Flat Space-ers

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Some say we live in an infinite universe or an infinite chain of [infinite?] universes.

This seems fanciful, there seems to be to be no evidence for it except a Flat Space (compare with Flat Earth) theory that spacetime is flat, not curved, and therefore the universe has always been infinite, and if the Big Bang occured, it would have been merely an explosion in scale factor of a pre-existing infinity. This seems like handwaving, l mean, what exactly is being said by the Flat Space-ers?

The Flat Spacers say that spacetime shows a very very very minute gradient and thus is virtually flat. A lot like a big big picnic blanket. Yet the earth is still not flat is it, so why would they be so precociouis as to say spacetime is flat? Wait for a few centuries of corroborating data to arrive surely?

Were the universe infinite, then there would be white dwarves and hypothetical black dwarves everywhere as they are the end of average stellar evolution (the sun is a large-ish star, contrary to what people say, but it is still considered average - one measure is modal av. the other is mean av.). Also where does the energy for new stars come from, across the timescale of infinity, if black holes consume matter do they radiate it all as energy in bursts, or does some of that energy also disappear? If the latter, then across an infinite timescale, the infinite universe fails again and doesnā€™t match observation.

2

Doesnā€™t it make the most logical sense to think of space as the more-receeded micro-scale stuff (lower than quantum) that is so far removed from us on our own more relatively macro scale that we simply cannot perceive it is there? Like staring out into the distance, at a certain point everything just blurs together and merges from our point of view. That would be the ā€œaetherā€ or medium through which stuff on our scale moves.

Then, from that idea, you get an infinite scale of being up and down, and in every possible direction. No ā€˜endā€™ to reality, but perhaps some relative ends to certain scales of beings/existents. Like the space between galaxies, supposedly there is very little there; or the space between universes could be an even better example. Maybe there is as little there as is logically possible, yet some form of medium still exists holding stuff together on some level.

On some level, we have to say that something exists EVERYWHERE because to say otherwise would be to claim that NOTHING exists, which is logically impossible. Yet we tend to think about space in terms of ā€œhey look, nothing exists hereā€. The nothing-itself is posited as a kind of stand-in fundamental thing separate from the existence of any actual material or energy occurring in that given part of space. Yet thinking about it in that way of nothing-itself is logically self-contradictory because nothingness-as-such cannot exist, by its own definition. There must always be SOMETHING there for there to be any ā€˜thereā€™ there at all. Including for what we perceive from our macro scales as what appears to be ā€œempty space / nothing thereā€.

3

Space is 3D space and is said to be infinite, lā€™m unsure what it contains other than what is described as the interstellar medium - i.e. occasional H and He atoms / ions, cosmic rays, and at the fundamental level, hypothetical superstring.

A finite universe inconveniences people due to the interface with Nothing, which is logically impossible.

Therefore l feel the Big Bang was reinvented, despite matching observations.

Now, it never occurred, and they are trying to make the JWST data fit this. They are even saying the BB was an explosion in the scale factor of an already infinite universe.

This is a problematic and incomprehensible term. Flat Space-ers get very angry when discsussing this and when lā€™ve in the past pointed out that a minutely curved spacetime is still a curved spacetime, Flat Space-ers excommunicated me and called me depraved.

4

You keep comparing flat space to flat earth. I donā€™t see why.

5

Flat earthers infer that the earth is flat. There are many reasons but the most basic is that the earth is indeed visibly flat.

Flat spacers infer that space is flat because it too has a minute curvature. But, it is a curvature nonetheless. Iā€™ll admit, everyone states itā€™s ā€œalmost perfectly flatā€ so maybe the problem is my perception.

Iā€™m unsure what the JWST data reveals and am hoping someone will say something. The standard model of Big Bang cosmology and a spatially expanding universe has problems. However, the JWST has not disproved the Big Bang theory.

What the JWST has done is funnel support into the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model which is an update to the BBT but sadly the equations are currently beyond my comprehension, as are the objections to this new model.

At the start of the JWST mission, hardline Atheists were already proclaiming that space is flat.

Professor Joseph Silk (Oxford, Harvard, Manchester, alma mater Cambridge) was dismissed as an outlier. Professor Silk worked on interpreting data on the Cosmic Microwave Background - l think from the Planck [space] Telescope. Professor Silk has made hints about both possibilities - that space might be finite or infinite.

Itā€™s complicated because regardless, finite or infinite, space can still be curved or perfectly flat, depending in the geometry.

However, the Flat Spacers were acting like an Inquisition in those days. They were quite unscientific and were branding people heretics and badmouthing Professor Silk. Iā€™ll admit Professor Silk is close to retirement and makes the occasional blunder but thatā€™s down to his proofreader.

Iā€™m unsure what he says about space or spacetime being curved or flat. But as he believes in the Expanding Universe (l believe he still thinks so post-JWST) then space surely cannot be perfectly flat? Unless it is like a torus, which seems problematic to me, like, itā€™s looped. We eventually meet ourselves or sometihng.

Incidentally, people seem to think space and spacetime are different things, but on a large scale, they amount to the same thing surely.

I was hoping someone could shed light on definitions but as l see it, a perfectly flat universe in terms of space geometry (parallel lines stay parallel) would contradict the Big Bang, because you cannot get from infinitely curved singularly to perfect parallel lines, i.e. infinitely flat, or zero-curved i.e. infinity brought down to zero, without infinite time. It certainly canā€™t happen in the 14 billion years allotted to us since the Big Bang. And also, an expanding universe cannot be perfectly flat, because a perfectly flat universe is infinite in siz (unless, sigh, itā€™s a torus).

