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 - JackBlack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 515
I don't need to defend my claim. You said you could disprove it!
You do need to defend your claim, you do need to justify it.

And I have disproven it, with a logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute.
Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Can you show anything wrong it? If not, you and Brawndo have been disproven.

Again, even if I did need to show you were wrong, I don't need to do so on your terms.
I have provided a logical argument which shows that the claim is wrong.
If you want to show I haven't refuted you, you need to refute that argument or actually try providing your own.

You said you had experiment(s) and observations(s) I said you didn't.
You said the moon is made of cheese and you could prove it. So where is your proof? Without it you lose.
Bluff and bluster all you want as there is no escaping from the simple fact that you have presented NO evidence to back up YOUR claim that the moon is made of cheese.

After all, people have been to the moon and brought back rocks, clearly showing it isn't made of cheese.
Why do you reject these experts and continue to claim the moon is made of cheese?

Its difficult to have a discussion with people that are not living in the harsh world of reality.
Then perhaps you should try living in reality. It will likely make the discussion easier.

as for choice the only choice you have is just how foolish you want to make yourself look.
And you have clearly chosen to make yourself look as foolish as possible.

Why do you people keep on about men made of straw?
I fail to see how the 'Strawman"  logical fallacy is applicable in this case.
It is quite simple.
The original claim was that the only way to understand the shape of Earth is to accept what an expert says it is.
We objected to that nonsense.
We have pointed out other ways are possible, and that if all you could do was accept what an expert says then no one could know.

But rather than focus on those claims, you repeatedly strawman others.
You repeatedly pretend we say things that we didn't.
Instead of trying to defend the claim we are objecting to, you instead falsely claim that we are saying experts are useless, and that it is best to do without experts, and so on.

In case you don't know, from wikipedia:
"A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one."
This is because it is like attacking a man made of straw of your own creation, which you can easily set up to attack which cannot defend itself, rather than actually the man you are meant to be.

Again, the actual subject that you need to refute is that it is POSSIBLE to obtain knowledge without just accepting what an expert says it is.
This doesn't mean no help from an expert at all.
And even if it did, that still wouldn't mean that it is the best way.

This is why I asked if you know the difference between those statements.
Do you know the difference between "best way", "a way", "possible way", "main way" and "only way" (and so on)?
Because the actual argument you need to defend is that the ONLY WAY is by accepting what an expert says.
The counter claim that you need to refute is that there exists a POSSIBLE WAY other than accepting what an expert says (or in the simpler one, that doesn't involve an expert).

But instead of even attempting to do so, you instead set up a strawman that experts are not a way, that experts can't be used, that they are not the best way and so on.
You then attack those strawmen, by showing you can get knowledge from an expert, and that doing so is often easy and done quite widely.

And that means you are not addressing the actual argument.
That is why I brought up the example of the Moon being made of Cheese, you never claimed that, but if I pretend you did and instead of trying to refute what you actually say I try to refute that, would you accept you are wrong?
But even that seems to be going over your head.

While you continue to ignore what is actually said, and instead pretend we have said other things which are a lot easier for you to refute, you are strawmanning.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: Today at 01:59:22 PM »
Excellent clarification. OK happy to change my mind, if they say it's not a map, I'll go with that, OSM export is not a map. I am not at all familiar with the format, I just went with first impressions and called it a map, I was clearly wrong, my mistake. Happy to accept that it isn't a map.

Ah, but you can make a map with it. Hmm. Is it possible then that something which contains geotagged features and can be used to make a map is not itself classified as a map? Apparently so.
At least now you are being consistent.
And with that you have set the bar incredibly low.
Want to make a map? Well just download the .osm file from OpenStreeMap, and then import it into GIS software and save it as an image.

Or even easier, just use OSM to load up the area you want to map and take a screenshot. No need to involve any extra software.

Likewise, want to make a cake? Just go buy some premade icing and a pre-made cake base, stick them together and you've got yourself a cake that you made.

I think I will stick to dismissing that as nonsense, and focus on the information rather than the presentation.

No one asked you to join this ‘discussion’. I don’t give two hoots what you think. You’ve already illustrated just how off beam and disconnected with reality you are several times.
There you go projecting yet again.
You are the one who still seems to need to reject reality of what Brawndo's claim was and what that means so you can pretend you weren't wrong to defend it.
And who asked you to join the discussion?

Yet again you refuse to address the actual issue. Instead of trying to demonstrate that you need to just accept what an expert says, you instead just show that you can use an expert and that it is often faster. But again, that isn't the issue.

The problem with people with your attitude toward expert knowledge
And just what attitude is that?
Do you mean accepting that it came from some experiment, rather than just magically being given to them, and that you don't need to just accept what an expert says to gain knowledge?

Realising that some people are better than you and know more than you and have greater skills than you does not make you dumb, it’s called reality. Not realising that is most certainly  dumb!
So when will you realise?

I think these are the same unicorns that helped Jack Black devise his secret non secret experiments!
Are they the same ones that helped you devise your secret experiment that 100% proves the moon is made of cheese?

Firstly stop with the distorted made to fit homespun warped FE logic.
If you have an objection to the logic, provide it.
As an actual objection to a specific point of the argument.
If all you can do is dismiss the argument, then that shows you have no objection and that you cannot refute the argument, and that you have been proven wrong.

No one cares about the shape of the earth. There are no subject specific earth shaped experts!
Again, the very topic of the thread IS the shape of Earth.
The claim by Brawndo was the only way to understand the shape of Earth is by accepting what the subject matter experts say Earth is. That would mean what the Earth shape experts would say Earth is. So if they don't exist, then according to Brawndo, there is no way to understand the shape of Earth.

There are no experiments you yourself have devised. Had you done so you would have crowed about them long ago.
Had you devised an experiment to show the Moon is made of cheese you would have crowed about them long ago. So how about sharing your not secret secret?

For just a second why on earth would someone want to prove an already proven and well known fact such as the shape of the earth?
Good job demonstrating you really don't understand how science works.
Do you understand the principle of verification?

Why do you imagine that the only experiment ever spoken about is the one by the Greek dude!
The network effect.
Are you aware Eratosthenes didn't prove Earth is round? All he did was measure the size of the round Earth, based upon the sun being very far away.
Al Bruni's method does both, measure the size of Earth and show it is round.

So why did Al Bruni do it?
Why do people still to this day still try to get accurate measurements of the shape of Earth?
Why is there still a field on it?

And again, what is preventing someone from doing those experiments so they don't just have to accept someone saying Earth is round?

Clean your specs man, then go read a book.
Well, with you needing to pretend RE is a religion to try to pretend you are correct it most certainly isn't a victory for the RE.
Perhaps after you stop dragging it through the mud it can change.

Yes you can learn from others WHAT !...hell man get real that is the MAIN way of learning.
Do you actually understand English at all?
Do you know the difference between "best way", "a way", "possible way", "main way" and "only way" (and so on)?

Again, the claim was that it was the ONLY way.
But all you seem to be capable of doing is showing it is A way, or a good way, or the main way, and so on.
You make no attempt to show it is the ONLY way.
And with that, every post of yours is yet another failed opportunity for you to actually defend the claim.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: Today at 06:39:27 AM »
Is a tree a forest?
Is a large, densely packed collection of trees a forest? Or does someone need to stick up a sign saying forest for it to be accepted as one?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: Today at 06:38:05 AM »
This is a false dichotomy. You ask A or B. The possible answers are A, B, both, neither, undecidable. You are falsely asserting that the first two are the only available options. They are not and I choose neither as my answer.
If you want to state it is neither of those options, then state what it actually is.
Again, it quite clearly isn't the same, so nothing is not an option.

If you open it one format and save it in another, that is now a different file, stored in a different way, making it a conversion.
Exactly so, completely agree.
I did no conversion at all
It was a .osm file, with an xml format.
You then provided it as a .png file, a fundamentally different format. That is converting it.

I opened it, it looked like a map.
You opened it in software which converted the logical structure into a visual one.
But the .osm file itself has none of that visual information. It is a logical representation.

That means that by that standard the .osm file is not a map.

Alternatively, if you are happy with a piece of software taking that logical data and presenting it in a visual format, then you did that with GeoNames, meaning GeoNames is a map.

Of course, you start with a base map and layer some additional spatial information on top, that's a very common use (but not the only use) of a spatial database. If a spatial database was a map, starting with a base map would be redundant.
No, it wouldn't. That is like saying, if you have a map, every other possible map is redundant.
You have a map showing countries? That's great, every other map is redundant, you don't need a map showing streets, or businesses, or parks, or anything like that, that would just be redundant.

Or you could accept that maps can have different information, and thus using a different map as a base layer for another map is not redundant.

