Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Adrenoch

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 09, 2019, 02:47:59 PM »
Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.

This argument goes both ways there are FE experiments which don't have an encyclopedia of documentation. There are also RE experiments which many RE proponents stand up and proudly say EARTH ROUND when many variables are undocumented.

Here's an example:
Look these shadows are a different length the earth is round! But shadow A was 90 degrees and 80% humidity with a high pollen count and shadow B was 80 degrees , 70% humidity and a low pollen count.  You're not comparing apples to apples here. You have not even made the slightest attempt to determine how refraction and chaotic atmospheric conditions are affecting the length of the shadows.

You're exactly right. In your example, the first experiment did one thing. The conclusion would be that maybe the Earth is round. Fortunately, the experimenters did a terrific job of documenting everything so others can replicate and falsify. One experiment can be strong evidence, but it's not enough to draw a conclusion.

Others repeat the test, and get different results. They explain why they think they might have gotten different results, like maybe pollen has an effect. Others create a new experiment that would take differing levels of pollen into account. They get the same readings regardless of the pollen count, which strongly suggests pollen isn't a factor. They write up that experiment and results. Maybe five different groups design pollen experiments in different ways. If they all agree that pollen doesn't seem to have an effect, that's fairly strong evidence.

It goes on and on as different researchers devise different experiments to account for all known factors, and even expose unknown factors. All that works starts to chip away at the the things that are inconsistent to reveal the things that are consistent. Mechanisms are proposed and methods to test those mechanisms are attempted.

Science isn't done with one experiment and a conclusion announced. You probably wouldn't believe the amount of work that goes on to reach a silly little consensus like how variables in the atmosphere bend light.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Modern experiments
« on: September 06, 2019, 07:36:43 PM »
I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.

Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.

Likewise, when you publish your experiment, others can repeat your experiment with variables changed to narrow down the exact cause of your results. Subsequent experiments take all results into account, and little by little you begin to chip away at the explanations that aren't possible, leaving the ones that are.

It's the reason the scientific method is so successful. It's a meticulous checking, rechecking, cross-checking, and cumulative method of accumulating knowledge. It's certainly not a way to keep people from performing their own experiments.

3
I don't have the math chops to debate you on the math, but I'm absolutely sure you are approaching this incorrectly.

Remove everything in the universe except you in a rocket. How fast are you going? How close to light speed are you? If you can't answer that, you can't assume when you fire up your rocket that you won't feel its normal acceleration.

If you would feel an abnormal acceleration it would mean relativity had broken down because you'd be feeling it only in one preferred direction.

4
UA doesn't work for a number of reasons, such as the same mass weighing differently at the poles versus equator, or on a mountaintop versus a valley - but relativity isn't one of the reasons.

To an observer on a moving object, like a flat Earth, you can always accelerate. Firing a rocket engine on the "bottom" of the FE will accelerate you (in your frame) just the same regardless of how long you've been accelerating in the past. The acceleration will feel exactly the same.

You're right that your mass would increase, and your time would dilate, both relative to other non-accelerated objects, but your mass wouldn't seem to change to you.

An easy way to picture it is to imagine you and your rocket are the only things in the universe. With the engine off, there's no way to tell your speed. You could be travelling 99% c relative to your starting speed, or you could be stationary. If you light your rocket, you're going to feel the exact same acceleration regardless of how fast you are going relative to your starting speed.

Now, if we're talking about UA on a flat Earth that doesn't have a dome, and you can measure yourself against all the stars, then you'd still feel the same acceleration, but you'd readily notice the difference in how other bodies appear.

But either way, the acceleration you feel is no different regardless of your speed. 

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: September 04, 2019, 01:38:35 PM »
It just passed my mind...

We are always told that 'gravity' is why we stick to the 'round' earth and that not matter where we are on the earth... it appears flat... but it isn't. If there were no gravity, we would 'fly off'. It's also why people on the side of the earth don't fall over, or feel that they are upside down etc etc etc.

