Flat Kerbin?

[Van Disaster]

Relevant:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/143279-flat-kerbin/#comment-2664859

( although that thread has a distressing lack of platypus ).

Edited September 7, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Deddly]

Two similar threads merged. If this was a mistake, please feel free to PM me and I'll stand upside down with my head in a bucket of piranha fish

[GrubbyZebra]

On 7/10/2016 at 5:22 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

To be fair...

 

Fairness is not giving equal time to all views, regardless of correctness. That is introducing bias in the form of making unsupported claims seem legitimate. 

[Sandworm]

An aspect of this is actually present in the stock game.  The runway is flat, but tiny stock kerbin isn't.  So gravity is slightly off, with the runway effectively being sloped skywards towards either end.  That's how a flat kerbin, with a spherical gravity field, would appear.  And you'd need gravity to be spherical if you planned on orbiting.

 

A very interesting game might be a flat kerbin with conical gravity.  Then standard "orbits" would be circular, a constant altitude with a circular path at speed enough to counter the pull.  Launching to orbit would actually be very similar.  You go up and then pitch over to accelerate.  Gravity would keep your path circular as it does in real orbits.  But instead of orbiting around the back of the flat planet you would trace a round path around the center, like a plane in a holding pattern always in view of the launch pad.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Sandworm

[kiwi1960]

meh...... Gravity sucks.

NEXT!

 

 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

10 hours ago, fwdixon said:

Fairness is not giving equal time to all views, regardless of correctness. That is introducing bias in the form of making unsupported claims seem legitimate. 

You aren't making much sense...

Fairness by definition is giving equal credence to both sides of an argument without bias or discrimination.

I was only making an argument for why flat earth theory is worth discussing without bias or discrimination, just because I'm open to an idea doesn't mean I believe in it dogmatically. I've read the bible front to back and I considered some parts of it both interesting and informative, but I'm Atheist, just because we don't agree with an idea doesn't mean we shouldn't listen and discuss. You should try expanding your horizons.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Sharpy]

On 10.07.2016 at 11:22 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

To be fair...

If you've never personally left the earth and seen that it's a sphere with your own two eyes, you only know what someone else is telling you.

 

On 11.07.2016 at 0:35 AM, Core said:

Rebuttal: Columbus thought he proved the world round while it was Magellan's [?] group that did prove it round via travel. The same can be done today, but the funds are wanting for such things.

Not nearly as bad. There are millions of webcams worldwide, many of them public, or at least running on default password, open to the net. A lot point at the landscape. You can use them to observe the Sun position in the sky, and correlate the data with webcam location.

You can travel all around the world without leaving your chair.

[p1t1o]

Anyone who has taken a flight that flies more than a few hundred miles has personally experienced physical proof that the Earth is round, journey times/distances between points on a flat disc would be heavily distorted and point-to-point travel would no longer resemble a great-circle path. No orbital viewing required. You can track it on your own GPS, and if necessary you can check the raw data from the timing handshakes between satellites and if you think that might still be faked by some anonymous "deciever" (who would also have to fake much of known physics) then you are going to have problems with all issues regarding reality, like "am I really real" and the like.

Ergo: if you are real, the world is a sphere, and if you are not, then the distinction between flat/sphere is irrelevant anyway as compared to other questions like "Is there an Earth at all?".

 

**edit**

On topic, this would be a pretty cool mod to try out, if the physics engine can work with it and accept such a disc-shaped body, and provide a realistic interpretation of the gravity effects. And also provided that there would be regions on the disc where the gravitational anomalies were gentle enough to allow practical craft to operate. 

Edited September 27, 2016 by p1t1o

[Technical Ben]

On 10/07/2016 at 10:22 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

To be fair...

If you've never personally left the earth and seen that it's a sphere with your own two eyes, you only know what someone else is telling you. NASA is a government funded program that answers to no one. Our entire concept of the universe and our place in it is based upon what several hundred people all belonging to one administration tell us to believe.

There is no scientific experiment you can perform from the surface of the Earth that proves whether it rotates around the Sun or the other way around. It would look the same to us from our perspective either way. Likewise you can't prove without personally leaving the Earth that it is without a doubt a sphere or if it is flat. I'm not suggesting you become a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist...but you should question everything. Especially when someone is trying to sell you something. (Your tax dollars pay for the "Space Program.") Having said that, I'm not a "flat earther" nor do I think the moon landing was faked, but I'm extremely sure were not being told everything. You have to ask yourself, if they are willing to lie and omit information...how far would they go? Where is the line? If they found out tomorrow the Earth was actually the center of the galaxy with the sun revolving around it, flat as a dinner plate, sitting on the back of a giant turtle, or any other such nonsense...do you think they would tell us?

