Modern flat earth theory is a psyop.

HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :

While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!

HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :

While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!

The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.

Quote from: cikljamas on February 08, 2018, 06:51:11 AM

HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :

While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!

The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.

You have no idea what you are talking about :

The earth is spherically shaped and stationary.
1. A SET OF ROUND-EARTH ARGUMENTS :
A) Southern circumpolar stars
B) Time zones
C) Path of the sun during southern summer (which is inconsistent with flat-earth paradigm)
D) Antarctic midnight sun phenomena (which is real)
E) The sun follows perfectly straight line above the equator during equinoxes
F) Scott and Amundsen used astronavigation to determine the exact location of the south pole
G)  During the full moon the sun and the moon are always in opposition, and that is the fact -- This proof is very simple and irrefutable, unless someone is able to prove that there are two suns in the sky...While the sun sets SOUTH of Lemaire channel (that is to say SOUTH of Cape Horn), the same sun in the same time is visible almost directly NORTH of South West Australia and almost directly SOUTH of this area : Japan/Korea/China... So it is NOON in Japan and Australia and THE MIDNIGHT SUN is visible for the observer in Lemaire channel which is directly SOUTH of Cape Horn...So, an observer who is positioned in Lemaire channel is able to see the setting sun by looking straight to the south, and that same sun is visible for the observers in Korea and China who are looking also towards south, and that same sun is visible for the observer in Australia who is looking towards North!!! Do you see why is this impossible to happen on the flat earth??? On a flat earth the full moon would be between an observer in Lemaire channel and the setting sun, which means that an observer in Lemarie channel would have to watch towards NORTH in order to see the sun which would be at the double distance than the full moon, however observer is seeing the full moon by looking to the NORTH, and the setting MIDNIGHT sun is visible in the SOUTH direction!!!  There is simply no way around this - (ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : "Eric Dumbay's 201st proof-make it viral or stay dumb" :)
H) If the earth were flat, the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE  EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to deal with is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so???
I) The earth can't be way bigger spherical object since from the North Pole to the equator is 10 000 km, however if the earth were flat then the distance from the North Pole to the equator would be 6369 km. - There  are  90  degrees  of  distance  from  the equator  to  the  North  Pole.  Each  degree  has  60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = 10 000 km. Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
J) And lastly, but not least (the question which i am bringing forward to my former flat-earth mates - IN VAIN) : Tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think?
K) A challenge to all flat-earthers (brought forward before them many times in last few months - NO ANSWER FROM THEM WHATSOEVER (SO FAR) - IT FIGURES!!!) : PROVE ME WRONG AND I AM GOING TO SHUT DOWN MY CHANNEL RIGHT AWAY!!!
CONCLUSION : The earth is 100 % stationary, but the earth isn't flat!

2. HAVE YOU WATCHED THESE VIDEOS (MUST SEE) :
ERIC DUMBAY's 201st PROOF-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 202nd proof-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 203rd proof-make it viral or stay dumb - part 1 :

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on February 08, 2018, 06:51:11 AM

HEY PUNK, MAKE MY DAY, PROVE ME WRONG :

While watching this video you will understand what is the purpose of FLAT EARTH movement (psyop designed and activated by those who want to discredit geocentrism))!

The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.

You have no idea what you are talking about :

