The Spherical Earth is debunked, but could there still be more possibilities?

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

Yes... perhaps it is possible that the Earth is in fact cylinder! Nobody can disprove it at this point, we need proof

I know that the Earth isn't round

How do you know this?

He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth

Under layman's terms, that would still be round. Under some geometric terms, that could be considered flat as it can be mapped to a flat surface without distortion.

While it would sole some very significant problems with FE nonsense, it still doesn't match reality with very significant anisotropy being predicted by that model.

constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory.

How?
Care to provide any?

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

I have a thing that I think is a thing, but someone else thinks another thing and says the thing is thing. He has a thing to think his thing is a thing, but I can't be bothered to share it with with you. Do you think the thing is a thing? What do you think?

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

I assume, the caps of the cylinder are the North and South Pole, respectively, and the rotation axis goes through them. Otherwise, you would have more observational problems.

But then you will never observe Polaris or the South Celestial Pole from any place on earth, because they are always below the horizon to the north or south, respectively.

Universal Accelerator would be out of question. You would need gravity. But to be able to stand upright the cylinder must be significantly longer to the north and south than the known area of earth to have an almost symmetrical gravity.

Because mostly the mass north and south of you defines the gravity, instead of the mass directly below you, the material of earth’s core must be different and lighter.

The magnetic field would be weaker. You would not be able to observe any aurora borealis and aurora australis, because the poles would be too far away anyway.

You would probably loose the moon, because there is no clearly defined center of gravity of the earth.

I am not a physicist, but a very long cylindrical shape, which is much heavier than globular earth, could have an impact on its orbital eccentricity and period. Probably, it is not stable anyway.

I think, your mathematics professor stopped thinking clearly quite early.

EDIT: Magnetic field

Universal Accelerator would be out of question. You would need gravity. But to be able to stand upright the cylinder must be significantly longer to the north and south than the known area of earth to have an almost symmetrical gravity.

Because mostly the mass north and south of you defines the gravity, instead of the mass directly below you, the material of earth’s core must be different and lighter.
...

I am not a physicist, but a very long cylindrical shape, which is much heavier than globular earth, could have an impact on its orbital eccentricity and period. Probably, it is not stable anyway.

Maybe it's a cylinder whose height is very nearly its diameter, and the edges of the cap are kinda rounded off.

Quote from: Dirk on May 17, 2018, 06:54:07 AM

Universal Accelerator would be out of question. You would need gravity. But to be able to stand upright the cylinder must be significantly longer to the north and south than the known area of earth to have an almost symmetrical gravity.

Because mostly the mass north and south of you defines the gravity, instead of the mass directly below you, the material of earth’s core must be different and lighter.
...

I am not a physicist, but a very long cylindrical shape, which is much heavier than globular earth, could have an impact on its orbital eccentricity and period. Probably, it is not stable anyway.

Maybe it's a cylinder whose height is very nearly its diameter, and the edges of the cap are kinda rounded off.

Yes, that would help a lot. 

A globular cylinder or a cylindrical sphere? No, not quite yet.

But something in that direction...

Halo world confirmed

Living on the inside of a cylinder?

You would see the opposite side of the cylinder if you look up, even if the radius of the cylinder is several thousand or million of kilometers. You would also see the earth surface rise above the “horizon”, when the angle is high enough, that your view is not affected by atmospheric scattering.

The same is true for:

• Dyson ring (“Ringworld”)
• Dyson sphere

Quote from: Dirk on May 17, 2018, 06:54:07 AM

Universal Accelerator would be out of question. You would need gravity. But to be able to stand upright the cylinder must be significantly longer to the north and south than the known area of earth to have an almost symmetrical gravity.

Because mostly the mass north and south of you defines the gravity, instead of the mass directly below you, the material of earth’s core must be different and lighter.
...

I am not a physicist, but a very long cylindrical shape, which is much heavier than globular earth, could have an impact on its orbital eccentricity and period. Probably, it is not stable anyway.