Congratulations, you've actually found someone else who has used my very same technique. Not sure that proves anything, but well done.
It is a map, on GeoNames site, using the data of GeoNames. But no, they didn't use your technique. They actually processed the data rather than just plotting it.
If you notice, their map has different brightness values for the same region, based upon how many points are there.

I'm not certain, but that usage sounds more like a map as used in graph theory:

"In graph theory, a map is a drawing of a graph on a surface without overlapping edges (an embedding)."
It is a more general definition of a map.
But notice how the one you provided requires it to be a drawing, which is less inclusive than the definition I provided which allows a logical reprsentation, like the .osm file.

In any case, you asked me for my understanding of map
I specifically asked for one which doesn't disagree with things we both either agree are maps or agree aren't.
The definition you chose excluded the .osm file as it is not a visual format. It is a logical format.
The fact that you can open it in different software and get quite different representations shows it is not a visual format.
The fact it likes the styling information to determine how to display it shows that it is not a visual format.

As I have explained many times, if you want to appeal to presentation, of it being visual, then the .osm format is not a map as it is not a visual format, it is not an image.

I chose one which fits my particular viewpoint.
i.e. a viewpoint in which you can pretend making a map is easy?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what a street directory is, it's not a term I've ever used, but Collins says "another name for street map", so it's obviously not clear cut is it.
Which was the very point I was making. Person calling some X, doesn't mean it isn't Y.
As you want to bring up Collins, how do they define a spatial database?
"Sorry, no results for “spatial database” in the English Dictionary."

I'm not reading all that. Does it say anywhere that a spatial database is a map? Pull out that quote for me and I'll change my mind.
So you want me to pull out a quote which would be made directly to you?
If you want that, you email them and see what response you get.

Or, you could accept what I already provided describing it.
Again, it stores information as a geodatabase.
This includes the information which it portrays on screen, visually, in a format you accept as a map.

So by that standard, that geodatabase IS A MAP.

But how about this, considering you want a quote, how about you try providing a direct quote from OSM stating that the .osm file is a map.
In fact, here is a quote from their wiki:
"The major tools in the OSM universe use an XML format following a XML schema definition that was first used by the API only. Basically it is a list of instances of our data primitives (nodes, ways, and relations)."
Notice how they describe it as a "list of instances", not as a map. -

If you look on their help forum, you have someone just as helpful as you:
"Strictly speaking, you haven't download a "map", just the raw data that something can create a map from. A .osm file is a text file, so if you open it in a text editor you'll see the raw data. Most programs that "do things with OSM data" can read .osm files, but which of those you'd use depend on whether you want to view the data, edit it, or create some sort of map from it and then view that." -
That sure sounds like your argument against GeoNames.

And as you wanted to appeal to a tutorial, how about this:
"Like any type of data, there are various ways of storing geographic data on a computer. It can be saved in a database, which is a specialized system for storing and retrieving data, and in fact there are database systems specifically designed for storing geographic data."
"The .osm file format is specific to OpenStreetMap."
"OSM data, on the other hand is designed to be easily sent and received across the internet in a standard format. Hence, .osm files are coded in XML, and contain geographic data in a structured, ordered format. A simple .osm file would look like this if viewed in a text editor:"
"Acquiring data in .osm format is easy - in fact you do it every time that you download data in JOSM, but using these files for analysis and map design is not easy. Hence you are better off converting the data into another format, or getting it from a service that converts the data for you."

"Many types of information are stored in database systems, which provide a logical way of organizing and accessing data. Geographic data is no different, although databases designed for geodata are specialized to handle the complex functions that querying geographic data requires."

"OpenStreetMap data is often stored in a PostgreSQL database with PostGIS extensions. This type of database provides fast access to the data and can be used easily with Mapnik, a piece of software that creates the map tiles used in web slippy maps. There are several tools available for importing raw OSM data into a PostgreSQL database."

And based upon another page there, it seems like the .osm format really matches your .txt example with excel:
"You can either use QuickOSM to import it clicking on ‘OSM File’ in the left bar. Once you used QuickOSM OSM files should have been made known to QGIS and you can use the regular vector layer import:"
Notice how it clearly describes it as importing, not opening?

So again, there are really only 2 options:
1 - presentation matters, not the information stored. That means neither GeoNames, nor the .osm file are maps.
2 - Information matters, and thus either the connections are important which rules out your image and the GeoNames file, or there is enough information in the GeoNames file for it to be a map.

All of which could be checked by anyone with an interest.
At which point why bother with the process at all, if you are just going to have to check it?

Same way I would set up any other Web site, is this supposed to be a difficult thing?
It isn't a simple case of "set up website" it has parts to it.

Quite happy to leave it up to them
Which means you don't have the entire process.

In RET: the ISS doesn't orbit the earth, they orbit each other. This is because of the conservation of momentum, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So for the ISS to be pulled towards the earth, the earth must move an equal and opposite amount.
And by what measure are you trying to have Earth move an equal and opposite amount?

Come on RE'ers, your unsupported argument is showing.
You mean your unsupported argument.

In order to support your argument you would need math, math to show just what effect you would expect. Then, as you want to appeal to cheap devices, you would need specifications for these devices showing that they are capable of detecting it.

It would also require you to understand how gravity works and that objects in freefall wouldn't measure the gravitational acceleration, but instead the tidal acceleration.
That means you would need to look for the tidal acceleration of objects due to the ISS.

Unless you want to rely upon visual observations.

Being generous and having the mass of the ISS 1 million kg, and it orbiting 400 km above Earth, then first lets deal with the tidal acceleration.
Someone on Earth directly below the ISS would experience an acceleration of ~4*10^-16 m/s^2.
That alone is already tiny, and not likely to be detectable.
Do you know of a cheap device which can detect that?
The acceleration of Earth would be ~1.5*10^-18 m/s^2, meaning the tidal force is basically the same as the acceleration of someone directly below the ISS.

Again, this is tiny.
Even if you ignored the fact that this acceleration would change as the ISS orbits Earth, and instead pretended that for the entire 45 minutes it is on one half of the orbit Earth moved in the same direction, Earth would move a staggering 5.3 * 10^-12 m. To put that into perspective, that is ~ 5 pm. A hydrogen atom has a radius of roughly 100 pm.

The wobble you are looking for is smaller than an atom.

If you instead want to use the person directly underneath, then the motion is less than ~ 15 atoms.

You are not going to detect that.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: Today at 05:40:29 AM »
Excuse me?
It has been several years and that is all you have managed to come up with in response?
I take it that means you still don't have the math to back up your claims.

Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: July 30, 2021, 03:30:03 PM »
Before the flood, giants, dinosaurs lived on Earth, people supposedly lived for several hundred years, and, most interestingly, there was no rainbow.
And we know that is nonsense.
So lets leave the religious BS out of it?

Or is your new model of the universe only for fiction?

It also doesn't really help.
Biblically before the flood, the sun and moon were still up in the sky, not stuck to Earth.

The fall in solar activity for 5 consecutive cycles, this is a regularity - a tendency indicating the extinction of the Sun. The graphs of solar activity before 1950-1960 (before the beginning of the space age) cannot be reliable - this is something like a forecast into the past.
And with no reliable data before it, and how long the sun has been around for, and how it is already known to go through cycles, it does not indicate the extinction of the sun.
You need vastly more data than that.

Another small but very interesting fact that indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, hedgehogs are found, but there are no armadillos.
Like so many of your claims, you just assert it and act like it magically backs you up, with no justification at all.
Just how do you think this justifies your model?
You are literally that species being found in connected continents, which is expected, simply based upon them currently being connected, confirms your model.

Where are the armadillos of Antarctica?
Where are the hedgehogs of Australia?

Why is there an extinct species of hedgehogs for America, with fossils found in Africa, Europe, Asia and North America?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 30, 2021, 03:14:11 PM »
I don't view opening a file and looking at it as conversion.
You did more than simply opening a file. You produced an image from it.
Regardless of if you needed to do that or not, you have done that.

Again, it really is a simple question (and no, saying you did neither does not answer it). It is quite clearly not the same. So is it a new map, or is it merely a conversion an existing one? Or is it just a change/update of an existing one?

This ties into your claims about GeoNames, did you make a new map, or did you merely convert an existing one? Or would you prefer that to be neither as well?

I open spreadsheets, images, maps, documents. If all I do is that and I don't save them again, doesn't count as conversion.
And that should produce an identical file, with only the metadata changed noting it was accessed and saved more recently.
If you open it one format and save it in another, that is now a different file, stored in a different way, making it a conversion.