6

Sorry but the earth is probably not flat. I have debated flat earthers many times, gone through many of their arguments in detail. They always fail, usually because the flat earth people do not understand basic physics. Although I get it, the appeal of the flat earth idea. And itā€™s certainly possible the earth is really flat, but I see no ultimately convincing reasons (yet) to think so.

I would only conclude one way or another by seeing it for myself. From way way up high, in space or whatever is up there. Assuming all the NASA photos and stuff are faked, showing a spherical earth, then maybe by seeing it for myself i can get a real answer. Until then, I assume the earth is probably a sphere because that makes the most sense and is the most logically consistent (it is easy to explain a cosmology, physics and origin of the earth within a spherical model, but I have never seen someone explain a cosmology, physics and origin of the earth in a flat model other than ā€œGod did itā€).

7

A trip in an airplane, if you look at the window now and then, is sufficient to see that the Earth is not flat. You can see more of Earth coming from behind the horizon. Or if you look out at sea and see a ship rising from behind it. The Earth does not appear flat to me.

8

According to flat earthers this is because of curvature in the glass windows of the airplane. They distort a flat image into a curve. As for ships, I dunno about that one. I bet they have some kind of excuse how it somehow fits into their paradigm.

9

Wow.
It is an advanced form of stupidity, so radical and absolutely illogical that it is hard to make separate arguments against it. Literally the whole of unified reality speaks against it.

10

I have a certain baseline level of respect for flat earthers, because they are at least thinking outside the mainstream and ATTEMPTING to form independent, critical logical arguments against what is commonly accepted and taught about the world. At least they have some degree of critical thinking, whereas a person who blindly accepts the earth is round because their school teacher told them so long ago in 1st grade, probably isnā€™t doing any critical thinking on the subject.

I donā€™t think most people have any direct personal-sensory experience with observing that the earth is round. For the most part, we OBSERVE that it appears to be flat. Hence why it took humanity so very long to figure out that it is round (assuming that it is indeed round).

That being saidā€¦ I have debated with flat earthers many times, when I was active on omegle and in various discord groups. I can tell you that, without exception in my experience, they become hostile to the truth when they cannot logically counter how something refutes a position they are holding. Itā€™s not like they will go, ā€œoh, thatā€™s interesting, I donā€™t know why that is, it does seem to support your position of a round earth. Let me think about that some more, thanks for the infoā€ā€¦ yeah, I think that has happened about 0% of the time when it comes to any flat earther anywhere.

Instead, they get angry, militant and offensive, dismissive and will often just ban you from their group. Or they go into weird crazy territories and lose all logical coherence in their ideas, apparently without even noticing. So I would conclude flat earth, while having some low level merits as I pointed out above, is mostly an emotional and ideological position. Which is not to say this means it is incorrect. But yeah, all logic seems to point to flat earth being incorrect. Thatā€™s my guess, but like I said I refuse to come down 100% on that side until I view the earth for myself from a sufficient vantage and without glass that could distort the view, so I can know for sure on my own. As a philosopher, 99.999% isnā€™t certainty and I have no emotions or otherwise reason to need to claim that I KNOW with complete certaintly, because that would be untruthful.

11

But it is not that it appears curved from a plane but that new parts of the Earth continually emerge from behind the horizon.

You need motion to see that the Earth isnā€™t flat.

12

I can say that for a flat earther, I remember one of their arguments, when pointed out that if the earth was curved it would be impossible to see anything beyond a certain distance of miles, yet we can use telescopes and camera lenses to see much further than this. They think this is proof the earth is flat, but they do not understand that light is also somewhat curving with gravity at those larger distances, and partially refracting in the atmosphere. Combining those two things you can understand how objects can be visible to some degree (more blurry usually and as distance increases) beyond the supposed limit of the curve.

I donā€™t know what their explanation for ships appearing to sink below the curve, but I bet they have some argument for it. Iā€™ll try to look up what they would say, now that Im curious.

13

Here you go:

Causes

The sinking ship effect has been determined to be due to various causes:

Ocean Swells

It has been determined that at times the sinking ship effect is caused by bulges on the surface of the ocean.

See: Sinking Ship Effect Caused by Ocean Swells

Lack of Optical Resolution

The sinking ship effect can sometimes be caused by a lack of optical resolution whereby elements of the hull can seem to merge into the sea. This can be reversed with optical magnification.

See: Sinking Ship Effect Caused by Limits to Optical Resolution

Refraction

At other times the sinking ship cannot be reversed with optical magnification. In these cases the cause of the sinking effect is seen to be related to the common inferior mirage which regularly occurs for long periods of time over the surface of water. Over a period of time this sinking effect will disappear, revealing distant bodies.

See: Sinking Ship Effect Caused by Refraction

14

Sigh. How depressing.

From flat earth site

ā€œIf you donā€™t know something, and cannot understand it by first principles,ā€

But I do understand it by first principles. I understand the formation of bodies and the workings of gravity.

And in a plane, I see that it is curved. On one trip to the US I followed the sunset west, flying over the Arctic, Greenland, Canada. New fire red miracles kept emerging from behind the horizon.

Also a lunar eclipse. If the Earth was flat it would just block a line.

1 Like
15

Who is a flat earther here?

I was making the point that those who consider spacetime flat are much like flat earthers or anyone that considers earth flat just because it looks flat where we are sat.

As an asides, to God, the creator of the earth, earth is indeed possibly flat, because beyond light speed - and his existence surpasses time and space, so c is no barrier to him - the spherical earth does indeed become a flat disc, l believe the entire universe probably becomes 2D at c and above, That is not the topic though, it is Flat Space not flat earth.