Earth Romanticism

I thought it would be worthwhile to explain my position more clearly. So, I'll attempt to do that here. If you find fault with my reasoning or position, I'd love to hear it.

To start off with; I'm a sceptic.

Scepticism and Flat Earth
Now I know you may be thinking "You'd have to be a real idiot to be sceptical of all the evidence provided for a round Earth," but that's not what I mean. When I say I'm a sceptic, I really mean two specific things:
1. I won't believe something without solid evidence for it; i.e. "Prove it."
2. I won't believe that any of my beliefs are objectively 'true' or 'right'; i.e. "I could be wrong."

In essence, if you Google the definition of sceptic, I'm probably that.

I do, however, accept the evidence for the round Earth. None of it is self-contradictory, it makes accurate predictions about the world, and it fits in our current scientific understanding as a whole.

"But hold on Tess," I'm sure some of you are thinking, "doesn't this mean that you believe the Earth is round?"

Well, no.

Pragmatism and Proof
As a sceptic, there's an inherent problem presented with each belief;
If I can never be sure about anything and nothing can ever be 'proven', which beliefs should I choose to believe?

As you can probably guess, one way is to accept the best-supported answer, but another (rarely contradictory in my experience, but distinct nonetheless) approach is pragmatism. This means the sceptic accepts the most useful answer.

I am, in most cases, a pragmatist. But not all.

Romanticism? What's That?
Romanticism is a made-up term I'm using to describe one way I determine which beliefs to hold. In essence, romanticism is a philosophy for choosing beliefs. It determines this based on which one is 'coolest', or subjectively the most appealing.

Obviously, as a sceptic, I'm not simply going to accept every theory that I personally like. I'd like to believe that my tap will start dispensing chocolate, but I'm incredibly sceptical that such a thing is true.

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.

Of course, now I've asserted that the flat Earth and the round Earth are both supported by evidence. 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.

But the short of it is this; it is more useful in many cases to conceptualise the Earth as being round, but there's no evidence to conclusively prove that beyond all reasonable doubt, and my belief in a flat Earth doesn't hinder my ability to understand the properties of the Earth. It looks round because to us, it essentially is. But that might not be the case.

Why I'm Sure You All Think I'm an Idiot
Ultimately, my belief the Earth is flat is grounded in romanticism. I find it amazing the progress we've made as a civilisation; from people who drew circles on rocks with their city in the middle to represent the world, to people who have gone to space, walked on the (flat) moon, and danced among the stars. I want to do my best to honour that progress and to do that I embrace wholeheartedly all the weirdness of science. It's not going to affect my life in any great way if the Earth is flat or round. So I will use my choice of that belief to demonstrate my appreciation for science and humanity.

If you like, you could say that civilisation has, for a considerable portion of history, thought the Earth is flat, or that we've lost the ability to see it correctly, or any other spiritual explanation for why Earth romanticism is a valid belief system. You could say that my flat Earth is wrong, and another version is accurate. Or you could say that I'm a moron with a poor understanding of physics.

But I'm sceptical of all of those things. 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. So Earth romanticism is more of an extension of a philosophy for me, just a philosophy backed up by science.

---

Obviously, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me! And thanks to all who sat through all that text! Wow, that was a lot!

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

Firstly, that makes no sense at all.
The common definition of flat uses Euclidean space.
So the common definition of a flat surface in non-Euclidean space makes no sense.

Secondly, all that would do is make a non-flat flat Earth. Rather than have Earth curve, you wish to have space curve.

But there are still problems with this, the third dimension.
Earth is not a 2D object. The space it exists in is not 2D.
Earth is a 3D object. It exists in 3D space. (you can go for more if you want, but that is all that is required).
If Earth was flat, and it was just space that was curved, then a beam of light (ignoring the minor effects of gravity) fired along the surface of Earth, would remain along the surface of Earth. Instead it is observed to rise up above Earth.
This happens regardless of if it starts out level with Earth's surface, above it or below it.
This shows that Earth does not follow the curvature of the space.

You then have the issue of what even constitutes a "flat" surface in non-Euclidean space (i.e. one that follows the curvature of space).

In Euclidean geometry it is simple.
A plane can be constructed in 2 main ways:
a point and a normal
a point and 2 vectors.

It doesn't matter what point you chose as long as it is on the plane, nor which vectors you use as long as they are in the plane (or normal to it for the normal), you end up with the same plane.
But with at least some non-Euclidean geometries, this is no longer true. The point chosen affects the resulting plane.
Using a point and normal produces a different plane to a point and 2 vectors. The 2 vectors chosen influence the plane, as does their order (one is to make a line, which is then translated following the other vector).

