MichaelVera

Please do, mr big stuff. And delete my two posts as well.

Contemplation of the Universe, how it is structured or how it was formed, has to be among the very top of those things on the mind of humankind throughout the whole of history. What is this Earth we stand on? What exactly is the Sun that we see, that gives us light? How far does the Universe go, and what happens after that? Is the Earth Flat or Round? Millions, and possibly billions, of hours have been spent in quiet contemplation of these Questions of the Universe. But can we know if the Earth is flat? Can this relatively straightforward question be resolved? The answers might surprise you. Using definitions and theorems found at my own website, we can answer not only the question “Is the Earth Flat?” but we can actually unify those who believe the Earth is flat with those who believe it is most assuredly round. We can unify them in much the same way we can unify scientists and theologians on how Energy functions. Please allow me to take you through the this journey of theoretical physics, which will confer logically with general philosophy, to answer these questions, and many more. Let us first define “Earth Theory” a set of definitions and postulates purporting what Earth is, or might be, regardless of any specific theory. This set of definitions and postulates will change over time, and will change among different subsets of people wishing to define what Earth is for themselves. Thus, each new generation has the chance to add to, adjust, or change the set of definitions and postulates which make up the Earth Theory for their life. This leads to many possible combinations of theory and definition, and thus can lead to division among the various subsets of people who are choosing from the various combinations. The Earth Theory as provided by a scholar from the middle ages might differ from the Earth Theory of a 20th century scholar of the middle ages. Likewise, the Earth Theory of a medieval peasant might differ from that of a modern-day vagrant; but then again, it might not. The same for political or religious leaders; their opinions of what Earth is or might be will change over time. The history of the changes of Earth Theory over time would be a very fascinating study to be sure, especially with respect to the religious implications which ended, at times, with punishment for those considered heretical. Regardless of the potential atrocities inflicted on people for deciding whether or not the Earth is or isn’t flat, what is clear is that written history records that Earth is Flat by default, unless postulated otherwise, and that consensus as to Earth Theory is impossible. The first known mentioning of the idea of the Earth being a sphere was from the ancient Greek philosophers of the fifth century BC. By the third century BC, Hellenist astronomers concluded the Earth was in fact a sphere, and calculated the first estimated circumference of the Earth. This means the Round Earth theory has been around for 2500 years. Nevertheless, it took “the West” another 1700-1800 more years to achieve the same general conclusion that the Earth was a sphere, and this only thanks to the demonstration of the Round Earth effect by Earth’s first recorded circumnavigation by Magellan. This shows that some people require actual, physical proof provided only and directly to them so that they can see thus finally believe something is true. As a result, we can conclude we will always have our “Flat Earthers,” no matter the answer of “Is the Earth Flat?” There are, however, certain things that may prove too big or too small for any human to actually see, at least in our lifetime, such as the entire galaxy in one photograph, or the dust orbiting a particle which orbits an Electron. This demonstrates the concept of faith, as well as the concept of Scale. Scale When considering the shape of the Earth, Scale is a critical factor. With respect to the question, “Is the Earth Flat?” the concept of Scale both perfectly answers, and permanently muddies, the answer at the same time. Scale, as defined in that website I'm advertising Definition 6. Scale refers to the relative size of any Radiation Source. This particular definition of Scale requires the preceding definition of a Radiation Source: Definition 5. Anything emitting Radiation is a Radiation Source. This definition may seem simple, and obvious, but is very important, and may still require clarification as to the definition of Radiation: Definition 1. Radiation is Energy extended outwardly, intended for absorption. With these definitions, and one theory, we can start to apply this to the understanding of Scale with respect to the Earth: Theorem 2. Radiation is absorbed and stored as Gravitation inside a Mass Structure. Energy Storage Theorem from The Unified Theory of Energy Thanks to the Energy Storage Theorem, we can make the logical jump to how this applies to the Earth, although it may require two jumps; the first jump being a little easier than the second. The Sun The first jump I would like you to make is to the Sun. I want to use the definitions and theories presented above from The Unified Theory of Energy and apply them to the Sun in such a way as to have you jump to the conclusion that the Sun is shining due to an overabundance of Radiation which is expressed to a human on Earth as heat and light. Not a very big jump, to be sure. The Sun, using the Unified Theory of Energy, is thus a Mass Structure which has Radiation stored internally as Gravitation. There is in fact extra Gravitation stored within the Sun, so the excess is shed as Radiation. This Radiation interacts with the surface of the Sun as it extends outwardly. The interaction of the previously stored Radiation with the surface of the Sun’s Mass Structure imparts a specific subset of frequencies of Radiation, including but not limited to visible light, infrared, and various cosmic rays, based on their certain probabilities. The Sun’s Radiation is extended outwardly, intended for absorption by other Mass Structures, such as Earth, or Pluto, or anything within reach of the Radiation. Now we should consider the Sun with respect to Scale. Luckily, we are already so far from the Sun that it would appear to be only a small, flat disc on the horizon. In fact, it should be difficult for us to understand how big the Sun is from what we see of it. That will help us to Scale the Sun until it is very, very small. Imagine the Sun the size of an atom’s nucleus; the Sun is different on that Scale. It seems to have eight particles orbiting it like an oxygen molecule. The Sun would seem, from that particular Scale, Positive, while the Earth would seem a Negatively charged particle. Now please “zoom in” on the Sun until it becomes very large, and you are somehow able to stand on its surface. You will have Scaled yourself down which made the Sun much larger. Zoom in even farther until a single stray oxygen atom within the Sun is expanded to the size of a Solar System, such as ours. Now the Sun appears to be an atomic nucleus again. This is all to demonstrate that the definition of an object, whether planet or a particle, is directly affected by, and dependent upon, the Scale of the object in question. The Sun is a star, and is also the nucleus of another, much larger molecule, depending on Scale. Humans can not currently exist on the surface of the Sun, so it might be considered irrelevant if the Sun is flat, and we can prove conclusively that it doesn’t matter if the Sun is Flat to a human on Earth. The Earth Now that we thoroughly understand Scale, and have applied its definitions and theories to the Sun to understand how Scale affects the definition of “Particle” or “Planet”, we can apply the same understanding of Scale to the Earth. Unlike the Sun, Humans can currently exist on the surface of the Earth, and as such can get the perspective of the Earth from exactly that Scale. That is the same Scale where “One Year” equals one complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The good news is, humans can stand on the surface of the Earth, where it would appear to a person who can only trust what they see that the Earth is indeed Flat. As far as that one person on the surface of the Earth can walk, it will continue to appear flat, unless there are mountains, or a ship going over the horizon for them right then. From this two-dimensional viewpoint a “Flat Earther” is absolutely correct. From the perspective of a person standing on its surface, the Earth appears flat. This fact requires quite a bit of proof over a tremendously long time to even reach a general consensus among a large group of people; and even then clearly consensus will never be complete. We will always have people who believe the Earth is Flat. And turns out they are not wrong, from their perspective. From a Scale other than when a human is standing on Earth’s surface, there is no answer since it makes no difference. From yet another plug for my website, the official definition of a Mass Structure, and my official answer to whether, or not, the Earth is flat: Definition 8. A Mass Structure is a specific arrangement of Particles tied together by Gravitation while held apart by Particulate Motion and Radiation. On some Scale, Particles tend to form spheres which rotate about an Axis. Conclusion It is important to think about, and discuss, all the possible ways the Universe might function. This is the heart of Philosophy and Wisdom, and an important skill for every human to employ, in all areas of life. It is critical for us to realize we need General Philosophers contemplating every branch of science; theoretical physics included. It is critical that Philosophers are developed to constantly test the logic behind those ideas brought about by science. It is equally important to realize that much of our dis-unification is due to a lack of General Philosophers overseeing the logic behind ideas born within the various branches of science. When a group of truly General Philosophers, like the ancient Greeks, contemplate how all things work together, and not allow the scientific specialties to branch themselves apart, we will end up with a stronger physical framework before us, and better access to use Energy more correctly, and with less exploitation of the Earth itself. Please consider purchasing my stuff from my website; it is easy to read, and endlessly rewarding. From my website link, again.

