Other Planets

  • 113 Replies
  • 12378 Views
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2021, 01:19:19 AM »
Quote
John likes trying to claim the surface of the RE is actually a flat plane in non-Euclidean space, such that it would all work the same as a RE in Euclidean space.
What he can't explain is just how this non-Euclidean space works, especially to allow the surface of Earth to be flat. As Gaussian curvature is meant to be a metric which doesn't depend on what space the surface is embedded in.
Try explaining that to Joe Public in the street who has lived his life up to now quite happily under the impression that we all live on a globe... if it works then why try to fix it?

Does John not think that extensive research has gone into how Euclidian and non-Euclidian space works and how the laws of physics concern it? If it was thought that this produced any difference to how we view the shape of the Earth then I think we would have seen scientific papers published on the subject by now.

Do you know of any such papers John Davis? Or is this simply your own personally preferred interpretation of it?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 04:33:01 AM by Solarwind »

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2021, 09:58:11 AM »
The funny thing about John’s ideas is that by trying to incorporate all the evidence it simultaneously rejects just about every other Flat Earther argument out there.

In regular 3D space that can be observed and measured, the earth is indeed round by his argument.  It could only (very maybe) be considered “flat” in ways we can’t actually perceive.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2021, 07:15:11 AM »
Quote
John likes trying to claim the surface of the RE is actually a flat plane in non-Euclidean space, such that it would all work the same as a RE in Euclidean space.
What he can't explain is just how this non-Euclidean space works, especially to allow the surface of Earth to be flat. As Gaussian curvature is meant to be a metric which doesn't depend on what space the surface is embedded in.
Try explaining that to Joe Public in the street who has lived his life up to now quite happily under the impression that we all live on a globe... if it works then why try to fix it?

Does John not think that extensive research has gone into how Euclidian and non-Euclidian space works and how the laws of physics concern it? If it was thought that this produced any difference to how we view the shape of the Earth then I think we would have seen scientific papers published on the subject by now.

Do you know of any such papers John Davis? Or is this simply your own personally preferred interpretation of it?
I explain it fine. I've discussed it with physics professors and they agree my interpretation is correct. But I'm sure the internet experts that come to argue on the flat earth forums know better than them or myself. Guess I shouldn't have bothered with going to uni for math when we have such experts right here in my own backyard.

Again your premise that "i think we would have seen scientific papers published on the subject by now" is a non-sequitor and also patently silly. I guess all the papers have been written and academia can just shut down ::). As was once penned, there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


Re: Other Planets
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2021, 08:35:41 AM »
I explain it fine. I've discussed it with physics professors and they agree my interpretation is correct.
Oh well then, that's wins the debate  ::)

I've discussed it with physics professors and they think your interpretation is incorrect.  Check mate.


Quote
But I'm sure the internet experts that come to argue on the flat earth forums
Oh, the irony...
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2021, 03:52:03 PM »
I explain it fine. I've discussed it with physics professors and they agree my interpretation is correct.
And do you have any of them willing to publicly admit that (especially that this Earth of yours is flat, not merely that you could try to have Earth exists in non-Euclidean space)? Because I find that highly unlikely; especially given that you can't even clearly explain just what your non-Euclidean space is.
Even better, do you have any of them willing to publicly explain your Non-Euclidean Earth?

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2021, 11:38:12 PM »
So if John Davis' grasp of physics is so strong, why is it that I have not heard anything about his interpretation of the Earths shape or physical form outside of these flat Earth websites.  If John version is correct then surely it would be far wider and common knowledge to everyone?

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #66 on: September 17, 2021, 10:39:38 AM »
So if John Davis' grasp of physics is so strong, why is it that I have not heard anything about his interpretation of the Earths shape or physical form outside of these flat Earth websites.  If John version is correct then surely it would be far wider and common knowledge to everyone?

I believe John is claiming that his grasp of physics is cutting edge and revolutionary.  It’s not common knowledge because he’s yet to unleash it on the world.  The professors he’s shown it to are now convinced he is right and the earth is flat.  All that remains is for him to publish his great works to blow this shit wide open and change humanity’s understanding of physics and our place in the universe forever…


Re: Other Planets
« Reply #67 on: September 17, 2021, 12:54:42 PM »
It must be very cutting edge because I know a few physicists who are in just such a position with their research and they have never mentioned anything about any of that to me.

The problem is that if this cutting edge and revolutionary stuff that JD 'knows' of is correct then there are quite a few already well established physical laws which we will have to throw away.  I can't wait until some of it becomes more widely known and I envy John Davis for being in such a privileged position so he is privy to this already!  Mind you whenever I have asked any of them if the name John Davis means anything to them I get a lot of blank looking faces.  But then you wouldn't use your real name would you!

