Xref: utzoo talk.religion.newage:1273 alt.flame:979
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!troly
From: troly@CS.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.flame
Subject: Platygaeanism
Keywords: platygaeanism
Message-ID: <9959@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 17 Dec 87 02:47:14 GMT
References: <27455COK@PSUVMA> <4249@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1359@quad1.quad.com>
Sender: root@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly)
Organization: LA Platygaean Society
Lines: 45

In article <1359@quad1.quad.com> oleg@quad1.quad.com (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>Nonsense.  If the Earth REALLY were flat I'd be able to get KPFA (a Pacifica
>FM radio station in San Francisco) anywhere in the country, particularly here,
>in LA. ;-)
>
Thanks to our friend the ionosphere you probably could get it with a suitable
antenna system. Though I don't know why you would *want* to. :-)   Seriously,
the `problem' you describe has the same resolution as the horizon illusion.
Namely, that electromagnetic radiation does not travel in straight lines (at
least) through the atmosphere. Interestingly enough this is also accepted in
a way by round earth theorists, but they have the rays bending the wrong way 
order to follow the supposedly curved earth!  I bring this up again because
Dale Worley still wants to bend light the wrong way in his reply to your 
article.
>And the OTHER question someone brought up -- where does the Sun GO when it dips
>below the horizon and how does it get back?  (I'd love to hear an answer to 
>THAT!)
The problem is not the lack of an answer but that there are so many plausible
answers.  There are a plethora of platygaean cosmologies and we platygaean
scientists must winnow them down in order to get at the truth. I shall post
a summary of the major theories someday when I have time, but I would like
to note that many of them consider the earth's surface to be a compact
2-dimensional manifold, just as the round earthers do. But a compact manifold
(without boundary) can still be flat.  Round-earthers are always confusing
topological and metrical arguments.  They also confuse extrinsic and intrinsic
geometry.
For example, Phil Wayne, who apparently is a round-earther boldly toying
with platygaeanism, suggests a projective plane as the surface of the earth.
This is one of the major compact models (actually it leads to a whole class
of models).  But Phil's description involves *twisting* and *connecting* the
edges in 4 dimensions.  At least I think that is what he is trying to say.
(Correct me Phil, if I am misrepresenting you.) But a manifold need not
be embedded in *any* euclidean space. Things get worse when round-earthers
1) Automatically embed any manifold you talk about in some euclidean space,
and
2) then proceed to borrow the *metric* of that euclidean space without even
realizing what they're doing.
Well, I think I'll sit back and watch the discussion for a while.  Hopefully
some intelligent knowledgeable people like Miriam Nadel will soon join in.

>Oleg Kiselev  --  oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg

                 /
Bret Jolly (bo'-ret tro ly) Mathemagus  LA platygaean society
             .