The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Is my argument about the shape of the Earth flawed???in Earth Science

anonymousdebater

Any object that is n-dimensions appears flat to n+1-dimensional beings. Since paper is 2-D, it appears flat to 3-D beings. Any object that is less than n-dimensions is flatter than flat, so a line would be flatter than flat to 3D beings. The Earth is 3D. Therefore, to 4D beings, it would be flat. To 5D, 6D, 7D, 8D, etc., it would be flatter than flat. Indeed, the world would only be round in three dimensions. In two dimensions, it would be incomprehendible, similar to a 4D sphere to us. Therefore, the world is flat.

Pogue

someone234 said:

@anonymousdebater
I made this exact argument before buddy. Ask @Erfisflat

when I was a Round Earther I brought this argument and his entire gang of flat earthers were so confused what I was saying,

that being said you are absolutely right and I made the wrong conclusion.

It is flat.

It would be flat (if we assume a lot (read above)) to them not us. That does not make it flat to us. It is a false conclusion. 

Pogue

anonymousdebater said:

Any object that is n-dimensions appears flat to n+1-dimensional beings. Since paper is 2-D, it appears flat to 3-D beings. Any object that is less than n-dimensions is flatter than flat, so a line would be flatter than flat to 3D beings. The Earth is 3D. Therefore, to 4D beings, it would be flat. To 5D, 6D, 7D, 8D, etc., it would be flatter than flat. Indeed, the world would only be round in three dimensions. In two dimensions, it would be incomprehendible, similar to a 4D sphere to us. Therefore, the world is flat.

You assume these dimensions exist. The only one mentioned (besides 3d and lower) that we know exists is time. It is also flawed with the paper argument. A piece of paper can be in 3-dimensions. You just need depth. Also, a 4d being (assuming they exist) would not appear the same to a 5d being as a 2d will to a 3d. A sphere is 3d. It can never be 4d. The fourth dimension is time. These are just a few flaws with it. 

Edit: Even if the rest was correct, the world would still be round to us. You would need a "higher" perspective. 

someone234

@anonymousdebater
I made this exact argument before buddy. Ask @Erfisflat

when I was a Round Earther I brought this argument and his entire gang of flat earthers were so confused what I was saying,

that being said your logic is flawed bu teh conclusion is right.

It is flat.

someone234

@anonymousdebater Wait a second, you have no idea what the word flat means if you think this proves something.

someone234

anonymousdebater said:

Any object that is n-dimensions appears flat to n+1-dimensional beings. Since paper is 2-D, it appears flat to 3-D beings. Any object that is less than n-dimensions is flatter than flat, so a line would be flatter than flat to 3D beings. The Earth is 3D. Therefore, to 4D beings, it would be flat. To 5D, 6D, 7D, 8D, etc., it would be flatter than flat. Indeed, the world would only be round in three dimensions. In two dimensions, it would be incomprehendible, similar to a 4D sphere to us. Therefore, the world is flat.

you fully comprehend something crucial about why we can't see which shape the Earth is.

a 4-D being would see the shape in all its rawness but would not be able to bypass time the way a 5-D being could.

4-D being will have a sixth sense to perceive depth that isn't sight but beyond it we can't see it.

Pogue

someone234 said:

anonymousdebater said:

Any object that is n-dimensions appears flat to n+1-dimensional beings. Since paper is 2-D, it appears flat to 3-D beings. Any object that is less than n-dimensions is flatter than flat, so a line would be flatter than flat to 3D beings. The Earth is 3D. Therefore, to 4D beings, it would be flat. To 5D, 6D, 7D, 8D, etc., it would be flatter than flat. Indeed, the world would only be round in three dimensions. In two dimensions, it would be incomprehendible, similar to a 4D sphere to us. Therefore, the world is flat.

you fully comprehend something crucial about why we can't see which shape the Earth is.

a 4-D being would see the shape in all its rawness but would not be able to bypass time the way a 5-D being could.

4-D being will have a sixth sense to perceive depth that isn't sight but beyond it we can't see it.

You do know that we have more than 5 senses right. 

