Non-Euclidean Flat Earth (John Davis proposal)

Quote from: John Davis on June 05, 2019, 02:25:55 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 31, 2019, 08:23:13 AM

So my starter questions for John:

1.  Does this mean space is real, satellites/probes are real, and/or NASA isn’t generally faking stuff?

Yes

Good to know.  That appears more rational than all the vast conspiracy theories to me at least.

Quote

Quote

2.  Is the warping of spacetime due to gravity or something else?

Are you asking whether gravity is due to gravity?

Asking for clarification.  You have often made arguments based on there being no complete theory for quantum gravity.  So wasn’t sure if gravity as we understand it factors into your hypothesis.

Quote

Quote

3.  Are the moon and other planets flat but warped by spacetime the same way the Earth is, or is that unique to the Earth?

In so much as they can support an orbit of some kind, the similar logic would apply.

This is the biggest issue I have with your hypothesis.

An object in orbit around the moon (for example) travels on a geodesic less curved by the effect of gravity (or whatever) on  spacetime than an object in orbit around the Earth.

Yet as the moon is smaller, the surface of the moon is curved more than the earth, which implies it’s more affected by spacetime distortion.

That appears to be a direct contradiction in your hypothesis.

The both have the same "curve" - none. One might have less space within that "curve" however.

Presuming they have similar densities, a smaller body will distort space time less and thus will have a smaller inner area. A larger mass would do so more - and have a larger area. It is only when you look at it as if it were a globe in euclidean space that you end up with this incoherency as a smaller area would appear to have a greater curve when in actuality what you are noting is a smaller closed surface space.

Even if I were to accept your proposition, it still doesn't seem to touch the original problem of satellites traveling in straight lines. If a satellite is only affected by gravity (and other minor forces) and is in free fall, and can arrive back at its starting point then we are left with no other conclusion that it is traveling straight and a flat bounding space exists "around" the earth.

The both have the same "curve" - none. One might have less space within that "curve" however.

Well, whatever you want call how we perceive your Non-Euclidean idea.  Just trying to keep the language simple.

Presuming they have similar densities, a smaller body will distort space time less and thus will have a smaller inner area. A larger mass would do so more - and have a larger area. It is only when you look at it as if it were a globe in euclidean space that you end up with this incoherency as a smaller area would appear to have a greater curve when in actuality what you are noting is a smaller closed surface space.

That seems the wrong way round to me.  Surely, more spacetime distortion should mean a tighter curve/whatever?

Even if I were to accept your proposition, it still doesn't seem to touch the original problem of satellites traveling in straight lines. If a satellite is only affected by gravity (and other minor forces) and is in free fall, and can arrive back at its starting point then we are left with no other conclusion that it is traveling straight and a flat bounding space exists "around" the earth.

Ah, this was my next point.

A satellite only achieves orbit if its traveling at the right speed.  Too fast and it flys off into space, too slow and it comes crashing down.  (Overly simplified I know).

But we see the same curvature/whatever of the surface, regardless of velocity.

If a satellite could orbit the earth and get back to its starting point, regardless of it’s speed, your idea would seem to make more sense to me.  But that’s not the case.

In basic language his idea is what?
A self admitted juvenile attempt to turn a ball map flat.

Yes no?
You just told us your methodology.
Where my assumed method gives out pretty much the same.

So we re in concensus -
A math trick.

In basic language his idea is what?
A self admitted juvenile attempt to turn a ball map flat.

Yes no?
You just told us your methodology.
Where my assumed method gives out pretty much the same.

So we re in concensus -
A math trick.

I actually think that’s a bit unfair. 

Most flat earth ideas seem to run into immediate problems in explaining the blindingly obvious.

This is at least an attempt to reconcile the flat earth with observations.  I’m not buying it, but I’m curious to see how far John can go with it.

It is not an attempt to turn a ball flat. It follows directly from Newton's laws, the equivalence principle, and observational evidence. The fact it describes a flat earth was a happy coincidence.

I find it odd. We use the slightest bit of math (I have actually used none here or perhaps next to none), and we are accused of playing "math tricks." Its clear you won't be happy with any explanation or model, no matter how reasonable or how much it matches known data Themightykabool. This to me shows me that you are treating the matter as a priest might treat the triad nature of god - beyond question or discussion and an axiom chosen out of faith. You might as well write your own articles of faith.