Since the days of Einstein, theoretical physicists have been the pinnacle of intellectual attainment. Ever ready to provide the answer to science’s greatest problems, the theoretical physicist is determined to be valid only by other theoretical physicists. The original theoretical physicists took data from early chemists and directly hypothesized how electricity or the universe itself might work, none too concerned for testing these hypothesis against logic and reasoning. If it was a new idea, and wasn’t overtly incorrect, it stood as a theory. These days, theoretical physicists strive to provide their moniker for some keepsake particle, unit, or or theorem. The theoretical physicist generally never leaves the university setting; academically or professionally. They will produce paper after paper because they are expected to; they are required to. Whether or not the idea is good, the paper will be produced. They depend on their research paper to graduate with their title, having probably less than seven years total experience studying physics. But are theoretical physicists actually the top of the cerebral food chain? Could Einstein have produced better theory had someone been available to check the logic behind his concepts? What might have happened if Maxwell was forced to bring his ideas before Pythagoras to ensure they were feasible? Society’s greatest mathematical achievements have been handed down from philosophers. Mathematicians who choose to ignore logic and reasoning tend to go astray. You will know the fruit of their labors because they will solve nothing. String Theory would be a prime example. It is my contention that there should be General Philosophers to act as logicians for Theoretical Physicists, to keep their hypothesis logical. Without underlying logic, any idea is simply “fun to think about,” but of no lasting use. Please consider reading advertising link removed by moderator which uses logic to push ideas forward. These ideas have the potential to resolve existing problems in physics, and to open new ideas and hypothesis. We have a lot farther to go in physics, especially with electricity, than we were able to achieve in the mid-1800s. We need to expand our understanding of “magnetism” and “potential energy.”