The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: xenotolerance on February 14, 2018, 04:34:38 PM
-
Thread inspired by this recent post from the good doctor Tommy B:
Astronomy, Geometry, Physics, many more fields; the foundation of which is all built on a house of cards at a fundamental level.
I challenge the author and other Pyrrhonic believers to use this thread to identify specific problems with the foundations of those three fields, astronomy, geometry, and physics, and thereby knock down the house of cards that is mainstream science.
-
Aren't the flaws obvious? Geometry predicts things like the concept of a "circle". Pi, etc, are thrown out to calculate attributes of those "circles."
But who has ever actually seen a perfect circle, such that is required by Pi? A geometric circle assumes that the universe is continuous rather than discrete. When did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate that?
-
Aren't the flaws obvious? Geometry predicts things like the concept of a "circle". Pi, etc, are thrown out to calculate attributes of those "circles."
But who has ever seen a perfect circle? A perfect circle assumes that the universe is continuous rather than discrete. When did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate that?
Scientific theories are only supposed to describe the world to degrees of accuracy, not to perfection. Why should the lack of perfection mean that science can never describe something accurately?
-
Aren't the flaws obvious? Geometry predicts things like the concept of a "circle". Pi, etc, are thrown out to calculate attributes of those "circles."
But who has ever actually seen a perfect circle, such that is required by Pi? A geometric circle assumes that the universe is continuous rather than discrete. When did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate that?
Most of us are clear what a circle is.
-
Aren't the flaws obvious? Geometry predicts things like the concept of a "circle". Pi, etc, are thrown out to calculate attributes of those "circles."
But who has ever seen a perfect circle? A perfect circle assumes that the universe is continuous rather than discrete. When did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate that?
Scientific theories are only supposed to describe the world to degrees of accuracy, not to perfection. Why should the lack of perfection mean that science can never describe something accurately?
It is more that the Ancient Greek concept of a circle makes a fundamental assumption that the universe is continuous. The Ancient Greeks also describe length in space as a number line which is infinitely divisible and continuous.
You guys use all of this theory to try and explain what would happen to a sun setting over a plane, predicting that the sun would continuously approach, but never reach, the horizon. The sun could not reach the horizon no matter how far away it is, and would descend infinitesimally. But this prediction is made assuming the unfounded continuous models of the Ancient Greeks.
Where have the Ancient Greeks shown that two perspective lines would never be seen to intersect? What experiments have they performed before coming up with those theories of perspective?
The concept of a continuous universe needs clear and compelling evidence before we accept it as true.
-
Aren't the flaws obvious? Geometry predicts things like the concept of a "circle". Pi, etc, are thrown out to calculate attributes of those "circles."
But who has ever seen a perfect circle? A perfect circle assumes that the universe is continuous rather than discrete. When did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate that?
Scientific theories are only supposed to describe the world to degrees of accuracy, not to perfection. Why should the lack of perfection mean that science can never describe something accurately?
It is more that the Ancient Greek concept of a circle makes a fundamental assumption that the universe is continuous. The Ancient Greeks also describe length in space as a number line which is infinitely divisible and continuous.
You guys use all of this theory to try and explain what would happen to a sun setting over a plane, predicting that the sun would continuously approach, but never reach, the horizon. The sun could not reach the horizon no matter how far away it is. But this prediction is made assuming the unfounded continuous models of the Ancient Greeks.
Where have the Ancient Greeks Shown that two perspective lines would never be seen to intersect? What experiments have they performed before coming up with those theories of perspective?
A declaration can't be made that the universe is continuous without clear and compelling evidence.
None of that is relevant to the relatively small size of the earth and how we view the sun at different times from different locations. timeanddate.com is a good, accurate, source of information.
-
Aren't the flaws obvious? Geometry predicts things like the concept of a "circle". Pi, etc, are thrown out to calculate attributes of those "circles."
But who has ever seen a perfect circle? A perfect circle assumes that the universe is continuous rather than discrete. When did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate that?
Scientific theories are only supposed to describe the world to degrees of accuracy, not to perfection. Why should the lack of perfection mean that science can never describe something accurately?
It is more that the Ancient Greek concept of a circle makes a fundamental assumption that the universe is continuous. The Ancient Greeks also describe length in space as a number line which is infinitely divisible and continuous.
You use these terms, continuous and discrete, often but I am never sure exactly what you mean. I don’t want to plunge ahead in to a rebuttal until I know what you are talking about. Can you define these terms please?
