### 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 ... 404
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: March 16, 2018, 09:08:14 PM »

2
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How Gravity works?
« on: March 16, 2018, 09:04:03 PM »
Science cannot answer why something falls. It can only describe how it falls.
You can undoubtedly describe how opposite electric charges attract, but can you describe the fundamental reason why electric charges attract?
The attraction of opposite electric charges has been demonstrated and measured numerous times.
So no-one seriously doubts that opposite electric charges do attract.

Likewise we can describe how masses attract other masses, but as yet do not know for certain the fundamental reason why masses attract.
And likewise, the attraction of masses has been demonstrated and measured numerous times.
So why is it that anyone doubts that mass does indeed attract mass?

I see no other reason that that gravity is in conflict with some persons' preconceived ideas, so they try to debunk gravity.
What does it really mean for it to be of an opposite charge? Other than a word we give to a mathematical concept that seems to describe how it works.

I agree, it is silly to try to debunk the idea that things fall. Of course, a lot of people have different definitions between gravity and Gravity.

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emotion
« on: March 16, 2018, 08:59:39 PM »
An incorrect model can describe something in a useful way and still be incorrect. For example, I can model human behavior off assuming there are 8 archetypes of man, and each one acts differently. This would be patently incorrect, and yet it is able to provide useful results sometimes.
Just like a stopped clock is right twice a day.
But that is purely by chance.
It would need to have some degree of truth for it to produce correct results other than by chance.
So either they are correct some of the time, or the results they produce are fluke.
Its not purely by chance. Like your example earlier, we made a true enough false model that was useful.
Quote
You might be correct if you could back that up with historical example. As for mine, I have provided it - heliocentrism was introduced without solving problems and with introducing more. The fact FE exists shows that it is useful to some, and thus is solving some problem.
I don't need a historical example. I provided it purely based upon logic.
It sounds like you base a lot on empiricism. Isn't empiricism centered around soon to be historical example?
Quote
If you have models A and B and both suffer from a problem, then according to your reasoning, this problem is grounds to reject A and instead believe B, but equally valid would be rejecting B and accepting A.
This would lead you to reject both and accept both, an impossibility.
Perhaps if you could do so simultaneously.  Let me put it this way. You have a well walked model, that we all admit isn't 'true'; a far less walked path that might show promise. It certainly shows use. To me - its the less walked path. Your implementation may vary.
Quote
You have failed to provide any historical example of your own claim.
Heliocentricity provided explanatory power. It provided an explanation.
Its empirical basis was not yet provided by the Optical theory that came later. Likewise, it failed to predict many things the epicycle and other models could. It was also patently wrong at times, and failed to tell the tides of a day; it had yet to have any real empirical basis until it was studied and tested. Of course this is the way it would have to be.
Quote
With a geocentric model, all the planets except Earth orbit the sun, with the sun then orbiting Earth.
This made no sense at all.
Only because modern man has the idea in his head that he is not special. This is not rational at all.
Quote
During their orbits, the planets would get closer to Earth than the sun.
Could this not be realized through differing epicycle circles? Yes. They both share a sliver of the same solution space. Even retrograde; ignoring our Vulcan friends.
Quote
If the Earth is capable of having the sun orbit it, why wouldn't the other planets also orbit Earth?
Sounds like a poor reach at induction. If my pipe smokes, why doesn't my armchair?
Quote
The Heliocentric model solved that by having all the planets orbit the sun. Now the sun is the most significant body (in the solar system), with all the planets orbiting it.
Yes, it was one solution.
Quote
The geocentric model also has the problem of the path of the sun being so chaotic. Moving up and down in a crazy helix.
A helix isn't chaotic.
Quote
The heliocentric model explained that by having Earth rotate on an axis which was not parallel to the axis of the orbit.
Yes, it was an alternate explanation. Again, it failed on so many other counts, how could we take it seriously? It would be like saying the earth is flat or something. Any person near a large body of water knows the number of tides in a day.
Quote
This results in the sun appearing to trace circles in the sky with the axis of the circle parallel to Earth's rotational axis, with the orbital motion causing a variation in the apparent position of the circle the sun traces.