Again, we're arguing meaning of a word
Yes, we are arguing the meaning of words, to argue if what you did constitutes making a map, and thus map making is trivial, or if it just counts as converting an existing map (or something else).
All you did was taking an existing file, open and save it in a different format (with the loss of a lot of information).
As far as I am concerned, that is no more making a map than taking a screenshot of Google Maps, opening a .osm file and then saving it as an image.

If you don't want to care about the exact definitions, then don't object to people saying you didn't make a map, and instead focus on the real issue, if what you did would satisfy what FEers want? That is making a map without needing trust what they would dismiss as a conspiracy. And that would mean not using existing sources of data, regardless of if you want to call it a map or a database.
No, I'm assuming the export file is a list of nodes, and a list of relations and so on.
Quite so and GIS opened and rendered exactly what was in the file as presented.
Not quite. The GIS software left out information about the nodes, such as their name.
But it did just open the file and show what was there with a particular presentation.

And what did you do?
You effectively opened the GeoNames file, which is a list of nodes, and rendered what is in the file.

Again, if you aren't going to appeal to presentation, the only justification you have for saying the .osm file is a map, but the GeoNames file isn't, is the lack of connection information in the GeoNames file. But your map doesn't have that connection information either.

Yes. It's now useless junk unless you convince me otherwise.
And do you notice the problem?
You are the one presenting GeoNames, not me.
Again, if take a .osm file, and present it as a .xml file so it can't just be opened to see it as a map, and claim to have made a map from it, would you accept that, assuming you had no idea about the .osm format in the first place?

Do you not notice the problem you are causing with that standard?
You either have the burden on the person not wanting to meet it, or you have it on the person who initially has no idea what it is.

If I do that, I have no reason to try to show the file is a map, just like you have no reason to try showing GeoNames is.

I'll start with this definition from Wiktionary:
    "A visual representation of an area, whether real or imaginary, showing the relative positions of places and other features."
Which means the .osm format is not a map.
It is logical or symbolic representation, providing a list of nodes and how they are connected.

This means this fails right from the start, as you agree that the .osm format is a map, but it does not meet your definition.
It is only when it has been opened in a piece of software which renders it in a particular way that it becomes a map.
And again, if that is allowed, then what you did with GeoNames, to present that information in a visual way would mean GeoNames is included.

And in fact, GeoNames had a place to do just that, complete with more information by using Google Maps as a base.
It would allow you to plot all the points to get a nice visual representation, allowing you to choose what points you want to have.
It also has a map, quite similar to what you did, but better and with actual processing:

How about the second definition on wikitionary:
"A graphical or logical representation of any structure or system, showing the positions of or relationships between its components."
Notice the key part here is that it includes logical representations which means the .osm format is included. But it also means that the GeoNames format is. So the only part it disagrees on are those we disagree if they are a map or not.

Google "world map", look at images, countless examples of things which fit this definition.
Amazingly enough, if your limit your search to only look for images, it isn't surprising that all you get are images. But notice how no .osm file appears that image search?

If GeoNames choose to call their product a spatial database, then I'm not going to argue with them. If they had called it a map
Again, the sample applies to a street directory. They call it a street directory, not a map.

we wouldn't be having this conversation. If dictionaries and thesauri consistently equated map and spatial database, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Again, they are not equal. Just like medicines are drugs are not equal and you do not find dictionaries equating them.
They are 2 overlapping sets. Not all maps are spatial databases.
The other issue is that most dictionaries do not have a definition for "spatial database" that is because spatial is being used an adjective for the database.

But here is something from ArcGIS, considering you want to appeal to GIS so much:
Here they are describing how they use a geodatabase (which would just be another word for spatial database), and how it stores various information which the GIS software presents as what you would accept is a map.

I could easily write software and turn it into a series of notes and call it avant-garde atonal music. A uses B and produces C. It doesn't follow that B = C.
You sure love contradicting yourself don't you?
Excel USES the .xlsx file to display a spreadsheet. So by the same standard the .xlsx file is not a spreadsheet just because it can be opened in excel.
Again, I was using YOUR STANDARD to show that the GeoNames file is a map. But then as soon as your own standard shows you are wrong, you reject it.

No vetting.
So with the FEers claiming a global conspiracy your system allows those in on the conspiracy to just produce a massive collection of data based upon that conspiracy.

You insist that a collection of geotagged items is a map, so just the locations themselves are enough, they do not have to be turned into a visual representation to count (according to you). That makes the job a whole lot easier.
But that doesn't tell me how you do those steps, and those steps were for the volunteer.
How are you setting up this website?
How are you having people determine their latitude and longitude?

I'm avoiding the repetitive cycle
It is only repetitive because you contradict yourself. Again, you said GIS understand GeoNames, but then when that would support it being a map, you claimed it has no idea what it is.

There are no such viable units if combined in multiplication.

You are just confused.
I'm not the one confused here.
Velocity, with units of m/s, is a perfectly viable derived unit. It makes sense. You can provide no actual objection to it.

Both work for finding any of the above 3 variables if two of them are known.
Yes, you could arbitrarily define it to be either way around, just like some places have miles per gallon and others have litres per 100 km.
That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

No two units
Yes 2 units, people and oranges.

Counting like 10 p * 3 o/p = 30 o is wrong
And I explained why, the number of people is discrete. You can't have 10.5 people.
But that does not apply to time.

Unit of acceleration in concept #1 is m/s/s
Unit of acceleration in concept #1 is s/m/m
So you were saying that the 1 equation should make sense for both?
If so, that is just factually incorrect.
It would be that there exists an equation for both, even if very complex, and even if not producing a single value (as explained earlier)

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 30, 2021, 05:24:03 AM »
Again, your way of looking at things is unnatural to me. I might see some nice wallpaper and take a photo in case I decide that's the one I want. I don't call that converting the wallpaper. You are quite at liberty to install some software and open the thing yourself and then the screenshot is entirely beside the point.
Conversion is typically discussed in terms of computers, where you convert from one format to another.
There are even online format converters, which convert from one format to another.
Even things like converting from PNG to GIF is converting.

Again, the here is if you made that map, or if you merely converted an existing one. It is clearly not the same, and not in the same format. So which is it?
This shouldn't be a difficult question.

It is clearly not the original map. So is this a conversion of the existing map, or is it a new map?

it passed my duck test sufficiently well
Only for you, with the right software. For me it failed. The best I could do is get it as a bunch of text. No map. So applying the same standard you used for GeoNames, it failed, unless you want to try suggesting my computer is defective because it can't open it to get anything that would be instinctively recognised as a map?

You are assuming that the export file is a complete representation of what's on screen in your browser
No, I'm assuming the export file is a list of nodes, and a list of relations and so on.
For this entire discussion the only time I have gotten into presentation (which would include styles), is to use this as an example that doesn't have that presentation to show your argument against GeoNames not being a map because of presentation would mean the .osm file isn't a map either.
And your defence of it being an export also applies to GeoNames, as that is an export, or dump, from their database.

Again, so what.
Because there is other software you can open it in to get a different result.
If I give you a spreadsheet saved as a .xlsx file, but have the extension changed to .zip, it opens as a zip file. Does that suddenly mean it isn't a worksheet?

Again, what is important is the information present.
It doesn't matter what file extension it has, or in what way the information is presented; what is actually important is the information.
And the original images you produced had no additional information compared to the GeoNames .txt files

That is the point I am making. What matters is the information.
So if all you did was change the presentation of the information, that means all the information necessary to be a map exists in the geonames file.

The fact you can open it and present it in a different format has no bearing on if it is a map.

I'm quite happy with trial by jury or some alternative where a human being or beings weigh up evidence presented and make a judgement. You are the one suggesting an alternative. I don't believe that your approach works in this case because it comes down to opinions.
I am suggesting you provide a standard for what is required for something to be a map, which can then be applied to things which both sides agree are maps and both sides agree are not, and give that same determination.
So far what you have provided does not meet that.
The simple questions you asked regarding what a map is used fails, fails with your map.
Your argument about presentation and your simple fail with the .osm format.

But with the standard I have provided, the only points of disagreement are when you disagree with it being a map.

No. I don't have a single yes/no test for this. I look at the evidence on a case by case basis and make my decision.
You seemed to be appealing to your duck test quite a lot to try claiming that GeoNames isn't a map.
But when something you want to be a map fails, you then do everything you can to try to prop it up.

Again, you have already made software which effectively allows you to open GeoNames and see it as what you accept as a map.

And we are still yet to see what is the case for more common GIS software, with you providing 2 contradictory claims about that.

Right at the other end of the scale, someone sends me a file. The file type is generic (.TXT) or something I've never heard of and Google comes up empty. I can't find a single piece of software anywhere, paid or free that even claims to open this thing natively. Maybe the person who sent it claims it's a cat photo. I'm rejecting this one for sure, pending further evidence.
So if I give you a .osm file, renamed to .xml, with no information at all that it is an export from OSM, you will reject it being a map, and then I can use it to produce a map which I can claim is me making a map, you will happily accept that?