So... the Moon. No gravity to speak of... yet it has the same characteristics as earth (if we are to believe the moon landings and footage). You could walk to the bottom of the moon and your blood would not rush to your head... and you wouldn't have the feeling of being upside down.

My question is... why?

Maybe it might help you to question why you're thinking of north as "up" and south as "down."

Space has no up or down. People don't stick to the south side of a globe despite some "down" force trying to pull them off.

Ask yourself why you think someone on the southern side of the moon would have blood rushing to their heads. What force is pulling their blood to their heads? Why is it pulling in that direction and not some other?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 21, 2019, 06:24:27 PM »
Astronomy is literally a pseudoscience, as it relies on observation and interpretation.

I'm afraid your whole response demonstrates a lack of understanding about exactly what science is and how astronomy is conducted.

I gather that you think that because we can't manipulate stars, then there's nothing we can test. Do I have that right?

If that's your point, then I'm afraid you don't understand astronomy at all. Take spectral lines, for instance - Once we identified the spectral lines for each element, we could test starlight to see if those lines were replicated there. They were. We developed models based on what we understood about those elements and looked at stars to see if the stars with those elements matched the models. The pair-instability supernova for supermassive stars was modeled out based on what we understood, and then three years ago we saw exactly that.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you've never sat down with a research astronomer and learned what he or she actually does all day. I think you'd be surprised - stunned, actually - at the amount of actual science being done to gain every little scrap of knowledge.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 21, 2019, 05:43:45 PM »
I believe the OP was essentially asking if FE adherents find fault with the conventional description of gravity, or if FE adherents disbelieve in a globe and so must therefore disbelieve in the conventional description of gravity.

There are simple ways to discriminate between UA and gravity - such as differing weights at the equator vs. poles, or valleys vs. mountains, or even laboratory experiments. If those measurements support the RE model, but not the FE model, then the FE model needs to account for those discrepancies somehow. If the measurements support the FE model, then the RE model would need to be adjusted somehow or abandoned.

I think we can all agree on that, correct?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?
« on: August 09, 2019, 07:46:27 PM »
Hey! My daughter is planning a trip to Antarctica in the (northern) winter of 2020. If she sees 24-hour sunlight, should I consider her as the newest member of the conspiracy, or as trapped in a VR simulator somewhere?

Asking for a friend.

In all seriousness, I'm trying to find a way to go with her. If I do happen to see 24-hour sunlight, what am I to think?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: August 09, 2019, 06:37:08 PM »
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.

I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.  If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.  The earth is older.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.

You need to get educated on basic Newtonian mechanics

Hey, I took grad-level SR, too! Still my all-time favorite course.

But you're missing something here. In your own frame of reference, you absolutely can accelerate forever, and paradoxically, you'll never hit c. The faster you go, the more you experience time dilation, which you'd never notice. To you, your acceleration is continuing as normal, but to the outside observer, your acceleration is getting slower and slower the closer you get to c.

Think of it this way - You're in your car travelling at 50 mph. You can step on the gas and feel acceleration, right? But if a cosmic ray were to pass you in the other direction going 99.999999% c, to it, you're already going nearly the speed of light and it might say to you there's no way you can accelerate another 25 mph because you'd pass c. Obviously, that's ridiculous. You can accelerate regardless of how fast you seem to that cosmic ray, just as you can accelerate regardless of how fast you seem to any other point in the universe.

Likewise, the flat Earth could be under a constant acceleration forever without ever reaching c. C is a limit of how fast you can observe another frame of reference, not your own.

That said, the idea of universal acceleration utterly falls apart for a variety of other reasons. This just isn't one of the reasons.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 29, 2019, 04:44:05 PM »
Not close at all.  You would be over 5000 times faster.
That's some nice classical mechanics you've got going here. You may want to do some reading on why that's not how anything works.

I understand it's not possible to exceed the speed of light.  That's why it's not possible to accelerate forever.  As v approaches c, mass approaches infinity, and thus it takes an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating.  Thus, it's impossible for the disc earth to accelerate at g for 1 year, let alone billions.