Use all the math you want.
Sando uses lots of math.

Just trying get you to describe it honestly.

- A lobbyist is a "legal" broker of bribes.
- Professional basket baller gets paid because he can bounce and throw better than most people.
- war on terror in iraq was to avenge a fathers failure amd give big contracts to best friend's buddies.
- your non euclid math method is to justify your fet by taking the globes known distances and projecting them "accurately" onto a flat surface.   

Yes no?
Word dance all you like.
How is your method reasonable?
Im questioning your method.
Whos acting in beyond question?
Hand wave and dismiss.
Change topic call me dictatorial pope.
I can keep asking and all can see you keep dodging.

John, I applied Einstein's thought experiment to your proposed non-euclidean flat earth map, and it's not working out. It's not working out at all in my mind.

I take it you've done at least a thought experiment with your proposal? If you've created an actual model either in 3d software or out of clay, I'm interested to see what it looks like? There is a practical application, yes?

Oh, and in my profession, I do a fair bit of writing myself, factual stories and reports mostly.

Well, that's why it didn't work. How can you model a non-euclidean thought experiment in 3d software? Or Clay?

I get it, its a leap, - like when one first learns what a derivative is. Or why you can't walk half the distance to something, repeatedly forever.

I'm interested to see the practical applications too, but that is not my lot.

If you can accept the axioms, then the result is just mathematics and logic. If the satellite travels flat, what's the spat?

And yes, biblical literalists, I just gave you a huge freebie.

Ok, if the satellite is accelerating, tell me how.

I can easily be wrong. I have been a lot of times. But a perfect satellite is not accelerating.

Please prove me wrong.

If there are inconsistencies in that, and I'm sure there are, they need to be worked out. But we also have to acknowledge that our current system is looking at things at an odd angle, and the Earth Is Not A Globe.

I will let this theory die the day I know that the satellite is accelerating. Happily.

To UC's earlier reply, I can see how that might be confusing. I'll try to come up with a good analogy for it in the future that might help with that.

It reaches orbit because the pseudo forces cancel out and it reaches an inertial state. I would argue a preferred state. You bring up a good point about other bodies that are not in this state - which is why I specifically talked towards that and talked about considering looking at those states without the influence of the false force and looking at the non gravitationally affected path.

I will let this theory die the day I know that the satellite is accelerating. Happily.

Of course the satellite is not accelerating. No force is acting on it. That's not a reason to keep your theory alive.

I'll tell you how the satellite is accelerating, John, but first you have to specify the model you are working with, a dome or not, a vacuum, altitude, etc., and type of satellite.

I'll tell you how the satellite is accelerating, John, but first you have to specify the model you are working with, a dome or not, a vacuum, altitude, etc., and type of satellite.

Under General Relativity (which it seems is the basis for John's argument), an orbiting satellite is not accelerating as no force is acting on it. It's following a geodesic in spacetime.

Where John is mistaken is in thinking this implies a flat earth.

I'd love to know why I'm mistaken.

The only serious attack has been UCs, which I don't believe is a real issue but am investigating none-the-less. At worst, it seems it would show that the ratio is an inverse relationship not a direct one.

I'd love to know why I'm mistaken.

Well I haven't followed your reasoning in great detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to rely on a geodesic in spacetime translating to a straight line in space (or, similarly, to a geodesic in curved space). This isn't generally the case. Satellites follow elliptical orbits even after allowing for the curvature of space under GR.

John, a satellite by definition is either an artificial body placed in orbit around the earth, moon, or another planetary body, or a celestial body that is orbiting the earth or another body.

Otherwise it isn't a satellite, it's a moving body in space like an asteroid. But even in our solar system, an asteroid is affected by our sun's gravity, which will curve it's path.

You used the term "satellite", and with the term "satellite" you are referring to an object in circular orbit and acted upon by gravity, and accelerated due to that gravity and centripetal force. That is how it is accelerated.

Unless you're using the term "satellite" in a flat earth gravity doesn't exist sense, which would mean it isn't in orbit, and neither is it a satellite.

What you're saying is you are shaped like a character out of "minecraft", but space time curves all your lines into the shape you are, just like how a geodesic in spacetime translates to earth being flat...

Minecraft has a lot to answer for....

Minecraft, of course.

I knew something must be behind efforts to undermine (no pun intended) the public’s faith in mainstream science.  How could I have been so blind?