What additional problems did it introduce?
Tides. Unverified empirical evidence due to lack of a theory to support it, namely from Galileo. As Einstein put it, Galileo's was a work intended to explain, not to be accurate.
Quote
I have shown it by defining it as such.
So you have shown nothing.
You have simply asserted it.
Then we are on equal ground.
Quote
Simply saying "the earth is flat and space is curved" is enough for any reasonable person to be able to understand what I'm getting at here.
Yes, that you are pathetically grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend Earth is flat; that you know it is round, but are still going to pretend it is flat.
If you say so.
Quote
And what do you mean by factually correct? You just replaced one word with a synonym. How would you determine factual correctness other than by measuring its usefulness?
This now comes down to how words are defined in English. How would you define a word to someone who has no idea what any words mean?
i would determine it based upon how much it matches reality, i.e. how correct it is.
It comes down to no such thing. I am not arguing about definition here. How would you determine how much it matches reality? Aside from seeing its use? By it giving us "knowledge"? And the only metric we have to measure said knowledge is by using it.

Quote
Just because we find false things useful at times, especially when we purposefully construct them knowing they are false, does not necessitate that we don't believe things because they are useful.
Yes it does.
It shows that merely being useful is not enough to believe something.
We don't believe things because they are useful, there are other conditions which rational people use.
Obviously.
Quote
What is your rational basis for using induction?
Who says I am only using induction? Inductive reasoning is not the only form of rational reasoning and thus not the only way to present rational arguments.
You would still have to justify using induction, or reject it. Well, I guess unless its useful...
Quote
To state my point differently, why would I need to show how FE solves the problem if it provides a path to a potential Kuhnian revolution?
But that wasn't what you were claiming before.
You were claiming you believe FE because of the problems of a RE.
That is not a valid reason to believe FE.
I have already explained why and you just continually ignore it.
How about you try and explain why you think RE having problems is enough to jump to FE, without FE solving those problems?
Because we have seen, above, this is not a prerequisite.
Quote
Perhaps you should also read up on what the revolution requires.
It isn't simply someone coming up with some stupid idea or reviving a dead one just because there is a problem with an existing idea.
The revolution is due to an idea being able to solve a major problem.
They also typically build upon previous ones.
As I hope would be obvious, I weigh more with Feyerabend's side of the story than Kuhn's.
Quote
For example, Einstein's relativity built upon two major parts of science.
Nope. It built off a dream he had, about how geometry was bollocks.
Quote
The speed of light is constant regardless of your reference frame.
The speed of an object C, thrown by B at a velocity of vcb relative to B, when viewed by an outside observer A, with B travelling at a velocity of vba, would appear to travel at a velocity of vca=vcb+vba, relative to A.
These two statements both had experimental verification, but the latter only had experiment verification for relatively low velocities.
However the two statements resulted in a contradiction which results in a major problem.

Einstein didn't simply say, this is wrong, so this other model must be correct.
Of course not, he would not be so dense.
Quote
Instead, his relatively claimed that in reality vca=(vcb+vba)/(1+vcb*vba/c^2), thus when vcb and vba are much less than c, then vcb*vba<<c^2, and thus 1+vcb*vba/c^2~=1 and thus for low speeds, the old formula provides a very good approximation.
Meanwhile, if vcb=c, then you get:
vca=(c+vba)/(1+c*vba/c^2)=(c+vba)/(1+vba/c)=c*(c+vba)/(c*(1+vba/c))=c*(c+vba)/(c+vba)=c.
Which matches the observation that light always travels at the same speed.
The way you explain it, aside from being wrong, in its essence ruins the whole greatness of what it was. It wasn't that; whatever Einstein did Lorenz did in that field earlier a bit more crudely. It was the shift between a pseudoforce and a force and away from the old ether that made it so promising. Disillusionment from the Ether; neither real discrete problems but shifts of philosophy. Neither solved any real issues. His view was not shown until far after it was believed by the majority of scientists at the time too. Something about it appealed and seemed useful.
Quote
So this revolution was because of Einstein's relativity being able to solve this contradiction.
Sounds useful.

Quote
The other key part is that it builds upon prior science, rather than discarding it.