It's distressing that I'm going to defend this one aspect of FE, but it's absolutely possible to accelerate forever. To an outside frame of reference, you'll never reach C, and to you comparing your speed with those outside of your frame of reference, they'll never receded at C; but within your own frame of reference, you can continuously accelerate and you'll feel the acceleration. But you'll also experience time dilation (which you won't notice), which is why it'll still feel like you're accelerating just like you ever were.

But an accelerating flat Earth is ruled out by all the other observations such as lower gravity on mountains and poles.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 10:39:00 PM »
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.

Be well, and I hope you get a chance to do some solid experiments someday because no matter the results, you'll probably benefit.

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 08:07:06 PM »
I just realized I answered you poorly, and in a much more long-winded way than necessary.

Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.

This should not be your goal. Your goal should be to discover something new, regardless of whether it agrees with your position or not. But regardless...

Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested

So far, so good.

, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through

There's no "by force of numbers." If you were to do the laser test and others confirmed your findings, then there would have to be a new hypothesis about why this experiment goes against expectations. New hypotheses would arise, and each of those would generate a prediction. You and/or others would then test those hypotheses. Most will be falsified. Some might shed light on other things we thought were pretty well known, and we'd have to re-examine those. Maybe you'd have discovered an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe it could be explained by a small adjustment of the current theory. Or maybe an entirely new theory would be required.

and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?

Rejoice in the fact that you just added to the sum of human knowledge for all eternity!

But you're actually asking, "If my observation can be fully explained by only a small addition to the current body of knowledge, how do I get people to rethink the global Earth?"

If your aim is to cause scientific debate about the global Earth, you would have to do another impeccable experiment. Maybe that breaks it wide open, or maybe it just adds to the general body of knowledge. But hey, at least you'd then have two really solid experiments that can also point toward a flat Earth. You do more experiments. Maybe sometimes you revisit an old experiment of yours and show that the new accepted explanation fails under your new experiment, and then everyone will scramble to put the pieces back together in a meaningful order. Eventually, you may get enough experiments that the most likely explanation for your observations and everyone else's is that the Earth must be flat.

But you must also be prepared for the possibility that your experiments may be completely incompatible with a Flat Earth model, and you'd have to be a big enough person to recognize when/if that happens.

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 06:43:57 PM »
The problem here is the bias towards modifying theory X. It's easy for errors to snowball in this system because there will always be a modification.

You are stuck with modifying and praying the work of a few people centuries ago with far worse resources and understanding was accurate.

You seem to be suggesting that science builds on conclusions of the past, but never revisits or retests or re-evaluates those conclusions. That's patently false. Einstein and general relativity superseding Newton is a simple answer. Newton came up with the math that was incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of the planets. But Einstein came up with something completely different and it made a prediction about how certain orbits would act based on some extreme examples. When we checked those orbits, we realized Einstein's model was a lot closer than Newton's even though Einstein's makes far less intuitive sense. We had to reconstruct everything we thought we knew about what space and time are. It was a huge teardown.

This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.

I don't follow. Normally, science proceeds by working meticulously with a very narrow focus to explain a single observation. Enough of them build up to force larger changes in theories. Are you saying you want to do something different?

But again, like you pointed out lofty speeches on the ideals of science are something we're apparently not going to agree on, that was why I tried to have a discussion on the practicalities. Walk through what actually happened with small steps that can't reasonably be questioned.
Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.
Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?

Maybe this is the crux of the whole issue. Why is your goal to cause debate on the shape of the Earth? Shouldn't it be to find the truth, regardless of whether it causes debate about the shape of the Earth?

And I still think you're under a misunderstanding about "force of numbers" as you put it. Any modification to a theory still has to accurately fit the 1,000 previous observations as well as the new one. It's not like just making up a new formula or something to get you out of a jam. The modification to the theory has to explain every other observation at least as well as the old theory did. If it doesn't, then it's time to do some tearing down.

You seem to be suggesting that science just sees new things and tries to shoehorn them into what's already known because that's just what's easiest. If it doesn't explain the observations, it's no good, and nobody wants to dedicate their life and career to something they know is fruitless and erroneous.