While the rotation of the sun/earth system is relative, it is not compared to say, Jupiter, Mars or any of the other planets. With the planets visible in the sky, we can see they follow a logical and precise movement around the sun, thus for them to orbit the sun, and if the sun orbited us, would be a contradiction (though possible relative position). However, taking the position of the sun at the centre, and our planet and all the others orbiting it, gives no contradictions and thus a better relative position.

As an example, load up an orbital prediction trajectory, and compare it with different points of reference. They are all valid, but the actual motion of the planets have one singular trajectory.

 

TL:DR, while different "relative" positions are correct, only one truth exists. For example, people may be "younger" or "older", which is relative and changes, however your and my age are specific, and real. So while other people may say I'm old, I have a real age. The earth may be considered flat[er] as an opinion, but it is a sphere[ish] as a fact.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

9 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

While the rotation of the sun/earth system is relative, it is not compared to say, Jupiter, Mars or any of the other planets. With the planets visible in the sky, we can see they follow a logical and precise movement around the sun, thus for them to orbit the sun, and if the sun orbited us, would be a contradiction (though possible relative position). However, taking the position of the sun at the centre, and our planet and all the others orbiting it, gives no contradictions and thus a better relative position.

As an example, load up an orbital prediction trajectory, and compare it with different points of reference. They are all valid, but the actual motion of the planets have one singular trajectory.

 

TL:DR, while different "relative" positions are correct, only one truth exists. For example, people may be "younger" or "older", which is relative and changes, however your and my age are specific, and real. So while other people may say I'm old, I have a real age. The earth may be considered flat[er] as an opinion, but it is a sphere[ish] as a fact.

My post was about not believing everything you read, especially when it comes from a government agency.

I don't personally believe in flat earth theory (Obviously, since I'm a KSP fan.), so I'm not going to get involved in debating it's merits and flaws.

The point stands though, if you haven't seen it yourself, you are trusting someone else's promises of honesty. For example; you have no idea what day you were born, because you don't personally remember it, you only know your age because your parents told you what day you were born and you trust them not to lie.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[p1t1o]

12 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

The point stands though, if you haven't seen it yourself, you are trusting someone else's promises of honesty. For example; you have no idea what day you were born, because you don't personally remember it, you only know your age because your parents told you what day you were born and you trust them not to lie.

Fine, but taking this principle literally in all possible contexts makes as much sense as instantly believing every word you hear anywhere ever.

 

Humans are blessed with intelligence, and taking your own birthday as an example, one automatically would compare it to various things like:

Your own perceived biological age (ie: if you are say, 18, you know with quite some certainty that you are not 45, with a little less certainty that you are not 44, a little less that you are not 43 etc.)

The likelihood that people will want to deceive you of your age and are invested enough in that motive to keep the conspiracy going for your entire life up to now, including ensuring the cooperation of however many people are necessary. Remember, several documents will have to be forged if a deception lasting more than a few minutes is to take place.

The degree to which the given date matches known history. For example, do you have any memories implausibly close to that date? Do you remember any anachronistic things, like a TV series you ought to have been too young to watch?

Other miscellaneous things like: has a medical professional ever expressed surprise when given your age? Have you ever had any age-related illnesses/injuries?

 

So every hazily defined "fact" that anyone comes across is automatically given a certain degree of intelligent judgement. It may not be infallible, but it gets us through the day without having to rely on "blind trust".

 

Otherwise you are implying that you require NASA to individually visit *everyone on the planet* in person with the industrial equipment, personnel and documentation (with people standing by to physically demonstrate the principles given in said supporting documentation, and a teaching lab to first demonstrate to you all fundamental physical principles first) necessary to give physical proof of a spherical earth, before the concept can be generally accepted.

And before you type "No, that is being too pedantic", yes it is too pedantic, and it *is* what you require if you want to live a scientific life that is 100% devoid of faith in anything. 

Yes, faith is a big part of science. And living as a human.

 

PS: 

"... especially when it comes from a government agency. "

Is a red-flag kind of statement for me. Makes about as much sense as "You can trust this agency because it is non-government!". Sure.

The universe is not that black-and-white.

[Technical Ben]

On 27/09/2016 at 10:39 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

My post was about not believing everything you read, especially when it comes from a government agency.

I don't personally believe in flat earth theory (Obviously, since I'm a KSP fan.), so I'm not going to get involved in debating it's merits and flaws.

The point stands though, if you haven't seen it yourself, you are trusting someone else's promises of honesty. For example; you have no idea what day you were born, because you don't personally remember it, you only know your age because your parents told you what day you were born and you trust them not to lie.

I agree we should not believe everything we are told unless we have reason to. However, things like the day I was born are both documented and not required to be specific. I can remember enough to know my general age. I can confirm that neither the Drs or my family have reason or need to lie. Yes there could be a mistake, but an error of a few days, or even months is not a problem.