The earth is spherically shaped and stationary.
1. A SET OF ROUND-EARTH ARGUMENTS :
A) Southern circumpolar stars
B) Time zones
C) Path of the sun during southern summer (which is inconsistent with flat-earth paradigm)
D) Antarctic midnight sun phenomena (which is real)
E) The sun follows perfectly straight line above the equator during equinoxes
F) Scott and Amundsen used astronavigation to determine the exact location of the south pole
G)  During the full moon the sun and the moon are always in opposition, and that is the fact -- This proof is very simple and irrefutable, unless someone is able to prove that there are two suns in the sky...While the sun sets SOUTH of Lemaire channel (that is to say SOUTH of Cape Horn), the same sun in the same time is visible almost directly NORTH of South West Australia and almost directly SOUTH of this area : Japan/Korea/China... So it is NOON in Japan and Australia and THE MIDNIGHT SUN is visible for the observer in Lemaire channel which is directly SOUTH of Cape Horn...So, an observer who is positioned in Lemaire channel is able to see the setting sun by looking straight to the south, and that same sun is visible for the observers in Korea and China who are looking also towards south, and that same sun is visible for the observer in Australia who is looking towards North!!! Do you see why is this impossible to happen on the flat earth??? On a flat earth the full moon would be between an observer in Lemaire channel and the setting sun, which means that an observer in Lemarie channel would have to watch towards NORTH in order to see the sun which would be at the double distance than the full moon, however observer is seeing the full moon by looking to the NORTH, and the setting MIDNIGHT sun is visible in the SOUTH direction!!!  There is simply no way around this - (ACCOMPANYING VIDEO : "Eric Dumbay's 201st proof-make it viral or stay dumb" :)
H) If the earth were flat, the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE  EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to deal with is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so???
I) The earth can't be way bigger spherical object since from the North Pole to the equator is 10 000 km, however if the earth were flat then the distance from the North Pole to the equator would be 6369 km. - There  are  90  degrees  of  distance  from  the equator  to  the  North  Pole.  Each  degree  has  60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = 10 000 km. Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
J) And lastly, but not least (the question which i am bringing forward to my former flat-earth mates - IN VAIN) : Tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think?
K) A challenge to all flat-earthers (brought forward before them many times in last few months - NO ANSWER FROM THEM WHATSOEVER (SO FAR) - IT FIGURES!!!) : PROVE ME WRONG AND I AM GOING TO SHUT DOWN MY CHANNEL RIGHT AWAY!!!
CONCLUSION : The earth is 100 % stationary, but the earth isn't flat!

2. HAVE YOU WATCHED THESE VIDEOS (MUST SEE) :
ERIC DUMBAY's 201st PROOF-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 202nd proof-make it viral or stay dumb :
ERIC DUMBAY's 203rd proof-make it viral or stay dumb - part 1 :

None of these debunk flat Earth either.

It's always fun watching flat earthers and geocentrists argue about who is wrong.

(Hint: It's both of you.)

P.S. - @Tessa - Cardboard can be red.  Planes can't be spheres. 

P.S. - @Tessa - Cardboard can be red.  Planes can't be spheres.

I've never seen intrinsically red cardboard before. I have seen extrinsically curved planes though.

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 06:16:25 AM

What shape do you suggest for the earth?

Flat.

A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.

Next guess, please (hint: try 'globe' or 'sphere')

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:17:27 AM

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 06:16:25 AM

What shape do you suggest for the earth?

Flat.

A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.

No, it doesn't.

I'm not 'guessing', I have evidence, same as you. Evidence that I've outlined in my Earth Romanticism thread.

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 08:43:45 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:17:27 AM

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 06:16:25 AM

What shape do you suggest for the earth?

Flat.

A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.

No, it doesn't.

Wrong.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 08:50:01 AM

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 08:43:45 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:17:27 AM

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 06:16:25 AM

What shape do you suggest for the earth?

Flat.

A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.

No, it doesn't.

Wrong.

Evidence, please.

I'll provide counter evidence:

Curvature within the universe is meaningless if the universe itself is information encoded on a 2D surface, a branch of string theory I mentioned in my Earth Romanticism thread. There are many other examples I could provide along similar lines, all current scientific theories or ideas being explored. So I can have my cake and eat it too.

Now please provide your evidence to support your assertion.

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 08:51:55 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 08:50:01 AM

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 08:43:45 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 06:17:27 AM

Quote from: User324 on February 08, 2018, 06:16:25 AM

What shape do you suggest for the earth?

Flat.

A curvature doesn't prove a sphere.
But a curvature does disprove a flat object.

No, it doesn't.

Wrong.

Evidence, please.

I'll provide counter evidence:

Curvature within the universe is meaningless if the universe itself is information encoded on a 2D surface, a branch of string theory I mentioned in my Earth Romanticism thread. There are many other examples I could provide along similar lines, all current scientific theories or ideas being explored. So I can have my cake and eat it too.

Now please provide your evidence to support your assertion.

Yeah and we probably all live in an alien simulation.
Get real, kiddo.

Also, you should probably talk to an actual physicist. He might want to explain you how you're wrong.

Yeah and we probably all live in an alien simulation.
Get real, kiddo.

Have you read my Earth Romanticism thread? Yes, we are probably in a simulation.

Also, you should probably talk to an actual physicist. He might want to explain you how you're wrong.

