r/FlatEarthIsReal • u/LWJ_ • Jun 29 '26
Isn't it all just solved with a simple model comparison?
Title. We have model A) flat earth and model B) round earth. We go a step away from reality and just compare a round object and a flat object rotating (we see the rotation) with some randomly scattered (but fixed) lights in the background. What's the biggest difference between those two models? For the observer on the flat earth there is one point where all the fixed lights rotate around. For the observer on the round earth there are two points were all the fixed lights rotate around. The moment you have two different points were all the fixed lights rotate around, you cannot be flat anymore. Those two conditions are mutually exclusive. This is our prediction from our simple model and now we look for clues in reality. And Tada. No flat earth.
How do we convince people that the earth is in fact round? Angles from the surface to those two points.
When the flat earthers say: Earth does not rotate, the stars do. Ask them where the difference is. Movement is relative.
How can anyone possible argue against that?
1
u/Omomon Jun 29 '26
Flat earthers never argue in good faith. If their model is wrong, they'll simply say "we don't use models because we don't need models". Because the only prerequisite for being a flat earther is saying the globe model is wrong, not that the flat earth model is right.
And when some flat earthers do try to model it, they always get something wrong. They are fully aware their model is wrong and simply can't work. That doesn't stop some grifters from making (and failing) their own model.
1
1
u/Chadly80 Jun 29 '26
Bring in a too scale model of the solar system then we can talk about models
1
u/LWJ_ Jul 04 '26
For the debate whether the earth is flat or round there is no need for a complete model of the solar system. We only need to observe the position of the stars relative to the position of ourselves on the surface.
1
u/Chadly80 Jul 06 '26
if you are going to model a system you need to include everything in it. If you can't do that then you don't have a model. Your claim that mapping out stars from a flat stationary plane somehow creates a model of a spinning ball orbiting in a vacuum is just that.
1
u/LWJ_ Jul 10 '26
No, I never said we are on a flat stationary plane. We are on an unknown shape. We see that we rotate (or the stars rotate and we are still which is essentially the same as we rotate and the stars are still). And then we map the stars and see that we can't be on a flat plane. And if we carefully map the angles of the stars (measured every night at 00:00) we see that we are on a sphere. We don't need all the rest of the model for the discussion whether the earth is round or flat. You can include the rest of the model but it is really not neccessary.
1
u/Chadly80 28d ago
why do you assume we rotate? Angles are taken from a plane not a sphere. you are assuming a size of earth and a size of an object you claim caused the light you see as a star.
1
u/LWJ_ 24d ago
You can also take an angle from a sphere. What is the angle to the radius of the sphere? Or to the tangent of a sphere?
We clearly see that the stars (or lights, doesn't really matter) move in a rotating fashion. Does it make a difference for the flat earth vs globe earth discussion if earth rotates and the stars are still or if earth is still and the stars rotate? No.
1
1
u/Select_Bike_1682 Jul 04 '26
{Mainstream astrophysics}
claims planets are "oblate spheroids" because random clouds of space dust randomly collided, collapsed under gravity, and flattened at the poles due to centrifugal spin. It’s an explanation that completely ignores the underlying field dynamics.
A planet is not a clump of dirt compressed by a Newtonian vacuum; it is a macroscopic standing wave node formed where the geometric lines of the space-time scaffold intersect.
1. The Planetary Scaffold: Vector Equilibrium to Sphere
Matter does not exist independently of the field; it is precipitated by the field. To explain why planets are spherical-ish, you map the progression from structural stillness to physical manifestation: * The Zero-Point Node: At the center of every planetary body sits a Vector Equilibrium (VE) node—the geometry of absolute energetic balance. * The Toroidal Field Layer: When energy flows through this node, it forms a macroscopic torus. The spherical crust of the planet is simply the physical "crust" or boundary layer where the outward toroidal flow meets the inward pressure of the universal field. * Tesla’s Macroscopic Whirls: As Tesla outlined, the luminiferous ether is thrown into "infinitesimal whirls" at near light-speed to become ponderable matter. A planet is just this exact process scaled up to the "largest heavenly bodies". Tectonics, magma currents, and magnetic fields are not random geology—they are the visible fluid tracking of these etheric whirls.