You guys use all of this theory to try and explain what would happen to a sun setting over a plane, predicting that the sun would continuously approach, but never reach, the horizon. The sun could not reach the horizon no matter how far away it is, and would descend infinitesimally. But this prediction is made assuming the unfounded continuous models of the Ancient Greeks.
Where have the Ancient Greeks shown that two perspective lines would never be seen to intersect? What experiments have they performed before coming up with those theories of perspective?
The concept of a continuous universe needs clear and compelling evidence before we accept it as true.
The ancient Greeks never treated in perspective afaik, but if you are referring to parallel lines then there is no proof required. Parallel is a definition. Hypocritical though that your argument is based on us not being able to prove a negative. All we can say is that no parallel lines have been observed actually meeting, they appear to meet but this has continually been shown to be a trick of the eye. Couple that with the fact that to our best measurements show the universe to be flat, then we get to a place where it is healthy to trust what we observe.
-
The concept of a continuous universe needs clear and compelling evidence before we accept it as true.
actually it doesn't matter at all. for example: electric charge is discrete. electric charge is absolutely not distributed continuously in a conductor.
but you can still use calculus to make correct predictions about electric fields/potentials/forces/whatever. a huge portion of vector calculus was invented for the purpose of solving problems involving distributions of discrete charges.
all you're doing in this thread is demonstrating naivete of the subject you're trying to criticize. as usual.
-
It is more that the Ancient Greek concept of a circle makes a fundamental assumption that the universe is continuous. The Ancient Greeks also describe length in space as a number line which is infinitely divisible and continuous.
You guys use all of this theory to try and explain what would happen to a sun setting over a plane, predicting that the sun would continuously approach, but never reach, the horizon. The sun could not reach the horizon no matter how far away it is, and would descend infinitesimally. But this prediction is made assuming the unfounded continuous models of the Ancient Greeks.
Where have the Ancient Greeks shown that two perspective lines would never be seen to intersect? What experiments have they performed before coming up with those theories of perspective?
The concept of a continuous universe needs clear and compelling evidence before we accept it as true.
I would like to rebut this, but I haven't the faintest notion what it is you are trying to say?
Are we (REers) being accused of "predicting that the sun would continuously approach, but never reach, the horizon"?
Are there REers who are trying to "explain what would happen to a sun setting over a plane"? I don't understand why any would attempt that, at the sun in the real world doesn't set over a plane. It dips below the visible horizon of a sphere.
In what manner does the "concept of a circle make a fundamental assumption that the universe is continuous"?
Did "Ancient Greeks [really] also describe length in space as a number line which is infinitely divisible and continuous"? Is this implying that a continuous line could be simultaneously discontinuous?
My head hurts.
-
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
This is what is meant by "continuous universe." The math further takes such elements and runs with them. Continuous this, continuous that. None of it is justified. The Ancient Greeks performed no experiments before coming up with those ideas. It is merely their idea of a "perfect" universe.
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true. Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
-
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
This is what is meant by "continuous universe." The math further takes such elements and runs with them. Continuous this, continuous that. None of it is justified. The Ancient Greeks performed no experiments before coming up with those ideas. It is merely their idea of a "perfect" universe.
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true. Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
Please explain how this is relevant to the many measurements and observations we make of the earth. Please give details of your current research and experiments on the subject.
-
Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
what controlled experiments have you performed to demonstrate that the continuous/discrete quantity distinction matters? genuine question, not trying to be flippant.
to elaborate: if you haven't performed an experiment to justify your idea that the distinction matters, then that calls any such calculation into question.
-
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
This is what is meant by "continuous universe." The math further takes such elements and runs with them. Continuous this, continuous that. None of it is justified. The Ancient Greeks performed no experiments before coming up with those ideas. It is merely their idea of a "perfect" universe.
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true. Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
Could you please point me toward the text(s) from which you derived these assumptions? I would like to be on a somewhat even playing field vis a vis what the ancient Greeks actually did or didn't propose to be fact. Not being a mathematician, I'm not familiar with "Assumptions Made by the Ancient Greeks".
In the meantime, lets begin here:
"Plato believed that the entire cosmos was constructed with precision and that circles and spheres, as the most perfect objects, were the key to understanding the universe." From https://explorable.com/greek-astronomy
That is not saying that Plato believed circles or spheres were perfect, only that they were the nearest things to perfect that he could conceive of.
-
Could you please point me toward the text(s) from which you derived these assumptions? I would like to be on a somewhat even playing field vis a vis what the ancient Greeks actually did or didn't propose to be fact. Not being a mathematician, I'm not familiar with "Assumptions Made by the Ancient Greeks".