Pogue

@someone234
I am so proud of this moment. Lol. 

anonymousdebater

Higher dimensions are supported by string theory. The word flat is rather ambiguous. It could be considered "flat" with a certain definition, but from a typical definition, and to us at least, the world is round.

someone234

@Pogue please stop this nonsense. Unless I am wrong and you are actually a superior being in on the lie, do enlighten me as to our sixth sense.

someone234

@anonymousdebater buddy listen to me i know the exact route of argument you are going and I fully comprehend string and m-theory and the difference between dimension 10 and 11.

I know EXACTLY what you are referring to and you are CORRECT BUT YOU WENT WRONG AT THE ENDING.

The 4-D being would perceive the roundness if it was there.

Pogue

someone234 said:

@Pogue please stop this nonsense. Unless I am wrong and you are actually a superior being in on the lie, do enlighten me as to our sixth sense.

Ok. I will give a bunch. A sense is a physiological capacity of organisms that provide data for perception. There are multiple (thousands) organs that do this within the regular 5 sense alone. However, I will provide more. 

We have: 
Thermoception
Nociception
Chronoception
Kinaesthesia
Proprioception
Equilibrioception.

There are more but I will have to stop here.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/humans-have-more-than-5-senses/

Pogue

anonymousdebater said:

Higher dimensions are supported by string theory. The word flat is rather ambiguous. It could be considered "flat" with a certain definition, but from a typical definition, and to us at least, the world is round.

String theory is cool, but it doesn't have a lot of evidence. 

Fredsnephew

Nothing is actually flat.

Everything has three dimensions, even a piece of paper.

Anything less than three dimensional, would not actually exist. Could not exist.

anonymousdebater said:

Any object that is n-dimensions appears flat to n+1-dimensional beings. Since paper is 2-D, it appears flat to 3-D beings. Any object that is less than n-dimensions is flatter than flat, so a line would be flatter than flat to 3D beings. The Earth is 3D. Therefore, to 4D beings, it would be flat. To 5D, 6D, 7D, 8D, etc., it would be flatter than flat. Indeed, the world would only be round in three dimensions. In two dimensions, it would be incomprehendible, similar to a 4D sphere to us. Therefore, the world is flat.

It would be really helpful if you could give a common sense explanation of your multi-dimensional theory.

Does matter require multi-dimensionality?

MayCaesar

This is a sound argument under the assumption that a 4-D being can exist in our Universe. As far as we know, it is impossible geometrically: while certain cosmological topologies, such as that in the popular super-string theory, or in various brane theories, do allow the existence of additional dimensions, those dimensions are not quite the same as our dimensions, and they are much more abstract and theoretical. 

Bear also in mind that to a 4-D being, not only would the Earth appear flat, but our Universe as a whole would appear flat. In this context saying that the Earth is flat would be similar to you looking at a sheet of paper and saying that a few of its atoms put together are flat: this is technically correct, but practically such a claim would not sound sensible.

MayCaesar

Also, to add to the previous comment, it is important to note that the term "flat" depends on the context. For example, according to the currently dominating cosmological model, our Universe is flat - in the sense that it lacks curvature. But the implied curvature is something completely different from a curvature of a 2-D surface in the 3-D geometry. It, instead, means that the Big Bang occurred in such a way that the kinetic energy of the objects in the expanding Universe ended up being exactly equal to the potential energy opposing it; the net energy in the Universe is zero.

The presence of the curvature would lead to pretty interesting effects. Positive curvature (positive net energy) would essentially make our Universe into an infinitely big Black Hole, looped on itself gravitationally. And negative curvature (negative net energy) would rather make it into an infinitely big White Hole, a type of the object that is very difficult to explain in layman terms, and that on a smaller scale is very unlikely to exist.

We do not observe the effects of a non-zero curvature directly, hence we assume the curvature is absent. However, we do not know very well what effects would be observable on a reasonable scale in the first place, was the curvature to exist. It is very much possible that the curvature is small, but non-zero, and a lot of researchers try simulating such Universes numerically to see what observable predictions such a scenario would result in. It is a very young field with very-very inconclusive results, and a somewhat obscure field, but nonetheless interesting.