Maybe it's a cylinder whose height is very nearly its diameter, and the edges of the cap are kinda rounded off.

I think you're on to something there.

I would suggest the earth is perfectly cylindrical, using non-euclidian geometry.  The geometry is elliptical in the north-south direction where the two foci of the ellipse occupy the same point.

Quote from: freaky_pythagoras on May 17, 2018, 05:11:00 AM

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

I have a thing that I think is a thing, but someone else thinks another thing and says the thing is thing. He has a thing to think his thing is a thing, but I can't be bothered to share it with with you. Do you think the thing is a thing? What do you think?

I think it's a thing too but not the same thing as you think and if you "can't be bothered to share it with" me, then " I can't be bothered to share it with with you".

But the real question I would like answered is if freaky_pythagoras claims to "know that the Earth isn't round" how does he know with such certainty?

We get asked for evidence all the time, so where is this irrefutable evidence for this claim of freaky_pythagoras?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 17, 2018, 06:19:56 AM

Quote from: freaky_pythagoras on May 17, 2018, 05:11:00 AM

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

I have a thing that I think is a thing, but someone else thinks another thing and says the thing is thing. He has a thing to think his thing is a thing, but I can't be bothered to share it with with you. Do you think the thing is a thing? What do you think?

I think it's a thing too but not the same thing as you think and if you "can't be bothered to share it with" me, then " I can't be bothered to share it with with you".

But the real question I would like answered is if freaky_pythagoras claims to "know that the Earth isn't round" how does he know with such certainty?

We get asked for evidence all the time, so where is this irrefutable evidence for this claim of freaky_pythagoras?

You do realise that one of the hallmarks of the flat earth movement is to request for evidence which will immediately be dismissed while giving none at all?

They all have ”looked into it and done their experiments“ but they all can never provide those experiments.

They all have debunked the round earth but can't say more than ”how can you believe the earth is round?”

This alleged professor does not exist. Any highly educated person believes the earth to be a sphere for all the reasons frequently stated. An observation is that flat-earthers tend to be universally poorly educated and is a contributing factor to their delusion.

Also, a cylinder would produce an elliptical horizon with the potential to see the entire length from any position.

It is an interesting idea for sure, but easily debunked in 30seconds.

and to repeat... there is NO maths to support this because there is NO maths professor in the first place.

An observation is that flat-earthers tend to be universally poorly educated and is a contributing factor to their delusion.

You write like a stupid child.

Quote from: fliggs on May 20, 2018, 02:12:44 AM

An observation is that flat-earthers tend to be universally poorly educated and is a contributing factor to their delusion.

You write like a stupid child.

Why do you think that ? He is right.It's not a secret ,that flat earthers have low intelligence,at least most of them.If there are any normal people among them ,they are probably doing it for some kind of profit.

Did you come here to prove that you are better at writing like a stupid child than fliggs?

Did I miss it? Has the spherical Earth been debunked?

I've been away in Florida for four days, fishing on Lake Okeechobee. Fascinating place, Okeechobee, it has a very sharp horizon! Not to mention amazing fishing!

Is it all over? Has flat Earth won?

" constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory"

There lies the problem.  The math needs to lead to the theory.  Not the other way around.

" constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory"

There lies the problem.  The math needs to lead to the theory.  Not the other way around.

Yes, and to begin with, you start with observations.

Later on the theory must be able to explain a) the already made observations and b) any future observations.

If the theory is not able to do this, it must be adapted.

See also "critical rationalism" by Karl Popper.

The real problem is, most FEers ignore serious criticism, they do not adapt their theory, and in extreme cases even debunk reality.

I mean A Cylindrical earth would be hard to prove, since if it had edges you would get something like this upon sailing to the north pole

Even if it wasn't a straight drop off, you would definitely notice the rotation changing that suddenly.