Open a High School Geometry textbook. All of that is there, and all of it is the handed down teachings of the ancients.
Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
what controlled experiments have you performed to demonstrate that the continuous/discrete quantity distinction matters? genuine question, not trying to be flippant.
to elaborate: if you haven't performed an experiment to justify your idea that the distinction matters, then that calls any such calculation into question.
I have not made any controlled experiments regarding the continuous nature of the universe. Why would I? That may not even be possible to test. I'm not the claimant. I'm the skeptic. It is enough for the skeptic to question. It is those with the claims who need to demonstrate them. If those Euclidean Geometry proponents cannot test their own ideas because it is impossible, then that shows how strong and established those ideas are.
-
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
This is what is meant by "continuous universe." The math further takes such elements and runs with them. Continuous this, continuous that. None of it is justified. The Ancient Greeks performed no experiments before coming up with those ideas. It is merely their idea of a "perfect" universe.
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true. Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
So let’s say for the sake of argument you are correct with your assumptions that the Greeks made. I have never come across these in all the math I have studied, but so be it. If you are correct, how does us only possessing a tool for approximation, that we know is extremely accurate undermine modern science?
Could you please point me toward the text(s) from which you derived these assumptions? I would like to be on a somewhat even playing field vis a vis what the ancient Greeks actually did or didn't propose to be fact. Not being a mathematician, I'm not familiar with "Assumptions Made by the Ancient Greeks".
Open a High School Geometry textbook. All of that is there, and all of it is the handed down teachings of the ancients.
Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
what controlled experiments have you performed to demonstrate that the continuous/discrete quantity distinction matters? genuine question, not trying to be flippant.
to elaborate: if you haven't performed an experiment to justify your idea that the distinction matters, then that calls any such calculation into question.
I have not made any controlled experiments regarding the continuous nature of the universe. Why would I? That may not even be possible to test. I'm not the claimant. I'm the skeptic. It is enough for the skeptic to question. It is those with the claims who need to demonstrate them. If those Euclidean Geometry proponents cannot test their own ideas because it is impossible, then that shows how strong and established those ideas are.
You are not just a skeptic, you have claimed that the current state of mathematics undermines modern science. This is a positive claim and you will need to substantiate it.
-
Open a High School Geometry textbook. All of that is there, and all of it is the handed down teachings of the ancients.
Give me time - I'm working on it - see my above post.
No, sorry, I nearly fell into the "Bishop Trap".
You made the following assertions:
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
Now back them up with corroborating texts.
And, while you're at it, it would be greatly appreciated if you could supply the data requested in the nearby "Vanishing Point" thread. I am assuming that if anyone is privy to such information, it would be you.
-
I'm not the claimant. I'm the skeptic. It is enough for the skeptic to question. It is those with the claims who need to demonstrate them.
you are the claimant. you claim that it matters whether or not a quantity is discrete or continuous. that's your argument. "Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question."
the notion that such a distinction "calls any such calculation into question" is a positive claim.
-
The idea that we base reality off of what ancient's thought of the world is... perplexing. When the Greeks talk about dividing space on a number line, that's mathematical theory, not physics. Right now, the smallest unit, as I'm sure you all know, is the plank length. As far as an imaginary numberline, I can divide it infinitely. Literally, no one can stop me from dividing it. And you can mathematically make a perfect circle. Again, real world it is impossible to be that precise. But I cut holes on a daily basis that measure within a few thousandths of an inch of being perfect.
I guess I'm lost on what the point here is?
-
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true.
Actually, all it relies on is some common sense.
How do I see something? Photons hit my eye. If that is from a light source then the photons leave the light source and travel to my eye along a straight path.
Or, the light travels from the light source, reflects off an object and travels from that in a straight line into my eye.
Either way if there is an unobstructed line of sight in between me and the light source/object then I will be able to see it. The only limitations to that are:
1) My visual acuity
2) Atmospheric conditions
So on a plane:
(https://image.ibb.co/g2saWm/4.jpg)
Clear line of sight, I can see the whole person.
On a curve:
(https://image.ibb.co/jPDrnR/5.jpg)
The bottom of the person (or ship or sun) is occluded behind the hill so I can only see the top part.
And I see you have still ignored my thread about long shadows at sunset which prove conclusively that either
1) The sun is physically low in the sky or
2) The light is bending so it appears to be.
There are no other options but feel free to do some experiments and show how you can cast a long shadow of an object on the ground without the light source being physically close to the ground.
