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 ... 433
1
The Lounge / Re: What are you planting?
« on: Today at 01:16:56 PM »
I have heard that charcoal ashes (like one might use in an outdoor grill) are helpful to some plants when mixed with the soil; can anyone verify?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New to flat earthers. A question
« on: Today at 12:20:18 PM »
In that case, I am interested in the reason as well; mainly because this wouldn't be a piece of contention between a round and flat earth. The amount the earth would dip over distance would be too small to notice visually.

In fact, when I consider most of the times I've spent near the coast or on boats, I usually see the water fade into the horizon which I attributed to the fact that air is not clear and obscures things over a large enough distance.

3
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Avatars
« on: Today at 10:07:47 AM »
Okay doing it. Thanks everyone for your feedback! I'll preserve the old avatars for the interim and announce the change before its made here. In the long run I'll likely preserve them too.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 23, 2019, 06:24:06 PM »
If I’m following this correctly, the idea is that because satellites can be said to be traveling in a straight line through curved spacetime, then it follows that the surface of the earth is “flat”, only curved in spacetime.

Problems I see with this are:

1.  Satellites can only be in a stable circular orbit at a precise speed for any given altitude, yet we always perceive the Earth’s curvature the same regardless of velocity wrt the Earth’s surface, including stationary.
I'm not sure why this is a problem, or perhaps I'm missing something in the "wrt". Can you expand on this?

Quote
2.  It falls apart if you apply this line of thinking to other planets and moons (which we can and do put objects into orbit around).  The moon for example has a much weaker gravitational field than the Earth, being much smaller.  Yet if we’re saying the curvature is due to to spacetime distortion, if should require a stronger field to have a tighter curve.
They are large enough to support their own mass and orbits. The field is the same relation. Smaller objects typically orbit small bodies.

Quote
3.  But why stop there?  If we’re saying something that appears spherical is actually flat, only curved by spacetime, should we then apply this to all spherical objects?  Is a football (soccer ball) really also flat?
To your actual question: Is the football flat? No, various forces are keeping it in its shape, gravity not one of them in the sense we are talking - though understand that it would apply just as easily at smaller scales - its just might not productive to worry about the frame of reference of an electron (or perhaps it might...). This is perhaps where the argument "its just a slight deviation due to the force" might be noteworthy, not in the pseudoforce that apparently bends objects in circles around round bodies.

To a more interesting point - Take the path of all soccer balls as they are kicked or as they are stationary; at their apex they are traveling a straight line through spacetime as they are not suffering from acceleration. Taking its apex, one can extrapolate by noting its felt acceleration where it might be if it was not suffering from this affliction. This path would be tangent to the apex, and flat at a constant altitude, much like the orbit. Taking the space of all these solutions, we end up with a space consisting of spaces of planes comprised of these points.


5
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 23, 2019, 06:06:50 PM »
What exactly would you expect the world to look like if space was curved and light travelled without changing direction?
Why is it even relevant when the effect of any curvature in the spacelike component of spacetime near the earth causes difference no more than 1 few parts in 109?
It seems Unconvinced is referring to gravity itself, not the distortions in spacetime (effectively a twirl) I (and apparently you) where thinking about in GR.

Anyhow, it'd be interesting to know the imagined math behind the observed distances and directions and the typical FE map (if there is such a thing), and just using for example Proj4 one can easily calculate all these distortions and observe them firsthand (if one dares challenge his/her belief).
I usually use Matlab or Octave for my work, except where these tools are insufficient and have to be done by hand. It is possible we are mincing definitions of 'projection' here a bit as I am sometimes referring to it in a specific mathematical sense and otherwise to the methodology followed by cartographers.

6
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post Deletion
« on: March 23, 2019, 05:57:21 PM »
While people deleting posts and making older threads hard to read is unfortunate, I want to advocate for FES always having a way to make posts non-public, if not totally deleted. FES and FE'ers are often targeted by malicious actors, including but not limited to trolls, conspiracy agents, and crazies. It may become necessary for any prolific poster to obscure past posts for personal safety.

That's what moderators are for.

Franklin makes a good point.  I kind of agree with him.
This happened recently (this month) and I did the necessary work.

That said, there are other good reasons to not want posts to be deleted. I'm not seeing folks deleting posts to obscure their argument or otherwise use it in a disruptive way. On the otherhand, perhaps some folks are.

If its a feature, I say we enable it for a bit and see how often folks delete stuff that shouldn't be deleted. It could be more work than worth to whomever has to empty the trash bin.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 23, 2019, 05:54:43 PM »
It is possible you are mistaking gravitational lensing as a measure of how much space curves due to relativity. This is rather how much a "massless" photon might be affected. It would be silly to measure things from the point of view of light, wouldn't it?

8
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 23, 2019, 05:48:54 PM »
What exactly would you expect the world to look like if space was curved and light travelled without changing direction?
Why is it even relevant when the effect of any curvature in the spacelike component of spacetime near the earth causes difference no more than 1 few parts in 109?
If this is the case, then why is its acceleration 0?

9
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Avatars
« on: March 23, 2019, 05:47:43 PM »
That I definitely will do. I'll likely give it two-three weeks to accommodate those that log in just now and then.

10
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Avatars
« on: March 23, 2019, 04:53:29 PM »
VIA PM:
Quote
For the avatar hosting the difficulty would be the work it would take migrating the images from this site to an s3 instance? 
Migrating the images is no work at all. I've done it already for that staging instance of the new platform stuff. The issue is either developing our own form to  (edit: validate / sanitize them and then ) upload them to s3 that integrates with smf, or editing smf to do it using something like flysystem. This looks to be a fair amount of work to me.

Its possible the have the fallback be from the s3 backup and use gravitar for anything new going forward and this is likely what I would end up doing.

11
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Avatars
« on: March 23, 2019, 03:32:26 PM »
The closest equivalent solution to using a symlink would be mounting the efs. My goal is to be able to start up a brand new server on the fly without worrying about the local files. As such, having a symlink to the files locally doesn't really solve the problem. I can store them on the efs and just detach it from the webserver and reattach it to the new one. This isn't my favorite solution because we still end up having to store the images, there's additional cost, and its slightly more complex than just having a plug and play solution like gravitar.

S3 would be a storage system completely outside the server all together. Amazon handles all the work except for us uploading it and linking to it. S3 is also fast and allows us to schedule away images that aren't accessed and so on.

12
Suggestions & Concerns / Avatars
« on: March 23, 2019, 03:09:52 PM »
The Problem
The architectures and deployment mechanisms we are moving to don't jive well with locally stored data such as avatars. The goal is to be able to hit a button and spin up as many full working ready to go FES forum servers as possible. This will also help us to scale almost instantly if need be and recover from most hacks and issues we have with the push of a single button.

If we have to manage thousands of avatars in something like source control, this would be a non-starter. There are also security and speed concerns for saving them alongside the application code or on the same server versus other options.


The Solutions

S3 with Microserver to handle avatars: We use s3 to store our avatars and completely circumvent how smf does it by implementing the change in the themes we want it for.

S3: I can store the avatars on s3. The way we handle avatars will have to be rewritten in every place avatars are used in SMF. The drawback here is the amount of work. I'd likely leverage flysystem if we go this way, and go through and edit any piece of code that deals with avatars on the filesystem itself. The way the smf developers write their code makes this spread out entire many files and functions, and not always easy to find.

For those that have seen the staging forum for the new platform (which is aside of this work) it used this method. However, its not a lift and shift sorta operation and integrating it into SMF may be ugly. Upon looking into it further, its a ton of work.

Gravitar: Allows for folks to set up avatars that persist across sites. Third party service. Mods already exist for smf to use this.

EFS: We store them on a separate file server that we mount on our server. This has many of the problems with not doing anything, but its technically an option.

Current Plan
We will likely be moving to Gravatar for avatar usage in the future of our forums. I will be making the decision today or tomorrow so it ceases to block my work in getting us up to speed and able to deliver you guys with the new features you've been asking for for years. Let me know if this really rubs you wrong.


Risks
Loss of existing avatars (I can maybe mitigate this like I did with the staging instance for our new platform)
You'll have to use gravatar if you want an avatar, or if you change your current avatar.
The 600 attachments we have from the past 15+ years will likely be sunset. This amounts to ~3 a month, leading me to believe that this feature really isn't used that much anyways.


Voice Your Concerns or Ideas
I'm open to hear concerns, complaints, praise, or other ideas to solve this problem. I will take your feedback, but in the end it will be my decision.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New to flat earthers. A question
« on: March 22, 2019, 12:16:55 PM »
The waves closer to you will appear larger than those further away, obstructing your view of those waves that are further out.

14
On an infinite plane, you could have something very similar to Gravity at the surface without the need for UA, and Jack is correct that it would not decrease as you move away from the surface. I am forgetting the name for that principle. Hopefully someone can jump in with that.
It follows directly from this:


Note the lack of an altitude.

15
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post Deletion
« on: March 22, 2019, 10:14:11 AM »
Yeah I believe its an smf mod if memory serves. Its not a bad idea.

I'd rather it be implemented differently, but this makes sense too.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 22, 2019, 09:11:55 AM »
Facts don't exist in science.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 22, 2019, 09:08:55 AM »
Wise takes the crown for belief in this forum.

By your flawless logic, wise actually isn't a believer because his avatar portrays him as Raiden from the Mortal Kombat movie when we know in fact that he isn't. Just another larper according to you.
There's a big difference between presenting a different person in an avatar and presenting a different person to the media. Back to your logic, I believe Daniel used a photo of himself as his avatar for a long time; I believe it said something like "I'm Daniel", since I created it around the whole Conan O Brien  / Leno stuff as well as the break between the two forums, playing on "I'm with Daniel/CoCo"

Its obvious why folks might hide their real name. There is a real stigma around our beliefs. Just yesterday my aunt in law posted some deflamatory crap on my facebook, along with a high school friend. So I get it, and to restate it again - I'm more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, in spite of him being yet another "pizza planet" poster and his history.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 22, 2019, 01:47:54 AM »
Yes, that was the point. One of these days we'll stop agreeing with each other ;).

Quote
Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.
Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.
Not quite. "Someone[1]" has described these as:
  • Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: "It's bright outside."

  • Law: A statement, based on repeated experimental observations, that describes some phenomenon of nature. A description of that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

  • Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: "It's bright outside because the sun is probably out."

  • Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
So a scientific fact might be that unsupported objects fall towards the earth.
Or even that the sun appears to rise from behind the horizon. That does not state how or why it appears to rise from behind the horizon.

A scientific law is a statement, often expressed mathematically, the describes or predicts some natural phenomena.
Usually, these laws are based on extensive experimental work to determine the relations between the variables involved.
Typical examples of such laws are:
  • Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation,
  • Coloumb's Law relating the forces between electric charges.
  • The gas laws: Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, Gay-Lussac's Law and Avogadro's Law.
None of those laws describe why the relationship exists simply that the relationship has been observed and measured often enough to expect it to continiue.
But all of these laws have ranges of applicability where they start to become inaccurate.

On the other hand, a Scientific Theory seeks to give reasons for these natural phenomena -  to answer the "Why is it so?".
But even here there is often a limit to how deep any theory can because as yet scientist does not know "everything" and they probably never will.
Typical examples might be Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory. Two "nice theories" that just "happen" to be in conflict.
So close to a Nobel Prizes awaits anyone who can disprove either Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory.

What is most likely to happen is that a quantised version of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity will eventuate.

But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist.

[1] The "Someone" was Patrick Allan in The Difference Between A Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, And Law In Science. another "nobody".


Yes, Rab. We all went to high school and learned that incorrect and silly view of things. And guess what; "But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist." neither is he, so you are in good company.




20
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 21, 2019, 06:20:34 PM »
John Davis,

Does applying post-modernist thought to F=MA and the periodic chart make any sense at all? If there is something profound there, why don't you write it up in unassaible logic and submit?
I'd rather see the unassailable logic that says F=MA. Oh right. Its induction, and it need not be assailed as it has no basis.
I hope that you realise that "F=MA" was not developed by "unassailable logic" but is one of "Newton's Three Laws of Motion":
Quote
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Newton's three laws of motion may be stated as follows:
  • Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.

  • Force equals mass times acceleration [ f(t) = m a(t) ].

  • For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yes, that was the point. One of these days we'll stop agreeing with each other ;).

Quote
Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.
Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 21, 2019, 03:00:02 PM »
Looks like another victory, confirmed!

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 21, 2019, 02:47:49 PM »
...presumably due to a lack of conviction in his beliefs.

And that would be an incorrect presumption. But you should listen in anyway. Just a couple minutes to go now.
I know I ask Junker when I want the facts.

Am I to assume that Daniel lacks conviction as well since he also uses a fake name? Of course not, that would be nonsensical.
Of course, the use of a fake "person" is not the only metric by which I'm judging.

Quote
Thankfully, knowing both of their real names affords me a level of "facts" that you simply aren't privy to. Not a big deal and no reason to get into an argument, you just wanted to get in a dig on Pete.

Anyway, this conversation train never leads anywhere productive, so I will leave you to it.
Yeah I know both their names too. Congratulations.

While I did want to get a dig in, I still doubt his sincerity in his beliefs. Of course, folks doubt mine at times too. So that means little to nothing; I should give him the benefit of the doubt - so I will.

Apologies for the presumption, "Penis Warrior."

23
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:26:16 PM »
John Davis,

Does applying post-modernist thought to F=MA and the periodic chart make any sense at all? If there is something profound there, why don't you write it up in unassaible logic and submit?
I'd rather see the unassailable logic that says F=MA. Oh right. Its induction, and it need not be assailed as it has no basis.

Quote

Meanwhile, can you explain how a sextant and equatorial mount work?

No, I thought not.
I already have.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:25:05 PM »
...presumably due to a lack of conviction in his beliefs.

And that would be an incorrect presumption. But you should listen in anyway. Just a couple minutes to go now.
I know I ask Junker when I want the facts.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:49:32 PM »
You are correct as far as I know. He hides behind a fake person, presumably due to a lack of conviction in his beliefs.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:48:11 PM »
Well, Phew has got somekind of acknowledgement. It's not the case when I introduced it for the first time and the following months.
Perhaps due to bad, or uncomplete presentation. Only a few people supported Phew, all were Flatearthers.

Lately... some Roundearthers (we all initially came from RET, right?) have given positive feedbacks, e.g. :

FlatOrange... the sun's speed is at peak on summer solstice on northern hemiplane. The more north the higher sun speed will be, the more south the lower sun speed will be. The sun speed is variable depending on the radius from south pole. The more distance from south pole, the higher speed of the sun will be. Visa versa.

Proof? The umbra of 2017's America solar eclipse. The umbra speed on America is higher than the equator's sun speed.
This would be some concrete evidence for Flat Earth.

To me it's all about between drama vs non-drama, between serious vs joking.
Phew is obvious, but afterwards anyone can choose to accept it or to continue joking around.

My comment was interpreted differently than I intended. Key word is "would". As in, demonstrate proof that the sun changes speed and it would be concrete evidence for flat earth.

Never in the history of observing the sky has anyone noticed the sun changing speed.

Edit: added emphasis
This is incorrect. Many times has this been observed. One is present in the bible when the sun stopped speeds. I believe Rowbotham provides some accounts in Earth: Not A Globe.  More reasonable perhaps to a round earther, Charles Fort has documented many times the sun has changed speed or directions - one that comes to mind he cites from Nature happened in Lyons NY if memory serves (I don't have my books at my work desk for perhaps obvious reasons.)

27
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:40:08 PM »

I disagree that general agreement would necessarily be a good thing.

What if though? Any particular view would be chosen not by a mindful hand but an invisible one. It would be subject to the whims of popularity, circumstance, and convenience. Eventually this view would be built up long enough through ad hocs supported later by research until enough unsolvable problems bubble up. Then, this view would be rejected by a new culture and view after the previous one's proponents have died. This will then repeat.

In my opinion, this idea of applying post-modernism to things like science is a world view in itself.  Perhaps this trend will be replaced by a new wave of rationalism?

Personally, I’m really not a fan of the idea that everyone’s view of reality is equally valid. 

I don’t see how we’re supposed to handle the challenges ahead of us, such as climate change and providing for a growing world population with dwindling resources without coming to agreement on how things work in the first place.

I see you neglected to include evidence in how we would agree on a particular world view. 

Interesting part about “unsolvable problems”.  Is that what you think has happened with the heliocentric model?

You raise an interesting point; I don't think the intent of the post-modernists that interpreted Kuhn to say scientific truth is a social construct is to say any view of reality is equally valid. It does point out though that there are competing views and methodologies that serve man better or equally and they should be considered. I believe it also strongly suggests that these centers of power should be open to all and not restricted to one tradition or world-view. It should be just as reasonable to gather government grants to prove the earth is flat rather than to show it is round, and in doing the opposite we are actually hurting the scientific view as well as competing views as well as the idea of an open society.

Some of these problems you mention are not scientific ones; one could argue that the argument centering around climate change is not a scientific one - we can say well enough that "global" warming is happening. Its a human question around whether we want to diverge resources to handle it and if such diversion would compromise other values we hold. However, given the priveledged place science holds in our society and its access to power, this argument is instead not had and we have to play in sciences ball park and present arguments against it in that tradition.

I feel a similar argument is happening around abortion; its not about when science says a fetus is alive - its a human issue that is far more complex than this. Society has simply moved the argument to this venue as it disproportionately holds power.

My evidence towards my view presented earlier is really just the evidence that is used to support Kuhn and Feyerabend.

I do believe, and it is the text book example in fact, that this is what happened with the heliocentric model. If you look into the history, at the time it was accepted it could not explain the universe nearly as well as the dominant view of the time - especially along empirical lines. Most of Galileo's arguments were rhetorical tricks, inaccurate, or relied on some other non-scientific basis. His scientific basis also failed to be supported by knowledge of optics of the time. Ironically, the work stemming from Copernicus at the time had to make use of more epicycles to explained already noted empirical data than the epicycle model. It also predicted an incorrect number of tides a day, which should have put it out of the running right away.

The view was largely taken upon due to social reasons more than it being suited to the task. Of course, this is how it must be in the large majority of paradigm shifts like it as the new view has not had anytime to gather empirical basis and then must rely almost solely on ad hoc hypotheses and later 'puzzle solving' to attempt to build to the accuracy of the previous paradigm.

Our view is as legitimate as the heliocentric model was when it was gaining support in comparison to the round earth model corollary of the time of the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't say much, but it is of interest to note.

28
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Post Deletion
« on: March 20, 2019, 05:37:21 PM »
I agree with Bullwinkle.

The reason you can't delete threads you start has to do with members that are no longer here, and those like them that might come later.

On the other hand, some permanence would be nice. We can add this to our backlog. Personally, this bugs me as a user to this site. If everyone feels that way, this is a non-starter. Let your voice be heard here in that case...

First thing is getting us on some new servers, and getting our shit deployable in an effortless way.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 20, 2019, 05:17:47 PM »

Agreement will come with time, just like with any other field. Sometimes, it never comes. The majority of useful academy is disagreeing with others views - otherwise why state or write anything at all?

So it's like Brexit then, where everyone can have their own contradictory ideas about what it means?

But what if you had to actually come to a general agreement about some of it?
I disagree that general agreement would necessarily be a good thing.

What if though? Any particular view would be chosen not by a mindful hand but an invisible one. It would be subject to the whims of popularity, circumstance, and convenience. Eventually this view would be built up long enough through ad hocs supported later by research until enough unsolvable problems bubble up. Then, this view would be rejected by a new culture and view after the previous one's proponents have died. This will then repeat.


30
The Lounge / Re: Hello
« on: March 19, 2019, 04:41:06 PM »
Isn't it a Southpark reference?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 433