FE is something emerging, started not long ago and little by little will destroy the any existing false physics theories.Pure BS.
Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.
Yet FE is currently growing fast n fenomenal ~
Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.
That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
Actually the idea that people believed in a flat earth during the middle ages is bogus. Our belief system originated in the 1800s and differs from purely believing it flat as many vertical and horizontal cosmologies suggest in religions and worldviews. It also differs from some of the ancient belief systems that also held the earth to be flat.FE is something emerging, started not long ago and little by little will destroy the any existing false physics theories.Pure BS.
Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.
Yet FE is currently growing fast n fenomenal ~
FE has been around long before RE.
FE was simply assumed by people.
But then observations were made which showed that FE was wrong.
Thousands of years ago, your description of FE matches that of RE.
RE was something emerging, starting then, which little by little destroyed FE nonsense.
While the number of people that believe in FE may be growing, they don't believe in the same model, and they don't have a model that matches reality.
A bunch of fools believing it won't magically make it true.
All the evidence still points to a RE.
Actually the idea that people believed in a flat earth during the middle ages is bogus.Did you notice how I said thousands of years ago?
Our belief systemWell I'm glad you admit it is a belief system, rather than anything scientific.
It also differs from some of the ancient belief systems that also held the earth to be flat.Yes, as these ancient belief systems often more closely resemble that of a round Earth.
Scientific consensus is a belief system. Otherwise, you'll need to find a replacement for falsification and empiricism.Our belief systemWell I'm glad you admit it is a belief system, rather than anything scientific.
Scientific consensus is a belief system. Otherwise, you'll need to find a replacement for falsification and empiricism.Yes, science can be considered a belief system. The individual components of it are not.
Did you read the link you posted? It tries to reference a theory that doesn’t exist or even apply to the earth. Gausses theory they use is regarding an infinite “charged” plane. But the link leaves out charged all together and just says plane. The Blog is absolutely nonsense. Putting up a made up formula doesn’t qualify as proof.Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
Of course I read it. I wrote it.Did you read the link you posted? It tries to reference a theory that doesn’t exist or even apply to the earth. Gausses theory they use is regarding an infinite “charged” plane. But the link leaves out charged all together and just says plane. The Blog is absolutely nonsense. Putting up a made up formula doesn’t qualify as proof.Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
Of course I read it. I wrote it.Did you read the link you posted? It tries to reference a theory that doesn’t exist or even apply to the earth. Gausses theory they use is regarding an infinite “charged” plane. But the link leaves out charged all together and just says plane. The Blog is absolutely nonsense. Putting up a made up formula doesn’t qualify as proof.Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity
Shall I count you now amongst the believers?
I specifically said, “math fact”. Not some random references to subjects that don’t apply in anyway to FET. That is not exactly helping the cause of FE mathematics. Especially when you are trying to use gravity to prove a FE. There is a very good reason FET and gravity do not compliment each other. You should know this better than anyone.Instead of assuming Davis is just saying something irrelevant, try to take on board what he actually said. Gravity and an infinite plane go hand in hand just fine, the normal issue with gravity is that a flat Earth would get pulled into a ball (though FEers have found ways around that), but for an infinite plane there's no centre to pull to. The leftwards and rightwards pull wherever you are would be completely balanced because there is the same infinite amount of Earth in each direction. There are a multitude of FE models that use gravity in some form, I have no idea where you're getting the idea it doesn't apply from.
Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!
Maths doesn't just sprout fully formed into being. All you can derive there is pure maths, which is fun but of limited use if you want to model the world. There are no mathematical proofs of RET, mathematical proofs are a specific thing which apply to the realm of numbers only.Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.” Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.
What I expect you're talking about is mathematical formulae used in RET to make predictions or gain data. Those aren't mathematical proofs, just either evidence or deduction depending on application. Things like Newton's laws weren't proven mathematically, some guy with silly hair observed a few things and realised what factors were involved and drew conclusions. You can make mathematical proofs that draw on them, creating identities becomes pretty easy, but they're not mathematically proven so much as they are scientifically. (And yes, there's a difference, maths gives you 100% certainty so long as axioms hold and your proof-readers aren't missing something, science can get you 99.9999%).
As far as FET goes, there's maths. People just don't discuss it. Davis gave a formula from the infinite plane model (which is one of those FE models that uses gravity), JRowe have a formula for aether, it's pretty easy to derive a formula for denpressure...
But there are two basic kinds of maths in this context. One, the trivial. Two, the obscene.
You don't get much new information with the denpressure formula or infinite plane model, beyond the fact the relevant details could work. if you want, for dome models you can calculate the height of the dome if you want to make specific assumptions (the problem being trying to confirm those assumptions).
The other case is the obscenely hard. JRowe's aether formula I'm still not entirely convinced was meant seriously, but it's about what I'd expect the phenomenon he'd describe to look like. Think four dimensional partial differential equation. The kind of people that can derive brand new physical formulae are the top-tier geniuses of the world. Pick something you want the maths for under FET, and then try to figure out how that maths would actually get derived.
Chances are it's either something you could do easily, or that you wouldn't know where to start. Either there's no point in discussing it, or it's an absurd thing to demand.
Besides, most of the interesting parts of FET are in the mechanisms. Wait until you're happy with the mechanisms as potential explanations before you start pushing for more.
Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.” Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
So funny :). While no one thought that you belong to the "beginner" you got offended.
I wrote "most of them". Got it? :)
Or do you feel you're really a beginner?
That's what I feel about me. "I am a beginner".
Beginner doesn't really mean they never learnt physics at schools before.
However, after graduation they are not into science stuff due to its boring nature. (Fake science is always boring).
Flat earth phenomenon has attracted so many beginners to become more intense getting in touch with science. I meant: real science.
"REAL Science Ain't Boring At All. It's MIND BLOWING, even ENTERTAINING n FULL OF JOY"
You are right on the money about getting people involved in the sciences. If FET gets people involved in the scientific process it’s awesome. Everyone needs to be a critical thinker. I guess I didn’t particularly feel offended earlier as much as irritated by the links. It’s the same reason I refuse to open links to YouTube videos. I respect someone’s personal opinion over a video.Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.Can you actually justify this? Or are you talking out of your ass.That’s the thing. Once you get the math right. It’s really settles issue. If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Done. Glad to have you on the flat side:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
So funny :). While no one thought that you belong to the "beginner" you got offended.
I wrote "most of them". Got it? :)
Or do you feel you're really a beginner?
That's what I feel about me. "I am a beginner".
Beginner doesn't really mean they never learnt physics at schools before.
However, after graduation they are not into science stuff due to its boring nature. (Fake science is always boring).
Flat earth phenomenon has attracted so many beginners to become more intense getting in touch with science. I meant: real science.
"REAL Science Ain't Boring At All. It's MIND BLOWING, even ENTERTAINING n FULL OF JOY"
What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.” Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.
If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.
Tell me, how was oxygen discovered?What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.” Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.
If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.
Tell me, how was oxygen discovered?What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.Everything is bound by math and facts. It is the fundamental way we understand the world around us. I’m prone to dismissing any answer that include the words, “should, could, might, it’s thought and it’s believed.” I think these words are totally acceptable in a belief system. But they are awful words to us in proofs. I’m very receptive to words like, “we know, it’s been proven and it’s a fact.” Those words give me great comfort. Newton’s Laws of motion are called laws for a reason.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.
If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.
Hold that thought!Tell me, how was oxygen discovered?lol, you must be a troll, at this point you are just rejecting all observable and measurable science.
You are just plain ignorant, what is your experience/education in any professional science. Let me guess...none.No, John Davis is most certainly not ignorant. Just read:
Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.. . . . . . I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth. . . . . . . . .
FE is something emerging, started not long ago and little by little will destroy the any existing false physics theories.
Most of them are 'beginners' n didn't go to physics college or such. Don't expect it is a complete science entity.
Yet FE is currently growing fast n fenomenal ~
Did you read the link you posted? It tries to reference a theory that doesn’t exist or even apply to the earth. Gausses theory they use is regarding an infinite “charged” plane. But the link leaves out charged all together and just says plane. The Blog is absolutely nonsense. Putting up a made up formula doesn’t qualify as proof.The page is to show that gravity works fine on an infinite flat Earth, and that it can be stable rather than collapse into a sphere.
Try calculating the stresses that the infinite plane would be under. I remember someone else working it out and I think the result was that the earth would be under infinite stress at some points.If it was perfectly uniform, the stress would only act to make it thinner, not collapse it.
Also ignoring stress problems, an infinite plane is still only metastable, any irregularities would cause a collapse.
Anyway I am still working out on free fall object reality by UA perspective. I called UA with "AE" >> "Ascending Earth". (Some group of people are familiar with this term, yet with different connotation, not physics).Does the math show how the acceleration can vary across Earth without Earth tearing itself apart?
Have you read my previous posts regarding the math of AE?
UA is an elegant early attempt at a solution to the fact that gravity as we know it is a complete farce. Its a simple word we hide our ignorance in. It could work in principle, but I feel it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.But your infinite earth theory uses Newtonian gravity, so you agree with gravity as we know it??
UA is an elegant early attempt at a solution to the fact that gravity as we know it is a complete farce. Its a simple word we hide our ignorance in. It could work in principle, but I feel it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.
Anyway I am still working out on free fall object reality by UA perspective. I called UA with "AE" >> "Ascending Earth". (Some group of people are familiar with this term, yet with different connotation, not physics).Does the math show how the acceleration can vary across Earth without Earth tearing itself apart?
Have you read my previous posts regarding the math of AE?
The point isn’t who discovered oxygen. That’s easy to answer. The real question is why do we believe it exists? You can’t smell it, taste it, see it or even feel it. Our air is made up of 78% nitrogen. Wouldn’t it make sense that we are breathing nitrogen? We all accept the fact we need oxygen to survive. Why don’t we consider that to be a lie? Maybe it’s a government conspiracy? We know it is true because it’s a fact. It has been mathematically proven and scientifically studied. It isn’t 99% true. It is 100% true! It can be proven. If we live on a flat earth it is our obligation to prove it by facts if you want someone to take you seriously. Lies and conspiracy theories don’t fly in the real world of science.
By using Reverse Flat Earth map, it's sufficient to disprove the globe model by refering the reality of 'north hemisplane'.Who says that the "'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge ocean"? Have you ever measured it?
Its huge distances from Europe to Greenland to North America - not to mention 'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge ocean - indicates that the globe model is just an imagination.
So you are just doing a purely hypothetical situation and not trying to deal with reality?Does the math show how the acceleration can vary across Earth without Earth tearing itself apart?I spoke about free fall object. It has nothing to do with that silly reality which you misunderstood.
By using Reverse Flat Earth map, it's sufficient to disprove the globe modelNo it isn't.
by refering the reality of 'north hemisplane'.You mean the northern hemisphere, which doesn't match your map at all and shows your map is pure BS?
Its huge distances from Europe to Greenland to North AmericaYes, in your map, not in reality. In reality, the distance is quite small.
not to mention 'Bering Strait' which is actually a huge oceanNo, it is a small strait.
FE is something emerging, started not long ago and little by little will destroy the any existing false physics theories.
I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said. You're switching definitions of 'fact' on a dime whenever it's convenient, from mathematically proven to scientifically proven, and those are not the same things. The methods of proof are completely different, and to equate the two is a fundamental misunderstanding of both disciplines.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.
If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.
Gravity is simply a word we use to hide our ignorance. Do I deny that objects fall at a certain rate, which can be described roughly with a formula? Of course not. We all know things fall.UA is an elegant early attempt at a solution to the fact that gravity as we know it is a complete farce. Its a simple word we hide our ignorance in. It could work in principle, but I feel it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.But your infinite earth theory uses Newtonian gravity, so you agree with gravity as we know it??
Well put!I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said. You're switching definitions of 'fact' on a dime whenever it's convenient, from mathematically proven to scientifically proven, and those are not the same things. The methods of proof are completely different, and to equate the two is a fundamental misunderstanding of both disciplines.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.
If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.
Mathematical proof is 100% reliable, but also purely theoretical.
Scientific proof can only be 99.9999% reliable, but is primarily practical.
What we see can't be denied. How we explain that is up for grabs, and once upon a time the RE explanations would've been on par with the modern day FE ones, it's a bit silly to object that FET generally developed by individuals doesn't compare to RET after several centuries. Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said. You're switching definitions of 'fact' on a dime whenever it's convenient, from mathematically proven to scientifically proven, and those are not the same things. The methods of proof are completely different, and to equate the two is a fundamental misunderstanding of both disciplines.They're called laws because the chance of them being wrong is 0.00000000001%. Maths is concerned with proofs, but only when it's not applied. Applying maths is concerned with evidence. Why can this be applied to that, why is that a factor, why isn't this?What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen? How do you know you are breathing it? There are thousands of facts that you will never see. The statement that, “the only facts are what we see” is absolutely false. I have never understood how people confuse facts with beliefs or opinions. There is a huge difference. Things that are facts only become facts because no argument can be made. There is absolutely no arguing a fact.
The only facts are what we see. Science is how we try to explain those facts.
If you're going to object to FEers' word choices rather than pay attention to what it is they're saying you might be comfortable but you're not making good arguments.
Mathematical proof is 100% reliable, but also purely theoretical.
Scientific proof can only be 99.9999% reliable, but is primarily practical.
What we see can't be denied. How we explain that is up for grabs, and once upon a time the RE explanations would've been on par with the modern day FE ones, it's a bit silly to object that FET generally developed by individuals doesn't compare to RET after several centuries. Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.
Wow a Meme. How original. So I assume your post means math isn't prevalent in FE is because RE people can't grasp the mathematics involved? I'm just a wee bit skeptical of the premise.You failed to understand Gauss' law yourself.
You have to explain which of Gauss' laws you think I don't understand. And apparently you forgot to add the "s" to law. It is Gauss' laws. Not law. He almost exclusively studied the effects of Electromagnetism. If you are referring to gravity that is sort of a moot point. You are not going to get a whole lot of support from the FE community if you support gravity in a FE scenario. You might as well try to use satellites to prove the Earth is flat. That's a discussion I would love to see!Wow a Meme. How original. So I assume your post means math isn't prevalent in FE is because RE people can't grasp the mathematics involved? I'm just a wee bit skeptical of the premise.You failed to understand Gauss' law yourself.
Perhaps you should pay attention to what has been said.I know that I'm breathing it because of the scientific theory and explanation surrounding air and respiration. Pretty much exactly in line with what I said.The only facts are what we see.What we see doesn’t always have a correlation to facts. Have you ever seen oxygen?
Maybe FET will be better after a few centuries, maybe not, either way judge the models on their own merits.FE BS has had a lot longer than RET.
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.That seems to be all you ever do.
Gravity is simply a word we use to hide our ignorance. Do I deny that objects fall at a certain rate, which can be described roughly with a formula? Of course not. We all know things fall.Sure, just like electrostatic interactions is a word we use to hide our ignorance, and so on with the other forces.
What do you mean, he won't get support from the FE community? There are a few FE models that have gravity.
If you are going to respond to something make sure to include at least a couple facts in your post. What we see CAN be denied. We use math to explain what we see/observe. You "know" you breath oxygen because of "theory?" I'm sure glad I don't breathe "theoretical" oxygen. I breathe in the real thing. No one is going to take you seriously if you use words like, "pretty much exactly, how we explain that is up for grabs, once apon a time, silly, maybe, and maybe not. Those are words that are argumentative.No, they're words. I use a few hedging terms in an apparently vain attempt to stop the more bloody-minded users who'd throw a fit at anything else.
I haven't seen any explaination why math isn't more prevalent in FET.Give that there have been several over the course of this thread, that seems to be entirely reflective of you rather than FET. You've had people actually provide maths, and had it explained how the mathematics used in a scientific context is not exactly easy to create, especially with what FEers have to work with. Like I said before:
That’s the beauty of math. It can’t produce illogical results.Logical and consistent with reality are 2 fundamentally different things.
I think that is part of the weakness of FE. It has so many unknown factors that it is impossible to prove. Or even substantiate.No, the big issue is that the evidence goes against it.
And apparently you forgot to add the "s" to law. It is Gauss' laws. Not law.Nope. There is one known as Guass' law.
He almost exclusively studied the effects of Electromagnetism. If you are referring to gravity that is sort of a moot point.There are then extensions of this law to other fields, including gravity.
I'll shoot you an article specifically using one of Gauss's laws in a FE scenario.Which is quite similar to what JD already linked.
http://www.academia.edu/11774821/An_exercise_on_Gauss_law_for_gravitation_The_Flat_Earth_model
All I can see is a way to derail the subject of math and the FET. I'm not going to turn this into a argument over the proof of one law. Gauss' law of gravitation does not prove a FE period.So?
If someone can present me with some math fact regarding FE. I will become a believer today!Gauss' law for gravity on a FE is a math fact regarding FE.
No, they're words. I use a few hedging terms in an apparently vain attempt to stop the more bloody-minded users who'd throw a fit at anything else.You mean that would object to you lying and claiming that FE works and has evidence to back it up, which you are yet to substantiate?
Gravity is simply a word we use to hide our ignorance.But can you deny that masses appear to attract each other
Do I deny that objects fall at a certain rate, which can be described roughly with a formula?You say, "can be described roughly with a formula". Please tell us just how roughly?
Of course not. We all know things fall.So, do you have a better explanation?
If you are going to respond to something make sure to include at least a couple facts in your post. What we see CAN be denied. We use math to explain what we see/observe. You "know" you breath oxygen because of "theory?" I'm sure glad I don't breathe "theoretical" oxygen. I breathe in the real thing. No one is going to take you seriously if you use words like, "pretty much exactly, how we explain that is up for grabs, once apon a time, silly, maybe, and maybe not. Those are words that are argumentative.No, they're words. I use a few hedging terms in an apparently vain attempt to stop the more bloody-minded users who'd throw a fit at anything else.
Yep, you breathe in real oxygen, but I would love to hear you define both oxygen and respiration without appealing to theory. And, fun fact, it is incredibly easy to explain and justify respiration without needing to appeal to maths, undercutting your point.QuoteI haven't seen any explaination why math isn't more prevalent in FET.Give that there have been several over the course of this thread, that seems to be entirely reflective of you rather than FET. You've had people actually provide maths, and had it explained how the mathematics used in a scientific context is not exactly easy to create, especially with what FEers have to work with. Like I said before:
"Pick something you want the maths for under FET, and then try to figure out how that maths would actually get derived."
If you can't even come up with a method for how what you want could be found, then it's a silly thing to ask for.
And we now see why flat earthers don't often present mathematics to roundies:I really never knew you for having a sense of humour!(https://foolforhim.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fingers-in-ears.jpg)
Read all about it in ENaG Chapter 5 "THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm).Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a GlobeThe distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles.
CHAPTER V.THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute
miles.
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equatorAnd used "trigonometry" to work out that tan(45°) = 1.00 and get quite a different height of the sun - big deal!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.
See Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship (http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Winship-Thomas-Zetetic-cosmogony)
how do you calculate the diameter of a flat earth?Same way you measure any distance. The tricky part's in getting the resources.
How do you calculate the height of the dome?I did that for fun with certain models, but you have to make certain assumptions. In models where meteorites fall from the dome, if you assume they will only be slowed by celestial gear systems and not accelerated, you can get a ballpark figure by applying the suvat equations to the fastest known meteors (the Leonids).
What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?Most commonly is Eratosphenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun, rather than a round Earth and distance Sun.
If the answer is, "we just know". That is just a little thin on the evidence side and boarders on the side of an unsupported belief system. Which is just fine if you want to present it as a belief.Except it's rare they actually give the figures for this. REers ask for it, typically FEers pop by there's no feasible way to measure a lot of it, and ultimately that's all that really matters. If there's no way to give what you want them to give, regardless of which model you're in, there's no point in asking for it.
I agree with JackBlack.You know string theory! ... I’m “flabbergasted as it’s totally at odds with everything you believe in at the most fundemental basic level do you not get it. Have you ever read Feynman. Flat earth has no place in that world man, if you think so, then you really are on the wrong bus. It’s Applications to nuclear physics and condensed matter physics totally blow you out the water to name but two. And as for the implications for quantum gravity in relation to your shadow moon WTF!!
Any inverse squared law can be reformulated in a way similar to Gauss' Flux Theorem or what is commonly known as Gauss' law. This leads to Gauss' law of magnetism and of gravity.
I believe the rest of his points stand pretty well too.
Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.
I guess I should been more specific and said practical math. Simple math. I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.Basic data is not necessarily math.
What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?Already told you that one.
I agree with JackBlack.The operations are only logical for finding the Ramanujan sum, not the actual sum. The sum of a series is defined as the limit of it's partial sums, you can prove that -1/12 is not the sum.
Any inverse squared law can be reformulated in a way similar to Gauss' Flux Theorem or what is commonly known as Gauss' law. This leads to Gauss' law of magnetism and of gravity.
I believe the rest of his points stand pretty well too.
Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.
Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.That all depends on what constitutes logical.
And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out thatWhat formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?Most commonly is Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun, rather than a round Earth and distance Sun.
And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out thatYes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned. When it gets used as an argument, feel free, when it's an offhand mention to a borderline tangent to explain how FEers do use mathematics to reach conclusions you do not need to bring it up constantly. It is not relevant here. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm just not going to drag them into a very vague mention just like I wouldn't bring up spectroscopy any time there's the slightest mention of the Sun.
"Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.
I guess I should been more specific and said practical math. Simple math. I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.Thank you, I just gained a bucket or two full of respect for why you are banging about.
You are the best poster on this forum by far. Perhaps I should mention empiricism less, but I feel others are not quite as aware as you.And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out thatYes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned. When it gets used as an argument, feel free, when it's an offhand mention to a borderline tangent to explain how FEers do use mathematics to reach conclusions you do not need to bring it up constantly. It is not relevant here. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm just not going to drag them into a very vague mention just like I wouldn't bring up spectroscopy any time there's the slightest mention of the Sun.
"Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.
And why not?And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out thatYes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned.
"Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.
The 2 are fundamentally different.And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out thatYes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned. When it gets used as an argument, feel free, when it's an offhand mention to a borderline tangent to explain how FEers do use mathematics to reach conclusions you do not need to bring it up constantly. It is not relevant here. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm just not going to drag them into a very vague mention just like I wouldn't bring up spectroscopy any time there's the slightest mention of the Sun.
"Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.
I fail to see how you have to keep dragging these things in as if they were possible explanations of occurrences on the flat earth.Because you'd happily butt in and say everything on a FE is impossible and thus prevent any actual discussion and make this site unendingly tedious.
And I can point out why their figure is incorrect.I fail to see how you have to keep dragging these things in as if they were possible explanations of occurrences on the flat earth.Because you'd happily butt in and say everything on a FE is impossible and thus prevent any actual discussion and make this site unendingly tedious.
Right now, I don't care if it's possible. I wasn't talking about that. they asked for how a figure is arrived at, I gave the answer, that doesn't mean every FEer holds to the figures (as I also pointed out).
And I can point out why their figure is incorrect.Yes, and I bet you can point out why FET is incorrect to, you don't have to do so every damn time FET gets brought up. It's not smart, it's not clever, it's tedious.
To me, the fact that there are nearly as many FE theories as FEers makes it very likely that no FE theories are true.Good for you. I don't really care. It doesn't convince anyone when you point that out, it's not interesting to point that out, all in all it's pretty pointless.
Because you'd happily butt in and say everything on a FE is impossible and thus prevent any actual discussion and make this site unendingly tedious.It being possible or not is part of the discussion.
they asked for how a figure is arrived at, I gave the answer, that doesn't mean every FEer holds to the figures (as I also pointed out).And pointing out that by using the same method you can get completely different results is a valid part of the discussion.
It almost seems pointless to even start a topic when they almost always end on the same path. The topic starts off on the subject at hand for a little while.Then perhaps you should try a more specific topic rather than just asking for math.
That’s not up for debate.Then why post in the debate section?
Tesla insinuated that formula ain't match reality but people kept using it.I have seen you assert this claim before, but I haven't seen any evidence for it.
Something illogical looks logical because people ain't test it, or test it under wrong assumptions.You mean like you not testing your nonsense math or testing it under the wrong assumptions?
1. So many formulas n theories don't meet reality.Yes, like the ones you provide.
1. By the very basis random theory of gravity, the building of modern physics stands... like a drunk man.Except you are unable to show a single thing wrong with it.
What about 2D ball map?To make a 2D (or flat) map of the Globe you must use some sort of projection. Didn't you learn that in school?
I can't hear youuu.. ~
What about 2D ball map?Do you mean a globe?
I can't hear youuu.. ~You mean you are ignoring people that show you are wrong?
1. On that map, draw a line of ½ of earth C, (Latin America to South East Asia) then times it with 2/phew=DiameterYour "phew" is pure bullshit.
2. Look at the north: Asia, Europe, North AmericaNo, it can, quite easily.
3. Woow.... So HUGE...!! The ball can't afford to let 'em in. :D
Tesla insinuated that formula ain't match reality but people kept using it.1) I have no idea what "formula ain't match reality" you are talking about.
| HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm) also at — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915 (https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html) in which he states: Quote from: Nicola Tesla Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth. |
Wnat is the angle at 2500km?I guess I should been more specific and said practical math. Simple math. I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.Basic data is not necessarily math.
For example, something being red, or something dying when in an airtight vessel is basic data.What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?Already told you that one.
Note that the sun appears directly overhead the equator at the equinox, while appearing at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees 5000 km north or south. That makes a right angle isosceles triangle and means the sun is 5000 km above the equator at the equinox.
Wnat is the angle at 2500km?In reality or based upon the FE model?
Did Rab delete the globe map images.What globe images am I supposed to have deleted? I'll post hundreds of Globe images if you want!
Or those images ain't here actually?
So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)I'm not afraid of any criticism over any maps! Here's those map projections of the Globe again:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;D Now, what are you accusing me of deleting? ;D
Here are a few:(http://ahasanulhoque.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/map-projections-u1-1024x537.jpg)(https://i0.wp.com/geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Map-projections-net-comparison-1.png). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Did Rab delete the globe map images.Understand they are projections of the globe.
Or those images ain't here actually?
So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
Did Rab delete the globe map images.What globe images am I supposed to have deleted? I'll post hundreds of Globe images if you want!
Or those images ain't here actually?
Here's link to a recent post with a few Globe images, Flat Earth General / Re: One Film Photo, Every Day, of the Entire Earth from Space « on: Today at 08:51:46 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73561.msg1998795#msg1998795)
How many more do you want?Quote from: DanangSo now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)I'm not afraid of any criticism over any maps! Here's those map projections of the Globe again:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;D Now, what are you accusing me of deleting? ;D
Here are a few:(http://ahasanulhoque.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/map-projections-u1-1024x537.jpg)(https://i0.wp.com/geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Map-projections-net-comparison-1.png). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Did Rab delete the globe map images.Understand they are projections of the globe.
Or those images ain't here actually?
So now I am accusing him having deleted those images coz he was afraid of crititism over those maps. :)
As such they will have some distortions.
So if you are going to criticise them, make sure you understand the distortions induced by the projection.
By deleting that post, you made my day, Jack. So hilarous ;DWhere did he delete it?
Skip about projection stuff, Rab. Stick to reality. Don't change the scale of supposedly globe round map.So skip the key bits of information which show why your likely criticisms would be crap?
Errr.... is it round, or oblate spheroid, or pear chubby shaped?It is an imperfect, round, oblate spheroid.
Okay I'll call you Jack as before. 8)And this is the problem with people like you, you just dismiss the evidence as fake.
Nahhh... Even for the shape of the earth there is no picture evidence. All is CGI with orange shape.
For people with sophisticated technology, that stuff should be a piece of cake.
Even enlarged lands at north hemisplane is not large enough to resemble the reality.And all we have to support this are your baseless claims.
This is the suffering side if the flat reality is changed into spherical one.
Contradiction is inevitable.
Flight information is also a joke.Nope.
Time Zone information will reveal their fake distances claim.
The duration of the flight frequently ain't match with the distance they told.
There are mountains of evidence for a round Earth.
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE, or read the list I provided.There are mountains of evidence for a round Earth.Show us.
Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE
Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE
Sounds like a waste of time.
Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE
Sounds like a waste of time.
Presumably, this is a reference to ostriches. In actuality, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand but instead use their long necks to survey the surrounding landscape.Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE
Sounds like a waste of time.
You might as well get used to this from Jack; that or him proving a strawman incorrect then insisting it proves your theories wrong in spite of himself being self admittedly ignorant concerning them.Right, because you already know of all this evidence and choose wilful ignorance/bury your head in the sand.Perhaps you should start a new thread asking for evidence for a RE
Sounds like a waste of time.
Or because someone that claims to have it, you, is already right here and refuses to present it.
Or because someone that claims to have it, you, is already right here and refuses to present it.Because it is not relevant to the topic.
You might as well get used to this from Jack; that or him proving a strawman incorrect then insisting it proves your theories wrong in spite of himself being self admittedly ignorant concerning them.Projecting again I see.
Because it is not relevant to the topic.
Not all facts are relevant. For example, it is a fact that bulls excrete matter in the form of shit. Is that in any way relevant? NO.Because it is not relevant to the topic.Facts are not relevant? Then why did you even mention them?
Not all facts are relevant. For example, it is a fact that bulls excrete matter in the form of shit. Is that in any way relevant? NO.Because it is not relevant to the topic.Facts are not relevant? Then why did you even mention them?
They were briefly mentioned due to him claiming there is no picture evidence for Earth being round.
Please don't derail topics againSays the one that was trying to derail them.
Now how about you address the OP and provide some math for a FE?
So that's a no. You have no math for FE, likely because you know it shows a FE to be garbage.Now how about you address the OP and provide some math for a FE?
Read the FAQ
On the equinox, at roughly 6 am (solar time) for people at 0 degrees, east/west, the sun is directly overhead the equator at 90 degrees east.
Why would they be drowning?On the equinox, at roughly 6 am (solar time) for people at 0 degrees, east/west, the sun is directly overhead the equator at 90 degrees east.
As they drown in the south Atlantic ocean. Please, you can't even get a sentence in without having HUGE flaws in your reasoning.
0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Ever heard of a boat.
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Ever heard of a boat.
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
If you meant to say a boat, then just say a boat. But you never mentioned a boat - leaving everyone here to assume you were talking about sea people.Or that I was discussing the general case by using a specific longitude as an example.
Or that I was discussing the general case by using a specific longitude as an example.
Now then, care to explain why this math shows the sun to be so far away from Earth?
0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Holy shit, the People of Equador, Columbia, Brazil, Gabon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Indonesia, and numerous other islands are all under the Atlantic ocean? WTF are you smoking
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Holy shit, the People of Equador, Columbia, Brazil, Gabon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Indonesia, and numerous other islands are all under the Atlantic ocean? WTF are you smoking
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
That is not what you said. Longitude was not mentioned by you.0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Holy shit, the People of Equador, Columbia, Brazil, Gabon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Indonesia, and numerous other islands are all under the Atlantic ocean? WTF are you smoking
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
They are at 0 degrees longitude?
That is not what you said. Longitude was not mentioned by you.0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Holy shit, the People of Equador, Columbia, Brazil, Gabon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Indonesia, and numerous other islands are all under the Atlantic ocean? WTF are you smoking
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
They are at 0 degrees longitude?
No I read the thread, he was choosing a set longitude, yet you felt you could make him look dumb by bringing that up, but you were too stupid to include longitude in your response. So I just returned the favor to show how moronic you really are. If you cannot argue against the points made, and insist on going for the immediate insults, then maybe you should rethink your life and stop wasting oxygen.
So no answer.Or that I was discussing the general case by using a specific longitude as an example.Read the FAQ
Now then, care to explain why this math shows the sun to be so far away from Earth?
This is your final warning - do not disrespect the moderators of these forums. Thank you.There is no evidence you are a mod, and he is giving you far more respect than you deserve.
0deg at the equator is in the Atlantic ocean. What people are you talking about?Dimwit! Quito is almost at 0o, 0.1807o S to be a bit more precise.
Is RET about to suggest a race of sea people?
This is your final warning - do not disrespectIf you want respect, you'll have to earn it and trying to mislead everybody certainly does not do that..the moderators of these forums. Thank you.
I'm an emeritus moderatorIn other words, a moderator who was expelled for malpractice - sounds possible.
Too funny junior. Prove your awesome power sir. Oh wait, nvm, you are just special.No I read the thread, he was choosing a set longitude, yet you felt you could make him look dumb by bringing that up, but you were too stupid to include longitude in your response. So I just returned the favor to show how moronic you really are. If you cannot argue against the points made, and insist on going for the immediate insults, then maybe you should rethink your life and stop wasting oxygen.
This is your final warning - do not disrespect the moderators of these forums. Thank you.
Rab, you remember those little guys in the school yard who would tell how their dad could beat up your dad, or made up stories of how special they were? You know, the ones who had a low self esteem problems, perhaps penis envy or possibly mental abuse at home. I still feel sorry for those little guys.I'm an emeritus moderatorIn other words, a moderator who was expelled for malpractice - sounds possible.
I suspect that malpractice was simply that Mr Narcberry and facts don't even have a nodding relationship.
Yes, the "desire to be unique is important for these little guys with low self esteem problems".Rab, you remember those little guys in the school yard who would tell how their dad could beat up your dad, or made up stories of how special they were? You know, the ones who had a low self esteem problems, perhaps penis envy or possibly mental abuse at home. I still feel sorry for those little guys.I'm an emeritus moderatorIn other words, a moderator who was expelled for malpractice - sounds possible.
I suspect that malpractice was simply that Mr Narcberry and facts don't even have a nodding relationship.
stop waiting my oxygen.
I'm an emeritus moderator
I'm an emeritus moderator
Who again has lost his full stop, or do you have more to add?
Did you or did you not loose your full stop? Let’s stick to the facts.I'm an emeritus moderator
Who again has lost his full stop, or do you have more to add?
Nightsky, this is your final warning. Do not insult the moderators of these forums.
Did you or did you not loose your full stop?What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.
Did you or did you not loose your full stop?What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.
Did you or did you not loose your full stop?What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.
It’s about punctuation John, not sure you would understand. Case of the missing full stop
See what I mean
You are most correct, I do not understand this gibberish. Please explain to me how I can loose punctuation.Did you or did you not loose your full stop?What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.
It’s about punctuation John, not sure you would understand. Case of the missing full stop
See what I mean
Please don't spam the boards with your inane ramblingsThat applies to you as well.
There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.There is plenty and I have provided plenty.
You are a funny little guy. Very inconsequential, but funny just the same.Did you or did you not loose your full stop?What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.
It’s about punctuation John, not sure you would understand. Case of the missing full stop
See what I mean
Please don't spam the boards with your inane ramblings
John won't explain, he doesn't actually believe in Flat Earth. The proof is in how half assed his objections have gotten to at this point.There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.There is plenty and I have provided plenty.
If you think it is wrong, explain why, don't just dismiss it.
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.
Joe
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.
Joe
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
And there you go making assumptions again.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
And there you go making assumptions again.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.
Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.
I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?No, it is a means of distinguishing a functional model with predictive power from a broken model which does not match reality.
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
And there you go making assumptions again.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.
Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.
I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
Joe
And there you go making assumptions again.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.
Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.
I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
Joe
That's rather bold. Assuming the majority of people are just as incompetent at math as FE people are.
How could you determine which works and which fails without a full understanding?I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?No, it is a means of distinguishing a functional model with predictive power from a broken model which does not match reality.
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
Regardless, that is not the only math there is. There is much simpler math, which almost everyone could understand. It matches reality for a RE, but not for a FE.
It isn't incompetence, very few people in the world could look at the math and get a proper understanding of what happens. Math isn't meant to be an explanation. Even if perception could be brought down to the level of mere numbers, what would you gain from reading the sums that words couldn't give you?A quantitative understanding, a tool which you can use to measure the validity of a model, by making explicit numerical predictions and comparing them to reality.
How could you determine which works and which fails without a full understanding?Not everyone would be able to understand it, but some could. Just because some people can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't real.
The math necessary to model reality is never simple.That depends vastly on what level of accuracy you are going for.
Perhaps I underestimate my own ability, and all four of my children's ability, and pretty much everyone else's ability in my immediate circle. Perhaps I am looking at the rest of humanity through rose tinted glasses and I assume they are smarter than that. Which is rather sad, considering I think most people are dumbasses.And there you go making assumptions again.You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.
Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.
I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
Joe
That's rather bold. Assuming the majority of people are just as incompetent at math as FE people are.
It isn't incompetence, very few people in the world could look at the math and get a proper understanding of what happens. Math isn't meant to be an explanation. Even if perception could be brought down to the level of mere numbers, what would you gain from reading the sums that words couldn't give you?
Joe
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!
There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.
We have, now how about you address the issue?Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!
There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.
Read the FAQ
We have, now how about you address the issue?Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!
There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.
Read the FAQ
The issue is how uncommon math is in FE models, and how math used from these models with the results compared to reality shows the models to be incorrect.
Care to give an example of your claim?I have already provided them in this thread. At least one of which you have already responded to, with you being completely unable to show a problem.
Here is an example of math for a FE, using the common FE map: Note: 0 degrees is an example, due to rotational symmetry the same is true for any longitude.Now are you going to offer anything constructive or just more crap.
On the equinox, at roughly 6 am (solar time) for people at 0 degrees, east/west, the sun is directly overhead the equator at 90 degrees east.
This would mean the apparent direction to the sun (ignoring elevation) would be NE (i.e. a bearing of 45 degrees) for a person on the equator at 0 degrees east/west.
As you move further north, it would drift towards the east, only reaching ~due east just before the north pole.
As you move further south, the sun would drift further north.
For a given distance d away from the north pole (along 0 degrees east) the sun would appear at a bearing given by:
tan(a)=10000 km/d
So at the southern tip of Chile, some 16 000 km away from the north pole, it should be tan(a)=10/16, and thus a=32 degrees. So it should be north of north east.
Instead, the sun appears roughly due east.
We can also do this the other way to determine how far away the sun is from the north pole (x). Assuming a 1 degree error (to be nice, and meaning we get an underestimate) the sun is off at a bearing of 89 degrees.
Thus, tan(89 deg)=x/16000
Thus x~=915 000 km.
This puts it well outside the range of a FE.
This simple math shows the common FE model to be impossible.
Oh yeah, you were talking about sea people inventing boats. I remember now.No, I was talking about the direction to the sun on the equinox.
Your first error is assuming rotational symmetry. Try again.
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
You are really ignorant of the writings in your Sacred Texts! Read, learn and inwardly digest this:Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
So Mr Narcberry, if you claim that your flat "disc . . (has) . . rotation" you are a heretic and a traitor to your cause!CHAPTER XI.
CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.
A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon.
Why?Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!Read the FAQ
There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.
Go and read what I said and respond to that, rather than just repeatedly ignoring/avoiding the issue.Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
Go and read what I said and respond to that, rather than just repeatedly ignoring/avoiding the issue.Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
The simple fact is that on the equinox, the sun is observed to rise from roughly due east and set roughly due west, while being above some point on the equator. This would be impossible on a flat Earth.
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Interesting. I thought that it was generally accepted that the flat earth does not rotate at all, let alone elliptically. Please describe this elliptical nature.Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.
Joe
I have not, but the cited book has.That is just your claim, until you back it up with something substantial, I will dismiss it as crap.
Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import.Yet you have been unable to point out anything wrong with my explanation and instead make a pathetic appeal to some book.
Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.PROVE IT!
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Why do you spend so much time trying to do no more than show how smart you are?Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Meanwhile you provide nothing to back it up, and people have objected to it and explained why it is wrong.Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
I’m thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. It’s the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...That would be some trick since the Sun is always visible somewhere on Earth. How can it be infinitely far away from Ohio and directly overhead in India at the same time?
I’m thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. It’s the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...That would be some trick since the Sun is always visible somewhere on Earth. How can it be infinitely far away from Ohio and directly overhead in India at the same time?
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.John is not the only FE Magician.
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.John is not the only FE Magician.
I have noticed a lot of other FE's are good at the disappearing act ! 😆
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities >:(
I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:
Except I'm not coming here and talking crap. You are just being a shit human. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I suppose it must make you feel good about yourself in some way.
Yes, I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug. I am not dishonest.
I have no doubt you are a shit person as you seem to spend your free time abusing people who have beliefs that differ from your own.
You guys are fucking assholes.Real nice type, this John Davis that you defend!
You could not be more incorrect. I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities >:(
We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.I have not, but the cited book has. Take of it what you will, but get off my back. Your level of explanation is not suitable for proof of a bottle of alcohol, let alone matters of this import. Science With Out Numbers, as its name might hint, gives a solid argument for mathematics being a tool that could be replaced by many other abstract constructs.And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:Except I'm not coming here and talking crap. You are just being a shit human. Why you feel the need to do this is beyond me. I suppose it must make you feel good about yourself in some way.Yes, I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug. I am not dishonest.
I have no doubt you are a shit person as you seem to spend your free time abusing people who have beliefs that differ from your own.You guys are fucking assholes.Real nice type, this John Davis that you defend!
Then big-notes himself like this:You could not be more incorrect. I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
I’m thinking that maybe infinite plane could work. It’s the only way that the Sun could get to the horizon. Using trigonometry, we know that the apparent angle of the Sun in the sky is the inverse tangent of the altitude of the Sun divided by the distance from the observer to the point directly below it. With any Earthly distances, the Sun never reaches the horizon. But if the Sun could be infinitely far away...That would be some trick since the Sun is always visible somewhere on Earth. How can it be infinitely far away from Ohio and directly overhead in India at the same time?
Oh, sorry. Under official FE rules, you don’t have to have a thoroughly consistent model. You only have to explain one aspect of the universe at a time. If someone challenges you to align two or three facts at the same time, then you can change the subject. For example, did you know that Pizzagate was actually a cover up operation for NASA lies?
We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.'runs away' = 'has other things to do than make posts in a forum when even if you just want to limit his duties to that forum he is still the guy keeping it running'
And look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:Sure, in response to what exactly? When there are dozens of users who'll happily throw insults and mockery, and you decide to only call out the person that gets angry at it, you're the asshole.
From what I understand based on what I've seen here and in other threads, I think it's OK for John to talk like that because he's part of a minority (FEers) but if you talk like that it's bad, and worthy of a rebuke. This is because you belong to a majority group. (GEers)Ok vs understandable. I think it makes more sense to be sympathetic to the people that have dozens of people throwing insults at them and wasting their time vs the people that deal with one, maybe two users at a time, and those users generally having their attention split up. Is that so weird?
Ok vs understandable. I think it makes more sense to be sympathetic to the people that have dozens of people throwing insults at them and wasting their time vs the people that deal with one, maybe two users at a time, and those users generally having their attention split up. Is that so weird?
A FEer can make a thread, and overnight they can end up with responses from more users than there are active FEers on this site, and pretty much all of them will be mocking or derailing rather than trying to engage. Not hard to realise which side is in a hell of a better position. Sure, I disagree with a fair few of those posts, but there are so many REers on this site who're going to post call-outs and object with variously spiralling downward degrees of rationality, what exactly would it achieve to lend my voice to the choir of mockery?
REers meanwhile seem religiously opposed to accepting any kind of criticism. It's genuinely disturbing.
<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.
.Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.John is not the only FE Magician.
