Flat Earth

[mardlamock]

Hello everyone, I have been entertaining myself on the Flat Earth society forums and It got me thinking, Could one construct a complex enough mathematical system to describe a flat earth universe?

One that gave results, with their own interpretation of course, similar to those of heliocentric models, even taking relativity into account. There is only a finite ammount of observations we can perform, and therefore infinte functions that can satisfy the mesurements acquired from those observations, at some point it would probably break down and need to be fixed, but could you with enough time construct such a model? Anyways, thanks a lot, sorry if this question is sort of stupid but I just wanted to know what you guys thought.

[vger]

It would be a fun little steampunk project, but I don't know if this has ever been done. Maybe in one of the Discworld books?

First major problem (before you even start dealing with the solar system) is explaining gravity and what's happening on the underside of Earth. Does it just look like a weird mishmash of outcroppings like those fantasy pictures of floating mountains? Do the oceans spill over the side, and if so, how does the water get recycled? Does plate tectonics still happen, and if so, could a whole continent fall off the edge? Is the mantle exposed on the sides?

Edited August 21, 2014 by vger

[Brethern]

Sure you could, the first step to this process would be to remove your brain and replace it with an artificial brain made of cow crap, which will give you the necessary skills required to do it.

From there I don't know how you would propose to make a flat object in a void, which if memory serves me things tend to gravitate towards sphere's.

Also why are you even on those forums? You're providing traffic and ad revenue to them.

[K^2]

Discworld doesn't really get into physics of it, beyond the very basics. Though, it does have some very neat ideas.

What it comes down to is that if you wanted to come up with a world which is much like our own, and would be indistinguishable from just some basic observations, it's not that hard. But we have too much data. There are satellites, the GPS system, cosmology and all sorts of obsrervations of the space around us. The topography which includes curvature, the time zones, and just general topology of the world. And then there are experiments that look at Earht's gravity variations and measure the rotation due to inertial effects. Too many points of data.

Now, it's entirely possible, and almost rivial, even, to construct a coordinate system which is entirely cyllindrical, in which Earth's surface is a disc. (Ok, technically, one point will be missing in the mapping. But you can't physically approach it.) Then you can construct differential geometry that allows for entire universe, with all of the bodies in heaven to move the way they do. And at the Earth's surface we'd be experiencing the gravity that we do.

Problem is, this is just a coordinate transformation. It's taking the world as we typically think of it and casting it in a weird coordinate system. Physics allows for it. It's the same sort of deal as with making Earth the center of the universe. You'll end up with all sorts of weird laws for motions of things, but otherwise, it will be entirely sensible. And all it is is taking something that's very intuitive as a sphere, and making it into a very counterintuitive disk.

[Streetwind]

Fun fact: the Earth actually is the center of the universe, most likely.

This comes from the fact that there are currently thought to be two possible modes of existence for the universe: either it is infinite in all directions, in which case any and every observer (including Earth) is always in the center; or it is finite but in more than three dimensions, resulting in a universe where you can travel straight in one direction and eventually end back up where you started (much like you can on the surface of Earth). In that model, too, any and every observer (including Earth) is always in the center.

So perhaps, analoguous to the second hypothesis, dimensional shenanigans might allow you to construct a world where you can be on a surface that is flat but still lets you walk in one direction and end up back where you started. However I don't know enough about this kind of thing to provide details. It's just an idea.

[Motokid600]

Ugh, I went those forums once and a part of me died a little inside..

[Godot]

I think already the funny little thing about far away objects sinking below the horizon (like ships/land masses on the ocean) may be difficulty to explain with a flat earth model (at least if we assume a totally flat earth and not one with a certain curvature)

Edited August 21, 2014 by Godot

[K^2]

I think already the funny little thing about far away objects sinking below the horizon (like ships/land masses on the ocean) may be difficulty to explain with a flat earth model (at least if we assume a totally flat earth and not one with a certain curvature)

It's possible to come up with differential geometry for space-time where light bends away from the flat Earth, creating effect of the horizon. Essentially, it's a slightly more complicated version of Coriolis Effect.

