Earth Romanticism

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 12:29:21 AM

How about you present some ‘solid evidence’ to support your FE belief.

From the OP:

Quote

That's a pretty big assertion, and if I want any other sceptics to believe me, I'd better have some rock solid evidence.

Belief
In our current limited understanding, science often assumes the Earth is round. But this, in my mind, is the same way we assume Newtonian gravity is correct on the small scale because it is useful and predicts many things, even though relativity explains things better on the large scale. The Earth appearing round on the small scale doesn't prove that it is round, any more than Newtonian gravity working on the small scale doesn't prove that it exists.

I've never had it proved to me that it doesn't work to consider the Earth as a flat surface (using the common definition) in non-Euclidean space, so that is one reason I often present non-Euclidean Earth as a viable model. But that isn't the only way the Earth can be flat. One of the responses to the information paradox presented by black holes is that the information is stored on a 2-dimensional surface. And indeed, there is no scientific disproof of the notion the entire universe is encoded information on a 2-dimensional surface, which is one field of exploration branching off of string theory. If anyone wants to talk about these things further with me, I'm more than happy to do so in separate threads.

Thinking and then saying something does not constitute proof. If you however imagine that to think is to prove, then I have conclusive and irrefutable evidence that you are a total infantile idiot.
I had the thought, I presented it, by your logic it must therefore be true.

Are you saying whatever we think is true?

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 12:35:58 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 12:29:21 AM

How about you present some ‘solid evidence’ to support your FE belief.

From the OP:

Quote

That's a pretty big assertion, and if I want any other sceptics to believe me, I'd better have some rock solid evidence.

Belief
In our current limited understanding, science often assumes the Earth is round. But this, in my mind, is the same way we assume Newtonian gravity is correct on the small scale because it is useful and predicts many things, even though relativity explains things better on the large scale. The Earth appearing round on the small scale doesn't prove that it is round, any more than Newtonian gravity working on the small scale doesn't prove that it exists.

I've never had it proved to me that it doesn't work to consider the Earth as a flat surface (using the common definition) in non-Euclidean space, so that is one reason I often present non-Euclidean Earth as a viable model. But that isn't the only way the Earth can be flat. One of the responses to the information paradox presented by black holes is that the information is stored on a 2-dimensional surface. And indeed, there is no scientific disproof of the notion the entire universe is encoded information on a 2-dimensional surface, which is one field of exploration branching off of string theory. If anyone wants to talk about these things further with me, I'm more than happy to do so in separate threads.

Thinking and then saying something does not constitute proof. If you however imagine that to think is to prove, then I have conclusive and irrefutable evidence that you are a total infantile idiot.
I had the thought, I presented it, by your logic it must therefore be true.

Are you saying whatever we think is true?

No, which is why I outline several 'proofs' in that quote. I'll isolate that section for ease.

...I've never had it proved to me that it doesn't work to consider the Earth as a flat surface (using the common definition) in non-Euclidean space, so that is one reason I often present non-Euclidean Earth as a viable model. But that isn't the only way the Earth can be flat. One of the responses to the information paradox presented by black holes is that the information is stored on a 2-dimensional surface. And indeed, there is no scientific disproof of the notion the entire universe is encoded information on a 2-dimensional surface, which is one field of exploration branching off of string theory...

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 12:43:38 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 12:35:58 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 12:29:21 AM

How about you present some ‘solid evidence’ to support your FE belief.

From the OP:

Quote

That's a pretty big assertion, and if I want any other sceptics to believe me, I'd better have some rock solid evidence.

Belief
In our current limited understanding, science often assumes the Earth is round. But this, in my mind, is the same way we assume Newtonian gravity is correct on the small scale because it is useful and predicts many things, even though relativity explains things better on the large scale. The Earth appearing round on the small scale doesn't prove that it is round, any more than Newtonian gravity working on the small scale doesn't prove that it exists.

I've never had it proved to me that it doesn't work to consider the Earth as a flat surface (using the common definition) in non-Euclidean space, so that is one reason I often present non-Euclidean Earth as a viable model. But that isn't the only way the Earth can be flat. One of the responses to the information paradox presented by black holes is that the information is stored on a 2-dimensional surface. And indeed, there is no scientific disproof of the notion the entire universe is encoded information on a 2-dimensional surface, which is one field of exploration branching off of string theory. If anyone wants to talk about these things further with me, I'm more than happy to do so in separate threads.