Please, explain how string theory is wrong.

Also, I notice you haven't provided evidence for your claim.

Have you read my Earth Romanticism thread? Yes, we are probably in a simulation.

Lol, pathetic. I haven't and I'm not going to read your gibberish.

Please, explain how string theory is wrong.

Stringtheory isn't even a theory, it's a combination of some hypothesis. It's basically phantasy. Also it doesn't make the earth flat. You're confusing magnitudes.

As I said, go talk to a physicist, he might explain you things.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 09:09:22 AM

Have you read my Earth Romanticism thread? Yes, we are probably in a simulation.

Lol, pathetic. I haven't and I'm not going to read your gibberish.

Then you'll have to accept me ignoring some of your points as I've dealt with them there.

Stringtheory isn't even a theory

What's in a name, anyway?

As I said, go talk to a physicist, he might explain you things.

A physicist will tell me string theory is a theory, a physicist will tell me the possible resolutions of the information paradox, a physicist will concur that we don't know enough about the universe to conclusively state that we aren't information encoded on a 2D surface. Because a phycisist developed and explored all these things.

For the second time, I notice you haven't provided any evidence for any of your assertions.

[...] will concur that we don't know enough about the universe to conclusively state that we aren't

It doesn't even matter. If everything was encoded in 2d (or 1d or 0d or whatever) the earth ist still 'coded' as a globe, and not a flat plane. You know, with 0 and 1 in a simulation you can create a simulated 3d object. So even if you think we're in a simulation or everything is encoded in 2d, from our point of view, within this simulation, the earth is a globe, and not flat. And there is no way to definitely conclude whether everything might be encoded in some other dimension; so best we can do is use our point of view. In which the earth is a globe, and definitely not flat.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 09:28:18 AM

[...] will concur that we don't know enough about the universe to conclusively state that we aren't

It doesn't even matter. If everything was encoded in 2d (or 1d or 0d or whatever) the earth ist still 'coded' as a globe, and not a flat plane. You know, with 0 and 1 in a simulation you can create a simulated 3d object. So even if you think we're in a simulation or everything is encoded in 2d, from our point of view, within this simulation, the earth is a globe, and not flat. And there is no way to definitely conclude whether everything might be encoded in some other dimension; so best we can do is use our point of view. In which the earth is a globe, and definitely not flat.

Again, I explain in Earth Romanticism why my method for determining how to describe the Earth is different to the one scientists should (for the most part, anyway, as some will be studying these fields) use. Put simply, I want to honour the wonder of science by embracing its weirdness, so when presented with a choice of belief which is equally supported (i.e. neither choice disproved and both explored in science), and which will not affect how I live my life, I choose to believe the weirder option.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 07, 2018, 11:23:22 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 07, 2018, 11:06:04 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 07, 2018, 10:56:15 PM

Just because the Earth shares some properties with a round Earth doesn't mean it is one.

But as you needed to appeal to the specific properties which mean it is round, it does.

You didn't appeal to it having water, or it having land or anything like that.
You appealed to it being spherical.

That means it is not flat.

So if I say a cardboard cutout of an apple is red just like an apple, since I'm appealing to the specific properties of an apple, my cardboard cutout is magically an apple?

I appealed to it behaving in some ways like it is spherical.

You realize the color red is not an inherent, exclusive property of apples right?  The correct analogy would be more like the cardboard cutout having the taste and texture of an apple.  You don't happen to have a cardboard cutout of an apple that tastes and feels like an apple do you? 

Claiming the Earth is flat, but has the properties of a sphere when necessary is basically like handing someone an apple and telling them it is actually cardboard, but has all the taste, feel, and nutrition of an apple, and is physically indistinguishable from an actual apple.  In other words, it's an apple and you're engaging in a pointless metaphysical exercise that doesn't have any bearing on reality.

From the point of view of a photon the earth is very flat. In fact, it would have no depth. The start and finish lines from any point to point in the universe would be on top of each other. So yes, the Earth can be flat whilst having the properties of a globe. It depends on your perspective

Also, there are theories that we could be a 3D projection from a 2D universe.

Also if we are in a simulation, is our source any shape at all?

At least Tessa Yuri thinks outside the box. You seem content to be caged in your dim world view

Nor is curvature an exclusive property of spheres.

