spaceman spiff

• 24
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #280 on: June 06, 2022, 09:58:54 PM »
Complexity is an FE tactic to make their idea possible by obscuring simple truth.
This is your twice-pagely reminder that OP is a RE'er and he's making fun of all of you. There are no "FE tactics" in place here. OP is a RE'er and he is presenting RET, unaltered. It is extremely disingenuous of you to take a RE troll and describe his jokes as "FE tactics".

This is incorrect, tensors are invariant under coordinate transformations in any space they are defined, Euclidian or not. Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough
Your post was quite clear, and my response stands. If you think repeating yourself for the fourth time will help, it will not.

[/b]Perhaps your confusion lies in the fact that it is possible to come up with a non-Euclidean space in which your assertion holds.[/b] I could have been more precise, but I wasn't - it wasn't particularly necessary given that the exact space we're discussing has been specified, and given that the incorrect assumptions about this space were also made clear.

My assertion: Tensors are invariant under coordinate transformations.

Perhaps then you could help me clear my confusion please, because I'm having trouble coming up with an example that is the exact opposite of the bolded part in your quote.
Could you point me to an example of a tensor that IS NOT INVARIANT under coordinate transformation? Everything I'm reading says that this is not possible since the definition of a tensor does not rely on any coordinate basis, confirming my assertion.

Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15340
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #281 on: June 06, 2022, 10:13:38 PM »
Could you point me to an example of a tensor that IS NOT INVARIANT under coordinate transformation?
I don't know how many times I need to say that coordinate transforms are completely irrelevant here, but I'll try once more. If you keep rambling about this, I'll just ignore you.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

spaceman spiff

• 24
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #282 on: June 06, 2022, 11:06:26 PM »
Could you point me to an example of a tensor that IS NOT INVARIANT under coordinate transformation?
I don't know how many times I need to say that coordinate transforms are completely irrelevant here, but I'll try once more. If you keep rambling about this, I'll just ignore you.

Tensors are invariant with coordinate transformations.
Assuming a Euclidean space, which this emphatically is not.

But all of this started by you qualifying a claim that tensors are invariant under coordinate transformations, saying it assumes Euclidian space. Now coordinate transformations are irrelevant. Perhaps if you don't mean invariant under coordinate transformations, invariant with respect to what?
If you ignore it, ok no problem. We all will carry on with our lives

Clyde Frog

• 1024
• [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #283 on: June 07, 2022, 12:04:17 AM »
For the sake of clarity: Do you think the OP is suggesting they are showing us a Euclidean space FE in this thread?

spaceman spiff

• 24
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #284 on: June 08, 2022, 09:44:34 PM »
For the sake of clarity: Do you think the OP is suggesting they are showing us a Euclidean space FE in this thread?

Don't know if this was intended to me or not, but OP's model is not Euclidian

existoid

• 216
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #285 on: June 13, 2022, 11:22:02 PM »

...words, words, words...

At this point we have created an alternative model to the globe model and then there are 2 possibilities:
- we find a difference between both models and derive a test to see which one is correct
- both models are equivalent

...words, words, words...

Troolon,

I'd love it if you addressed what I've written in this discussion.  I appreciate the replies to me by Clyde Frog and Pete, but my original comments and thoughts were all directed at you and what you've said, and I'm not entirely certain I've NOT simply been talking past Clyde Frog and Pete (and they've been talking past me in turn).

I have read your troolon.com page twice now, and I still can't see "where" it addresses the specific argument I made. No need for you to go back in this thread and re-read, I can succinctly repeat it here (and you'll see why I included your specific quote above).

Under your section headlined "Azimuthal transformation with the earth as origin" you have a sentence that reads:

"Around 6371km will be an azimuthal projection of earth (a flat earth)."

What does this sentence mean, exactly? I'm not sure I actually grasp what is happening in the transformation of the globe to a cylinder. The accepted radius of the earth is 6371km. Are you saying that the radius of the cylinder is that same distance of 6371 and therefore, the diameter of the "earth" (at height 0) is twice that distance, measuring 12,742km ?

If that's what you meant, then you haven't discovered an azimuthal FE model that works.

Look more carefully at the monopole FE model. If the earth indeed were shaped like a great disc, with Antarctica as a giant circle around the circumference, you'll see such a shape for earth requires a diameter (on that flat circle) of 25,484km. That means the radius for your cylinder concept would be 12,742km.  And not 6371km, as you state.

Am I making sense?  Or am I missing something?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 11:29:47 PM by existoid »

J-Man

• 1291
• "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« Reply #286 on: June 27, 2022, 12:47:02 AM »
My model is taught to my children and their friends. Please don't allow the satanic followers to sway obvious rational thinking.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.