| Author |
Message |
|
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:31 am |
 |
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SubJunk erThis is interesting... Explain "condensed space".
For this theory to work it would have to be an expanding sphere, which is expanding in only one bi-direction... In which case it would be exactly the same as the current theory except that the word "Universe" is replaced with "Earth"...
Wait I might not be understanding this properly. No I'm sure I'm not.
In this theory are we on a little planet inside "Earth"? Or are we walking around the edges?
Where, physically, are humans located inside "Earth" in this theory?
I'm sure I'm not understanding this properly because if I am there are lots of ways to disprove it.
We are walking around on the internal surface of the sphere, so our feet are touching the inside of the sphere and our heads are pointing towards the middle.
As for space being more condensed, this is hard to do without a diagram but I'll try. Draw the earth as a circle, and mark the center of that circle with a dot and call it C. Now you would say that the rest of the universe is outside the circle, and I would say (for argument's sake) that the rest of the universe is inside.
Now its simply a case of mathematical inversion. Draw something outside the circle, say a plane, or the moon or the sun and call that object P. Now draw a straight line between C and P. Now draw a new circle with that line as the diameter. You should now have two circles, one with a center at C, and one that touches C and P. These two circles should intersect at two points - draw a straight line between these two intersections. Where the straight line you have just drawn, and the straight line between C and P intersect is where your plane/moon/sun would be located if the earth is inverted. The further away something is in your universe, the closer it is to center of the sphere, and the smaller it is.
We can apply the same principle to the fundamental forces and find that they follow curved paths in an inverted earth, but as far as we are concerned they appear straight. The only way to disprove this theory is to drill through the center of the earth, because in all other respects it is mathematically identical to our everyday experiences.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:29 am |
|
|
|
|
Except that satellite imagery shows Earth as being round so that's obviously not a valid theory. But mathematically it's a nice experiment =)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:05 am |
|
|
|
|
Nope. If you perform the same transformation on the paths of the light, you would expect to see a round earth.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:20 am |
|
|
|
|
Kazza - I like the theory, it reminds me of a kind of inverse non-Euclidean geometry. How large is the sphere? Does the theory allow for observations like night and day and the seasons?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:24 am |
|
|
|
|
I have been high enough to see the curvature of the earth. And I'm not talking about high on drugs either!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:55 am |
|
|
|
|
Light as we know it could never bend that much short of being in a vacuum and even then unlikely.
What's their/your explanation of gravity in this sphere? It would have to have a lot more total mass than our current Earth to produce the same gravity as it would be more spread out. If Earth's mass was stretched exponentially far we would experience little gravity and "fall" straight to the closest large planet or moon. That's how I figure it anyway, if I'm wrong I apoligise.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Monopolized Kazza - I like the theory, it reminds me of a kind of inverse non-Euclidean geometry. How large is the sphere? Does the theory allow for observations like night and day and the seasons?
The sphere is the same radius as our earth now. As for gravity, it has the same strength as we know it to, just apply the same transformations and it all works out. I can't say that I can perform the maths myself, as the explanation I gave above is slightly simplistic, but both worlds are mathematically identical. Hence there is absolutely no way to disprove the theory. I'll do a little browsing and see if I can come up with a more rigorous explanation of it.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
|
I honestly can not believe that anyone would think the earth is flat.
I went to the link http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/index.php & I can't believe it.
I'm not sure if it's so funny or sad.
The shape of the earth has been proven in many ways. Now that we have satellite....you can even SEE it! Why would you argue w/facts or even more, something that is right in front of your eyes?!
Do you also question our solar system? Or is it just the shape of the earth??
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:33 am |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by kazza The sphere is the same radius as our earth now. As for gravity, it has the same strength as we know it to, just apply the same transformations and it all works out. I can't say that I can perform the maths myself, as the explanation I gave above is slightly simplistic, but both worlds are mathematically identical. Hence there is absolutely no way to disprove the theory. I'll do a little browsing and see if I can come up with a more rigorous explanation of it. I haven't started drawing any physics diagrams yet but the way I figure it is that if this Earth was the same raidus as our curent one it would have to be twice as large as our current one too, because when we were on one part of Earth in the more commonly accepted theory we are bound by the gravity of two radiuses.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:23 am |
|
|
|
|
Ahh hah, finally found a decent, non-cult site that explains this much better than I can.
http://www.geocities.com/inversedearth/
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SubJunk Hehe well of course you're right about it not being round, that's why the first estimates of Earth's size were quite a bit off (those German scientists spend nearly a decade taking that wrong measurement too, ouch!) but I can't tell if you're joking about the other bit or not?
The hollow-earth advanced civilization myth is an oldie; that's what Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth was based on. You'll see some hints of it in H.P. Lovecraft, E.R. Burroughs and Lin Carter, also.
Jesus On Mars is a Sci-Fi novel by Philip Jose Farmer - one of my faves.
Some Other Farmer Titles:
The Riverworld series
Venus On the Half Shell (as Kilgore Trout and a goof on Kurt Vonnegutt, Jr.)
The Beast
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:31 am |
|
|
|
|
Technically it would look like it was round because of the change in space density curving the lightwaves/particles, but I think this is meant to be more of a mathematical experiment than an actual theory, this site has just taken it to the next level. It sure is interesting even as an experiment.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by kazza Ahh hah, finally found a decent, non-cult site that explains this much better than I can.
http://www.geocities.com/inversedearth/ That's interesting. At least we can agree that the earth is not flat.
If this were true, I really don't think any illusions would make the earth appear round from space. I understand the illusions theory, I just have a hard time believing it.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:01 am |
|
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think anyone really takes it seriously. Well, actually, the scientist that first proposed this (can't remember his name) started a whole cult around the idea. They have web pages on the net, I just wish I could remember the name of them. He actually got the theory completely wrong, but he was the first with the idea of an inverted earth.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
