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 - John Davis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 418
1
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Sorry, I truly think it's time to make a move
« on: December 06, 2018, 06:28:59 PM »
I am not against putting trusted members in positions where they can change things. For example, we recently promoted SpaceCowGirl to administrator. A hierarchy is a good idea once we get enough folks that we can trust. Its such a good idea that we already have one, starting from the officers of the society down to the administrators of the forum to the moderators to the other castes and now with the addition of another technical leader, Boydster.

You surely understand why I am so hesitant to give out these 'keys to the kingdom.' The last time we did so, it was one part of what enabled a schism in our Society that we will never recover from. I appreciate all the kind words, and I also appreciate where you guys are coming from. However history has made trust a strange bedfellow to me and to the Society.

If people want to truly help  I'm all for giving them the means to do so.  I truly believe this is not my Society, nor Daniel's, but all of yours - even the trolls. This is the main driver in my efforts to make it easier for folks to make their home here nicer. I understand and empathize as I want to make this place better too after the decade and change I've been here.

The concerns are somewhat valid  - I don't always have the time all year to do what I want here and what you guys deserve. This is why we are making efforts to rectify this. They are not efforts that will be realized overnight, and if you expect them to be you will be disappointed. On the other hand, let's be honest - this venue of the Society is a web forum and aside from the outages we get due to attacks on our site or the far more rare mismanagement of our resources or poor host decision errors it mostly runs itself and folks come here again and  again and enjoy the community we have all built.

I'm sorry if I was a bit curt before, but I thought it valid and justified. There is no reason for those who split our wonderful home asunder to now come here and complain and whine about how we choose to run it. You have chosen to run your own society, and if your grapes have soured, then they are your grapes to eat. We have our own, and we don't need to hear about your opinions on how we should run our society. 

If you wish to come here and be a part of our community again, you are more than welcome to with a clean slate, and no ill will from at least myself and I trust our hierarchy of leadership  -  and we will listen to your opinions and when appropriate act on them.

2
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Sorry, I truly think it's time to make a move
« on: December 06, 2018, 12:41:47 PM »
Anybody else from google.com want to chime in on what is clearly none of their fucking business?

3
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Sorry, I truly think it's time to make a move
« on: December 06, 2018, 12:35:17 PM »
First off, try reading the thread Saddam. No one is asking for resumes, and I have already stated I'm giving boydster access.

Secondly, I am not running an internet message forum. I know that is how tfes looks at things, but I am running the flat earth society. The distinction is important and betrays quite a lot about the intentions of those who run it.

Now, to give tfes.org members access to such things I would require a resume (especially in the context of some sort of merger which as far as I'm concerned will never happen); but mostly because they have linked in stalked mine ( because, presumably, they are creepy) and because previous conversations have given me sufficient reason to doubt their intentions and abilities.

The plan I have outlined will allow any interested member in contributing without fear of them stealing personal information, or destroying the entire site. I understand you can't see this because you don't understand what I'm talking about, but if you don't understand something, perhaps its not the best topic to chime in on.

4
Technical Support / Re: How to get my old account back?
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:21:16 AM »
Welcome back! Glad we sorted this out.

5
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Sorry, I truly think it's time to make a move
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:19:37 AM »
To be clear I apologize for the downtime and take full responsibility. I hope the steps I have outlined above will help mitigate these issues in the future.

As far as the content on the site, yes, I don't have the time to provide content to the site. If you wish to help us with content, please feel free and I'd be happy to post it.

6
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Sorry, I truly think it's time to make a move
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:16:27 AM »
I'll be expanding Boydsters access to the site to provide redundancy to my position and so he can implement the changes he has worked hard on with other members.

We have a roadmap to move off smf to a new platform and we will also be moving to a new infrastructure through aws. This will be a piece by piece movement, and there will be a time period where both platforms will live side by side.

I was away in Vegas for an AWS Conference and was not watching my phone. The problem that happened I had actually automated a fix for that was run periodically. I will be seeing why this automated process failed, fix it, and I will provide boydster access to run it manually. I will also provide details on how to perform the task manually to him.

As far as my technical abilities go, they don't send someone to a conference on infrastructure because they don't know about infrastructure. I work for a world-wide media company and household name. My work is centered around dev-ops, automation, site-reliability, and quality - many times acting as an enabler and educator of these practices to our wider development team. Additionally, I perform roles developing and architecting software, with 15 years under my belt working with small businesses, enterprise level clients, and start-ups in a variety of industries.

Now, if someone is more qualified than me here, I'd love to hear their thoughts or have their help. Such a person doesn't exist, afaik, which has lead me to my current project to automate our entire deployment and infrastructure so that  folks like boydster or anyone else can work on the site without having the whole enchilada -  and so we aren't up shits  creek if I get hit by a bus. This is in coordination with our move to newer, better, cutting edge servers. This is a long term project, so don't expect that part of it today. I do plan on spending a good amount of this weekend working on it and will provide updates as it moves along.

The current state is that we have a server set up using the new platform, and a full database server there of our posts. We also have a process in place to index these posts for our new search engine. We have a repo, though will be moving this to aws due to cost. We will also be using aws for our deployment pipeline, moving away from the work I started automating this in circle ci / github. The choice for this double work is due to the simplicity and cheapness of aws's solutions here (about a dollar a month with almost one click setups). I hope to have the deployment and cloudformation templates up this weekend for our new staging instance, but I'll update everyone on the progress otherwise.

Unfortunately, I can not dedicate the same time, resources, or availability to this site that I can dedicate I do those I work for. This should be for obvious reasons, but if they are not obvious its because I have a full time job, family, and kids that all take precedent over my site administration responsibilities here.

7
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Hyperlink icon in posting
« on: December 06, 2018, 09:00:24 AM »
I agree its a bit silly. Its really at the bottom of our priorities and a non-issue.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Why do clouds stay up?
« on: November 03, 2018, 12:53:15 PM »
I propose that clouds have a very low mass which causes them to be basically unaffected by gravity/UA.
The clouds stay up in a UA model for the same reasons they do on a round earth.

9
Announcements / Re: Intermittent Timeouts
« on: November 01, 2018, 09:10:22 AM »
Its up; I need to get the deployment script finished, and then transfer the database over again when we flip the switch.

10
Announcements / Re: Downtime Today To Yesterday
« on: November 01, 2018, 09:08:59 AM »
Yes we know this; our current efforts are towards automating everything to do with the site as well as moving it off our current host.

As a matter of fact, site reliability automation and dev ops is what I currently do for a living for an international corporation and household name. The reason why it is not currently automated is mostly a matter of time and resources.

Few things are really that difficult. It almost always comes down to time and resources.


11
Announcements / Downtime Today To Yesterday
« on: October 31, 2018, 08:09:53 AM »
The issue was easy to fix, and avoidable but I didn't have time the last two days due to work. Soon(tm) we will have access for additional administrators to go in and fix stuff themselves.

12
Announcements / Re: Intermittent Timeouts
« on: October 29, 2018, 10:40:56 AM »
Work has been crazy lately, but I'm trying to shave time off here and there to get a server set up that doesn't fail and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I'm sorry I don't have a better update, but I'm working on it.

13
Announcements / Re: Intermittent Timeouts
« on: October 23, 2018, 12:32:11 PM »
Sorry its taking me a bit to set up the deployment pipeline guys. I haven't forgotten, and I'm still throwing time at it every chance I get. Has this been continuing?

14
Announcements / Re: Intermittent Timeouts
« on: October 11, 2018, 09:44:41 AM »
No clue about that. Why would it be him?

At any rate, the host confirmed it was an resource issue and that we get throttled. I'm working on merging in the smf update and boydster / croutons changes so we can move the server.

15
Announcements / Intermittent Timeouts
« on: October 05, 2018, 10:53:58 AM »
We are experiencing intermittent timeouts. I contacted support for our servers to get this resolved.

In the long run, we are now investigating moving to a new and better server setup.

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Remove account
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:58:48 PM »
Remove his account for him.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:55:13 PM »
http://tfes.org is a great place for you!

18
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:52:41 PM »
Also go away. Be like a Thork. And Leave.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:51:55 PM »
 Again I ask you - how do you draw a line from tabulation then to "Fact"?

20
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:45:55 PM »
http://tfes.org is a great place for you!

21
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:44:01 PM »
I would love to know what sets the horizon on a flat earth?
Go away, you are an awful relic of a disgusting past mindset.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:35:40 PM »
I'd really love to know.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:31:56 PM »
D
by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100ís of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.
How is this theory independent?  We measured the route of flights, and came to an equation that suites it best. More than this, the dataset is almost entirely in the Northern hemicircle -  which would yield a straight line on most flat earth maps, such as the UN logo.

You ask for science to show a spheriod earth, what issue do you have with the tabulated emperical video of the iss orbiting the earth?

2nd.   You keep using that word "non-euclid". 
Insert princess bride meme.
That would be a video of an artificial satellite that is above us. I agree with the observation, but I fail to see how that shows the earth is round. Enlighten me of this  burden.

Again, how will you take tabulation and turn it into theory, given an infinite amount of theories that would fit that tabulation? Is it trite like Ockham? Is it around convenience, or historical bias? Is it simply what suites the fancy? Because I've haven't heard an answer to this yet.


by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100ís of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.

Thanks, Stash and Themightykabool for stepping in.....in my absence.......

Same thing for great circle oceanic paths in the navy .The coxswain on the Liberty Boat of a ship doesn't depend on globe theory to go from the ship to Fleet Landlng . The Captain and crew of the ship do for a cruise from any place on the ocean to any other place on the ocean. California to Japan. New York to France.



I have returned.???
They do not; they rely upon tabulation and iteration of this over a long time; look at the early success of the Portolan maps and the growth of the theory since then. It might make it easier to teach | adopt to think of it being based off some imaginary theory, but that is against the only fact we can have with empiricism - that there are no facts. Beyond this, are there infinitely countable ways one could explain these distances - we just happened upon one by popular convention. We have shown here over the last decade that there is at least one more. More than this, it is now simple to show there are many more.

By what metric do you take this tabulation and frame it in a theory of magical balls whirling about space like peas out of a shooter?

You, like many, want science to be a religion and give you footing in the world; so you know what is around you and can make rational acts. This is not the case. Science should not -- and can not -- do any such thing.

So again, I ask you as an interested person for an answer. How do you take these tabulations, and attribute them to some imaginary jabberwocky of an idea?

It is not jabberwocky. It is every day use and practice. Even back in 1912, for good or bad , ships were taking geat circle routes.
In one of the "Titanic" movies Captain Smith remarks "Of course we'll be taking the Great Circle Route."

If there is any jabberwocky it is all this flat earth nonsense and foolishness.

P.S. Have you been down to the sea shore or have you been on a ship and watched ships and/or land as they passed over or passed beyond the horizon lately ?
Yes, I have travelled the world, most often by boat. More often than not they fade out to the distance. This is to be expected, but I assume you wish to talk of boat masts again. I have provided more than one way this could be explained earlier. If you would like me to expand on them, ask.
Quote
Have you ever done any estimations of the distance to the horizon on an imaginary flat earth ?
Those "round earth sailors" have for the real world.
Are you calling them liars ?
I imagine they are 'plane sailing'

Have you ever talked to any one in any navy or any one who is an officer on any civilian ship and mentioned the words "flat earth" ?
Have you ever read any history books and know the world has been known to be a globe for some 2500 years ?
Are you one of those persons who think all those pictures of the earth are fakes and NASA and all the other space agrencies of all the countries in the world are either non-existant  and/are composed of satanic satan worshippers and space travel does not exist and satellites do not exist ?

Hey, Stash and Themightykabool-
What is your opinion  this person who calls himself "John Davis" ?
Yes I've read history. Again I ask you - how do you draw a line from calculations to "Fact"?

24
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 05:24:39 PM »
by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100ís of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.
How is this theory independent?  We measured the route of flights, and came to an equation that suites it best. More than this, the dataset is almost entirely in the Northern hemicircle -  which would yield a straight line on most flat earth maps, such as the UN logo.

You ask for science to show a spheriod earth, what issue do you have with the tabulated emperical video of the iss orbiting the earth?

2nd.   You keep using that word "non-euclid". 
Insert princess bride meme.
That would be a video of an artificial satellite that is above us. I agree with the observation, but I fail to see how that shows the earth is round. Enlighten me of this  burden.

Again, how will you take tabulation and turn it into theory, given an infinite amount of theories that would fit that tabulation? Is it trite like Ockham? Is it around convenience, or historical bias? Is it simply what suites the fancy? Because I've haven't heard an answer to this yet.


by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100ís of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.

Thanks, Stash and Themightykabool for stepping in.....in my absence.......

Same thing for great circle oceanic paths in the navy .The coxswain on the Liberty Boat of a ship doesn't depend on globe theory to go from the ship to Fleet Landlng . The Captain and crew of the ship do for a cruise from any place on the ocean to any other place on the ocean. California to Japan. New York to France.



I have returned.???
They do not; they rely upon tabulation and iteration of this over a long time; look at the early success of the Portolan maps and the growth of the theory since then. It might make it easier to teach | adopt to think of it being based off some imaginary theory, but that is against the only fact we can have with empiricism - that there are no facts. Beyond this, are there infinitely countable ways one could explain these distances - we just happened upon one by popular convention. We have shown here over the last decade that there is at least one more. More than this, it is now simple to show there are many more.

By what metric do you take this tabulation and frame it in a theory of magical balls whirling about space like peas out of a shooter?

You, like many, want science to be a religion and give you footing in the world; so you know what is around you and can make rational acts. This is not the case. Science should not -- and can not -- do any such thing.

So again, I ask you as an interested person for an answer. How do you take these tabulations, and attribute them to some imaginary jabberwocky of an idea?

It is not jabberwocky. It is every day use and practice. Even back in 1912, for good or bad , ships were taking geat circle routes.
In one of the "Titanic" movies Captain Smith remarks "Of course we'll be taking the Great Circle Route."

If there is any jabberwocky it is all this flat earth nonsense and foolishness.

P.S. Have you been down to the sea shore or have you been on a ship and watched ships and/or land as they passed over or passed beyond the horizon lately ?
Yes, I have travelled the world, most often by boat. More often than not they fade out to the distance. This is to be expected, but I assume you wish to talk of boat masts again. I have provided more than one way this could be explained earlier. If you would like me to expand on them, ask.
Quote
Have you ever done any estimations of the distance to the horizon on an imaginary flat earth ?
Those "round earth sailors" have for the real world.
Are you calling them liars ?
I imagine they are 'plane sailing'

25
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 04:45:49 PM »
by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100ís of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.
How is this theory independent?  We measured the route of flights, and came to an equation that suites it best. More than this, the dataset is almost entirely in the Northern hemicircle -  which would yield a straight line on most flat earth maps, such as the UN logo.

You ask for science to show a spheriod earth, what issue do you have with the tabulated emperical video of the iss orbiting the earth?

2nd.   You keep using that word "non-euclid". 
Insert princess bride meme.
That would be a video of an artificial satellite that is above us. I agree with the observation, but I fail to see how that shows the earth is round. Enlighten me of this  burden.

Again, how will you take tabulation and turn it into theory, given an infinite amount of theories that would fit that tabulation? Is it trite like Ockham? Is it around convenience, or historical bias? Is it simply what suites the fancy? Because I've haven't heard an answer to this yet.


by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100ís of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.

Thanks, Stash and Themightykabool for stepping in.....in my absence.......

Same thing for great circle oceanic paths in the navy .The coxswain on the Liberty Boat of a ship doesn't depend on globe theory to go from the ship to Fleet Landlng . The Captain and crew of the ship do for a cruise from any place on the ocean to any other place on the ocean. California to Japan. New York to France.



I have returned.???
They do not; they rely upon tabulation and iteration of this over a long time; look at the early success of the Portolan maps and the growth of the theory since then. It might make it easier to teach | adopt to think of it being based off some imaginary theory, but that is against the only fact we can have with empiricism - that there are no facts. Beyond this, are there infinitely countable ways one could explain these distances - we just happened upon one by popular convention. We have shown here over the last decade that there is at least one more. More than this, it is now simple to show there are many more.

By what metric do you take this tabulation and frame it in a theory of magical balls whirling about space like peas out of a shooter?

You, like many, want science to be a religion and give you footing in the world; so you know what is around you and can make rational acts. This is not the case. Science should not -- and can not -- do any such thing.

So again, I ask you as an interested person for an answer. How do you take these tabulations, and attribute them to some imaginary jabberwocky of an idea?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 10:38:49 AM »
For example:
Distance to the horizon can be framed as - a curved earth, a non-euclidean earth, bendy light, or Rowbothamic perspective, an infinite number of other 'theories' that hold themselves to the same 'rules' calculated through tabulation.

John Davis-
Again, John Davis, you claim to believe the earth is flat.
I don't know if you really believe that or if it's just an act.
But that is the way of the way of this website.
But all your babbling and nonsense won't change the fact that the world isn't some flat disc,

Everyone else in the real world , at least those who work in some field involving the globe, such as the FAA or the USN , know it's a globe.

I will leave you with something you can do to prove the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.
Go down to the shore or take a cruise on a ship at sea.
Watch ships come and go.

(1) If ships in the distance come and go in and out of the mist and just look larger as they approach and just look smaller and fade  away into the mist as they get farther away, there is no curvature to the earth, the earth is flat. If you can restore a ship to view with a telescope for a ship that has gotten so small you can't see it any more, the earth is flat. And those "flat earthers" are right.


(2) If you first just see the tops of the masts of the ships as they approach you and as the ships get nearer you finally see the whole ship when it get nearer, and as the ship goes away from you , the first thing disappearing being the hull and the last thing you see are the tops of the masts before it disappears. And once that ship disappears from view there is no way you can restore it to view with a telescope, then there is a curvature of the earth and the earth is a globe. And those "round earth" sailors in the navy are right.

Who's right ?
The "flat earthers" or the "round earthers" ?

I'm goiing to take a break for a while and let other people have a chance to have  fun in this nonsense. LOL
It gets old after a while.
Adieu, mon ami !
They don't know that, except in so much as they misuse science as some oracle.

If you choose to return, please answer my question - by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

Take care.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 09:40:25 AM »
Again, I have no doubt the Navy or FAA both believe the earth is round, and thus would frame their knowledge in this theory. This does not say the knowledge itself says the earth is round and you have yet to show it does.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 09:22:28 AM »
For example:
Distance to the horizon can be framed as - a curved earth, a non-euclidean earth, bendy light, or Rowbothamic perspective, an infinite number of other 'theories' that hold themselves to the same 'rules' calculated through tabulation.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 02, 2018, 09:19:03 AM »
I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

I have no question that the FAA believes the earth is round and would justify their views through the equations they use. However the methods and equations and tools they use say nothing of the shape of the earth, but only of predictable rules gathered through observation, mathematics, tabulation, and empiricism.

Further, I spent the time in the middle of my work day humouring you and reading Chapter 16. You are correct it assumes a round earth; however, the practical knowledge that one can use from this chapter (time zones, longitude and latitude, etc) hold no particular bias to whether the earth is flat, round, or donut shaped. All of it can (and was) determined through tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism. In fact, TheEngineer, a moderator here in the past and a pilot, has provided first hand accounts of how nothing he does when flying shows a round earth.

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

It is really not necessary to say anything about the shape of the earth in the manual  because in the real world the shape of the earth is the globe and is a known fact . In the real world you deal with reality. I realize that this is the FES website and FE's minds are programmed to deny any thing of reality. In the navy and the FAA you work in the real world.

The FAA also makes it clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to the spacing of microwave repeater stations.
The navy also makes it clear that they use Oceanic Charts made from a projection of a globe.

Its not necessary because all that is necessary are the rules that are needed to be performed; rules that were calculated using empricism, tabulation and mathematics - not some imaginary theoretical layer that attempts to say something. I have asked you again and again for an answer - how does science tell us the shape of the earth if its powers are limited to prediction through tabulation based rules?

The fact that they use a globe as a model again says nothing of the shape of the earth. A flat non-euclidean closed surface earth would have an identical map. As would a model where the North pole and south pole were both in the center.
The "round earth" formula for estimating the distance from an observer to the horizon  takes into account the curvature of the earth.
It does no such thing. The round earth theory takes into account the distance to the horizon to calculate an assumed curvature of the earth - this is in contradistinction to your claim that it works the other way around and that the formula somehow magically knew there was a curvature to the earth in spite of it being based off pure tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. You are putting the cart before the horse.

It also seems you are again and again purposefully missing the point.

Do the calculations provided by science work? Yes, more often than not.

Do they say anything about the shape of the earth? No; perhaps you can show me why they must rather than citing one after another when I already disproved your hypothesis by example: there have been many cultures over the years who have been able to calculate eclipses, or the distance to the horizon without the use of a 'round earth theory'. How did they do it? The same way they did any other science - by tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.


30
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm new
« on: October 01, 2018, 11:39:53 AM »
You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

Would this render Rowbotham a dishonest scientist? In ENAG, he titles Chapter II "Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane".

And a claim that he solved the problem of induction with his limited series of experiments of dubious results and scripture bound conjecture is decidedly not earned nor warranted.
Yes, this would be dishonest of him.

Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. There is a necessary nominalism to mathematics that is lost when we try to make it relatable through theory. Isn't the curse of the universal language, is that it loses that truth in the details of the cultures that speak it? Isn't a universal language too ambiguous? What then of the language of math - and its tie to our ideas of what is round and what is not? Good sense tells us the earth is round. Good logic tells us to argue the other path, because history shows - we are wrong about most things.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right?

During the thousands of years the shape of the earth has been studied, if it were in fact flat, there would already be an existing formula to calculate the distance to the horizon on the flat earth.  You can make the claim that "NASA" controls the data, but that would just further indicate your state of denial.
There are said formula. Its the same formula as the round earth.

Again, science tells us nothing about the context of the data. It gives us laws and rules to help predict said data. None of these laws or rules say anything about the shape of the earth. That is all interpretation, and it can be interpreted either way.


Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? ;) You ;) possibly?

RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers.
They are just looking for something to attack.

I AM an RE who IS  interested in the answers to the question of  HOW an FE would estimate the  distance to the horizon on a flat earth.
Are FE's interested in RE answers ?
I've been in the navy (as Space Cow Girl should know by now....LOL) and  worked on radars and microwave repeaters and UHF and VHF radios both in the USN and the FAA so I know how it works as far as the distance to the horizon is concerned....On the "round earth".
The calculations are the same regardless of the shape of the earth. Unless you have some previously undiscovered attack on the methodology of modern science, you must accept this if you accept the methodology of science. Otherwise, you may as well go back to Aristotelian science. This is for reasons explained above, mainly those reasons that have come about due to the scientific revolution.

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.
I most certainly did provide a coherent answer. If you are confused by it, why not ask a question?

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.
Facts do not exist in science. What would you like a figure of? Its hard to create a figure about how your understanding of science is bunk.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.

Uhh... He said, to paraphrase, you measure stuff and take notes, and hopefully find a mathematical relationship you can use regularly.

Quote
However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.
Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.

Repeat. I asked for an actual result in plain facts and figures. He gave none as I did.

Simple.
Give an example showing the distance to the horizon and how it was computed for a flat earth as it has been presented for a round earth.

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Now please provide me with the basis for your presumed claim that science can tell us about true causes or how this calculation, tabulation, mathematics or empiricalism is theory dependent.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 418