The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Username on January 20, 2016, 10:33:55 PM

Title: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Username on January 20, 2016, 10:33:55 PM: I wanted to present this here in case there are some eyes that have not seen it that could give useful criticism or debate.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html (http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html)

Let us build first from the base of Newton.

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.
(http://theflatearthsociety.net/images/image03.png)
Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description.

We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence suggests. The issue is with our naive view of geometry and space. Thus we take the view that it is indeed in motion and not still.

Let’s interpret the ramifications of the statement: an object in orbit travels in a straight (and thus flat), line through space.

First, we can define our field of interest in that taking all such theoretical orbits of our planet and realize them rightly as flat, thus defining the bounding space of Earth to also to be flat (albeit in a non-euclidean sense). It follows, given any orbit of this planet to be flat, the planet itself is flat.

Let us again venture into thought experiment: eject some pods towards the earth from one such of our imaginary satellites at regular intervals along our orbit such that they are in free fall. Again, we can assume these are straight lines extending below to a translatable location on the surface of the earth, its geolocation. We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel (of course this does not mean they will not cross since we are dealing with non-euclidean space). Since the orbit is straight, and the orbit relates directly to the geographical locations it is above, we have come a long way to show the planet is also flat.

Now let us consider what acceleration means. Acceleration by its nature means either a change in speed or direction, which is to say a change in velocity. So when we look at the parabola formed by a ball in motion we can recognize that it is for the most part accelerating - it changes both direction and speed. Now, let us examine the path if we remove the influence of gravity from our model as well as unbound the start and end points to allow it to move freely.
(http://theflatearthsociety.net/images/image02.png)
If gravity was not forcing the object downwards, it would then be travelling a straight path, parallel perhaps to our imaginary satellite and in this case tangent to the apex of our balls climb.
(http://theflatearthsociety.net/images/image01.png)

We can see by comparison between a theoretical object in orbit and our ball at the apex of its climb that if not affected by gravity it would travel a straight line. By repeating this experiment again and again with lower apexes of our ball, various orientations, and so on we see the earth itself, not just the paths of satellites, is flat.
(http://theflatearthsociety.net/images/image00.png)

The effect of viewing the earth and it appearing round will from now on be named the Ferrari Effect off of former Canadian Flat Earth Society President Leo Ferrari who first predicted this. This describes that effect.

Any honest judge will begrudgingly have to admit that I have shown that the flat earth theory directly follows from our laws of motion and coherence with relativity. Even worse is the realization that we would have been lead to relativity sooner if not for our strict faith-like belief in a round earth.

If we except the Earth is round, we must accept it is also flat. If we do not accept it is round, then we are left with the preexisting arguments for flatness. This should be more than enough proof for any round earther that believes science is instrumental or relativist.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: rubberbands on January 21, 2016, 12:45:33 AM: I'm not sure if I fully understand. If you got in a rocket, flew far away from the Earth, and looked back, what would you expect to see? Is it any different from the pictures we're used to seeing from NASA?

I think you might be misunderstanding exactly what the "curvature of spacetime" means, but it's equally likely that I'm just misunderstanding you, so I'll let you answer before saying anything more
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Username on January 21, 2016, 05:36:26 AM: Quote from: rubberbands on January 21, 2016, 12:45:33 AM
I'm not sure if I fully understand. If you got in a rocket, flew far away from the Earth, and looked back, what would you expect to see? Is it any different from the pictures we're used to seeing from NASA?

I think you might be misunderstanding exactly what the "curvature of spacetime" means, but it's equally likely that I'm just misunderstanding you, so I'll let you answer before saying anything more
Pictures would be identical.

I suppose the simplest way to put it is as follows:

I'm saying that satellites in stable orbit are in an inertial frame of reference. This is to say, if I was in a black box in stable orbit I could expect Newton's Laws to hold. This leads us to realize that from their FoR these satellites are indeed following a straight path through non-euclidean space since they are not accelerating. Given all theoretical stable orbits at altitude h, we see each of these orbits to be straight from their own FoR and thus the bounding space of stable orbits at height h to be flat from the composite paths in several inertial FoR.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: rubberbands on January 21, 2016, 11:30:02 AM: Okay, so you're using the word "flat" in a way that is completely different from everyone else here, it seems.