To use dark matter as an example: When we found galaxies were rotating fast enough that the gravity of the visible stars wouldn't have been enough to keep the galaxies together, the first thing everyone asked was is there something wrong with our understanding of gravity. But we have an exhaustive amount of data on gravity that checks out. We use our calculations to send probes across the solar system with tremendous precision based on gravity. We can see with minute precision how satellites act in orbit. We see gravitational lensing exactly the way Einstein predicted we would. Everything we knew about gravity checked out.

So if not gravity, maybe we were counting the stars wrong. So they had several teams do the counting. They all came up the same, using different methods. That checked out.

Maybe galaxies were much younger than we thought. But if that were the case, how come we could we see stars in those galaxies that were seriously old? If we got the age of stars wrong, then our grasp of physics must be wrong, but the physics checks out in extreme detail in 100,000 other observations, so it's not likely that we've got that wrong either.

It went on and on like that, until the most likely possibility was that we're not seeing a huge amount of mass in the universe. It wasn't a snap decision by any stretch, and dark matter is still only a hypothesis. But we re-examined everything that that one set of observations conflicted with - as you would say, we re-examined most of the pillar. So it absolutely does happen.

As I said before, either the scientific community is too biased because they're incompetent or dishonest, or the arguments FE'ers are putting forward are nowhere near as solid as they think they are. I don't think I can convince you of the former, but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong on the latter.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 02:30:48 PM »
None of the flaws I've said are specific to academia dealing with FET. In the modern era, the response to a breathtaking new discovery is to append, not to replace.

Agreed. Because if you have 1,000 observations that can be explained by Theory X, and then you have a new observation that doesn't seem to fit, you can either A) see if there might be something you missed in Theory X that, if corrected, can now explain 1,001 observations, or B) create Theory Y that can re-explain the first 1,000 observations as well as the new one.

Science will always start with modifying existing theories because it's a smaller lift than rebuilding everything currently known. If that doesn't work, then it is forced to build a new theory.

Let's walk through your example. Again, I don't think it will have the result you're claiming, but that's not the point. I perform this experiment, I even manage to get it published, scientists all around the world see and even believe the data on this new bedford level-esque experiment. Even if it is conceded that that would happen, the community at large might:
1. Brush it aside and ignore it.
2. Pay attention to it, analyze it, shoehorn in some explanation of light interacting with a dark matter temperature inversion or some such and use it to add more and more to the existing model, test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation.
3. Start questioning whether the Earth was round.

The goal here is to reach 3, I am claiming they will do 2. Are there any objections so far? And if not, how might we reach 3?

What you're outlining in #2 is revealing what I think is the underlying fallacy in your understanding of how the scientific process works.

You said, "test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation." Yes, you start testing your hypotheses, and the ones that fail, get discarded. That leaves you with the ones that didn't fail, and as newer ideas and better equipment comes around each year, you test them until they fail and get discarded. All the while, you're probably coming up with some new hypotheses, testing them, and discarding some. When you hit a hypothesis that keeps passing every test you throw at it, it starts gaining more weight.

It's not a game of tweaking esoteric equations to make things just damn fit. It's predictions each hypothesis generates that gets tested.

As an example: The biggest question in physics is how to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics. We know they both can't be right, but they are both amazingly good at predicting what our experiments will find. String theory actually solved this conundrum for us - BUT, string theory doesn't generate any meaningful predictions. The math definitely lines up, but there's no way for us to disprove the hypothesis. So now, string theory is losing its luster and researchers are looking at other avenues. So it's not about the math just working and then scientists say, "Okay, that one works. Let's just go with that."

If you did solid research that showed an apparent lack of curvature over a 5-mile stretch, scientists would say, "That doesn't fit with all the other experiments I've seen that show the opposite. What's going on here?" They might say, "It's refraction," but you would already have thought of the top ten objections because you would have done research before you designed the experiment in order to account for something as obvious as refraction. Another researcher would say, "It's due to phenomenon ABC," and you'd figure out how to account for that and do the experiment again. In the meantime, other scientists would be wondering what's going on and would start trying to reproduce your experiment for themselves. If it keeps holding up, they'll start trying to disprove it by looking at some of its immediately testable predictions and setting up new experiments.

