Flat Earth Theory correct -Scientists prove

I'm not sure how facetious this posting is supposed to be, but our planet could be spherical in three dimensions and flat in four. If you took a two-dimensional slice of a three-dimensional sphere, then to three-dimensional observers like ourselves it would be completely flat. However, from the point of view of A. Square and all the other inhabitants of Flatland, it would be completely spherical.

If we say that the earth is 3 dimensionally spherical in spite of being a section of a 4-dimensional object, then there is no reason why we cannot say that the earth is 2-dimensionally flat in spite of being a section of a 3-dimensional object or sphere.

But we have direct evidence of the sherical nature of Earth. There are photographs from space etc. which show that the earth is in fact round in three dimensions. Besides, if the Earth were flat, we would be drawn towart its center of gravity, which would be practically on the surface, so we would all slide toward the center of the plane that we live on, and end up in a tangled heap in Rome or wherever the center of the world is.

We don't need to define the shape of the earth in terms of gravity variations. And Science would regard both seen and calculated evidence of its status as a dimensional object with equal significance here. So the argument that the earth is flat - as it was outlined, still stands.

very interesting, can i ask for a link for further more information?

I've just given you all the information. What's the matter with you.

He (or she) wants to learn more about this research team you're quoting. And so would I. And so would a lot of other people.

Alright. I understand. You want MORE details. Two are on holiday with the kids, the other owns a dog. They are good at maths but none of them have interesting hobbies.
Facts. All the Facts. Only here can you get All The Facts. What else are you after?

The flat earth society used to be headquartered here in lovely Lancaster county. But theyve since "gone global"

"Facts. All the Facts. Only here can you get All The Facts. What else are you after?"

Well, for a start, is the dog owner married?

Over a period of several months, over half of the workers in the Wisconsin state prison system were "relocated", their positions filled by Flat Earth (FE) associates. The list of replacements includes 7 guards, 957 cafeteria workers, 3716 Pepsi machine technicians and 14 members of the clergy. With their operatives strategically emplaced, the convicts and felons are being given a healthy dose of "pro-Flat Earth" propaganda.

Success story: Upon escaping during a bloody shootout that left 19 prison workers and 27 prisoners scratched, a reformed felon known only as "JJ" went directly to a payphone and contacted the (FE) HQ. He is currently working in place of "retired" health-care worker Mr. Jones, at the Green Acres nursing home in Charlamange, WI.

Is this why my Pepsi is flat?

Only if your pepsi is located in a 4 dimensional plane.

Love it JJ.This is serious science.

But I disagree about the flatness of the earth.The green wire is it?I find it curvaceous like Henry Moore must have done to do all those shocking and disgusting works of art.

Actually for once JJ's post makes some sense, in a warped way. Map a 3-dimensional reality to a higher dimensional level, take a 3-dimensional slice through and in doing so for some unknown reason shift your 3-d definition of flat to a n-dimensional one where you say it isn't (???), then you simply take a 3-d slice of you N-dimensional space and say now 3-d flatness isn't.

Why not just say in a N > 3 level dimensional topology then our 3-d world may be viewed as flat?

Only this is incorrect!

When you add dimensions to a model you don't ever eradicate the properties of the underlying model - they are the generators of your set. Its like me adding time or colour to a (x, y, z) world and saying now (x, y, z, time, colour) no long has distance or curvature... That's pretty dull isn't it? Even if you try and split your (x, y, z) into more atomic vectors like (x-real, x-imaginary) or (x-red, x-blue) etc to translate 3 dimensional space into 6-dimensional space - the properties of the 3-D space remain. Mapping from 6-D -> 3-D you lose information, mapping from 3-D -> 6-D you gain information (and uncertainty if you can't precisely map it as an isomorphic model).

The eigenvectors (generating vector set) of any dimensional space that map to a higher dimensional set of eigenvectors can not eliminate information in the lower level set of the mapping and still be considerered onto.

That's barely 2nd year pass Uni maths BTW. Mapping eignevectors to get general transformations from N-D to M-D is simply a N -> M least squares transformation of any and all your co-ordinate points.

PS

Are these scientists you keep refering to your dad, aunts and uncles by any chance? If so then suddenly your posts become alot more understandable... :wink:

PPS

Just before the Uni exams for Electrical Circuit Theory the lecturers would circulate cheat notes - just to stop you doing some of the more obivous kludges - like the one above. For example

Situation 1.

You have the right answer (magnitude) but the wrong sign! Simple - just spot a line in your proff and pick two (scalar) values to change to vectors. Now say "but the vectors are anti-parallel, so we reverse the sign" - hey presto works every time!

Situation 2.

You know the right answer but have no idea how to get there. Simple - just say "but f(x) is a field effect, operating also in the imaginary plan, so integrate it over - infinity to +infinite over all three dimensions (dx dy dz) (nb a Curl is what this is called), multiply it by -4 * pi * i (to allow for discontinuities) and then simply say which by observation equals - and pop in the answer you want! Integrals of this complexity are so hard no lecturer would bother checking your mathematics!

I have a list of about 12 of these beauties, actually attempted by Uni students.

Once again JJ's posts have a science where someone un-named (also as usual) has tried to pull a 1 = 2 proof on us. The dim wits!

That's all very well and good, but in disproving my claim one way you also prove it in another:

For if, as you claim, the earth is spherical in spite of being a section of a higher dimensional object, then it is also a valid claim to say that the earth is flat, in spite of being a section of a higher dimensional object.

(The rest of your maths stuff I will pronounce judgement on in due course.)

John Jones, what's with you attitude???
from where you get this stuff? i just wanted the link for more details, i'm sure you didnt post EVERYTHING

You are the beast-master,
We are the mandrill backspoonists -
Let the umbrella's commence!

No JJ, read again - I said that is what they said - which is not true.

Sorry the maths and interpretation shifts just don't work - tell your friends to go back to school and study some more!

Right. So the earth is flat then.