cube-shaped?

If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)

None of them are a real building.
You have the projection of a building.
You have a computer model of a building.
You have the information that represents the computer model.

It's impossible to completely surround something with something that isn't round? Guess I'd better stop putting water in my recangular ice tray, since it's just going to all flow out. Is there any reason why the universe can't be cube-shaped?

Fine, perhaps I shouldn't have said round.
It is impossible to completely surround something with something that is flat.
Is that better?
A cube shaped universe still isn't flat.
Each face may be flat, but the surface of the cube as a single entity is not flat.
And from a technically sense, the corners would be round, even if they have infinite curvature.

P.S. You don't need to completely surround water to stop it flowing out.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 10:49:25 PM

If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)

None of them are a real building.

So in the holographic principle, nothing is real? It's all just projections and information in that theory too.

Fine, perhaps I shouldn't have said round.
It is impossible to completely surround something with something that is flat.
Is that better?
A cube shaped universe still isn't flat.
Each face may be flat, but the surface of the cube as a single entity is not flat.

Okay, so my point here is that the area of the surface that the Earth's information is encoded on could be flat (like one side of a cube). It's equally likely as any specific curvature. There's no way to disprove that currently.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2018, 11:11:03 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 10:49:25 PM

If I built a simulation of a LEGO building on my computer (Using LEGO Digital Designer - a very cool program by the way), then I projected an image of that building onto a wall, which is the real building? The one on the wall, or the one held inside my computer? (or more accurately, held as physical information on a chip which the computer interprets as a digital representation)

None of them are a real building.

So in the holographic principle, nothing is real? It's all just projections and information in that theory too.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2018, 11:11:03 PM

Fine, perhaps I shouldn't have said round.
It is impossible to completely surround something with something that is flat.
Is that better?
A cube shaped universe still isn't flat.
Each face may be flat, but the surface of the cube as a single entity is not flat.

Okay, so my point here is that the area of the surface that the Earth's information is encoded on could be flat (like one side of a cube). It's equally likely as any specific curvature. There's no way to disprove that currently.

This is of course your interpretation of a theory that in all honesty and reality you neither understand or actually know little about. This is clearly demonstrated by your previous posts.  Why do you imagine you can apply this particular cosmic theory to a 3D computer model or even the shape of the earth. Rather than just quoting the term, why not demonstrate any real understanding on the subject you may have. In addition do you think or even imagine the moon is flat?....or how about the sun, do you think that too is flat?
In which way do you imagine the information relating to the earth has been encoded? In your own words please.

In your own words please.

It's called bait.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 02:54:31 AM

In your own words please.

It's called bait.

It's called demonstrating knowledge.