If it holds up under everything they throw at it, then they'll start trying to understand if there's a new phenomenon happening. They'll keep backing it up until they reach a point where math and hypotheses and observations all start to mesh again. That may very well mean backing all the way up to a flat Earth. That would be a very long way to back up, however, because as I mentioned earlier, physics itself would have to be gutted and rebuilt.

So it's not a single step from doing the experiment to the world accepting a flat Earth, which is why it hasn't happened yet. It takes an experiment done with extreme rigor that shows a lack of curvature, then legions of researchers trying to replicate, disprove, and enhance your experiment, then a process of tearing down every bit of conflicting science that is less certain than your evidence, and a new theory with new predictions that starts getting tested. That's a stunning amount of work that would need to be done just to break down the current paradigm, let alone build a new one that leads to the conclusion you're hoping for. It would likely take a decade at minimum since so many sciences would be affected.

With all that said, you can see why an experiment that would set all these wheels in motion absolutely has to be impeccable. Fortunately, there are a lot of simple curvature experiments that can be done inexpensively and with a great deal of precision.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Get the Science Right
« on: March 25, 2019, 11:18:50 AM »
Well, nothing has to be relativistic here. Minkowski space is, basically, 4-dimensional Euclidean space. It’s flat! So parallel lines will appear to converge.

I you are in a curved spacetime, then parallel lines will not stay parallel, hence they may not appear to converge in the distance.

Just think of the surface of a globe (I know I know). The lines of longitude are parallel at the equator but meet at the poles. This is because a globe’s surface has curvature.

Make sense?

Ah, I didn't see what angle you were going for there. You're absolutely right that in curved spacetime parallel lines would not stay parallel.

That said, the amount of curvature for Earth's mass/size is infinitesimally small. I don't have the calculations with me, but I'd wager that across a whole flat Earth disk there wouldn't be enough curvature to make two parallel lines starting five feet apart actually converge by the other end of the disk, let alone to account for something the size of the Sun. So unless there's something to suggest such a dramatic curvature, I don't think you can suggest perspective on Earth works any differently than it would in perfectly flat space.

Dude, please re-read my previous reply, and then read again what you just wrote. Parallel lines at the equator will meet at the poles. Look at a globe. That is the whole point of longitude lines.

Dramatic is subjective. The curvature of a spherical surface is 2/R^2, which can be derived from Einstein’s field equations. It’s dramatic enough for our purposes here.

You said "parallel lines in curved spacetime won't stay parallel." I agreed with you.

Lines on a globe have nothing to do with lines of perspective unless that globe is warping spacetime enough to bend it into a similar sphere. The Earth has absolutely nowhere near enough mass to do anything like that.

What other connection are you trying to draw between lines of perspective and lines on a globe?

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 10:58:48 AM »
It's weird. I worked with about 200 physicists, geologists, biologists, chemists, and about every other "ist" you can think of for the better part of 20 years, every day at a research institution. I worked with colleagues at other such institutions around the U.S. as well, and the behaviour you're saying has infected modern science, never occurred. (ETA: I shouldn't have said it "never occurred" because I couldn't know that. I should have said the daily behavior I witnessed of the researchers does not fit with the behavior you've said is part of modern science.)

There are two possibilities for why FE theories aren't gaining traction:
1. The scientific community is either incompetent or deceitful, or
2. Your evidence isn't as good as you think it is

These were the same two points that came up every time I'd get a call or email from a creationist, or an expanding Earther, or people who feared vaccines, or who believed in alternate geological timelines, or that we never went to the moon, or any of about a dozen other ideas. They always knew, with absolute certainty, that they were right. And that meant the only reason the scientific community didn't accept their findings, was because of #1. It was never #2.