Is there a method for defining a "flat" surface in non-Euclidean geometry which can produce the same surface regardless of where on that surface you start and what vectors you chose (if any)?

You then have the issue of Earth's unique position.
It would need to be centred in this space, completely unable to move.
Any motion of the Earth would result in it moving into different space and being distorted.

So I will use my choice of that belief to demonstrate my appreciation for science and humanity.

If you wanted to appreciate science you wouldn't be spitting in its face and saying Earth is flat.

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

Only because you ignore it.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 02:53:11 AM

So I will use my choice of that belief to demonstrate my appreciation for science and humanity.

If you wanted to appreciate science you wouldn't be spitting in its face and saying Earth is flat.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 02:53:11 AM

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

Only because you ignore it.

You're misrepresenting my position on the non-Euclidean Earth. I have also presented other arguments, which I notice you haven't responded to.

You're misrepresenting my position on the non-Euclidean Earth. I have also presented other arguments, which I notice you haven't responded to.

Says you, when you completely ignore the vast majority of the post.

I haven't misrepresented your position at all.
I have refuted your arguments.
All you seem to be able to do is pretend I didn't make any.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 03:47:14 AM

You're misrepresenting my position on the non-Euclidean Earth. I have also presented other arguments, which I notice you haven't responded to.

Says you, when you completely ignore the vast majority of the post.

I haven't misrepresented your position at all.
I have refuted your arguments.
All you seem to be able to do is pretend I didn't make any.

When did you refute string theory or the information paradox? When did you bring up the main contention of the OP?

I'm sorry you're unhappy I ignored your argument against the non-Euclidean Earth. But since I've already refuted most of those points in another thread, and since it is a misrepresentation of my position, and since it has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread, I chose not to respond. I hope you understand.

When did you refute string theory or the information paradox?

They are in no way relevant to the argument at hand.

When did you bring up the main contention of the OP?

In my post.

I'm sorry you're unhappy I ignored your argument against the non-Euclidean Earth. But since I've already refuted most of those points in another thread, and since it is a misrepresentation of my position, and since it has nothing to do with the main topic of this thread, I chose not to respond. I hope you understand.

No. It is an accurate representation of your position and you are yet to refute any of it.
The main topic of this thread is why you think Earth is flat.
A key section was the alleged lack of disproof of it being flat, with you claiming it could be a "Flat" earth in non-euclidean space.
I explained why that is not the case and it can't be that.

If you had been honest, I would understand.
i.e. if you said you believe Earth is flat because you want to, regardless of what evidence there is supporting it or contradicting it.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:03:20 AM

When did you refute string theory or the information paradox?

They are in no way relevant to the argument at hand.

They are two more examples of how the Earth could be flat.

So you don't think my first one is accurate. That's fine. I mean I disagree, but that's besides the point of the OP. The point of the OP is that there is no conclusive disproof of a flat Earth, and there are even proposed theories for one, so of the two equally viable options, I choose the one I like best.

If you have disproof of string theory or that specific resolution to the information paradox, then I grant you special exemption from derailing the thread to present them here.

Do you discount photographic evidence? Do you believe in The Conspiracy?

Do you discount photographic evidence? Do you believe in The Conspiracy?

No.

Quote from: SpaceCadet on February 08, 2018, 08:00:58 AM

Do you discount photographic evidence? Do you believe in The Conspiracy?

No.

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.

You say both supported by evidence. I would like to see the evidence you believe supports a flat earth. You agree man has gone into space. Meaning he has seen the earth from up there. Photographic evidence which you accept proves this. And you still consider this evidence equal with the evidence for a flat earth? I really need to see the evidence you believe proves a flat earth.

The view of the earth from space, in all it's spherical glory, still leaves you doubting the earth's shape? Why?

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 08:01:36 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on February 08, 2018, 08:00:58 AM

Do you discount photographic evidence? Do you believe in The Conspiracy?

No.

Quote

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.

You say both supported by evidence. I would like to see the evidence you believe supports a flat earth. You agree man has gone into space. Meaning he has seen the earth from up there. Photographic evidence which you accept proves this. And you still consider this evidence equal with the evidence for a flat earth? I really need to see the evidence you believe proves a flat earth.

The view of the earth from space, in all it's spherical glory, still leaves you doubting the earth's shape? Why?

I'll let me explain this. Picking up immediately after your quote ends:

Of course, now I've asserted that the flat Earth and the round Earth are both supported by evidence. 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.

So your proof is that it can be mathematically argued as such, right?

So your proof is that it can be mathematically argued as such, right?

That is one of the three 'proofs' I present here, yes, the other two being scientific ones.

They are two more examples of how the Earth could be flat.