So until you can show how FE solves a problem, it is not a valid reason to reject RE and replace it with FE.
You want to just discard all science and assert FE with no justification at all.
Nothing doesn't build from prior science. Are we islands? Do we spontaneously generate from thin air like wisps? No. Stop being silly.
Quote

As far as risk analysis goes, its essentially Pascal's Wager all over again.
Sure, if you mean that it has been asserted by you in horribly flawed way which blatantly misrepresents the reality of the situation and a more rational, honest analysis would lead to the opposite conclusion, that based upon how well RE is at predicting reality and how bad FE models are, the risk analysis would indicate one should accept RE, not FE.
The more you talk, the more it sounds like you mean "myself" when you say stuff like "more rational honest" and "science." I don't think a lot you said here was true. I gave it honest analysis - more so than most I'd wager. I can show it is rational. You simply disagree with the rational.
Quote

By assuming we know anything.
And have you proven we don't know anything?
Do you know we don't know anything?
No.

So how can you say I have failed? How can you know I have failed?
Or are you just baselessly asserting crap again?

Of course I haven't proven anything.

4
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity
« on: March 16, 2018, 04:09:11 PM »
Clearly narcberry is the most renowned poster.

5
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: March 16, 2018, 03:56:19 PM »
I think its pretty important to divide between a force or a pseudoforce concerning the Coriolis effect. I could be wrong, as I am usually.

You are indeed correct, wrong again! We all know the Corollis effect can only happen on a rotating spherical body. The direction and rotation of weather systems do not lie, nor does the prevailing direction of the trade winds! Or are you going to deny their existence?
Seems like it would work on a flat non-euclidean earth...

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emotion
« on: March 16, 2018, 03:55:14 PM »
Some Flat Earthers "correctly discovered" that the main requirement for building
people's belief is to discredit knowledge and disconnect people from it.

"What you know is incorrect, I will tell you what to 'know'."

And when they say "question everything" they don't want you to question flat model.
Only globe.
All the less for those flatists. To me, its clear we know nothing, and that in doing so we both came to different conclusions on the shape of the earth.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emotion
« on: March 16, 2018, 03:50:36 PM »
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. They can be wrong about everything, and still know that what they 'know' is true enough to be a tool.
No, they are mutually exclusive.
If they were wrong about everything, that would include their knowledge on aqueducts and how they work. It would mean they have on way to know they would work and instead are just guessing they would.
An incorrect model can describe something in a useful way and still be incorrect. For example, I can model human behavior off assuming there are 8 archetypes of man, and each one acts differently. This would be patently incorrect, and yet it is able to provide useful results sometimes.
Quote
Good because I didn't make any such claim, and it should be obvious to those paying attention why these lines of arguments are bunk;
No, it is quite obvious to those paying attention why these lines of arguments are valid.
You indicated that you believe Earth is flat based upon problems with the RE model.
Unless you can show how they aren't problems for a FE, that is not a sane reason.
You might be correct if you could back that up with historical example. As for mine, I have provided it - heliocentrism was introduced without solving problems and with introducing more. The fact FE exists shows that it is useful to some, and thus is solving some problem.
Quote
I have shown a flat earth model exists that is equal in all empirical ways to the round earth model.
You haven't even come close.
You have failed to show how any FE model is equal to the RE model in any way other than merely existing.
I have shown it by defining it as such. Simply saying "the earth is flat and space is curved" is enough for any reasonable person to be able to understand what I'm getting at here.
Quote
You are right, I have not. I stand on the shoulders here, and point to Against Method. Though lets be honest, after reading that you kinda can build the argument yourself.
Sure, if I want to build a horribly flawed argument that no honest, rational person would accept.
However, I'm not like that. I care about the truth, and thus will not make such a dishonest argument.
Yeah, nobody rational agrees with Against Method except True Scotsmen.
Quote

What do you mean by true?!
I would think that would be quite obvious?
Something being factually correct.
And what do you mean by factually correct? You just replaced one word with a synonym. How would you determine factual correctness other than by measuring its usefulness?

Quote
Why do you think its fundamentally different to useful? That seems odd.

Because its complex, its not useful (in the long run?)
Because I understand the issue.
There is a nice simple saying that goes with it:
Everything is either too simple to be true or too complex to be useful.

Trying to understand how things interact in reality is a wonderful example of this.
We can perfectly solve 2 body problems. As soon as you introduce a third body then it typically becomes an unsolvable problem.
In order to have it correct, you would need an extremely complex function.
So instead we go to the less correct approximations.
These approximations, which are technically false (and people using them often know this), are vastly more useful to the simplicity with which they can be used.
Some methods even have fudge factors built in due to limitations of the method where empirical constants are used simply because that is simpler than trying to find a true solution which does not need those constants.
I see where you are coming from now, thank you for clarifying. That's an interesting point.