That's right. But spheres have a particular curvature which is what matches Earth (technically it is slightly off, but it is a good approximation).
Regardless, the simple fact is that curvature is the key property which distinguishes a spherical (or round) Earth from a flat one.
If you weren't appealing to the curvature of a sphere, what property where you appealing to?

Unless the scientific evidence suggests it could be an apple, but equally it could be cardboard, in which case I'd choose to believe it was cardboard because handing someone a cardboard apple to eat is hilarious.

Good thing it doesn't, just like the scientific evidence doesn't suggest it could be flat or round.

Just like how the colour red is an exclusive property of apples when the set of possibilities is reduced to apples and cardboard apples, like say in an argument about whether I'm eating an apple or a cardboard apple.

No it's not.
Cardboard apples can be red. Real apples can be red.
As such, that is not an exclude property of either.
Instead the exclusive property is that the apple is fruit with flesh and seeds, while the cardboard is primarily cellulose.

The stars argument doesn't debunk flat Earth either.
Also, geocentrism discredits itself. It doesn't need any help from us.

The existence of 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart, does refute a FE.
Your non-flat flat Earth requires Earth to be geocentric as moving from that location in space would result in Earth being distorted.

I've never seen intrinsically red cardboard before. I have seen extrinsically curved planes though.

So?
Cardboard can be red, it can be almost any colour.
Unlike a plane, which can't be curved.
If you think you have seen extrinsically curved planes, feel free to provide evidence of one.

Curvature within the universe is meaningless if the universe itself is information encoded on a 2D surface,

That is a nice baseless claim of yours.
Got anything to back it up?
Why would information being encoded (using multiple dimensions) on a 2D surface magically make curvature meaningless?

A physicist will tell me string theory is a theory

No. A mathematician will.
This is because string theory is a mathematical theory, not a scientific one.
There have been no tests performed to distinguish it from the null hypothesis. As such, it is not a scientific theory.

You also seem to seriously misunderstand string theory.
It doesn't say the universe is 2D.
It says it has many dimensions.

Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?

On the common (and still incorrect) FE model, the equator would be the path the sun takes on the equinox, when the sun rises due east and sets due west and we have roughly equal periods of day and night.

CONCLUSION : The earth is 100 % stationary, but the earth isn't flat!

No. The only conclusion from that is Earth isn't flat.
There is no indication of Earth being stationary or moving in that.

Quote from: disputeone on February 07, 2018, 07:42:43 PM

Flat Earth Conspiracy DEBUNKED – Scam to Distract from the True conspiracy theories. You can test this yourself, without having to go to outer space. This theory is a distraction from the most serious and consequential issues on planet earth today. The earth is not flat.

The 'disappearing from the bottom up' is one of the oldest rebuttals against FE and has been disproven many times in many ways.

No, it hasn't!

This doesn't debunk FE.

Incorrect. And they even thought that the earth was a Globe back in about 1265.

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.

FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.

SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.

Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.

From: THE SPHERE OF SACROBOSCO, by Iohannes de Sacrobosco.

I can believe in FE and in other conspiracies. My capacity for conspiracy isn't even filled at all by FE, since I don't believe it is a conspiracy.

No, it's not a conspiracy, just incorrect, with the modern flat earth theory "invented" by Samuel Birely Rowbotham.
But he presented a totally incorrect model for the movement of the sun, moon, planets and stars, with them circling nearby above the earth.

Again, even Iohannes de Sacrobosco has good reasons for knowing that a "celestial plane" close to the earth went against what we see.

REVOLUTION OF THE HEAVENS FROM EAST TO WEST. -- That the sky revolves from east to west is signified by the fact that the stars, which rise in the east, mount gradually and successively until they reach mid-sky and are always at the same distance apart, and, thus maintaining their relative positions. they move toward their setting continuously and uniformly. Another indication is that the stars near the North Pole, which never set for us, move continuously and uniformly, describing their circles about the pole, and are always equally near or far from one another. Therefore, from those two continuous movements of the stars, both those that set and those which do not, it is clear that the firmament is moved from east to west.