If you approach a scientist and try to convince them the Earth is flat, yes, they're going to dismiss you. Probably not for the reasons you might think. But if you approach a scientist with an experiment that was done excruciatingly carefully and documented excruciatingly well, which says that a laser met three posts across five miles at the same height, you're going to pique their interest because it goes against expectations. All I'm trying to do is help you eliminate #2 as the problem.

Of all the "alternate science" proponents I'd talked to over the years, only one actually decided to go out and get the hard data. All the rest scoffed and said their existing experiments were proof enough. The problem was always #1. The one other guy? He spent $3,500 of his own money collecting actual data (yes, I've always felt bad about that). The hard data didn't say what he expected.

I'm never going to convince you modern science isn't keeping good flat Earth science locked out. We both know that's not going to happen. I'm just hoping you'll do enough good science yourself to either convince yourself your evidence isn't as good as you thought, or to convince a single scientist that there is a mystery about the Earth's curvature to be re-examined. Either way, you win.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Gravity
« on: March 24, 2019, 03:45:11 PM »
Yep. Except 2 of them have been unified into the electroweak force. Super symmetry unifies the electroweak with the strong force.

I dunno, it sure FEELS like there’s a force pushing me against the car door when I make a turn. You’re telling me that this force is really my inertia, and the feeling of a force is just the result of being in a non-inertial reference frame. Well that’s all nice and sciences and mathy, but my EXPERIENCE and FEELINGS don’t match your fancy words.

So which one of us is correct?

We both are!

We can measure and account for inertia in an accelerating reference frame.

And you can feel like it's a new force, based on what you imagine a new force might feel like.

That said, general relativity says there is no distinction between gravity and an accelerating reference frame, as I'm sure you're aware.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Get the Science Right
« on: March 24, 2019, 03:33:16 PM »
Well, nothing has to be relativistic here. Minkowski space is, basically, 4-dimensional Euclidean space. It’s flat! So parallel lines will appear to converge.

I you are in a curved spacetime, then parallel lines will not stay parallel, hence they may not appear to converge in the distance.

Just think of the surface of a globe (I know I know). The lines of longitude are parallel at the equator but meet at the poles. This is because a globe’s surface has curvature.

Make sense?

Ah, I didn't see what angle you were going for there. You're absolutely right that in curved spacetime parallel lines would not stay parallel.

That said, the amount of curvature for Earth's mass/size is infinitesimally small. I don't have the calculations with me, but I'd wager that across a whole flat Earth disk there wouldn't be enough curvature to make two parallel lines starting five feet apart actually converge by the other end of the disk, let alone to account for something the size of the Sun. So unless there's something to suggest such a dramatic curvature, I don't think you can suggest perspective on Earth works any differently than it would in perfectly flat space.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Get the Science Right
« on: March 24, 2019, 11:48:31 AM »
The description you have boldly provided only holds in Minkowski space. In general, your arguments will fail. So technically, you haven’t got the science right either. Which is a bit ironic.

Wow! I'm going to need you to explain that one to me. Given that we're talking about distances on on the order of kilometers and nothing approaching relativistic speeds, I can't see how Minkowski space comes into play. But I'm very excited to hear what you have to say.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Gravity
« on: March 24, 2019, 11:30:05 AM »
Here it is.

Quantum locking of the electromagnetic field.



A force! So this is yet a third term (law?). So there are densities, thrusts, and forces. Magnets make forces, everything else makes thrusts, and they both can fight against densities. Do I have this correct?

Here’s something that’s strange. When I turn a corner too fast in my car, I feel pushed outward. I also feel this way when on a merry-go-round. The only problem is that I cannot identify a magnet or anything thrusting on me. So what causes that? Is there yet a third thing that can fight against densities?

There are four known forces: nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetism, and gravity. Gravity has an asterisk next to it for a bunch of reasons.

The cornering "force" you're feeling is the seat belt pulling you in a new direction. You were going straight until the seat belt pulled you slightly to the side. If you keep turning, the seat belt keeps pulling you in the new direction.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >