Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - fbinard

Pages: [1]
1
Getting the prize:


Philo is out:
The three commonest proofs that the earth is a sphere were cited by Aristotle in ancient Greece 1800 years before Columbus “sold” the world on the spherical theory, and they are still in use.
“There is not a scintilla of truth in any of them,” Voliva retorts,

Can't claim by geography:
Voliva maintains that there is no South Pole, and that it is 60,000 miles around the southern ice wall. Captain Gunnar Isachsen, the Norwegian explorer, last winter circumnavigated the Antarctic continent in a voyage of about 14,000 miles.  Zion says Isachsen may have circumnavigated something, possibly an island of that size, but did not go around the antarctic ice rim,

Don't go fly around stuff:
“They say that Byrd flew over the South Pole,” Voliva said recently, “but there is no South Pole.

Don't try deductive experiments:
Probably the best spherical world proofs ever found were the two discovered by Jean Bernard Leon Foucault, the famous French engineer, when he invented the Foucault pendulum and the gyroscope. The performance of both can only be explained on the assumption that the earth is a sphere, revolving on its axis, but they do not prove the fact within the meaning of Voliva’s prize offer.

or math:
Of course, they deny the existence of gravity, ..but also the formula on which they calculate the rate of “fall” is not true...the Volivalites go on to calculate that the “drop” increases as the square of the distance, and therefore that distance squared, multiplied by eight and divided by twelve will give the drop from the horizon in feet for any distance. Actually there is no formula in spherical trigonometry which can be used to calculate such a spherical triangle for any desired distance. That can be proven very easily by any one who knows plane geometry, for it requires no knowledge of trigonometry to show the error in the formula. If you draw a circle, with its equator and the vertical meridian, giving the north and south poles, and then draw a horizon line at the north pole, you can prove the fact. A flyer starting from the north pole and traveling to the equator, would cover 6,000 miles if the globe is 24,000 miles in circumference. The diameter of a 24,000 mile globe is 7,639.69 miles, and the radius is 3,819.845 miles, so the “drop” from the horizon of the north pole would be the same.

this is the best one:
The Voliva prize probably will remain uncollected unless some future space traveler some day anchors his ship a few thousand miles out in space and takes a movie of a globular world turning on its axis. That seems to be the only way the $5,000 can ever be collected.
and that's been done. But that doesn't work either

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bending of Starlight
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:46:01 AM »
I'm pretty sure gravity is an explanation for the occurance of gravitation.
that clears that up

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bending of Starlight
« on: April 27, 2007, 09:27:03 AM »
please teach me

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:03:19 AM »
What the majority of scientists can agree on becomes established theory
It's even worst than that. What the majority of scientist believe is confirmed by skewed empirical data provided by grad students who really need to get results to obtain their phd (and who themselves believe what the majority of scientists believe). There is a better system. It's called capitalism. People buy the result of good science, so that's an incentive. 

As far as I'm concerned, they might have faked the moon landings, but they are not faking space tourism.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bending of Starlight
« on: April 26, 2007, 11:52:58 PM »
plus, if you believe in gravitation, gravity is just a name for it between you and earth

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides
« on: April 26, 2007, 11:24:47 PM »
so do the laws of motion really. mass of object * its free fall acceleration rate = ???

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Science
« on: April 26, 2007, 11:17:07 PM »
seems a bit hard to measure. Where did they get the ruler ? staples ?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earth Brainwashing
« on: April 26, 2007, 10:47:58 PM »
Absolutely it is humans who decide what is truth. But, it is the collective perception of third parties that decide what one claims to be true to be actually true. I.E., it is not me and my senses that decide what is true, but me, my senses, and third party perspective. I can't do it alone, my senses can decieve me, but if other people observe the same thing i do, then the probability of it being true is far greater.

Consider a problem associated with a difficulty metric. Give the problem to a randomly selected population sample. When the problem is easy, 80% of the sample solves. As the difficulty level of the problem increases, less and less people in the sample are able to correctly solve the problem. Suppose the whole sample is to provide one solution, decided by blind majority among each solutions from the members of the sample. As the problem's difficulty level increases, the probability of the collective solution given by the sample to be correct decreases. The collective should never decide.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Science
« on: April 26, 2007, 10:33:49 PM »
Notice how the airplanes are not bent, meaning no screwed up lens was used.

From that pic, the earth is neither flat nor round. The earth is hazy. That's a completely different shape. Anyhow, 2 comments
- if I took a picture of a mine pit, would it prove that the earth is concave ?
- The flat earth ppl don`t actually believe that the earth is flat (as in 2d), just that it`s not a ball. Which means that it could be convex (or tea pot shaped). They don`t specify.

10
Flat Earth Debate / flat toroidal earth again
« on: April 24, 2007, 03:55:16 PM »
A toroid is a 2-dimensional surface that is continuous at some point (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology). It is possible for the earth (or any object) to be both flat and toroidal. This induces specific properties to the object. My previous post about a flat-toroidal earth asked a valid question, and i think it is unfair to place it in the no-content/absurd category.

Is there no interest on the actual mathematical properties of the planet on this forum ?

Pages: [1]