That is almost literally what you said.
It is blatant misrepresentation based upon quote mining.

I said COMPLETING complex tasks involves breaking it down into smaller, simpler tasks to complete.
And in response you trying to say something isn't complex and asking for what part makes it complex, I point that that shows you do not understand complexity, as you cannot take apart a complex thing to try to find what part makes it complex.

Rather than honestly present that as focusing on 2 different aspects, one being completion and the other being determining if it is complex or not, you instead pretend I am talking about the very same thing and contradicting myself.

Fine, I no longer care whether it's simple or complex, it's easily solved, correct?
So you no longer take issue with people saying it is a complex task?

As for easily solved, that then comes down to how you vet these people to make sure they aren't just "in on the conspiracy", and how you are determining latitude and longitude in the first place.

there is no hard part in this case, there are only simple parts.
A simple part can be hard. Simple does not mean easy. Even you emphasised that.

Well I just did, a three part process. What did I miss out?
The steps that make up those parts. Especially as you emphasised making your own software as you couldn't trust the software of others.

I'm not responding to everything you raise, no.
Yes, you seem to be avoiding anything that show you contradicting yourself and which would undermine your position.

This discussion/argument has run its course
It seemed to have run its course right from the start when you objected to Boydster saying Brawndo was wrong, and straight away run off on a tangent.

as it’s looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.
Likewise, it seems you will never reveal your never before seen proof that the moon is made of cheese, like you claim you can do.
So that means you are wrong, and are a looser.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says it’s, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!
No, in an argument where someone claims something is impossible, and others object to that claim, the burden is on those who say it is impossible.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one
You sure do love your projection don't you.

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley.
i.e. trial and error, something you said was ridiculous and that you hopes engineers and doctors wouldn't pick up.
But here you are admitting that is what expert researchers do.
But of course, rather than just be honest and admit you were wrong, you deflect.

Again, the point is not to show that trial and error is the BEST way, nor the ONLY way. It is just to show that it is a POSSIBLE way.
The fact that you can learn by trial and errors demonstrates that you are wrong. You don't need an expert telling you what to do.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.
And there you go with more lies.
Stop with the continued pathetic strawmen. At no point have I denied the actual place of expert knowledge and authority.
Instead I have just pointed out that that is not the ONLY way.

But because you can't defend that pure nonsense, you instead continually lie to pretend others are saying things they are not.

YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.
In other words, you just ignore everything that shows you are wrong, and continue to lie about others.
I provide a logical argument that shows beyond any sane doubt that you are wrong.
You have continually ignored it and instead just made repeated pathetic demands for me to prove I never claimed, and to provide things I never claimed to have.

So no, I'm not the failure here.
If you want to not be the failure, you could either try to grow and admit you were wrong, or actually try to refute the argument. Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Have you decided on what point you think is wrong, and why it is wrong, and what you think it should be?

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and it’s acquisition.
Yes, some delusional people seem to think the ONLY way to obtain knowledge is by just accepting what an expert says, as if it can only be acquired through religion, and think that all that is needed to defend that nonsense is to show that you CAN get it from an expert.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
If Timmy had an experiment and observation that could prove the Moon is made of cheese, he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.

Then, how would do you describe 3 goats x 5 tables = 15 goat.table
It comes down to what units are viable/meaningful, and what that multiplication is representing. What is a goat.table? What is this multiplication representing?

Doesn’t common sense tell that the same car covers a distance of 0.5 m in half-second?
That common sense is based upon multiplication.
It would cover a distance of 0.5 m in 0.5 s, because 0.5 s * 1 m/s = 0.5 m.
That is the very thing you reject.

If you would like an example where it is actually addition:
A farmer has a pair of animals that he is breeding, with a negligible gestation period, for the sake of example, lets say a day. Every year, he breeds them once, with each litter having 4 children.
This means they reproduce at a rate of 4 children per year.
So how many children after 5 years? Well that would be 4+4+4+4+4=5, which is coincidentally the same as 4*5=20.
But what about after 5.5 years? Well, some might just use multiplication and say 4*5.5=22. But that isn't possible. Instead, it will depend upon exactly when in the year they are bred. It will be 20 or 24, because all you can do is add 4 to the total. You can do this with multiplication if you note it must be done with integer years instead of partial years.

And if you plot this number of children over time, it will not be a smooth, increasing plot. Instead it will jump. For example, at t=5 years, it will be 20, it will stay at 20, until the next 4 are born at which point in jumps to 24.
This means your graph will have a series of steps. It will not be smooth, so you cannot just blindly multiply.

But with motion, that is not the case. Instead you have smooth motion. The position does not change in discrete jumps. It is continuous.
And that is what means you can multiply.

So either adds 1+1+1+1+1+1+ 0.5 = 5x1+0.5=5.5 OR 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 = 11x0.5=5.5
No, it isn't either.
Either it moves in lots of 1 m, so you need to add 1 m multiple times, or it moves in lots of 0.5 m, so you need to add that multiple times, or it moves in some other multiple.

two different units are multiplied which is not allowed in math.
You keep asserting that, but you are yet to justify it.

There are 10 persons. Each person has 3 oranges
And in this case you can't have a fractional person.
If I asked how many oranges are there if there were only 2.5 people, wouldn't say it is 3+3+1.5 or 1.5+1.5+1.5+1.5+1.5, you would say that you can't have 2.5 people, you have 2 or 3.

Here we are dealing with the numbers of one unit only therefore 10 x 3 = 30
No, you are dealing with 2 base units and 1 derived unit.
What you actually have is 10 p * 3 o/p = 30 o.
Oranges are not the same as people.

But notice that this still works out and you end up with 30 oranges, not the nonsense you provided of 30 people.oranges.
You don't claim that velocity times time is m s. You accept that velocity is m/s, so velocity * time is m.

F=GMm/d^2 where g=GM/^2, should work in both concepts
Assuming you meant g=GM/d^2, it does. Again, you have no rational justification to object to that multiplication.

Actually, I referred to your above statement.
What statement? Just where do I think I have justified your claim?

Again, items of different categories can't be added (unless totaling is required in organizing) or multiplied.
They cannot be added and treated as the same unit, but they can be multiplied.

The meanings of per in not divide. Here one meter per second means a distance covered in one second.
Which would require descrete steps, where ever second the object jumps forward 1 m.
But that isn't what occurs.
Instead the motion is smooth and continuous, with it taking the entire second to go forward that 1 m.

Again, this directly ties back to the simple problem of how far does it go in 5.5 s?
According to your nonsense, you need to 1 m together multiple times.
That means you either get 5 or 6 m.
But in reality, this is not what happens.
Instead you multiply 1 m/s with 5.5 s, and end up with 5.5 m, correctly determining the position.

Similarly, mass per volume means how much mass is there in unit volume.
And likewise, you do not sum up the masses of those "unit volumes", instead you MULTIPLY.

So you are yet to demonstrate any problem with multiplication.

The only time there is an issue is when what you are multiplying is quantised, so you can't have a fractional amount.

And why do the scientists stick to the definition of velocity as a meter per second
Why do scientists stick to second when they could come up with a new unit to measure and report time each time they want to describe something?
The fact that you can show it other ways doesn't make it less meaningful.

But another useful reason links to math.
Consider a simple harmonic oscillator. The acceleration is a function of distance, but time and velocity are not.
This is because the system oscillates, going back and forth. In the simple linear case, any point in time has a single position, a single velocity and a single acceleration (and higher derivatives). But a position has 2 different velocities, 2 different times.
And that means you cannot plot it as a function of x, but you can plot it as a function of time.
The next issue are the bounds. You can pick any point in time (assuming no outside influences) and determine the position, velocity and acceleration. But even overlooking the possibility of 2 answers, you have only a small region of x values that gives you any value at all. For the vast majority, it is undefined.

This gets even more problematic when you go to 2 or 3 spatial dimensions. Now what do you measure your hypothetical velocity in?
With the current convention you have the same "per unit time" for all directions. The velocity in x, y or z, is per unit time. But what would it be in your system?
Would you have independent x, y, and z velocities where vx=dt/dx, vy=dt/dy and vz=dt/dz? Giving almost meaningless velocities?
Or would you instead just pick one dimension, such as x, and then have vt=dt/dx, vy=dy/dx and vz= dz/dx?
If so, why x, and what happens if there is no motion along the x axis?
Or would you instead try to use the overall distance, d and have vt=dt/dd, vx=dx/dd, vy=dy/dd and vz=dz/dd?
And again, you have the issue of trying to make them functions.
Consider a perfectly circular orbit. This means you have a circle of x and y values, with z always being 0. If you pick any value outside that circle, you cannot get any of the other values. And if you pick any value in that circle, you get infinitely many possibilities.
But with using time, you can pick any time, and get the x, y and z value, and so on.