-
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
This is what is meant by "continuous universe." The math further takes such elements and runs with them. Continuous this, continuous that. None of it is justified. The Ancient Greeks performed no experiments before coming up with those ideas. It is merely their idea of a "perfect" universe.
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true. Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
Tom, do you understand that even though we know the universe to be discrete, we know it to be discrete on so small of a level that mathematics tells us we can approximate it continuously and see virtually no difference? Or did this just completely go over your head? All of our everyday observations suggest a continuous universe. Some scientific measurements suggest that it's actually finely discretized. Is there a real difference here? No. You're making one up because you've been slammed into a corner. You clearly don't even understand basic calculus (Riemann sums are a good start).
-
Guys,
I believe this is a case of being an expert at framing the question. Science is truly based on a house of cards. Carl Sagan criticized most of the Greeks we idolize for the fact that they did mostly deductive reasoning, without the back up of inductive reasoning.
The purpose of science is to acknowledge that what is believed to be the best theories to explain how things work are built on a house of cards and to shake that house.
For most of the hard sciences, there are very few collapses of widely used principles, and I like to use the belief of phlogiston in the late 1700s as an example. People studied it for decades until Lavasier (spelling is wrong I know) offered an element called oxygen as an alternative that better explained what is going on. The phlogiston house of cards collapsed and a new house based on burning through oxidization was built. Geocentric round earth models are another example because they were pretty good at explaining what we see and the earliest attempts of building heliocentric models were not any better. As the houses were shaken the geocentric house collapsed.
So we can say that because all science is based on the belief that this is all just a bunch of theories we can believe whatever stupid thing we want to, or we can accept that what we currently believe might be changed in the future. But collapses in the hard science area are not very frequent in the last 100 years or so and we should probably just use the best models we have.
So if you want to be arrogant and say that you don't care about people living south of the equator, you can invent some wacky theory that can sort of explain what you see if you do not look closely. For example, it is just fluke that you get equal amounts of daylight and night in a year because of how the sun circles above where you are. If you acknowledge that this happens for everyone everywhere in the world, the flat earth model cannot be built on any house of cards that does not immediate collapse. So a better house of cards is either the geocentric or the heliocentric house. So much lack of progress in science (Newton and Liebniz for example) comes from not recognizing the foundations are houses of cards.
In the work world, people who believe stupid things (bridges stand up because of UA and you cannot calculate how to make them stronger) will not get hired for designing bridges. The people who believe that they can design a bridge based on current scientific theories gets the job. So we can believe in a flat earth because a better model might be wrong, but what is the point of that?
-
So I just did some google searches and found some sites that talk about the ancient Greeks and circles. Hear they are:
https://nrich.maths.org/2561 , http://www.storyofmathematics.com/greek.html , https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/world-full-circles-180954529/
-
Okay, we've started with Geometry. So that's interesting and I really like how this is going so far. Thanks to everyone who is participating, this is pretty much exactly what I had in mind for the thread, getting into first principles.
I'd like to respond to this in particular:
Here are some of the fundamental elements the models and maths of the Ancient Greeks assume:
- That perfect circles can exist
- That one could zoom into a circle forever and see a curve
- That any length of space can be divided into infinitely smaller parts
- That the space can be infinitely long
- Time can likewise be infinitely divided, or infinitely long
This is what is meant by "continuous universe." The math further takes such elements and runs with them. Continuous this, continuous that. None of it is justified. The Ancient Greeks performed no experiments before coming up with those ideas. It is merely their idea of a "perfect" universe.
Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true. Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.
emphasis mine
In a discrete universe, the sun still never sets on a plane.
I don't mean to agree with Tom's logic or argument about geometry / a continuous universe; it's just, even if true, it doesn't actually lead to his conclusion or support his overall position. So, from his first two posts where he denies that circles and the circle constant can even exist, and refers to sunsets, his logic doesn't work. In this case, taking out the bottom level of the house doesn't matter. A better fundamental topic here might be the law of similar triangles.
-
So if circles have never been proven to exist, does this mean that the path the sun orbits around a flat earth cannot be a circle or how does any of this lead me to conclude that what I see every day should be interpreted to mean that the sun is circling (or not circling if circles do not exist) around (and can I say around if round is not proven to exist?) the North Pole? That is, if my eyes are tricking me into believing that a round earth is rotating, how does knowing that this is based on unproven assumptions help me conclude that a better model is one that defies what I actually see? I think a better stance would be to proceed with since we cannot believe anything we should just stay in bed all day.