I assume all the new generation textbooks for the physics students of the future are already in the process of being written...
« Last Edit: September 17, 2021, 12:57:13 PM by Solarwind »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #68 on: September 18, 2021, 11:14:17 AM »
It must be very cutting edge because I know a few physicists who are in just such a position with their research and they have never mentioned anything about any of that to me.
Apparently they haven't mentioned the equivalence principle to you either, and that's over 100 years old so...

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #69 on: September 18, 2021, 11:30:32 AM »
O I have heard about the equivalence principle.  Yes I know about that one.  I just haven't heard any scientist mention about the Earth being flat that's all.

Obviously you have. I have always been a 'round Earther' and always will be but hey, I'm always open to learning about new and alternative theories. I have vaguely heard about a few who prefer to believe the Earth is flat (you will no doubt claim that it is more than a few, I would expect that) so I thought the only way to investigate that fairly is to visit some flat Earth websites and listen to what some of those 'flat Earthers' have to say.

I admire your passion, your commitment towards what you belief is the 'real truth' or whatever you call it. I really do. Has it changed my view of the Earth or what shape it might be, obvious or otherwise?  Not one bit.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2021, 11:38:39 AM by Solarwind »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #70 on: September 18, 2021, 11:35:44 AM »
O I have heard about the equivalence principle.  Yes I know about that one.  I just haven't heard any scientist mention about the Earth being flat that's all.

Obviously you have.
You clearly don't know about the equivalence principle because you didn't know what a fictitious force was.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #71 on: September 18, 2021, 11:39:50 AM »
Quote
You clearly don't know about the equivalence principle
But I do... I just said I did.  Perhaps you know a different version to the one I am reading about here.  I have just checked in the Physics textbook I used for part of my degree (Physics for Scientists an Engineers by P.A Tripler) and it talks about the equivalence principle in the way that I am familiar with. In other words the results of experiments in a uniformly accelerated reference frame cannot be distinguished from those carried out in a uniform gravitational field if the acceleration and gravitational field have the same magnitude. It goes on to explain about how the behaviour of light in both of these situations cannot be distinguished.

It doesn't seem to mention anything about his providing evidence that the Earth is flat though.

I have now checked several of my books on physics and maths and while all the physics books mention about the principle of equivalence and uniformly accelerated reference frames and gravitational fields, none of them mention anything remotely about how that provides any evidence that the Earth is flat.

So what can I conclude from that? That my textbooks are all wrong?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2021, 12:04:51 PM by Solarwind »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #72 on: September 20, 2021, 02:53:10 PM »
As a physics student I have never been informed that gravity is a fictitious force.
So are you familiar with the equivalence principle or not. This certainly seems damning if you wish to claim you are.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #73 on: September 20, 2021, 04:03:08 PM »
As a physics student I have never been informed that gravity is a fictitious force.
So are you familiar with the equivalence principle or not. This certainly seems damning if you wish to claim you are.

The equivalence principle can be defined perfectly well without using the words "fictitious force".  Like so:

Quote
Equivalence principle, fundamental law of physics that states that gravitational and inertial forces are of a similar nature and often indistinguishable. In the Newtonian form it asserts, in effect, that, within a windowless laboratory freely falling in a uniform gravitational field, experimenters would be unaware that the laboratory is in a state of nonuniform motion. All dynamical experiments yield the same results as obtained in an inertial state of uniform motion unaffected by gravity. This was confirmed to a high degree of precision by an experiment conducted by the Hungarian physicist Roland Eötvös. In Einstein’s version, the principle asserts that in free-fall the effect of gravity is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state.

https://www.britannica.com/science/equivalence-principle

What's funny though is how you would apparently rather pick away at potential small gaps in other people's terminology than say anything more about your revolutionary scientific breakthrough that you have convinced several physics professors is the correct interpretation.   

I'd have thought the later would make for a vastly more interesting conversation.  Who cares about grilling Solarwind on boring old established physics?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #74 on: September 20, 2021, 04:36:43 PM »
As a physics student I have never been informed that gravity is a fictitious force.
So are you familiar with the equivalence principle or not. This certainly seems damning if you wish to claim you are.

The equivalence principle can be defined perfectly well without using the words "fictitious force".  Like so:

Quote
Equivalence principle, fundamental law of physics that states that gravitational and inertial forces are of a similar nature and often indistinguishable. In the Newtonian form it asserts, in effect, that, within a windowless laboratory freely falling in a uniform gravitational field, experimenters would be unaware that the laboratory is in a state of nonuniform motion. All dynamical experiments yield the same results as obtained in an inertial state of uniform motion unaffected by gravity. This was confirmed to a high degree of precision by an experiment conducted by the Hungarian physicist Roland Eötvös. In Einstein’s version, the principle asserts that in free-fall the effect of gravity is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state.

https://www.britannica.com/science/equivalence-principle

What's funny though is how you would apparently rather pick away at potential small gaps in other people's terminology than say anything more about your revolutionary scientific breakthrough that you have convinced several physics professors is the correct interpretation.   