Can you tell me why it would be useful to think of the earth in this way? As far as I can tell, you're not actually suggesting anything that's meaningfully different from the round-earth model.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Rounder on January 21, 2016, 01:56:34 PM: Here's the mistake that breaks the model, the statement "We can certainly say that the object in orbit feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.)". We can say no such thing. The force felt by an object in orbit is gravity, and the acceleration produced by that force curves the path of the object exactly enough to close its path around the earth (or other object), diverting it from a straight fly-by path. One need not perform space flight to test this, which is good for RE proponents since the FE side usually holds that all space flight is a hoax. No, one need only point an inexpensive telescope, or even a strong pair of binoculars, at the Jupiter system. Record the positions of the moons night after night. You will find that they move around Jupiter in a not-straight line, but orbit in a manner consistent with Kepler's Law. The more ambitious observer can do the same experiment over the course of a year by observing the relative positions of the sun and the easily located planets. Their apparent movement in the night sky is best explained by the model of round objects whose otherwise straight paths are deflected by the force of gravity.

If this "round objects in round orbits around a round earth" model is wrong, what other explanation covers the fact that astronomers can accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses? They are using the RE model to do so, and that model works. They predict the date, time, and not-straight ground path of the moon's shadow upon the earth. This is published far in advance and then observed by millions of people. Plenty of opportunity to debu k the RE model, if it were wrong.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Username on January 21, 2016, 04:20:34 PM: Quote from: Rounder on January 21, 2016, 01:56:34 PM
Here's the mistake that breaks the model, the statement "We can certainly say that the object in orbit feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.)". We can say no such thing. The force felt by an object in orbit is gravity, and the acceleration produced by that force curves the path of the object exactly enough to close its path around the earth (or other object), diverting it from a straight fly-by path.
Your mistake here is three-fold. First, perfectly stable orbits by definition are in state of freefall. Freefall, recall, is an inertial frame of reference. Secondly, Gravity is not a force, it is a pseudo force arising from us assuming we are in an inertial frame of reference when we are not. Finally, you assume that since something appears to travel in a straight line, it is.

As you will note, this model equally predicts solar and lunar eclipses using similar if not identical math. "Round objects in round orbits around a round earth" is not strictly wrong. It just ignores the FoR of the satellite itself.

Additionally, we can't simply assume that the RE model has had "plenty of opportunity to rebuke itself." If round earth science wishes to pretend it relies on falsification and empiricism, it simply cannot take this stance of ignorance.

Quote from: rubberbands on January 21, 2016, 11:30:02 AM
Okay, so you're using the word "flat" in a way that is completely different from everyone else here, it seems.

Can you tell me why it would be useful to think of the earth in this way? As far as I can tell, you're not actually suggesting anything that's meaningfully different from the round-earth model.
I am sure I am. As the leading Zetetic scientist of our time, I often find myself in discord with others that cling to 1900s era Rowbothamic theory. Take for instance my theory on the mathematical stability of an infinite plane planet using Gauss' law.

It is useful to think of the earth this way because it highlights and proves in concrete example the nature of scientific method. The meaningful difference is not on the mathematical level but on the metamathematical level - the area of theory that translates mathematical theory into what we describe as what the theory actually "says" about what we know. This gives fairly strong credence for relativistism and instrumentalism as appropriate method, pigeonholing it to these two methods; while at the same time, it also disproves those, like Richard Dawkins or Harris, who wish to put science on an almost religious pedestal of absolute truth - ignoring the epistemological issues.

What does it say of science as a method to truth if we can construct on the meta-mathematical level theory that shows math to support a completely opposite and arbitrary point of view?

It also can be shown historically the usefulness of these kind of theories. There have been several times in the past when a disillusionment of this type has happened and was later used in both related and unrelated fields. I would argue that whenever a Kuhnian type revolution happens, a disillusionment also happens on this same metamathematical level. Take the tower of pisa thought experiment, or relativity itself. It would be very hard for us to say such a difference on this level could not possibly explain down the road other phenomena, such as rotational discrepancies in large galaxies.