Thinking and then saying something does not constitute proof. If you however imagine that to think is to prove, then I have conclusive and irrefutable evidence that you are a total infantile idiot.
I had the thought, I presented it, by your logic it must therefore be true.

Are you saying whatever we think is true?

No, which is why I outline several 'proofs' in that quote. I'll isolate that section for ease.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 12:35:58 AM

...I've never had it proved to me that it doesn't work to consider the Earth as a flat surface (using the common definition) in non-Euclidean space, so that is one reason I often present non-Euclidean Earth as a viable model. But that isn't the only way the Earth can be flat. One of the responses to the information paradox presented by black holes is that the information is stored on a 2-dimensional surface. And indeed, there is no scientific disproof of the notion the entire universe is encoded information on a 2-dimensional surface, which is one field of exploration branching off of string theory...

I think we must use  different dictionaries. No where in your ramble do I see anything that remotely could be called a proof, it’s just you saying random stuff.
By the way how do you know black holes exist, have you seen one? do you have one at home? Or have you landed on one using no more than the power of thought?

I think we must use  different dictionaries. No where in your ramble do I see anything that remotely could be called a proof, it’s just you saying random stuff.

Your failure to understand my arguments doesn't prove they are false.

Do you want an intellectually honest, rational, and productive debate?
If yes, then please attempt to understand my arguments rather than dismissing them from incredulity.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 01:07:17 AM

I think we must use  different dictionaries. No where in your ramble do I see anything that remotely could be called a proof, it’s just you saying random stuff.

Your failure to understand my arguments doesn't prove they are false.

Do you want an intellectually honest, rational, and productive debate?
If yes, then please attempt to understand my arguments rather than dismissing them from incredulity.

Here is a few facts for you.
The ISS orbits the Earth, there are people on it who all see a spherical earth out it’s windows. There is a live stream you could watch of what they see that is proof.

If you go outside when the orbit and conditions are right you can see the ISS zooming by.
That’s both a fact and proof that it exists, unless you happen to be a brain washed FEer.

You present some random thoughts with no references, no workings to show how they came about, no previous work done by others, no supporting data, and you call it proof. That’s a bit delusions imagining whatever you think and type out is true!

You present some random thoughts with no references, no workings to show how they came about, no previous work done by others, no supporting data, and you call it proof. That’s a bit delusions imagining whatever you think and type out is true!

I have provided you with many references which support my claims, references which include extensive workings done by others, and supporting data.

You haven't answered my question. Until such time as you do, this conversation is over, as I am only interested in an intellectually honest, rational, and productive debate.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 01:20:18 AM

You present some random thoughts with no references, no workings to show how they came about, no previous work done by others, no supporting data, and you call it proof. That’s a bit delusions imagining whatever you think and type out is true!

I have provided you with many references which support my claims, references which include extensive workings done by others, and supporting data.

You haven't answered my question. Until such time as you do, this conversation is over, as I am only interested in an intellectually honest, rational, and productive debate.

But they don’t support your claims. There is nothing in any of your links that support a flat earth. There is nothing in string theory that could be construed into providing evidence for your beliefs. Basically you make things up, then you lie, imagining it constitutes proof. Then when you are exposed as a dishonest fraud, you run away.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 01:07:17 AM

I think we must use  different dictionaries. No where in your ramble do I see anything that remotely could be called a proof, it’s just you saying random stuff.

Your failure to understand my arguments doesn't prove they are false.

Do you want an intellectually honest, rational, and productive debate?
If yes, then please attempt to understand my arguments rather than dismissing them from incredulity.

I think your failure to provide any rational argument to support your ‘beliefs’ other than the old chestnut.... .no one understands me......  is a bit of a clue to all what you say being no more than a pile of horseshit!
According to you it must be true cause I thought it!

No, which is why I outline several 'proofs' in that quote. I'll isolate that section for ease.

Good thing you put "proofs" in quote marks, as you post doesn't contain any.

a flat surface (using the common definition) in non-Euclidean space

Pure nonsense.
Firstly, I have already raised issues with flat surfaces in non-Euclidean space you are yet to address.
But more importantly, the common definition uses Euclidean space, so that statement makes no sense.
A flat surface by the common definition in non-Euclidean space cannot exist.

on a 2-dimensional surface

As was already pointed out, 2-D does not mean flat.
Also, all surfaces are 2D.

I have provided you with many references which support my claims, references which include extensive workings done by others, and supporting data.

Stop lying.
You have provided several references which have no indication of Earth being flat or that even being possible.
A reference doesn't magically support your claim because you say so.