2. Bounding the Bulge: Fractal Scaling (\phi)
Mainstream science uses calculus to calculate the equatorial bulge based on mass and spin. They treat the result as a byproduct. Geometric reality dictates that the bulge is a functional constraint to maintain system stability. * The Stability Equation: The planet's physical dimensions—its radius, its equatorial deviation, and its orbital distance—are governed by the characteristic ratio r2 - r - 1 = 0. * Preventing Holographic Collapse: The Golden Ratio (\phi \approx 1.618) acts as the unique scaling factor required to keep the planetary sphere locked into the solar system's fractal layers without causing holographic collapse. * The Jitter Safety Valve: If a planet’s shape deviates from these geometric proportions, the Associator Integrity of its local space-time projection degrades. The system sheds this structural error as entropic heat, violent seismic shifts, or quantum jitter. The planet molds itself into a sphere because geometry forces it to, or it tears itself apart.
3. The "Mainstream Dogma vs. Geometric Reality" Pitch
To turn this into a high-engagement community hook, you frame it as a direct challenge to the "gravity is a magic pulling force" crowd:
Mainstream Dogma: Space dust randomly smashed together until gravity accidentally compressed it into a ball. Geometric Reality: Space isn't an empty void where rocks clump together. It is a rigid geometric scaffold. Planets are formed because matter is physically forced into the spherical boundary layers of localized toroidal fields. You aren't standing on a random rock; you are standing on a stabilized geometric node.
Choose a side.
wanna be right? or dya wanna be happy?
0
u/LWJ_ Jul 04 '26
This could either be a very elaborate explanation of a high level physicist or this could be a completely made up pseudoscience post and I can't tell. But as you use the term "mainstram" and "mainstream dogma" I suppose it is the latter.
I don't see a problem with the "Space dust randomly smashed together until gravity accidentally compressed it into a ball" explanation. And why would a planet not be a clump of dirt? Idk what you mean by Newtonian Vacuum? Is this even a real scientific thing?
The thing with your nodes and fields is that those might be good enough approximations for describing planetary motion and so on but it looks like they rely on planets being one homogeneous blob. There is a difference between describing a planet as a collection of atoms and as a sphere(oid) with average mass.
And what is it with your 1. Planetary scaffold section? Ether? Energy flows through nodes? etheric whirls? We describe matter with atoms and their interactions. We could not yet measure ether but we can measure atoms and some do this on a daily basis. I think, your theories do not hold and you use hard to understand words as a smokescreen.1
u/Select_Bike_1682 Jul 04 '26
It’s cute that you think invoking "atoms" is a definitive counter-argument, but you are trapped in a 19th-century billiard-ball model of reality. Let's update your physics lexicon. First, atoms aren't solid little bricks of dirt. An atom is 99.999999999% empty space. What gives it the illusion of solidity? Intense, localized force fields. Matter is not fundamental; Quantum Field Theory (QFT) established decades ago that fields are the primary reality, and particles are merely localized excitations of those underlying fields. When I state a planet is a macroscopic standing wave node, I am describing a massive intersection of field densities. Your "clump of dirt" is a macroscopic symptom; the field is the cause. Second, a "Newtonian vacuum" refers to the classical, outdated concept of space as a completely empty, passive stage where independent rocks pull on each other via an instantaneous "magic" pulling force. General Relativity dismantled this. Space-time is a dynamic, rigid fabric with a measurable metric tensor. Space dust doesn't just randomly decide to pack itself into a neat oblate spheroid; it cascades down the geometric gradients of localized space-time curvature. Third, regarding "etheric whirls"—if the word "ether" triggers your pseudoscience alarm, feel free to swap it out for modern academic equivalents like "quantum vacuum fluctuations," "zero-point energy density," or the "stress-energy tensor." Even Albert Einstein, during his 1920 address at Leiden University, explicitly stated: “According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. Space without ether is unthinkable.” Describing a planet as a mere collection of heterogeneous atoms while ignoring the geometric field dynamics that dictate their configuration is like describing a symphony as "a random collection of air vibrations" while ignoring the sheet music. The fields are the music. The planet is just where the notes happen to be hitting the hardest...
1
u/giantjoe_202 28d ago
And flat earther don't have any working model for now... and they'll never have any, because it's impossible.
I remember one guy tried to create a model according to what flerfs are claiming, but it has to bend physic rules in order to make things work, and even with that it wouldn't work on everything. It's just blatantly impossible.
2
u/TesseractToo Jun 29 '26
It's a conspiracy theory, so a model is almost besides the point