Consider a more chaotic path. Again, for any value of t, you can get z, y, z, v, a and so on. But you can have this path cross through the same x, y and z point, but at a different velocity with a different acceleration.

So because things move in one direction through time, it is the preferred measure to use. For any system, there is a single point at that time, you cannot go through that point multiple times.

And to further emphasise this, there is a field of math that deals with parametric equations.
Even when dealing with a plot of x vs y, it can be easier to define 2 functions, one for x and one for y, with both a function of some other variable, which can then make it much easier to plot.

An example for a circle is x=cos(t), y=sin(t).
You can stick in any value of t and get a point. But you can't stick in any value of x or y and get a point, and for those where you do get a point, you get multiple points or miss part of the function.
And another example is a spiral, where instead you have x=t*cos(t), y=t*sin(t); where now, the function does exist for every value of x and every value of y, but for any given x value there are infinitely many values of y, and vice versa. But again, for any value of t, there is 1 value of x and 1 value of y.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 29, 2021, 03:22:13 PM »
You didn't just open it.
You opened it, and then took a screenshot, producing an image file.
The screenshotting was in no way necessary
But it was done.
That means you have now converted it to a different format.
But even if you didn't, it still doesn't look like what is on OSM's website.

So again, did you make a new map, or merely convert an existing one?

It may not look exactly like your original map
i.e. it was converted to something different.
So again, did you make a new map, or did you convert an existing one?

Last time I checked, scaling and transformation are both mathematical transformation operations.
Yes, and they are both trivial, and done all the time with image viewing software. For example, zooming and panning an image.

Yes, it's another variation of my flexible duck test. It will just open and look (and indeed work if it has embedded calculations) as a spreadsheet, so it's a spreadsheet.
And did you know that what it actually is is a zip file with a collection of primarily xml files?

Go ahead then let's hear a properly formulated sound, deductive argument, which will inevitably make me reverse my position. A nicely formulated syllogism perhaps.
As you are the one claiming to have made a map, the burden is on you to do that.
You have attempted to do so with simple arguments, which I have then used against the .osm file or your resulting image file.

I already explained that my gold standard is you just double click and it opens.
And that isn't the case for the .osm file.
I double click, and it doesn't open. It asks what I want to open it in.
The only way to get anything meaningful from it (without going to the hassle of trying to find some niche software to open it) is to open it in a text editor, at which point, by your standard it does not look like a map.

That means your gold standard fails for a .osm file and declares that it is not a map.
But because you don't like that outcome you want to change it and make it so you can have a .osm file as a map.

So to complete the task, I have to break it down, but I mustn't break it down. Yeah that makes sense.
Are you capable of responding honestly?

If you want to COMPLETE a complex task, you break it down into SIMPLER tasks.
Notice that this breaking down makes things simpler.

If you want to try to find where the complexity lies, you don't break it down.
Trying to break it down into individual steps to find where the complexity lies shows you don't understand complexity.

Notice how when viewed honestly, there is no problem?

There is a very big distinction between completing a task and trying to find where complexity is.

So no, I'm dodging the question, you are continually either failing to understand what complexity is, or dishonestly pretending to not understand.

This is what started down the path of analysing a clock.
Which part of a clock is complex? NONE!.
It is the assembled clock which is.
A spring is not complex, a gear is not complex, and so on.

So if you use your ridiculous method of trying to find complexity in a clock, you will find there is no complex and thus falsely declare that a clock is not complex.
If you want to disagree, then tell me which individual part of a clock is complex. Not how this part interacts as part of the whole, but the individual component.

And likewise, you are trying to pull the same dishonest BS as you first did when claiming map making is easy, by trying to ignore the hard part.

But no, why don't you explain how it is all simple, describing the entire process, starting from nothing and ending up with a map.

And with more dishonesty, you also seem to love ignoring significant parts of my post.
Before you claimed that you could easily open GeoNames in GIS software. This what part of your claim to try to say it isn't a map, because it is easily opened and doesn't look like a map. But now you have claimed that GIS software doesn't know what to do with it, making it even more niche.

You guys crack me up with your anti-expert no standards stance.
Are you capable of responding to what has actually been said for once?
It isn't an anti-expert.
It is just anti your "experts are the only way" stance.

It is quite different.

everyone knows that is such an inefficient and the worst way to learn
So you accept it is a way to learn?
Negating the claim that just accepting what an expert says is the only way.

Again, the discussion is not about if experts exist, or if you can get knowledge from them.
It is about if the only way to obtain knowledge is to just accept what experts say, or if there is an alternative.

So by accepting it as a way to learn, you accept that it is a way to obtain knowledge, and thus refute Brawndo's claim.

Prototyping is a totally different activity.
Prototyping IS trial and error.
Trying to do something new doesn't mean it is no longer trial and error.

Prototyping is part of a problem solving process done in a planned and systematic way. Not like your dial twirling hap hazard method of photography.
Again, that is your strawmanning.
The actual way to do it is a planned and systematic way. You go through the settings in turn to determine what setting improves the result and which makes it worse. You build upon those settings (prototypes).
You would not do your strawman of just randomly setting settings and seeing if it works and if not discarding it and starting with a new random one.

That burden must be really weighing you down!
Again, the one with the burden here is you.

Again, if you wanted to pretend I had one, it has been met by the logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute.
Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

Figured out a way to object to it yet?
If not, there cannot be any additional for me, as this logical argument proves you are wrong.

I take it they have come from your own fiddling about and not devised by someone who knew what they were doing?
Again, are you capable of reading simple English?
Or do you just hate the truth so much you are willing to continually strawman your opponents to pretend you are correct?

Again, while you continue with this dishonest BS, there is no point in me providing any experiment as you will just use this dishonest BS to pretend you are correct.
Grow up.
Try being honest for once and just admitting you are wrong.

Now the difference between you and the monkeys is a difficult call. You tell me!
I did, but like everything that shows you are wrong, you just ignored it.

Let's stick to the central question
Yes, lets stick to the central question.
The claim is that the only way to learn the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says Earth is.
This is not stating that you need some kind of expert help. Instead it states you need to just accept what they say Earth is.
I.e. expert says Earth is round, so you accept it is round.

If this was the case, no one could ever be an expert, like I have already explained.

Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that.
And what law would that be?
Especially considering engineers use trial and error all the time. They call it prototyping.

It is used in all sorts of fields.
But bringing it back to science, that is a key part of science.
You make an observation and based upon that observation you come up with a hypothesis. You then test (i.e. TRIAL) that hypothesis. If you find it faulty (i.e. IN ERROR) you improve it.

Wikipedia even has this to say:
Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving. [1] It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,[2]

Describing applications, it even has something akin to my monkey example:
Suppose a collection of 1000 on/off switches have to be set to a particular combination by random-based testing, where each test is expected to take one second. The strategies are:
  • the perfectionist all-or-nothing method, with no attempt at holding partial successes. This would be expected to take more than 10^301 seconds
  • a serial-test of switches, holding on to the partial successes (assuming that these are manifest), which would take 500 seconds on average
  • parallel-but-individual testing of all switches simultaneously, which would take only one second
The first example, which is the way you cling to, is the stupid way.
The way I gave is more akin to the second one.

It then even has examples:
Trial and error has traditionally been the main method of finding new drugs, such as antibiotics.
Trial and error is also commonly seen in player responses to video games - when faced with an obstacle or boss, players often form a number of strategies to surpass the obstacle or defeat the boss, with each strategy being carried out before the player either succeeds or quits the game.
The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning – all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error.
Jumping spiders of the genus Portia use trial and error to find new tactics against unfamiliar prey or in unusual situations, and remember the new tactics.[7] Tests show that Portia fimbriata and Portia labiata can use trial and error in an artificial environment

It then contains links to other examples, such as Ariadne's thread, Brute force attack, Brute force search and genetic algorithms.

So we have you declaring trial and error as a fools errand; while we have experts indicating the opposite (note: I'm not saying wikipedia is the expert, I am saying that is a compilation of expert knowledge, you are free to go look at the references).

This approach you say you use only seeking your own advice is a road to nowhere akin to interbreeding.
Did you mean inbreeding? Do you even speak English? Because not speaking and understanding English could explain a lot.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 29, 2021, 04:21:44 AM »
Wow, so now if I open something, that's now converting it is it?
You didn't just open it.
You opened it, and then took a screenshot, producing an image file.
It was a .osm file. It is now a .png.
That is converting it.
Just like if I take your .png and make it a .jpg or .gif. That is converting it because you have converted it do a different format.
You even stripped away a bunch of information. It doesn't have any labels.

The GeoNames files have two floating point numbers in columns 5 and 6. You cannot tell from the file itself what these numbers represent. The files come in TXT file format.
A png file is a bunch of bytes. You cannot tell from the file itself what any of these bytes represent. It only by first recognising it as a .png file and running it through a problem which can understand that format and process it that you can get meaningful information from it.

If I take a .osm file, and strip off the header information and just label it .xml (or even better, .txt).
Does that mean if I then use that file to plot a bunch of points based upon the "lat" and "lon" attribute (no idea what they could possibly mean), that I have made a map, rather than just taking an existing one and tweaking it a bit?

In addition, when I downloaded it, I didn't get a .txt file. I got a .zip file.
When I look inside, I find a readme.txt, which clearly explains what these numbers represent:
"latitude          : latitude in decimal degrees (wgs84)
longitude         : longitude in decimal degrees (wgs84)"
So the file I got contained all the information that is needed.

mathematically transforms
By scaling an putting in an offset.

If you try and load one of these into GIS, you have exactly the same problem, GIS has no idea what it is and what to do with it
So what did you mean before when you said:
Geonames is far more niche, is significantly newer, not a standard, and that alone is enough to mean you wont easily be able to find software to access the database and convert it to other forms.
The ability or lack thereof to easily find such software is irrelevant to if it is a map or not.
It's been around 16 years and is very widely used. There are plugins for most of the major GIS programs, so yes, there is plenty of software available to make use of GeoNames
You weren't claiming that GIS software can understand it, and that it is actually a niche format.

It's a no-brainer to me to say that an XLS file is a spreadsheet if I open it and hey presto!
How about an xlsx? Do you also think that is a spreadsheet (ignoring the technicality of neither actually being a spreadsheet as spreadsheets are saved in a workbook).

Now the OSM file, I've frankly never seen before and had no idea what my GIS software would make of it, but hey, it opens and I see a map, so that's enough for me.
So now name it .xml, and see if it still works just as nicely.
Regardless, give it to someone who has no idea what GIS even means, and has never used GIS software before and doesn't have any.
Double click and what happens? What would you like top open this with?

I can import it into Excel if I make some decisions, such as telling Excel to use TAB as a separator. Does that make it a spreadsheet? Well I'm saying no, because I had to tell Excel how to interpret it.
I don't. I just open it in excel and it knows that tabs should be delimiters for text files.

The way I found out what was what was to read the additional documentation on their site and nowhere is there anything saying this was a map.
So you didn't get a readme with the file clearly stating what the file was? It was in the same zip file for me.

I wasn't explicit, but I'm basically saying here we put the issue to trial in the normal way, so evidence is presented, questions are asked and a judgement is made. What I'm basically saying is one way or another, people decide these things. Whether it's asking the man on the street, the court of public opinion or full trial by jury. In the olden days it would be the King. This is really a response to your fantasy sentient computer idea.
And with that you entirely miss the point.
You brought up the public because they instinctively recognise things which look like things they have seen before, as that thing. Some even recognise clouds as those things. That doesn't make it those things.
But the important point, is that this is based upon visual similarity rather than anything logical, and you are having them compare it only to things they are used to.
That would mean all you would be determining is if it is a map for a human. If you want to do the same for a map for a computer, it is useless to present it to a human. You need to present it to its target audience, as the non-target audience may not recognise it.

As another example, Star Fleet ships from Star Trek are quite recognisable. If you present an image of a ship which bears visual resemblance to such ships, those who watch Star Trek would likely recognise it quite well. Those unfamiliar with Star Trek likely wouldn't, because they aren't the target audience. And that also applies to the more niche things from it, like the Tricorder, or ships of other groups.

So the idea of a sentient computer came from your suggestion, but making it fair. If you want to judge if a map for a computer is a map, by instinct and recognition, you need to present it to the target audience, i.e. a computer, and if you want it to answer questions in a meaningful way, it needs to be sentient. It isn't my fault, that your "test" requires the impossible to be fair.

If you instead want it to be like a trial, then ditch the jury and stick to logical arguments.

No more than if I sent you a Powerpoint presentation or a spreadsheet and you didn't have the software to open it. Once you have the appropriate software (and downloading software is hardly difficult is it), opens straight away.
Remember, the point you made was that ANYONE should be able to see your map, and you indicated my device is defective if I don't get a nice image.
But again, the exact same applies to the GeoNames file. All it requires for you to accept that it is a map is the appropriate software to visualise it.
And like almost all software, there is more than one way top open it and visualise it (i.e. have it displayed on your screen).
I can open the .osm file, quite simply, in a text editor, where it looks nothing like a map.

If you have a booking system such as I've outlined, so your volunteers aren't treading on others toes and you have a Web page where they can record their results, what more do you need?
Or in another words, if you have a complex system to organise it, how is it complex? I wonder...

And again, don't try to break it down into individual steps.
Again, lots of complex tasks are a series of non-complex steps.
Building a clock is complex, but the individual steps are not.

You trying to break it down into parts shows that you do not understand complexity.

It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.
If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
Can you even read English?

Where did he say he got the best results?
Yet again, rather than even attempt to address what is said and deal with the issue at hand, you start off with a strawman and try to attack that to pretend you do no wrong.

Now you are looking really foolish. Photography by trial and error!
No, that would still be you.
Now even more so.
Plenty of things are done with trial and error. Why do you think people make prototypes?
The have an idea, design a prototype, trial it out, and fix errors found.

What you are implying is just plain ridiculous.
You mean what you are pretending I am implying, so you can pretend you are right.

You have clearly demonstrated by not revealing your secret methods
Again, they are not secret.
The experiments you can do to determine the shape of Earth have been discussed plenty, on this forum and elsewhere.

What you are falsely claiming is secrete is your fantasy idea of me claiming to have brand new, never before seen ones. But again, that is just your pathetic strawman to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Likewise, you have clearly demonstrated your completely inability to justify your claims by not revealing your proof that the moon is made of cheese.

You and others may CLAIM to be able to load up the software and start using it with no previous experience
So it is clear you also have no idea about designing software.
Do you know a hallmark of good software design? An intuitive interface where people can use it without needing to get training on it.
If you need to read manuals or have someone teach you how to use it, the software is crap.

It equates to the infinite monkeys banging out a version of Hamlet!, with you as the monkey!
Are you capable of making a single logical argument for once?
Do you know a big difference between me and those monkeys?
I can see if what I am doing is making progress towards the goal and adjust what I do accordingly.
The monkeys can't.

Since you like bringing up religion and creationists, what you are suggesting now is akin to a creationists argument against evolution; where the likelihood of any particular outcome coming to be, with all those parts, is so low it would never happen.

But with things like evolution, and a sentient individual analysing the results, they can selective keep good parts.

If you would like a better analogy, say you have 100 dice, and want to get all sixes. The monkeys just keep on rolling, until they do, with odds of getting all sixes as roughly 1 in 7*10^77, and it will take them roughly that many throws to get all sixes (i.e. that is the expected value). But me doing it, I'm smart enough to notice the sixes I do get, and not reroll them.
So I roll and get probably 16 or 16 sixes, and don't re-roll them. After the 14th roll, I would expect to only need to get 10 more, and be getting 1 or less each time, doing it a lot faster than your random monkeys.

So back to the camera and photoshop, the only limitation would be if I get stuck in a local maximum and need to leave that, getting worse, to get to the global maxmimum.
But again, this isn't about being the best, this is about getting something that works.

How much easier would it have been to read the camera manual, and consult a photography book.
How much easier would it be if you actually tried defending the claim and addressing the argument, rather than continually running off with these pathetic deflections?
Who gives a damn what would be easier.
This has no bearing on the argument at hand.
The argument is not that it is easiest to do it this way, but that it is possible to.
This is because the claim Brawndo made wasn't that it is EASIEST to consult the experts. Instead he claimed that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY is to just accept what an expert an SAYS EARTH IS!

And that claim is simply pure BS, and even though you claim he is right, you directly contradicted him and continually refuse to provide any justification for this claim, instead continually strawmanning and deflecting, trying to defend a different claim we didn't object to.

« on: July 29, 2021, 03:24:50 AM »
The 1st glass-like dome stays at 17,000 feet. No flight can go beyond such a dome.
So why do planes routinely fly between 30 000 and 40 000 ft.
Why do so many pictures of sunsets not have the sun cut like that?
If the dome does cut the sun, why can we see the sun at all?

just one of the natural fundamental issues that the gravity model has as explained above.
No, you haven't explained. You have repeatedly asserted it and failed to explain how it is an issue.