You have been completely unable to show how these support your claims.

Tessa Yurri, pay no more attention to A PHYSICS ILLITERATE LIKE THE JACKBOT.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.


The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!

A flat surface by the common definition in non-Euclidean space cannot exist.

What is the common definition? (by common definition, I mean the definition most people associate with the term)

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 12:35:58 AM

on a 2-dimensional surface

As was already pointed out, 2-D does not mean flat.

Yes, but 2D doesn't mean not flat either. If you are claiming the surface we are encoded on is not flat, then please provide evidence supporting that.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 01:24:36 AM

I have provided you with many references which support my claims, references which include extensive workings done by others, and supporting data.

Stop lying.
You have provided several references which have no indication of Earth being flat or that even being possible.

You have yet to provide counter-evidence with citation that my references "have no indication of the Earth being flat or that even being possible". You have simply asserted it as fact.

---

Tessa Yurri, pay no more attention to A PHYSICS ILLITERATE LIKE THE JACKBOT.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.


The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!

I've already had this debate with you. Keep Sagnac out of my thread, please, it has nothing to do with the topic.

Quote from: sandokhan on February 09, 2018, 03:53:03 AM

Tessa Yurri, pay no more attention to A PHYSICS ILLITERATE LIKE THE JACKBOT.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.


The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!

I've already had this debate with you. Keep Sagnac out of my thread, please, it has nothing to do with the topic.

I am not trying to get the Sagnac here in your thread.

Not at all.

I am simply pointing out that the bot you are debating with is a PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

What is the common definition? (by common definition, I mean the definition most people associate with the term)

I have already told that to you and you ignored it.
To put it simply, it would be an entity in Euclidean geometry with no curvature, where the angle sum of a triangle is always 180 degrees, and with no principle curvature either.

Yes, but 2D doesn't mean not flat either.

You are claiming it is flat, the burden is on you to substantiate that.
And again, flat surface doesn't mean flat Earth as Earth is not the surface.

You have yet to provide counter-evidence... You have simply asserted it as fact.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!
I don't need to provide counter-evidence to call your baseless claims baseless.
The burden of proof is on you.
If you want to pretend these sources back you up, PROVE IT!

Otherwise all I need to refute you is this one source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Stop acting like a pathetic troll and grow up.

I am simply pointing out that the bot you are debating with is a PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

Another confession of you being a bot?
You are the one who is completely ignorant of physics and apparently even simple English.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 03:55:12 AM

What is the common definition? (by common definition, I mean the definition most people associate with the term)

I have already told that to you and you ignored it.
To put it simply, it would be an entity in Euclidean geometry with no curvature, where the angle sum of a triangle is always 180 degrees, and with no principle curvature either.

Such an entity does not exist, therefore I doubt this is what people mean when they use the word "flat" to describe an object.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 03:55:12 AM

Yes, but 2D doesn't mean not flat either.

You are claiming it is flat, the burden is on you to substantiate that.

Apologies, I see the confusion. I'm not claiming it is flat, I'm claiming it could be flat. I'm claiming there's no reason why it can't be flat.

I don't need to provide counter-evidence to call your baseless claims baseless.

That's a baseless claim.

Quote from: sandokhan on February 09, 2018, 03:57:16 AM

I am simply pointing out that the bot you are debating with is a PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

Another confession of you being a bot?
You are the one who is completely ignorant of physics and apparently even simple English.

This is not the place to start a dispute.

I am just telling everyone here that the JACKBOT IS A PHYSICS ILLITERATE!!!!

IT USED A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC!

But the Sagnac phase shift features a single constant radius.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

Do not waste your time with this chatbot.


This is how the physics illiterate jackbot is addressing everyone here:

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!
I don't need to provide counter-evidence to call your baseless claims baseless.

Stop acting like a pathetic troll and grow up.

Yet, the physics illiterate used a variable radius to derive the Sagnac.

Unbelievable!

Such an entity does not exist, therefore I doubt this is what people mean when they use the word "flat" to describe an object.

Plenty of such objects exists, like the surface of my desk.
If you like I can add in an allowance that there is a certain permissible variation, proportional to the size of the object.

I'm not claiming it is flat

You have done so repeatedly.
Regardless, your sources still don't show that Earth could be flat.

That's a baseless claim.

So all you have is pathetic childish crap?
No rational arguments to try and defend your position?

If your citations did support you, you would be able to clearly show where/how they did.