THE HEAVENS SPHERICAL. -- There are three reasons why the sky is round: likeness, convenience, and necessity. Likeness, because the sensible world is made in the likeness of the archetype, in which there is neither end nor beginning; wherefore, in likeness to it the sensible world has a round shape, in which beginning or end cannot be distinguished. Convenience, because of all isoperimetric bodies the sphere is the largest and of all shapes the round is most capacious. Since largest and round, therefore the most capacious. Wherefore, since the world is all-containing, this shape was useful and convenient for it. Necessity, because if the world were of other form than round -- say, trilateral, quadrilateral, or many-sided -- it would follow that some space would be vacant and some body without a place, both of which are false, as is clear in the case of angles projecting and revolved.

A FURTHER PROOF. -- Also, as Alfraganus says, if the sky were flat, one part of it would be nearer to us than another, namely, that which is directly overhead. So when a star was there, it would be closer to us than when rising or setting. But those things which are closer to us seem larger. So the sun when in mid-sky should look larger than when rising or setting, whereas the opposite is the case; for the sun or another star looks bigger in the east or west than in mid-sky. But, since this is not really so, the reason for its seeming so is that in winter and the rainy season vapors rise between us and the sun or other star. And, since those vapors are diaphanous, they scatter our visual rays so that they do not apprehend the object in its true size, just as is the case with a penny dropped into a depth of limpid water, which appears larger than it actually is because of a like diffusion of rays.

Yes, I know that they believed in a Geocentric Universe back there.
They still, however, insisted that the celestial bodies were so far away that their sizes and spacing did not change as they appeared to move.

You also seem to seriously misunderstand string theory.
It doesn't say the universe is 2D.
It says it has many dimensions.

The holographic principle explains what I mean fairly well.

information encoded on a 2D surface

---

Quote from: Tessa Yuri

This doesn't debunk FE.

Incorrect. And they even thought that the earth was a Globe back in about 1265.

Actually, even the Greeks suspected the Earth was round, given its properties.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri

I can believe in FE and in other conspiracies. My capacity for conspiracy isn't even filled at all by FE, since I don't believe it is a conspiracy.

No, it's not a conspiracy, just incorrect, with the modern flat earth theory "invented" by Samuel Birely Rowbotham.
But he presented a totally incorrect model for the movement of the sun, moon, planets and stars, with them circling nearby above the earth.

Yeah. I know this is controversial for a FEer to say, but Rowbotham was wrong.

From the point of view of a photon the earth is very flat. In fact, it would have no depth. The start and finish lines from any point to point in the universe would be on top of each other.

Does a photon have a "point of view"?
But if it did, that photon might find great difficulty travelling from the North Pole to the South Pole!
It would find over 12,713 km of water, rock, magma, metals and ice in the way.

But a neutrino would have a very high probability of getting there.

So yes, the Earth can be flat whilst having the properties of a globe.

And how do you work that out?
Maybe you could try that magical day-dream of John Davis, the Ferrari Effect and he even blames the Globularists, Einstein and Leo Ferrari for it!

It depends on your perspective.

I think that you need some really funny glasses to see things in that perspective. I don't think just rose-tinted would be enough. Here, this might help: JOURNEY INTO GEOMETRIES

Still, in these Trumpian Days it's a case of everyone can have their own alternate facts and you seem to dream up plenty.

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'.

The holographic principle explains what I mean fairly well.

No it doesn't.
In no way does it indicate Earth is flat.
It is saying the 3D universe can be represented on a 2D surface.
There is no indication that this surface is flat.

As such, it is irrelevant.

There is no indication that this surface is flat.

There is no indication it isn't.

The 'surface' is most often thought of as the boundary to the universe (it may not be, but it could be). How can you say that the boundary at the point where Earth is rendered is curved? You can't.

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.

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.

There is no indication it isn't.

Sure there is. This boundary is in every direction.
i.e. it curves around us.

There is no indication at all that it is flat, hence calling it flat is extremely dishonest.
Regardless, that would be the surface not Earth.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:28:05 PM

There is no indication it isn't.

Sure there is. This boundary is in every direction.
i.e. it curves around us.

If we're on its surface, how is it "around us"?

Also, I specifically asked:

How can you say that the boundary at the point where Earth is rendered is curved? You can't.

Please answer this very simple question.

If we're on its surface, how is it "around us"?

There you go failing to understand yet again.
We are not on its surface.
The information of us is encoded on its surface.

Also, I specifically asked:

I don't really give a damn as it is still completely irrelevant and you still don't seem to understand it at all.
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.
As such, your question makes no sense.