Just because we find false things useful at times, especially when we purposefully construct them knowing they are false, does not necessitate that we don't believe things because they are useful.

Can you give an example of something we believe in that doesn't have a use directly or indirectly, or promise of a use?

Quote
Rational arguments and evidence, including responding to issues raised by others.
What is your rational basis for using induction?
Quote
Because you have indicated that you think that you don't need to show how FE solves the problem and RE merely having the problem is enough to dismiss it in favour of FE.
I still can't follow - you should restarted your earlier claim. To state my point differently, why would I need to show how FE solves the problem if it provides a path to a potential Kuhnian revolution? As far as risk analysis goes, its essentially Pascal's Wager all over again.
Quote
No, here is where I give up.
When you give up you don't keep talking.

It matters not whether we are closer, only that we are different and you failed.
And that is just another baseless assertion.
Where have I failed?
By assuming we know anything.

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Points why the earth is not flat.
« on: March 16, 2018, 03:30:54 PM »
The Ferrari Effect

Let us build first from the base of Newton.

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force
This applies only on trajectories that keep constant distance from the center of the Earth's mass (circular trajectories).
Even objects in slightly elliptical trajectories do experience tangential accelerations together with radial.
They speed up towards perigee and slow down towards apogee.
In reality orbits are elliptical, not circular.

Correct. I am talking about those satellites that show no verifiable difference in force or pseudoforce.
Quote
- which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.)
This applies on circular orbit in polar coordinate system with the center in the center of the Earth's mass.
Not necessarily.
Quote

Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.

Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it.
Description of the curve has been shown by direct calculation of the curviness, which depends on the mass in vicinity.
In what way? Please elaborate more.
Quote
We should assume that it is indeed travelling in a straight line as its experimental evidence points us to.
As already shown, our experimental evidence points us to the fact that "orbiting object feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudoforce" because the shape of the trajectory balances the force with the pseudoforce. The shape of required trajectory consists of arcs with the center in the Earth's center of mass. Cords of those arcs are shorter than the arcs themselves.
What are you referring to here as a 'force'? Your explanation seems incorrect even given a round earth, but I'd like to know what you mean.
Quote
The issue is with our naive view of geometry and space. Likewise we take the view that it is indeed in motion and not still.

Let’s interpret the ramifications of the statement: an object in orbit travels in a straight (and thus flat), line through space through further thought experiment.
... which in reality isn't, as shown above.
This has not been shown.
Quote
First, we can define our field of interest in that taking all such theoretical orbits of our planet and realize them rightly as flat, thus defining the bounding space of interest also to be flat. It follows, given any orbit of this planet to be flat, the planet itself is flat since it satisfies our definition of flatness.

Let us again venture into thought experiment: eject some pods towards the earth from one such of our imaginary satellites at regular intervals along our orbit such that they are in free fall. Again, we can assume these are straight lines extending below to a translatable location on the surface of the earth, its geolocation. We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel.
It doesn't make them parallel in reality. They all intersect in the center of Earth's mass.
"The line is normal to curved line if it is normal to the tangent in the point of intersection."

I think my definition of parallel differs with yours.
Quote
Since the orbit is straight, and the orbit relates directly to the geographical locations it is above, we have come a long way to show the planet is also flat.
That "long way" already started with the assumption that the orbital trajectory is straight, which doesn't remain that way when we recalculate it from polar to cartesian coordinate system.
Why would we use polar in the first place?
Quote
Now let us consider what acceleration means. Acceleration by its nature means either a change in speed or direction, which is to say a change in velocity.
Exactly.
Glad we can agree on something.
Quote
So when we look at the parabola formed by a ball in motion we can recognize that it is for the most part accelerating - it changes both direction and speed. Now, let us examine the path if we remove the influence of gravity from our model as well as unbound the start and end points to allow it to move freely.

If gravity was not forcing the object downwards, it would then be travelling a straight path, parallel perhaps to our imaginary satellite and in this case tangent to the apex of our balls climb.
Conversion from cartesian back to polar will convert the parabola into ellipse with or without ellipticity coefficient.
Again, nobody is talking about polar coordinates except you.
Quote
We can see by comparison between a theoretical object in orbit and our ball at the apex of its climb that if not affected by gravity it would travel a straight line. By repeating this experiment again and again with lower apexes of our ball, various orientations, and so on we see the earth itself, not just the paths of satellites, is flat.
As already pointed out "if not affected by gravity". In reality it is affected.
Yes, you misunderstand. I am talking about a theoretical case where it is not affected and using it for comparison.
Quote
The effect of viewing the earth and it appearing round is known as the Ferrari Effect, based off of former Canadian Flat Earth Society President Leo Ferrari who first predicted this. This describes that effect.

Any honest judge will begrudgingly have to admit that I have shown that the flat earth theory directly follows from our laws of motion and coherence with relativity.
... and from the assumption that "orbiting object is not affected by gravity".
Even worse is the realization that we would have been lead to relativity sooner if not for our strict faith-like belief in a round earth.
The shape of the Earth doesn't rely on our belief at all. It wouldn't be any different even if we never existed.

9
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How Gravity works?
« on: March 16, 2018, 03:23:03 PM »
It is either a fundamental force as described here: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

Or a pseudoforce as described here:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat

Oh dear, I thought you would keep that stuff well hidden as maths is really not your strong point. I think I would have given such workings an F- along with....

“John should learn to apply himself a bit more in a rational way and be less prone to drastic flights of fancy”

Its unfortunate for you that the math I presented is indeed correct and taught in many textbooks.

I omitted it because it was covered by 'fundamental forces'. There could be an argument here that Newton's interpretation isn't one that holds an idea of fundamental forces - I think the sentiment behind Newton's work though that it is a force that is fundamental. It also is inapplicable as relativity is more accurate.

Point being, relativity describes gravity as a pseudo-force.

Gravity can be explained in many ways, including a pseudo-force or a fundamental force. This is no different on a flat earth.

We can't say WHY gravity works, we can say there is a correlation between mass and gravitation.

The effects of what we call gravity are real. Yet it is still (maybe) a fictitious force.

The effects of gravity no one disputes - nobody says things don't fall.

The very reasons why the earth is a sphere are the very same reasons why things fall, as you say, and the reasons why planets orbit the sun.
Science cannot answer why something falls. It can only describe how it falls.

10
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: March 14, 2018, 07:02:19 PM »
I think its pretty important to divide between a force or a pseudoforce concerning the Coriolis effect. I could be wrong, as I am usually.

11
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Stephen Hawking, 1942-2018
« on: March 14, 2018, 07:00:27 PM »
One of my favorite of the roundies. Actually thought for himself and gave a good fucking fight about it.

12
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Do flerfers believe in the Zionist conspiracy?
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:59:19 PM »
Do you think he did?

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How Gravity works?
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:58:51 PM »
But yes, the wiki needs the trash. Its unfortunate it can't go there yet.

14
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How Gravity works?
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:57:15 PM »
And our concept of gravity seems useful in a great many contexts, as time will show.
So what exactly is "your concept of gravity"?
I never said anything about my concept of gravity...
Quote
Quote

The FAQ states:
Quote
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.
]
In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.

What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?
No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.

Doesn't Gravity Pull Things Into A Sphere?
Actually, it can shown that an infinite plane would be a more stable form for gravity to pull things into. As mentioned above though, sphere earth gravity is a lie. Many will attempt to say rain drops form spheres due to gravity. Of course this is ridiculous - when they do form spheres (which is a minority of the time) it is due to surface tension.
But the Wiki still quite explicitly says:
Quote
Gravity
In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. Like the force of gravity, the Earth's acceleration causes several commonly observed phenomena in our daily lives.
Of course there have been statements like
Yes, we need to rewrite the wiki; it has many errors. This includes the theory you are talking about, which most flatists have discounted since the writing of the wiki.
But where are any newcomers expected to learn "flat earth theory" from except "the FAQ" and "the Wiki"? What they find are totally contradictory statements.

It would be correct to say that, given flat or round or any other model. It isn't contradictory, you just don't get it - even now after all this time.