That apparent simple logic is just delusional semblance.
Are you sure it isn't your claims that aren't just delusional semblance?

You are obviously not a photographer or photoshop user.
Change what settings!
I don't know, I look through the settings available and try changing them.
Does the change make it better? Does it make it worse? It wont take long to make it look good.

Have you ever opened up Photoshop recently?  See what options there are? Holy COW!!!!!
Yes, there are a lot. Some can be dismissed quite quickly, like those involving colour.

The point is not that it is easy or fast, but that it is possible. You don't need someone there telling you what to use.

what you have also demonstrated is you will call white black in an attempt to prove a cheap point.
You mean I have demonstrated that I will continue to call you out on your BS, while you will continue to spout whatever BS you can think of to try to pretend you have never been wrong.

The burden is clearly on you as the argument has boiled down to; can you use experiments to prove (insert whatever) instead of consulting EXPERTS?
No, the burden is still entirely on you and Brawndo.

The argument has boiled down to you having chosen to defend Brawndo's claim that the only way to learn is by just accepting what an expert says, but being completely incapable of defending it; and me saying that is BS, and providing a logical argument you can't refute. As you can't refute my argument, nor defend the claim, you continually try to change the topic and demand I prove something I never claimed.

What you are doing is just as dishonest as demanding I prove the moon is made of cheese, and claiming that unless I can, I'm wrong.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: July 28, 2021, 02:19:53 PM »
If it's my theory then obviously it's made up by myself.
OK then here it is all in one spot for you to explain with your theory:

An attraction and a repulsion at the same time. Explain that with your rubbish theory.
That one is actually fairly easy.
The magnet you are moving produces a flow of magic air from the top to the bottom of your image.
This pushes both other magnets down, the top magnet is pushed down into the moving one which the bottom one is pushed away.

The issue comes when you try to make that bottom pole attract something as it clearly must be pushing things away.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 28, 2021, 02:17:22 PM »
With respect, we're both to blame for the petty squabbling, it takes two to tango. I have apologised for my contribution, I haven't asked for, nor would expect you to respond in kind, but your response, sadly, is to just aggressively go on the attack and tell me it's all my fault. If I rise to the bait and respond, we're right back at it again aren't we?
I didn't say it is all your fault.
I gave a simple reason for why it went down this path.

So, I think you are saying I can't have it both ways, if mine is a map, then GeoNames is a map? Don't accept that, but I think that's your argument?
Pretty much. But it does also include other things, like the .osm file.
The problem is you want to shift around your standard so anything you want to be a map can be a map while anything you don't want to be a map can't be.

No, neither of the above, all I did was open a file in some software package. That's literally all I did, didn't touch anything, just screenshotted what you saw.
And in doing so you converted it from the .osm file to an image.
And notice how that is effectively what you did with the GeoNames file. The only distinction being that you made the software package, and the software package took care of the screenshotting for you and directly output an image.
You took the GeoNames file and converted it into an image.

That is exactly what I was suggesting. Initially I said something like I could just show my map to someone, but then expanded that to you and I presenting a case to a jury.
And where did you expand to presenting a case to a jury?
As opposed to acting like your suggestion is equivalent to a jury?

I can't find any indication of that in your post.
I think the first time a Jury was introduced was here:
In this you indicated trial by jury is one example of where the public decides an issue.
But even then you continued with:
I'm confident that if you just asked a few members of the general public what they thought, then they wouldn't have any trouble recognising one thing as a map and the other  as not a map. I can't see any unfairness in that test.
That is not saying you present an argument to the jury.
That is saying you just ask them what they think.

Then later on, in this post:
Instead of appealing to a court of law when discussing a jury, the type of court where arguments are presented, you instead appealed to the "court of common sense".

So it doesn't seem like you were suggesting that at all.

You also wanted to exclude blind people as they wouldn't be able to instinctively recognise your image as a map.

Well good luck with that. You might be able to find a way to get a GIS system to use my technique to plot points, but again, that would be you essentially telling it what to do and how to do it. No different really to just writing your own program, as I did. I don't think for one second you'll find GIS software or any other software for that matter which will just open GeoNames and display a map for you with no additional work (in complete contrast to the OSM export). If you have to jump through hoops to transform one into the other, then that suggests they are not the same thing.
I would already have to jump through hoops to be able to get software to open the .osm file. When things are niche it isn't surprising.

The organisation involved was very simple, a web site where you just pick a set of records to decipher and click a button or fill in a simple form to say "I've got this" so everyone else would leave you to it and at the end just post your results.
And there you go ignoring the complexity of it.
You are effectively focusing on a single component. Look at a clock, but instead of looking at the entire thing, look at a single gear. How complex is that gear?

The typical way to complete a complex task is by breaking it up into simpler tasks and then completing all of them.
That does not make the overall task less complex.

Building a clock is a complex task. But if you break it down to its individual step, it is not.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 28, 2021, 05:26:34 AM »
I think I'm about done with this. The discussion has veered off into petty squabbling now
Because you wanted to focus on technicalities of if what you produced was a map and if what you used was a map, rather than focus on the actual issue, FEers making a map without just taking an existing map (or as you would say, data), so they don't need to trust anything they would dismiss as part of the conspiracy.
And you went down this path of technicalities so you could claim it is easy to make a map.

And by your standard, it is trivial. I go to Google Maps, take a screenshot, and have made a map.

I accept your point that not having labels or a grid weakens my claim to it being a map, so here they are, I've added them.
And with that, it is more convincingly  a map. Not a great map, with massive holes in countries, but still a map. But it still fails with several of your arguments; and it still has the question of if you made it, or merely converted an existing map.

  • What I've produced isn't a map or doesn't count as a map (at least I think that's what you are claiming).
It is more a case of the arguments you make against GeoNames being a map can equally apply to your map or other maps.
And that I have supported by using those arguments against your map and other maps.

  • What I've done doesn't amount to making a map.
In the same way that taking a screenshot of one doesn't count, nor does taking an image of one and converting it.
You obtained all the data from the GeoNames file and merely plotted it. Now you have done one extra step by sticking names on it and gridlines, but even that is automated with some names overlapping.

So the question is did you really make a map, or did just convert an existing one?
Did you make this map:

Or did you merely convert an existing map?

  • The general public (e.g. a jury) cannot be used to decide on the question of what is or is not a map.
Again, that is not what you were suggesting.
You wanted them to go based purely on instinct.
You merely wanted to present it to them, in a particular form, and see if they instinctively recognise it as a map.

That is not how a jury works.
If you want it to be a jury, then both sides need to be able to present evidence and arguments to that jury for the jury to then decide.

If this was a legal case, I would put in far more effort, such as going through all sorts of GIS software to find one that would let open/import the GeoNames .txt file and plot them as a collection of points.

  • Any collection of geotagged items is a map (as opposed to could be used to make a map). This would include for a example a twitter conversation containing geotagged tweets.
Again, the key part that makes it a map is not the presentation, it is the linking of spatial and non-spatial data. The linking of a location and what is/was/happened there.
Also remember that you can present it in a way which strips out that information and that presentation is not a map as it no longer has that linking information.

You seem to be happy for someone to take that collection of tweets and plot points on a blank canvas based upon that geotag, and then call that a map, all because it is an image.

  • There are interactions between surveyed locations which makes a whole survey more complex than the sum of its individual parts.
If you just to have a bunch of random people randomly survey a location and that's it, it isn't complex.
The complexity comes from organising a bunch of random people to collect and collate the data, to produce a map by collating the data.
That is what the interaction is.

I'm particularly baffled by the last two. The argument for a collection of geotagged items being a map seems to be that if you can turn it into something that looks like a map, then that's what it is. This is surely a false equivalence, it doesn't follow. I can turn lots of things into other things without them being equivalent. Flour into a cake is an obvious example.
That is a false equivalence.
With what I am suggesting, all the information is already there. All you need to do for you to accept it as a map is change how it is presented.
And what I am saying is the exact presentation doesn't matter. You are quite happy to accept the .osm file as a map, even though it is not an image, even though that is a collection of geotagged points with additional information linking those points together. So even you accept presentation is not the issue.
What is important is the information. That is what I have repeatedly appealed to. All the information that is in your map (and more) is already in that GeoNames database.

Just where did I suggest that because you can use it to make a map, that it is a map?

I have also repeatedly emphasised that presentation or format should not be determining factor, as different things want different formats.
A paper map for a human should be an image. A map for a computer which would do things like look up places (streets, buildings, suburbs, etc), or find a route between places, and so on, would be far better as a database, because that is a far more efficient way for a computer to work.