I have noticed a lot of other FE's are good at the disappearing act ! 😆
Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities >:(
We are not talking about "answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers" but specifically about John Davis, who posts this, then runs away.'runs away' = 'has other things to do than make posts in a forum when even if you just want to limit his duties to that forum he is still the guy keeping it running'QuoteAnd look at the type of person you defend! He denigrates people like this:Sure, in response to what exactly? When there are dozens of users who'll happily throw insults and mockery, and you decide to only call out the person that gets angry at it, you're the asshole.From what I understand based on what I've seen here and in other threads, I think it's OK for John to talk like that because he's part of a minority (FEers) but if you talk like that it's bad, and worthy of a rebuke. This is because you belong to a majority group. (GEers)Ok vs understandable. I think it makes more sense to be sympathetic to the people that have dozens of people throwing insults at them and wasting their time vs the people that deal with one, maybe two users at a time, and those users generally having their attention split up. Is that so weird?
A FEer can make a thread, and overnight they can end up with responses from more users than there are active FEers on this site, and pretty much all of them will be mocking or derailing rather than trying to engage. Not hard to realise which side is in a hell of a better position. Sure, I disagree with a fair few of those posts, but there are so many REers on this site who're going to post call-outs and object with variously spiralling downward degrees of rationality, what exactly would it achieve to lend my voice to the choir of mockery?
REers meanwhile seem religiously opposed to accepting any kind of criticism. It's genuinely disturbing.
So it's ok for you to tell me what I should post, but bad for me to do the same? Ok then.<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.
Here’s a question for you. Why are you always angry?I'm not, I just don't have the energy to couch what I say for the benefit of your ego every single time I have to make a post.
I tell you what the problem with John is, self proclaimed leading Zetetic scientist of our time, is he makes things up. When asked to back his statements up, he disappears. He does it on every topic on which he contributes.Translation: he doesn't regularly post in the forum and answer every single bit of abuse that gets thrown at him, so he must be running away. He's averaging about one post a day over the christmas-new year period from my last look at his profile, and the one in this thread you're insisting he ran away from is literally his last post.
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.So it's ok for you to tell me what I should post, but bad for me to do the same? Ok then.<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.So I point out issues with what people are saying and simultaneously don't get involved in the debate? Pretty impressive.
I guess that you don't get into debates because you can't.
So it's ok for you to tell me what I should post, but bad for me to do the same? Ok then.<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.Here’s a question for you. Why are you always angry?I'm not, I just don't have the energy to couch what I say for the benefit of your ego every single time I have to make a post.I tell you what the problem with John is, self proclaimed leading Zetetic scientist of our time, is he makes things up. When asked to back his statements up, he disappears. He does it on every topic on which he contributes.Translation: he doesn't regularly post in the forum and answer every single bit of abuse that gets thrown at him, so he must be running away. He's averaging about one post a day over the christmas-new year period from my last look at his profile, and the one in this thread you're insisting he ran away from is literally his last post.
I'm sorry his life doesn't revolve around you. Grow up.
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.So I point out issues with what people are saying and simultaneously don't get involved in the debate? Pretty impressive.
I guess that you don't get into debates because you can't.
You don't seem to know what a debate is. Hint: just because someone calls you out, doesn't mean they're not debating. Pointing out a bad argument is literally the basic premise of debate.
As I said before you are the 'bad argument queen' as you use them all the time.Answered that on the first page. Problem is, you never make informed arguments, and you adamantly refuse to refine one if an issue's pointed out.
But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.
As I said before you are the 'bad argument queen' as you use them all the time.Answered that on the first page. Problem is, you never make informed arguments, and you adamantly refuse to refine one if an issue's pointed out.
But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.
I am genuinely baffled by what you're trying to achieve. Clearly you're not planning to convince anyone, FEer or FE-open, as they could see right through that kind of posting. You're not contributing anything new, the only people you might dissuade are those that wouldn't need it. Are you just here to be obnoxious? Let me know so I can block you and save us both the trouble of putting up with your nonsense.
If that's what you got from what I said, sure, have fun.So you have nothing to add to the debate.But why is mathematics, and science for that matter, so uncommon in FE theory. To get back to the debate you could possibly present an argument, a good one please, to possibly refute the statement if you happen disagree with it.Answered that on the first page.
Maths is avoided at all costs in FE hypotheses because it easily proves the earth to be approximately spherical.
Maths is avoided at all costs in FE hypotheses because it easily proves the earth to be approximately spherical.
Math is avoided at all costs by FE supporters because it interrupts their fantasy.
Everybody is getting sick of your tedious insistence on telling everybody else what they are doing wrong, yet never getting involved in the debates yourself.So it's ok for you to tell me what I should post, but bad for me to do the same? Ok then.<< Jane's one sided support for her poor down trodden pet flat earthers ignored >>Now you show us just how to debunk this flat earth hypothesis correctly.
I guess that you don't get into debates because you can't.
Have you noticed whenever you ask John a question.....he disappears.John is not the only FE Magician.
I have noticed a lot of other FE's are good at the disappearing act ! 😆
Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities >:(
He doesn't have any other priorities that you know about.I think it's a fair bet that all the users of this forum do other things with their lives. I don't know about you, but seems reasonable to me.
Yes, FEers' lives should always revolve around answering questions on an internet forum to people who really don't care about the answers, how dare they have other priorities >:(No, they are free to do as they please. They don't need to come here.
The man is full of bullshit. He claimed to have written a book years ago - has anyone seen it? Why does he never comment about it when asked a straight question? Why does he never explain certain aspects of his non-euclidian ramblings when directly questioned, yet finds time to muse on philosophy on the forums as if he was some toff in a smoking jacket with a monocle and a cigarette in a long holder?As far as I can see, John Davis no more believes the earth is flat than you and I do.
If you're defending him then you've been taken in by a con artist.
The Ferrari Effect functions due to the non-euclidean geometry I discovered. You clearly don't understand it, and I find it funny and arrogant you think you know the intent of my words and diagrams better than I do myself.Then he has the temerity to assert that: "EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT" a totally false and deceptive claim!
You could not be more incorrect. I am not a failed man, but the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.
I am immortalized by my work, not by mention of it however.How can anyone take a person who makes claims like that seriously?
Yes, I am the most influential man of our time.
With all his heart and soul and mind and strength,
To love his maker, for he was SELF-MADE!
a Self-made, self-trained, self-willed, self-satisfied, He was, himself, his daily boast and pride.
From: Two millions. By William Allen Butler, 1825-1902.
John Davis told me it's easy to argue Round Earth.Apologies to the source for whom I have the greatest respect.
There's facts and reality on that side.
Arguing Flat Earth takes skill and finesse.