15
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: My Points why the earth is not flat.
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:51:13 PM »
Can anyone tell me serious answers to most of the questions listed below:
• If I am falling do I stay still until the earth reaches me?
Yes...
Quote
• If Gravity does not exist then how does something accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s? is the earth always accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s and if so how does it do this? What is the power source that makes it accelerate at a constant speed upwards?
Are you so sure you are not accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s?
Quote
• If there is an ice wall at the very edge of the world then why hasn't anyone seen it? If it is true that it goes around the whole world then someone could just send out a drone to the ice wall and even over it.
There is not any icewall, beyond the Antarctic which I have seen.
Quote
• How does the sun always stay in the same general area over the flat earth? How does the earth get colder in the winter is the earth is flat and always the same distance away from the sun?
How is not a question for science, When you get down to it, its turtles all the way down. Ask instead how to we describe it?
Quote
• If the earth is flat then why hasn't anyone sent a rocket into space and seen the flat earth?
Ferarri Effect.
Quote
• Where is the moon is the moon flat too, and if it isn't then how did it become round?
Why is it? One might ask: if I saw subject A and it was blue, and subject B - why is not subject C blue?! Are all things blue or does it become, as we observe, more likely we might see a  red object?
Quote
• How has no one drilled through the bottom of the earth or is it not a flat earth but really a cylinder?
I don't know, this is silly; why haven't we drilled through the earth and landed in China on a globe?
Quote
• How has no airplane gone to the ice wall and over it or at least to it?
Why would they?
Quote
• And finally how has no one have an answer to all of the questions? Or do you not have any evidence just assuming that you right and science is wrong?

Because all of the questions will never be answered, whatever you believe.

16
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emotion
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:38:14 PM »
An approximation being honed in is either an example of Kuhnian normal science, or a paradigm shift. Either way they were wrong, hence why its an 'approximation' and not 'true'.
They are only wrong if they assert it as absolute truth, and even then there are times when the approximation gives the correct answer, so they are not wrong 100% of the time.

Quote
And no, what you are saying is because Roman scientists were wrong about somethings they are wrong about everything including how aquaducts would work and thus the aquaducts working was a pure fluke not based upon any truth of the models for them.
Its a good thing I didn't claim that then, isn't it.
You effectively did.
You said they are wrong 100% of the time.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. They can be wrong about everything, and still know that what they 'know' is true enough to be a tool.
Quote

Who said anything about RE explaining something FE can?
I did.
You claimed the problems which exist in RE is why you think Earth is flat. But in order for that to be a valid reason, FE can't have those problems.
If FE has those problems as well, then you cannot use those problems to distinguish between them.
Good because I didn't make any such claim, and it should be obvious to those paying attention why these lines of arguments are bunk; I have shown a flat earth model exists that is equal in all empirical ways to the round earth model. That is enough for now - nay; more than enough given historical example.
Quote
I have already provided historical example of why this doesn't matter - the Copernican model.
No, you haven't.
You are right, I have not. I stand on the shoulders here, and point to Against Method. Though lets be honest, after reading that you kinda can build the argument yourself.
Quote
Nope them too.
Nope. Rational people beleive things because the evidence indicates it is true.
What do you mean by true?!
Quote
Which is to say it is useful.
No, which is fundamentally different to useful.
The truth can be extremely complex, in some cases far too complex to be useful (at least with current technology).
Why do you think its fundamentally different to useful? That seems odd.

Because its complex, its not useful (in the long run?)
Quote
See?
Notice the key word:
TYPICALLY!
i.e. not always.
A poor choice to use it as an example to your point perhaps. Of course, it is useful when we believe well.
Quote
If you say so, without justification, I'm sure its true .
I have provided the justification countless times.
You also seem to have no problem just baselessly asserting that FE is the best we have, without any justification at all.
Quote
Its a good thing this isn't what I'm talking about.
Unless you can show how the problem only applies to RE, that is exactly what you are talking about.
Quote
No I don't, as explained earlier. Its a shame you don't understand the science you love so much.
You are yet to explain why you don't.
You just baselessly asserted you don't.
You aren't merely claim RE is wrong.
I don't merely claim anything.
Quote
You are claiming FE is correct, or at least closer to the truth than RE.
If that is the case you need to be able to show how FE explains the problems. If you can't, FE is no better and thus no closer to the truth (at least concerning these problems).
No, here is where I give up. You'll get it when you are old, or dead, in a bed. It matters not whether we are closer, only that we are different and you failed. That's evolution for you baby.

17
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How Gravity works?
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:24:27 PM »
And our concept of gravity seems useful in a great many contexts, as time will show.