No, they are yet another attempt at ignoring what flat means.

The point of the OP is that there is no conclusive disproof of a flat Earth

Gaussian curvature disproves it.

there are even proposed theories for one

No there isn't.
There are numerous models which fail to explain observations.

so of the two equally viable options, I choose the one I like best.

What a shame they aren't two equally viable options.
You have one viable option of Earth being round, and a multitude of nonviable options where Earth is flat.

If you have disproof of string theory or that specific resolution to the information paradox, then I grant you special exemption from derailing the thread to present them here.

They are irrelevant.
They do not indicate Earth is flat.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:16:23 AM

The point of the OP is that there is no conclusive disproof of a flat Earth

Gaussian curvature disproves it.

Citation needed.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:16:23 AM

there are even proposed theories for one

No there isn't.
There are numerous models which fail to explain observations.

Citation needed.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:16:23 AM

If you have disproof of string theory or that specific resolution to the information paradox, then I grant you special exemption from derailing the thread to present them here.

They are irrelevant.
They do not indicate Earth is flat.

Citation needed.

If you want to disprove string theory and magically resolve the information paradox, you'd better have some really convincing scientific studies in your back pocket. Otherwise, you're making sweeping assertions without evidence, and that'd just be no fun at all.

Citation needed.

I have already provided it countless, and you just repeatedly ignore it.
The fact you can have a triangle with an angle sum greater than 180 degrees (such as a triangle with one point on the north pole and 2 on the equator) shows that Earth is not flat.

Citation needed.

Yes, by you, as you made a baseless claim that there are flat earth theories, not simply models which fail to explain observations.
So feel free to start providing those citations.

Citation needed.

Again, by you.
You are using these to try and indicate Earth is flat, yet you have provided nothing which shows that.

If you want to disprove

And there you go with another pathetic strawman.
The burden is not on me to disprove them.
The burden is on you to show how they indicate Earth is flat.
Until you do, your claim about there existing theories where Earth is flat is a baseless lie.

Otherwise, you're making sweeping assertions without evidence, and that'd just be no fun at all.

That would be you.
You have repeatedly asserted that Earth is flat, that there are working scientific theories in which Earth is flat.
You are yet to back that up at all.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 02:44:38 PM

Citation needed.

Yes, by you, as you made a baseless claim that there are flat earth theories, not simply models which fail to explain observations.
So feel free to start providing those citations.

Are these citations not good enough?

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.

If they aren't good enough, please explain how, with citations.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2018, 03:02:03 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 02:44:38 PM

Citation needed.

Yes, by you, as you made a baseless claim that there are flat earth theories, not simply models which fail to explain observations.
So feel free to start providing those citations.

Are these citations not good enough?

No, they are not, as they do not support your claim.
It is no better than saying:

A physicist will tell me string theory is a theory. Thus Earth is a potato and beetroots are the spawn of Satan.

Your citation does not support your claim at all.

Show me where these citations say Earth is flat.
I don't need a citation to show how your citation does not support your claim.

Your citation does not support your claim at all.

We're discussing your claim, not mine. I'm addressing the fact that I have provided citations for my claims, and you have not refuted them, simply asserted they are false.

You asserted this:

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:16:23 AM

there are even proposed theories for one

No there isn't.
There are numerous models which fail to explain observations.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 04:16:23 AM

so of the two equally viable options, I choose the one I like best.

What a shame they aren't two equally viable options.
You have one viable option of Earth being round, and a multitude of nonviable options where Earth is flat.

i.e. the two examples I provided are 'nonviable' and 'fail to explain observations'.

Please provide citation for those claims, as I asked.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2018, 04:29:06 PM

Your citation does not support your claim at all.

We're discussing your claim, not mine.

No, we are discussing your claim that Earth is flat.

I'm addressing the fact that I have provided citations for my claims, and you have not refuted them, simply asserted they are false.

There you go lying yet again.
I am not claiming your citations are false.
I am claiming they do not support your claim.

Pointing out your citation does not support your claim is fundamentally different to saying your citation is wrong.
Stop acting like they are the same thing.

i.e. the two examples I provided are 'nonviable' and 'fail to explain observations'.

No, the two examples you provided are not examples of a flat Earth.
If you think they are, PROVE IT.
If you can't, stop pretending they are.

I am claiming they do not support your claim.

And you need to provide evidence for that claim, which you still haven't.

I don't need a citation to show how your citation does not support your claim.

Yes, you do. That's how the burden of proof works.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2018, 05:27:26 PM

I am claiming they do not support your claim.

And you need to provide evidence for that claim, which you still haven't.

No I don't.
I just need to call you out on it.
You are claiming they support you, you need to provide evidence they do.
Did you want me to quote the entire article noting the absence of any discussion of Earth being flat?

How many times is Earth mentioned in the article on String Theory?
Once, discussing the number of atoms.

So it does not support you.

Now either back up your claims, not just providing links to irrelevant stuff, but showing how this citation actually supports you, or fuck off.

You are the one with complete ignorance regarding the burden of proof.
You are just continually asserting garbage and demanding others prove you wrong, with no backing of your own claims.
The best you can do is link to crap.

If you want to play that game, I can too:
Here is an article clearly showing you are wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Does that really sound like meeting your burden of proof?
You are linking to an article that is completely irrelevant to your claim and claiming it supports you, yet you are completely unable to show how it supports you.

Grow up or get lost.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 05:35:41 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on February 08, 2018, 05:27:26 PM

I am claiming they do not support your claim.

And you need to provide evidence for that claim, which you still haven't.

No I don't.
I just need to call you out on it.

So, in order to be right, all you have to do is call someone out without evidence that your objection is valid?

Cool.

Does that really sound like meeting your burden of proof?
You are linking to an article that is completely irrelevant to your claim and claiming it supports you, yet you are completely unable to show how it supports you.

The holographic principle in string theory demonstrates how the Earth could be information encoded on a flat 2D plane. That supports my assertion that the Earth could be best represented as a flat 2D plane.

I have said this numerous times. You have responded with the equivalent of "nuh-uh!"

Provide evidence to support your claim that the holographic principle does not indicate the Earth could be information encoded on a flat 2D plane. I have provided evidence for my claim, now it is your turn.

So, in order to be right, all you have to do is call someone out without evidence that your objection is valid?

No. In order to challenge the correctness of someone's statement all you need to do is call it out.
They are required to provide evidence backing up their claim, which actually backs up their claim.

Your citation does not.

The holographic principle in string theory demonstrates how the Earth could be information encoded on a flat 2D plane.

There you go lying again.
Where does it indicate that it is a flat plane?
The word flat and plane are not used in the article (the word flat appears once in the citations). This means it does not support your claim at all.
So are you planning on honestly and rationally representing your position, or just continuing with these pathetic lies?

I have said this numerous times. You have responded with the equivalent of "nuh-uh!"

Yes, you have repeatedly said this bullshit numerous times.
I have called you out on it and asked you to provide evidence for it, but you have been unable to.

Provide evidence

Well according to you, this is all the evidence I need:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I have a link and everything.
That seems to be all you think you need.
What do you think I am missing that you have?

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 08, 2018, 05:59:54 PM

So, in order to be right, all you have to do is call someone out without evidence that your objection is valid?

No. In order to challenge the correctness of someone's statement all you need to do is call it out.
They are required to provide evidence backing up their claim, which actually backs up their claim.

Your citation does not.

I challenge the correctness of the statement "Your citation does not [provide evidence backing up your claim]."

I challenge the correctness of the statement "Your citation does not [provide evidence backing up your claim]."

Do you really not get it or are you just being a pathetic troll?

All that challenge would do is result in the claim neither correct nor incorrect.
Challenging my challenge does nothing for you.
It doesn't magically remove your burden of proof.

So if you want to challenge it, go ahead. You still haven't backed up your claim.

“Scepticism and Flat Earth
Now I know you may be thinking "You'd have to be a real idiot to be sceptical of all the evidence provided for a round Earth," but that's not what I mean. When I say I'm a sceptic, I really mean two specific things:
1. I won't believe something without solid evidence for it; i.e. "Prove it."
2. I won't believe that any of my beliefs are objectively 'true' or 'right'; i.e. "I could be wrong."

Wow....TU won’t believe something without solid evidence, yet chooses to believe in a FE.
Does anyone else detect a strong whiff of a contradiction?

Wow....TU won’t believe something without solid evidence, yet chooses to believe in a FE.
Does anyone else detect a strong whiff of a contradiction?

I do not shy away from that apparent contradiction in the OP, in fact I present a clear argument why I think that isn't contradictory. Please debate my argument, not simply repeat my premises.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 08, 2018, 11:59:56 PM

Wow....TU won’t believe something without solid evidence, yet chooses to believe in a FE.
Does anyone else detect a strong whiff of a contradiction?

I do not shy away from that apparent contradiction in the OP, in fact I present a clear argument why I think that isn't contradictory. Please debate my argument, not simply repeat my premises.

Quite simple, by your own words you say you won’t believe in something without solid evidence. How about you present some ‘solid evidence’ to support your FE belief. Bit of an oxymoron there don’t you think?
I’m not sure your argument can be described as ‘clear’ asyou suggest. Please point out the areas of clarity.

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

From the OP:

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.