I believe in guitar-shaped Earth

I believe in guitar-shaped Earth

Les Paul or Strat?

Quote from: JQKAndrei on May 27, 2018, 04:22:23 AM

I believe in guitar-shaped Earth

Les Paul or Strat?

PRS. That's why we have birds!

Where are the edges?

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

Well.....Just for your information I was once in the Navy and we all KNEW that the earth IS round. Unles you want to go back on that old flat earth thing about everyone being liars except flat earthers. LOL.

Quote from: fliggs on May 20, 2018, 02:12:44 AM

An observation is that flat-earthers tend to be universally poorly educated and is a contributing factor to their delusion.

You write like a stupid child.

C'mon Bullcuckle.  This kind of comment is clearly a violation of the rules you have sworn to enforce as a ranking member of the flat earth society.  Reported again for low content and personal attacks.  When you are deleting this comment, make sure to delete yours as well.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on May 17, 2018, 06:19:56 AM

Quote from: freaky_pythagoras on May 17, 2018, 05:11:00 AM

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

I have a thing that I think is a thing, but someone else thinks another thing and says the thing is thing. He has a thing to think his thing is a thing, but I can't be bothered to share it with with you. Do you think the thing is a thing? What do you think?

I think it's a thing too but not the same thing as you think and if you "can't be bothered to share it with" me, then " I can't be bothered to share it with with you".

But the real question I would like answered is if freaky_pythagoras claims to "know that the Earth isn't round" how does he know with such certainty?

We get asked for evidence all the time, so where is this irrefutable evidence for this claim of freaky_pythagoras?

Well I'm a girl for starters so its 'she' and not 'he'. Also, if my name is "freaky_pythagoras" do u really think u should be taking me seriously? I'm mostly here to find out if flat-earth believers are actually "flat-earth believers" or "anti-round-earth believers" ya feel?

great theory 10/10 IGN would study again

I know that the Earth isn't round, and I've been a Flat-Earth believer for some time now, but my mathematics professor brought another theory to the table. He doesn't believe that the Earth is round either, but he doesn't consider himself a Flat-Earther. He produced the theory of a Cylindrical-Earth and constructed mathematical diagrams to prove his theory. I'm still a Flat-Earther, but I'm beginning to consider other possibilities. What do you think?

You claim you know the earth is flat yet neither you nor any flat earther around the GLOBE can explain the simplest phenomenas like day and night or moon phases 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Quote from: rabinoz on May 17, 2018, 06:11:03 PM

But the real question I would like answered is if freaky_pythagoras claims to "know that the Earth isn't round" how does he know with such certainty?

We get asked for evidence all the time, so where is this irrefutable evidence for this claim of freaky_pythagoras?

Well I'm a girl for starters so its 'she' and not 'he'. Also, if my name is "freaky_pythagoras" do u really think u should be taking me seriously? I'm mostly here to find out if flat-earth believers are actually "flat-earth believers" or "anti-round-earth believers" ya feel?

I do apologise profusely. There is a definite need for more non-gender specific pronouns. I've personally known one case, on the "other site" where a woman certainly wanted her gender to remain unknown because of "unwanted attention" some received. ( mistakenly as it turned out,  an "ever-so-attractive avatar" means nothing).  'Nuff said on that score.

But any "irrefutable evidence" is always interesting, though so often it is so easily refuted.

As to the "actually 'flat-earth believers' or 'anti-round-earth believers' question, all most seem to do is to attempt yo disprove the "round-earth" yet have no workable flat-earth model to propose as an alternate.

You just have to look at other threads which essentially go unanswered about moon phases, lunar and solar eclipses, the sun path and even sunrises and sunsets.

Sometimes answers are given but end up being nothing but unsubstantiated hypotheses.

Then, I'm sure that some are simply  'pretend flat-earth believers', here for the "fun of it".

As the most renowned round earther on this site I must admit I'm yet to see a valid argument against the round earth.

I wonder if the thread starter has such an argument?