This is different from someone telling me that "there are 2 moons" or "you are not allowed to sing". Those are much more pressing and important things that I would be concerned about should others try to tell me them. The first is an error or a lie, the second is an attempt to control or an attack.

The "flat earth" idea is more an error it seems. Though some may use it as a confidence trick, then from there try to con people in other ways.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Technical Ben

[Rocket In My Pocket]

On 9/28/2016 at 6:46 AM, p1t1o said:

Otherwise you are implying that you require NASA to individually visit *everyone on the planet* in person with the industrial equipment, personnel and documentation (with people standing by to physically demonstrate the principles given in said supporting documentation, and a teaching lab to first demonstrate to you all fundamental physical principles first) necessary to give physical proof of a spherical earth, before the concept can be generally accepted.

 

22 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

This is different from someone telling me that "there are 2 moons" or "you are not allowed to sing". Those are much more pressing and important things that I would be concerned about should others try to tell me them. The first is an error or a lie, the second is an attempt to control or an attack.

The "flat earth" idea is more an error it seems. Though some may use it as a confidence trick, then from there try to con people in other ways.

 

On 9/27/2016 at 5:39 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I don't personally believe in flat earth theory (Obviously, since I'm a KSP fan.), so I'm not going to get involved in debating it's merits and flaws.

I won't be making any more posts in this thread as you guys seem to want a "flat-earther" to argue with. I'm not a "flat-earther" so I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Chiron0224]

Here's a fun experiment.  Find a place with an unobstructed view to the west.  Lie on your stomach and watch the sunset.  The second the sun finishes setting stand up and you'll get to watch the last moments of the sunset a second time.  This is because you change your observation angle slightly as you observe the sun passing behind a curved Earth.

[Technical Ben]

Sorry if I seem to be arguing against you Rocket in My Pocket. I am arguing against the idea that we cannot reasonably know things. I agree we should be VERY careful on who we trust and with what (as an example, I'm currently researching a food allergy, and there a lots of false claims or accidental naive mistakes, from forums posts down to professionals).

The biggest thing is learning how to learn. Learning how to understand. Then realisation where we can ourselves make mistakes in that process (like me constantly getting lost when driving! ).

[Van Disaster]

On 27/09/2016 at 1:13 PM, p1t1o said:

On topic, this would be a pretty cool mod to try out, if the physics engine can work with it and accept such a disc-shaped body, and provide a realistic interpretation of the gravity effects. And also provided that there would be regions on the disc where the gravitational anomalies were gentle enough to allow practical craft to operate. 

I asked egg ( dev ) directly if Principia supported discworlds - it doesn't, but it does support extremely oblate planets ( and apparently if you go sufficiently oblate you get something that looks like a torus with the middle filled with a curved shape ). Someone just needs to produce such a thing.

[GrubbyZebra]

On 9/25/2016 at 8:08 AM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You aren't making much sense...

Fairness by definition is giving equal credence to both sides of an argument without bias or discrimination.

I was only making an argument for why flat earth theory is worth discussing without bias or discrimination, just because I'm open to an idea doesn't mean I believe in it dogmatically. I've read the bible front to back and I considered some parts of it both interesting and informative, but I'm Atheist, just because we don't agree with an idea doesn't mean we shouldn't listen and discuss. You should try expanding your horizons.

Equal credence means equal consideration, it does not mean presenting both as equally valid. 

[Deddly]

Since this is a discussion about making a flat Kerbin mod, let's keep it to that topic rather than talking about flat earth.

[Core]

Is it even possible to get the gravity to act normal on a flat planet in KSP? And will it have depth?

[p1t1o]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:58 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I won't be making any more posts in this thread as you guys seem to want a "flat-earther" to argue with. I'm not a "flat-earther" so I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

I did get that, just used the flat-earth as an example - as "flat-earthers" often use similar "skepticism of the mainstream" positions to support their "theories".

Apologies if it read as a bit too confrontational, peace!!

Edited October 3, 2016 by p1t1o

[Derwan121]

alright, stop with the arguing. it was a troll, nothing more.

 

if this is possible, I'd be able to go for a bit of suspension of disbelief and have gravity go an universal "down" on kerbin. maybe have it a dome  where it goes down, and then a shell where it works normally?

[Deddly]

Removed some posts. Please keep this on the topic of a mod.

[Matuchkin]

On 29/09/2016 at 4:58 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

 

 

I won't be making any more posts in this thread as you guys seem to want a "flat-earther" to argue with. I'm not a "flat-earther" so I have nothing more to add to this conversation.

Here, I'll help.

Let's pipe the pressure out into this forum.

I call this "redirecting the flow".

Edited October 4, 2016 by Matuchkin

[Vanamonde]

Since this thread no longer seems to have anything to do with KSP modding, it will be closed now.