18
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Do flerfers believe in the Zionist conspiracy?
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:21:53 PM »
I'm hesitant to even mention Voliva. I worry he did more harm than good with his little cookies.

19
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Under the dome
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:20:54 PM »
Sounds like a load to me.

20
##### Technical Support / Re: LaTeX Support
« on: March 14, 2018, 06:19:55 PM »
The issue is that that adding another js layer would be worse than processing it server side on separate server. These are features I love, but they have to hold off a minute or two for bigger fish. If it was up to me I would.

21
##### Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Ignore and quote functions both broken.
« on: March 09, 2018, 06:11:19 PM »
It looks like it is a race condition; I saw the same thing, and realized it took a few seconds longer for the js to finish loading.

Can someone experiencing this help confirm next time it happens by both waiting a while and posting what shows up in their browser console (if you need to help with this let me know)?

22
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: ELON MUSK CLAIMS TESLA ROADSTER HAS EXCEEDED MARS ORBIT!!!
« on: March 09, 2018, 05:42:30 PM »
I don't know about you guys, but I don't put a lot of weight in a car commercial.

23
##### Announcements / Re: Interview with Synchronicity Magazine featuring Christine Garwood
« on: March 09, 2018, 05:31:40 PM »
Christine Garwood is in error asserting that her book is the only history of the modern flat earth movement. By her own admission in the book, her knowledge is largely founded upon the research of Robert Schadewald whose photographs appear in her book alongside his friend Charles Johnson. Schadewald had been writing a far more sympathetic history since the late 1970’s as his Smithsonian article of that time had mentioned. It was unpublished during his lifetime, but his book existed before Garwood’s began.

Furthermore, Schadewald’s book does not contain the many gross errors in Garwood’s book such as the claim that flat earth belief was rare after Pythagoras and in the early Church. This falsification of history is contradicted by most histories of science until the late twentieth century and writers like Jeffrey Burton Russell whom Garwood follows.

Fortunately, Schadewald’s wife and sister got together with some knowledgeable old friends of his and published his history of the modern flat earth movement in 2015. It is a vast improvement and an edifying read to which Garwood’s largely erroneous book might form a supplement:

http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html
Schadewald is boss, its true. I'm glad Garwood wrote what she did though.

24
##### Announcements / Re: Interview With Dark Fringe Radio
« on: March 09, 2018, 05:29:53 PM »
I have been surprised with that attitude amongst everyone I interview with. It is one of the marks of professionalism I suppose.

25
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: March 09, 2018, 05:22:36 PM »
I need to clarify my earlier statement as I said it poorly; I see now this might be a source of confusion.

The outer heavens relatively rotate opposite compared to the inner heavens. So, when near the rim, the heavens certainly appear to rotate opposite than if you were on the outside. Two examples of this elsewhere in nature are certain galaxies in a round earth model, and planes filled with gears.

Can you clarify what you mean about the mixing of models?

26
##### Flat Earth General / Re: How Gravity works?
« on: March 09, 2018, 05:03:43 PM »
I omitted it because it was covered by 'fundamental forces'. There could be an argument here that Newton's interpretation isn't one that holds an idea of fundamental forces - I think the sentiment behind Newton's work though that it is a force that is fundamental. It also is inapplicable as relativity is more accurate.

Point being, relativity describes gravity as a pseudo-force.

Gravity can be explained in many ways, including a pseudo-force or a fundamental force. This is no different on a flat earth.

We can't say WHY gravity works, we can say there is a correlation between mass and gravitation.

The effects of what we call gravity are real. Yet it is still (maybe) a fictitious force.

The effects of gravity no one disputes - nobody says things don't fall.

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emotion
« on: March 09, 2018, 05:01:54 PM »
At every single point in history we have later found out our view of the universe was completely wrong (or will). I see no evidence that this will change. The fact we can engineer solutions using incorrect models means little; it would be similar to say "Roman science allowed for the engineering of Aquaducts. Since they used Aquaducts, their view must be correct in all ways."
No we haven't.
Instead we have often found out our understanding was an approximation. I am yet to hear of a single example where people were wrong 100% of the time..
An approximation being honed in is either an example of Kuhnian normal science, or a paradigm shift. Either way they were wrong, hence why its an 'approximation' and not 'true'. Do you feel approximations are true? accurate? Of course they are not accurate. Of course then they are not true.