[szputnyik]

This guy tries to explain the sinking below the horizon thing:

[K^2]

At least, he's consistent. I wish, more religious fundamentalists, of either faith, were like that. There is nothing about fire arms, high explosives, or nukes in any holy book.

Of course, this is something that's easily verified as false by simply observing ship from different elevations. By his argument, observing a ship from high elevation would require looking down, which means it'd be harder to see. On curved Earth, it's easier to see the ship from elevation. Having two groups watching for approaching ship, and setting off a smoke signal when they see it would resolve the argument.

Not that this sort of, frankly, Aristotelian approach towards natural philosophy will ever involve actually testing of any conclusions. Magister Dixit!

[Idobox]

It would also be quite difficult to explain things like Magellan, or modern ship lines.

[vger]

It would also be quite difficult to explain things like Magellan, or modern ship lines.

You could play with curved space and say that the Earth indeed is a flat plane, but wraps around into itself. That would involve a LOT of math wizardry though to get it to work, especially if this is a planet that you want to be able to blast off from.

[SolarLiner]

You could play with curved space and say that the Earth indeed is a flat plane, but wraps around into itself. That would involve a LOT of math wizardry though to get it to work, especially if this is a planet that you want to be able to blast off from.

"Well, I got that theory that EVERYTHING is round, except the Earth. Why? Because conspiracy."

[WestAir]

The moon is half the size of the sun? Everything I know is a lie. This man has finally shown me the truth.

lol. All jokes aside, I do imagine there is a way to mathematically describe a 2D Earth, but I also imagine doing so will require introducing new phenomenon to make the math work.

[linkxsc]

Can't hate the religious guy, I say if we ever get a moon space program going again, we give him and a dozen of his peers a free round trip to the moon and back. See his argument after that.

[Scotius]

He would say he was drugged and hypnotised Or maybe not. It's just like some of these people don't want to learn the truth. I've talked to similiar types, and some of them just want to be left safely curled in their little hole. Take the people believing Earth is a hollowed out sphere, and we live INSIDE. A psychologist could've easily draw comparision to "Return to the womb" thing. Instead of embracing Universe with its infinite wonders, those folks are trying to tightly wrap it around their heads and feel safe.

[Brotoro]

During a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the Earth falls on the Moon. The shape of that shadow is always circular, no matter how the Earth is oriented (i.e., which side of the Earth happens to be facing the Moon that day). The only shape that casts a circular shadow no matter which way it's oriented is...a sphere. Sorry, flat-Earthers.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Brotoro

[Dodgey]

Yea but then you get the people who say that the Moon is a hologram, no really, I'm not kidding look it up.

[vger]

Yea but then you get the people who say that the Moon is a hologram, no really, I'm not kidding look it up.

A shadow-casting hologram no less?

[Sky_walker]

A shadow-casting hologram no less?

Well, holograms tend to be a physical obects, so I guess it could work...

[Javster]

The theory is so ancient and fundamentally flawed that it really isn't worth the collossal effort needed.

[Red Iron Crown]

We can travel from any point on Earth to any other without finding an edge. Maybe it's a Klein bottle.

[PakledHostage]

We can travel from any point on Earth to any other without finding an edge.

How do you know? Were you there?

[Red Iron Crown]

How do you know? Were you there?

Ah the good old conspiracy theorist argument that only personal observation matters.

Africa doesn't exist, it's faked.

[mardlamock]

So, due to the fact that there are a finite ammount of observations that can be taken into account when building a model of reality, there is an infinite number of possible models? I know that science should use the simplest, but does that mean that any interpretation of a physical system is valid (so long as you have built a model that is accurate)? Could one then build a model that explained QM in a fully deterministic way?