So this is effectively an admission that you have no evidence, just pathetic, baseless, delusional claims.

Grow up.

This is not the place to start a dispute.

That's right, so leave and stop trying to make it one.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 04:17:17 AM

Such an entity does not exist, therefore I doubt this is what people mean when they use the word "flat" to describe an object.

Plenty of such objects exists, like the surface of my desk.
If you like I can add in an allowance that there is a certain permissible variation, proportional to the size of the object.

I would like that very much.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 04:17:17 AM

That's a baseless claim.

So all you have is pathetic childish crap?
No rational arguments to try and defend your position?

Oh, so now I need a rational argument to try and defend my position that your claim is baseless?
Huh.

Oh, so now I need a rational argument to try and defend my position that your claim is baseless?
Huh.

No. You need a rational argument to show your claim is not, to show that the sources your cite actually lend weight to your argument.

Now quit the pathetic bullshit and either back up your claims or admit they are baseless.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 04:27:51 AM

Oh, so now I need a rational argument to try and defend my position that your claim is baseless?
Huh.

No.

Oh, so I don't need to back up my position that a claim is baseless?
Cool!

You need a rational argument to show your claim is not, to show that the sources your cite actually lend weight to your argument.

This claim is baseless.

This claim is baseless.

So you just have pathetic BS, no rational argument at all.
Got it, your just a pathetic troll with no life.

Grow up.
Maybe once you do people can start to have a rational discussion with you.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 04:31:51 AM

This claim is baseless.

So you just have pathetic BS, no rational argument at all.

Oh, so now I need a rational argument to defend my position that your claim is baseless?

Let me be very clear;
I have presented a position. I have backed it up with arguments.
You have presented a counter-position. You have not backed it up with counter-arguments.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 09, 2018, 04:32:44 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 04:31:51 AM

This claim is baseless.

So you just have pathetic BS, no rational argument at all.

Oh, so now I need a rational argument to defend my position that your claim is baseless?

Let me be very clear;
I have presented a position. I have backed it up with arguments.
You have presented a counter-position. You have not backed it up with counter-arguments.

So remind everyone what is it you actually believe?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 09, 2018, 04:32:44 AM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 04:31:51 AM

This claim is baseless.

So you just have pathetic BS, no rational argument at all.

Oh, so now I need a rational argument to defend my position that your claim is baseless?

Let me be very clear;
I have presented a position. I have backed it up with arguments.
You have presented a counter-position. You have not backed it up with counter-arguments.

I think I have. You basically have watched a few YouTube vids read some stuff and now think you know about both string theory and black hole thermodynamics or the holographic universe!
You imagine that you can lift aspect of these theories, that in all honesty you know next to nothing about, then claim that they prove the earth could be flat, while at the same time rejecting gravity. This gravity thing is rather perplexing as string theory is tied up with gravity. Belief of string theory therefore demands a belief in gravity, something for some inexplicable reason you said you don’t like!

But please, correct me if I’m wrong and you have a masters or PhD in theoretical physics.

I think this thread wins the prize for the best title, very nice, I think Tessa Yuri may be a woman. I don’t really get her point, though having such a lovely title, she gets my vote over you know who. I think this Lonegranger person is a bit scary.

I think this thread wins the prize for the best title, very nice, I think Tessa Yuri may be a woman. I don’t really get her point, though having such a lovely title, she gets my vote over you know who. I think this Lonegranger person is a bit scary.

Wrong, she’s the scary one! Did you read her opening address, like this for example!

‘The Reason Tessa Yuri Believes in the Flat Earth
In my mind, nothing can ever be proven correct. However, if two theories are viable (both supported by evidence), and the answer isn't going to meaningfully impact my life, then I'm going to choose the one I like best. And in a nutshell, that's why I believe in a flat Earth. I want to, so I do’

Basically she believes things she likes best!  Now that’s very scientific! And scary if you think of the implications, evidence free belief. The road to hell.

It looks round because to us, it essentially is. But that might not be the case.

I am very intrigued by this line of thought, and have some honest questions for you.

Couldn't this kind of reasoning be used to support any position? How could anything, ever, be proven one way or another?

Any evidence presented to support a round earth could simply be explained away as "the way we observe it to be."

What I do have sufficient evidence of is that there's no reason why the Earth can't be flat and that science is pretty cool.

It seems your own argument could be made right back at you... "It looks flat because to us, it essentially is. But that might not be the case. I have sufficient evidence that there is no reason the earth can't be round."