It is also useful since it reconciles religious flat earth views with Science, something both camps can get behind.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Thork on January 22, 2016, 12:17:22 AM: Quote from: Username on January 21, 2016, 04:20:34 PM
As the leading Zetetic scientist of our time, I often find myself in discord with others

You are disillusioned alcoholic that spent 8 years in urine soaked pants, writing a vanity publication that never saw the light of day.

Elaborate. Give us one theory that you have put forward that has been adopted by anyone else in the flat earth community. One experiment with a conclusive proof. One publication, peer review or widely acclaimed thesis that marks you out as "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time".
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Username on January 22, 2016, 12:45:05 AM: Quote from: Dr David Thork on January 22, 2016, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: Username on January 21, 2016, 04:20:34 PM
As the leading Zetetic scientist of our time, I often find myself in discord with others

You are disillusioned alcoholic that spent 8 years in urine soaked pants, writing a vanity publication that never saw the light of day.

Elaborate. Give us one theory that you have put forward that has been adopted by anyone else in the flat earth community. One experiment with a conclusive proof. One publication, peer review or widely acclaimed thesis that marks you out as "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time".
I'm not here to have a pissing contest or get in an internet fight; sorry to disappoint.

I'm not sure why you think I'm a 'disillusioned alcoholic that spent 8 years in urine soaked pants' but think what you may - that is not the case. At any rate, I'm sure I owe many in the community an apology as my behavior over the years has had some ups and downs, and I have taken some unpopular positions. For what its worth, I'm sorry for any unjust harm my actions may have caused.

It was nice seeing you all. I'll find my way back to .org.
Title: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: juner on January 22, 2016, 12:59:21 AM: Quote from: Dr David Thork on January 22, 2016, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: Username on January 21, 2016, 04:20:34 PM
As the leading Zetetic scientist of our time, I often find myself in discord with others

You are disillusioned alcoholic that spent 8 years in urine soaked pants, writing a vanity publication that never saw the light of day.

Elaborate. Give us one theory that you have put forward that has been adopted by anyone else in the flat earth community. One experiment with a conclusive proof. One publication, peer review or widely acclaimed thesis that marks you out as "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time".

This is still the upper fora, Thork. Refrain from personal insults. Warned.

Quote from: Username on January 22, 2016, 12:45:05 AM
At any rate, I'm sure I owe many in the community an apology as my behavior over the years has had some ups and downs, and I have taken some unpopular positions. For what its worth, I'm sorry for any unjust harm my actions may have caused.

It was nice seeing you all. I'll find my way back to .org.

You are as welcomed here as anyone, regardless of the retarded things that Thork types up.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Thork on January 22, 2016, 01:17:06 AM: Quote from: junker on January 22, 2016, 12:59:21 AM
Warned

Noted.

For the record, Mr Davis was thoroughly horrible to me at .org and one of the primary reasons I closed my account there many years ago. He finally apologises and then bogs off back to .org with out the good grace to allow me to accept that apology. >:(

Anyway, I suspect that closes that chapter of 'The Davis Model' here, for the foreseeable future. If he returns I'll refrain from derailing his threads.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2016, 03:38:12 PM: Well, this got ugly quickly. For the record, I fully agree with junker's statement:

Quote from: junker on January 22, 2016, 12:59:21 AM
You are as welcomed here as anyone, regardless of the retarded things that Thork types up.

Sure, we may have our disagreements, and things have gotten out of hand at times, but please don't think you're unwelcome here.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: JohnDavis on January 25, 2016, 09:15:21 AM: Sorry the hair trigger on that. Thanks for all those who contacted me and posted here to let me know I was being silly.
Title: Re: Relative Flat Earth Theory - The Davis Model
Post by: rabinoz on February 02, 2016, 02:24:50 AM: Quote from: Username on January 20, 2016, 10:33:55 PM
If we except the Earth is round, we must accept it is also flat. If we do not accept it is round, then we are left with the preexisting arguments for flatness. This should be more than enough proof for any round earther that believes science is instrumental or relativist.
OK, suppose we accept all that.

Now, what happens when we attempt to circumnavigate the earth in the N-S (then S-N) direction via both the North and South Poles?

It has been reported done!

Also where did Amundsen and Scott end up on their quest for the South Pole. They didn't have rigged GPS, but used sextants and theodilites to make sunsights to locate the South Pole as accurately as possible. So, where did they end up?