I'd have thought the later would make for a vastly more interesting conversation.  Who cares about grilling Solarwind on boring old established physics?
And what is an inertial force synonym of? Oh right. Fictitious force. Which he says he understands.

I'm not grilling him on physics, though I would say its rather important to understand your own point of view. I'm trying to communicate with him, and to do so we need to establish a shared vocabulary. He says he understands what I'm saying, but it's clear he does not.

If he did, since he claims to know what a fictitious force is, and claims to know what the equivalence principle states, he would clearly know the equivalence in the equivalence principle is between gravitational and inertial forces. Furthermore, its clear you don't since you don't know "inertial force" is a word like "fictitious force."

Maybe you should understand the view you are trying to argue is correct before coming to our house, shitting on the carpet and claiming we are wrong. I'd love to talk about my work. You seem to want to argue that you don't need a shared understanding of words to talk though. Which, I think even you can admit, is rather silly.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2021, 04:46:21 PM by John Davis »

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #75 on: September 20, 2021, 05:02:16 PM »
Yes John to repeat myself one more time for you, I am familiar with the principle of equivalence.

I have several U/G and P/G physics textbooks which refer to it and all describe it in the same way. What they don't mention is anything about a fictitious force. So that must be something that you have come up with by yourself.

Now going back to the OP how does any of that help us answer the question about whether other planets are round.

How would you answer that rather than picking holes in my (what you obviously think is) vastly inferior knowledge of physics compared to yours.

I've been studying physics for many, many years but this is the first time I have ever had anyone accuse me of being a poor student. Many have taken the opposite view  so I think I'll stick with the majority.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49695
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #76 on: September 20, 2021, 06:27:42 PM »
Wait, you think John invented the concept of fictitious forces?
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #77 on: September 21, 2021, 01:54:02 AM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I. I am simply pointing out that I have several high level physics textbooks which mention about the principle of equivalence but none of which mentions anything about fictitious forces when describing it.

So where's the connection? 

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #78 on: September 21, 2021, 02:34:12 AM »
Wait, you think John invented the concept of fictitious forces?
Where did he say that?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #79 on: September 21, 2021, 04:22:29 AM »
As a physics student I have never been informed that gravity is a fictitious force.
So are you familiar with the equivalence principle or not. This certainly seems damning if you wish to claim you are.

The equivalence principle can be defined perfectly well without using the words "fictitious force".  Like so:

Quote
Equivalence principle, fundamental law of physics that states that gravitational and inertial forces are of a similar nature and often indistinguishable. In the Newtonian form it asserts, in effect, that, within a windowless laboratory freely falling in a uniform gravitational field, experimenters would be unaware that the laboratory is in a state of nonuniform motion. All dynamical experiments yield the same results as obtained in an inertial state of uniform motion unaffected by gravity. This was confirmed to a high degree of precision by an experiment conducted by the Hungarian physicist Roland Eötvös. In Einstein’s version, the principle asserts that in free-fall the effect of gravity is totally abolished in all possible experiments and general relativity reduces to special relativity, as in the inertial state.

https://www.britannica.com/science/equivalence-principle

What's funny though is how you would apparently rather pick away at potential small gaps in other people's terminology than say anything more about your revolutionary scientific breakthrough that you have convinced several physics professors is the correct interpretation.   

I'd have thought the later would make for a vastly more interesting conversation.  Who cares about grilling Solarwind on boring old established physics?
And what is an inertial force synonym of? Oh right. Fictitious force. Which he says he understands.

I'm not grilling him on physics, though I would say its rather important to understand your own point of view. I'm trying to communicate with him, and to do so we need to establish a shared vocabulary. He says he understands what I'm saying, but it's clear he does not.

If he did, since he claims to know what a fictitious force is, and claims to know what the equivalence principle states, he would clearly know the equivalence in the equivalence principle is between gravitational and inertial forces. Furthermore, its clear you don't since you don't know "inertial force" is a word like "fictitious force."

Maybe you should understand the view you are trying to argue is correct before coming to our house, shitting on the carpet and claiming we are wrong. I'd love to talk about my work. You seem to want to argue that you don't need a shared understanding of words to talk though. Which, I think even you can admit, is rather silly.

I do understand they are the same.  That was my point.  It’s  quite possible to understand a principle without being familiar with a specific term.  I always used  “pseudo force” myself (although my applications are Newtonian mechanics).

But my view on physics or other science doesn’t rely on my own complete understanding anyway.  I support science as understood as much as possible by people with far more in depth knowledge on specific subjects than me, at least until someone can demonstrate otherwise.  I try to learn about bits that interest me, such as the basic principles of GR, although I’ve never had a crack at Einstein’s fields equations.  I really don’t need to.  I do quite often try to explain the bits I do know well though.