Quote
And no, what you are saying is because Roman scientists were wrong about somethings they are wrong about everything including how aquaducts would work and thus the aquaducts working was a pure fluke not based upon any truth of the models for them.
Its a good thing I didn't claim that then, isn't it.

Quote

No, not some problem; all the problems it can't explain.
I am yet to hear of a single thing RE can't explain that FE can, but I know of plenty which FE cannot explain but RE can.
So that is not a reason to think Earth is flat.
Who said anything about RE explaining something FE can? I have already provided historical example of why this doesn't matter - the Copernican model.
Quote
We believe in anything because it is believed fruitful to believe in it.
Some people do, but not rational people.
Nope them too.
Quote
Rational people believe things because the evidence and rational arguments presented indicate it is true.
Which is to say it is useful.
Quote
This will typically result in a better understanding of the universe and allow us to make better devices and improve things.
See?
Quote
However, there can be more useful or fruitful methods, which can then be used by rational people, noting that they are wrong or mere approximations.

They don't believe these approximations to be true, instead they note that they are useful approximations and use them noting that the results can be wrong to varying degrees.
Yes, all things believed are useful approximations.

Quote
I happen to believe it provides us a theory that is closer to truth.
Perhaps in ancient times when we literally had nothing better.
And it wasn't a theory, it was just an assumption.
If you say so, without justification, I'm sure its true .

Quote
Of course, a shift like I described earlier may provide an even closer theory
You mean like we had thousands of years ago when people realised Earth was round.
Yes that would be one example of paradigm shift.
Quote
at that time I'll gladly admit my view is wrong. In the meanwhile, I have a responsibility to knowledge to argue my view is right, in that it is the closest to right that I've seen.
Pure bullshit.
Earth being round is far closer to being right than Earth being flat.
If you say so without any justification, I'm sure its true .
Quote
I could, but discrete examples don't seem useful. Surely you recognize there are open problems in physics.
Yes, there are open problems in physics.
The shape of Earth is irrelevant to them.

If you say so without any justification, I'm sure its true . How did you discern this impossible truth?
Quote
A problem which applies to both RE and FE doesn't magically mean FE is true.
Its a good thing this isn't what I'm talking about.
Quote
If you want to use that as any kind of argument you need to show how a FE solves the problem.
No I don't, as explained earlier. Its a shame you don't understand the science you love so much.
Quote
It is the closest to true *now*, and I believe a necessary teleological step towards truth.
Meanwhile, rational people realise that FE is wrong and a step backwards, a step away from the truth.
How would they be able to do that, without knowing what the truth of the matter is?
Quote
I question what you mean by 'far from truth'
It is quite simple, there are a variety of models. Some are approximations which closely match reality, they would be close to the truth, such as representing Earth as an oblate spheroid. Then there are models which are further away, such as ones which have Earth as a perfect sphere, and then there are models which are very far from the truth which don't match reality at all except for in very specific cases, like Earth being flat.

Its a step in what I would call the right direction.
And a step in what all rational people would call in the wrong direction.
You seem to be implying I'm not acting rationally, in spite of using rational arguments supported by the subject matter experts of our time. Can you justify this?

28
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: March 09, 2018, 04:09:56 PM »
When I talk of forces, I usually mean forces rather than pseudo-forces. I will return to talk to you other points. I will warn that I feel there is a necessary nominalism in mathematics that stops it from having a real relation to reality.

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Emotion
« on: March 09, 2018, 04:05:17 PM »
Believing in anything is based on its supposed usefulness. I have reason to believe, through historical example and the evidence available to me (or belief in said evidence), that this is useful and closer to accurate knowledge - or at least a valid path to more accuracy and usefulness (which may not in actuality be truth itself). I can justify this belief through my belief in empiricism, or zeteticism as it turns out, and method (or again as it turns out anarchy of method).

Obviously, we cannot discern the true cause of things. This point, I hope is unarguable. I must go tend to family. I will return. This should be a bit clearer now...

Tell me, in my absence, how would you justify 'knowledge' over 'belief'?

All attempts to justify knowledge end up with turtles all the way down.

30
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do airplanes fly?
« on: March 09, 2018, 03:52:35 PM »
I doubt we will be moved; we have strayed. I can split it if folks want, but we have hundreds of topics on airplanes and why its the same in either model. To the OP, again: airplanes would fly for the same reason they do on a flat earth as they do on a round earth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 404