But you say that relativity leads to a conclusion quite massively different from what  physicists say, which is a very big claim.  I’d be genuinely interested to know what you think shows this.


*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #80 on: September 21, 2021, 07:35:08 AM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I.

Quote
that must be something that you have come up with by yourself.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #81 on: September 21, 2021, 11:34:24 AM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I. I am simply pointing out that I have several high level physics textbooks which mention about the principle of equivalence but none of which mentions anything about fictitious forces when describing it.

So where's the connection? 
The equivalence principle deals with fictitious forces (aka inertial forces, d'Alembert forces, or pseudo forces). It is unimaginable for a text book to cover the equivalence principle and not cover the elevator thought experiment in which the question is raised, as I did earlier, - "Can you tell the difference between acceleration pulling you downwards (an inertial force) and gravity / gravitation?" Leading us to the conclusion that both are the same kind of entity.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #82 on: October 01, 2021, 02:51:04 PM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I. I am simply pointing out that I have several high level physics textbooks which mention about the principle of equivalence but none of which mentions anything about fictitious forces when describing it.

So where's the connection? 
The equivalence principle deals with fictitious forces (aka inertial forces, d'Alembert forces, or pseudo forces). It is unimaginable for a text book to cover the equivalence principle and not cover the elevator thought experiment in which the question is raised, as I did earlier, - "Can you tell the difference between acceleration pulling you downwards (an inertial force) and gravity / gravitation?" Leading us to the conclusion that both are the same kind of entity.

Hi John are you going to devote a chapter to that in your soon to be released book? If so it will rock the world of physics to its very foundations.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #83 on: October 01, 2021, 03:08:27 PM »
Hi John are you going to devote a chapter to that in your soon to be released book? If so it will rock the world of physics to its very foundations.
No, that was done roughly a century ago by some crazy guy called Albert.

The equivalence principle is quite well known.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #84 on: October 01, 2021, 05:34:32 PM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I. I am simply pointing out that I have several high level physics textbooks which mention about the principle of equivalence but none of which mentions anything about fictitious forces when describing it.

So where's the connection? 
The equivalence principle deals with fictitious forces (aka inertial forces, d'Alembert forces, or pseudo forces). It is unimaginable for a text book to cover the equivalence principle and not cover the elevator thought experiment in which the question is raised, as I did earlier, - "Can you tell the difference between acceleration pulling you downwards (an inertial force) and gravity / gravitation?" Leading us to the conclusion that both are the same kind of entity.

Hi John are you going to devote a chapter to that in your soon to be released book? If so it will rock the world of physics to its very foundations.
It might be a bit less revolutionary than you expect. Love you came back after 2 months just for that totally sick self-burn.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #85 on: October 02, 2021, 08:20:35 AM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I. I am simply pointing out that I have several high level physics textbooks which mention about the principle of equivalence but none of which mentions anything about fictitious forces when describing it.

So where's the connection? 
The equivalence principle deals with fictitious forces (aka inertial forces, d'Alembert forces, or pseudo forces). It is unimaginable for a text book to cover the equivalence principle and not cover the elevator thought experiment in which the question is raised, as I did earlier, - "Can you tell the difference between acceleration pulling you downwards (an inertial force) and gravity / gravitation?" Leading us to the conclusion that both are the same kind of entity.

Hi John are you going to devote a chapter to that in your soon to be released book? If so it will rock the world of physics to its very foundations.
It might be a bit less revolutionary than you expect. Love you came back after 2 months just for that totally sick self-burn.

So, where are we at? Is everybody here happy John is correct when he says the Earth is a non-euclidean closed flat surface? How could it not be?

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #86 on: October 02, 2021, 08:27:56 AM »
I'm certainly happy with my take on what shape the Earth is. Whether that complies with euclidean or non-euclidean or closed flat, open flat or whatever I haven't a clue.  Nor do I really care when it comes to it.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Other Planets
« Reply #87 on: October 02, 2021, 02:05:53 PM »
So, where are we at? Is everybody here happy John is correct when he says the Earth is a non-euclidean closed flat surface? How could it not be?
I'm happy to accept that the surface of Earth is a non-Euclidean closed curved surface.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #88 on: October 02, 2021, 06:46:52 PM »
So, where are we at? Is everybody here happy John is correct when he says the Earth is a non-euclidean closed flat surface? How could it not be?
I'm happy to accept that the surface of Earth is a non-Euclidean closed curved surface.

I'm happy to accept that the surface of a spherical object could be described as a non-Euclidean closed curved surface.

In everyday language, however, it’s just curved.

Re: Other Planets
« Reply #89 on: October 03, 2021, 03:23:25 AM »
I'm happy to accept that the surface of the Earth is finite yet unbounded. E.g. a spherical.  Because all the evidence points to that.