But the key part for the false equivalence is you can't make a cake with just flour.
It doesn't matter how much flour you have, it wont just magically change into a cake. You need more, for example, milk, butter eggs, oil and sugar.
But all you needed to do for GeoNames was plot it and then you were happy to call it a map.

If instead you wanted to claim the information from GeoNames wasn't enough, such as by saying GeoNames lacks the important information connecting nodes together, then you would have a case that GeoNames is not a map, but it would also mean what you presented isn't a map as you did not add that missing information.

There are really only 2 avenues, you either appeal to presentation, saying that because the GeoNames .txt file isn't an image, it isn't a map; but then the same applies to the .osm file; as it isn't an image it isn't a map, and that would mean if you take a .osm file, and turn it into an image, that constitutes "making a map" even though even you admit that is trivial to do; or you appeal to information, and thus because GeoNames had all the information your original "map" did, either it is a map, or your "map" isn't.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 27, 2021, 03:21:12 PM »
You can't have it both ways. Either that connection is required so you didn't make a map, or it isn't so GeoNames can be a map. Make up your mind and stick with it.
Stop contradicting yourself so you can pretend what you made is a map and what you used to make it isn't.
There is no contradiction. Something can be used to make a map that isn't a map.
And more deflection.
The argument being made there (which you just completely ignore), has nothing to do with if you can use something to make something else; but you pretend it is, to pretend there is no contradiction.

Again, you tried to dismiss GeoNames as a map, while excepting the .osm file, on the basis of the GeoNames file lacking connection information.
But your image also lacks connection information. You didn't add in any connection information.
Instead you took the information in that file, and plotted it, with a colour based upon the country.

Try to actually deal with what has been said, rather than ignoring and pretending I made a completely different argument.

Your counter argument appears to consist of "this thing or collection of things is a map because I say so".
No, it isn't.
Again, the important part is spatial information and an indication of what is at that location.

This is on the basis of what a map is.
It is something which links locations with what is at that location and vice versa. In the more general mathematical sense, it is something which links between 2 sets.
A map of cat sightings would link a location with a cat at that location.
It would allow you to pick a location and see what cat has been sighted there or nearby.
It would also allow you to pick a cat and find what location that cat has been sighted at.

For the former, the way humans are good at that is to have an image of some sort, where they find the location on the image and then see what is marked as being near there.
They also have some success trying to find a cat on that image, but it can be easier with an index.
But for a computer, the better way is to have the information in a database format rather than an image format.

So a map of cat sightings for a human would be a picture with points showing the location of the sightings, likely with a photo right next to that point, or some code to look up the photo, and possibly an index.
For a computer, it would likely be a database, or album.

At the scale of the world however, that doesn't matter because all I need to know is what is land (a plotted dot) and what isn't.
We have been over that, your image fails at that.
And GeoNames works fine for that.

Missing the point as usual.
That would still be you.

Again, you are trying to suggest that because there is redundancy it isn't complex. You are using a system with no redundancy to try to indicate that it is complex because every part is dependent or linked to every other part such that removing 1 part can make the entire thing not function.

But again, that reasoning of yours would indicate that anything which has redundancy is not complex.
So things like planes would not be complex because they have redundancy, where plenty of parts can be removed with no ill effect.

I'm not comparing a wall with a clock, I'm comparing a pile of bricks with a clock.
with enough I could make a wall or a house even.
It sure seems like you were discussing a wall, or even a house.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 27, 2021, 03:20:32 PM »
You don't have to keep repeating your opinion. We don't agree on this point you claim I am missing.
Yet instead of even trying to discuss the point, you run off on a tangent of printing out the map.
Again, without the labels, or even a legend, or basically anything to indicate what any of the points are, you haven't made a map.

You are the one making the claim that GeoNames is a map. Not can be used to make a map, but actually is a map.
And there you go missing the point.
That tangent was yours.
You were trying to suggest your useless test is valid because courts ask people things.
But your test relies upon them recognising it by pure instinct.
I pointed out that isn't how courts work. But rather than even acknowledge that you go straight off on the attack.

This is your claim, so it's up to you to make it convincing.
Technically it is your claim that you made a map.
I objected to that on the basis that you basically just took an existing map and converted it to a different format.

And that for the purposes of discussion, that is no better than just taking an existing map and saying "here is a map".
The point is FEers don't trust those existing maps, so there is no difference between just taking an existing map or converting one (even if you want to pretend you didn't just convert one and instead started with a dataset which you then made into a map). But you seem to want to run away from that discussion point and just try focusing on if you made a map or not.

As a sceptic, I rightly choose to reject your claim until such time as you present sufficient evidence.

I have in fact pointed out several things which undermine your claim:
You mean which you want to pretend don't.

  • The creators of GeoNames do not call it a map
The creator of a street directory typically doesn't call it a map.
Someone not calling it something, doesn't mean it isn't that thing.

  • I cannot find any definition equating spatial database and map, they appear to refer to distinct things
Just like medicine and drugs.
But I can't even find a "definition" for spatial database. Likely because in this phrase spatial is merely an adjective for the type of data stored in the database. i.e. a spatial database is a database that stores spatial information.
I can find a few examples of them and descriptions of them.
One is wikipedia:
And the first entry is Geodatabase, which provides, as further information Map database management.

By definition, a map of Earth, or part of Earth is spatial.
If you want to store this in a database, then it is a spatial database.

Just what do you think the export from OSM was?
And the fact that I pointed out it is a DATABASE format?

  • I haven't found anyone (apart from you) who calls it a map
I haven't found anyone (apart from you) discussing GeoNames at all. So it is you saying it isn't, vs me saying it is.

  • GIS software does not recognise it as a map (unlike say OSM export)
Again, what happens when you open it in GIS software?
Can you get that software to display it as a bunch of points.

So nothing new, just repeating the same tired old rejected assertion ad infinitum based on no evidence.
Yep, that does seem to be all you can do.

I opened
Yes, YOU did, not me.
I downloaded it and was unable to just double click to open it.

Data intended to be usable as maps by GIS come in one of two formats
There you go deflecting yet again.
The issue here is if a collection of points can constitute a map or if you need connections between them.

If you need connections between these points for it to be a map, that rules out your image as well as GeoNames.
If you don't need connections, so you can try claiming what you produced is a map, then you cannot exclude GeoNames on that basis.

Your image has less information that GeoNames.
So if you are going to appeal to the information, either GeoNames is a map, or your image is not.
There is no honest standard based upon information contained you could use which in any way would indicate GeoNames is not a map but your image is.

This leaves presentation as the argument, but then OSM is not an image like you want a map to be.
You have shown that by objecting to the style when it is imported, which doesn't even match what is shown on OSM's website.
Instead, OSM is a text file, containing a list of nodes and relationships between them.
And that means either GeoNames is a map or the .OSM file is not.

This isn't lateral thinking you are using. If you were using such thinking, you would accept the GeoNames database as a map.
What you are doing is dishonestly trying to manipulate the standard back and forth such that anything you want to be a map can be deemed a map while anything you don't want to be a map will be rejected.

So yes, if you ignore all the information which makes OSM export suitable for it's intended use as a map and just pick out lat/long of the point nodes and then use the pointillism technique, then you can generate a map like mine.
So what you are saying is your "map" lacks the information which makes things suitable for intended use as a map?

That’s what I meant by using the word “potential”
The point is that the potential well exists, and you can calculate g at any point.

i can do both ways. Using a segment of 0.5m and a mix of segments of 1m and 0.5m
But why those lengths?
Again, your argument was that it isn't actually multiplication and that to find out how far they have moved you add up 1 m 5 times to get 5 m.
But if 1 m is your base you cannot add to get 5.5 m.
Why add 1 m then? Why add 0.5 m now? or a mix of 1 m and 0.5 m?

There is no justification for it at all.

But by chance / accidentally/ w/o plan
No, by simple logic.
Again, velocity is distance (technically displacement) per unit time.
To find that distance you multiply velocity with time.
Unless you can show distance is quantised, there is no reason to think it is just repeated addition.

Just find the following, no matter how do you do it. All variables can be found on Google.
You are describing a hypothetical problem which doesn't exist in reality and thus the answers can't be found on Google.

The final velocity of the earth after one second?
The final velocity of the sun after one second?
The final respective velocity of earth and sun when they strike each other?
What would be the striking time of earth and sun?
Just what is the point of me doing that? You will likely just ignore or dismiss it like you ignore or dismiss so much of what I say?
You have the equations, do it yourself.

The burden of proof can be a heavy load indeed
So it isn't surprising you keep trying to shift it onto others.
Again, Brawndo made the claim, so the burden is on him.
You chose to help defend that claim, so the burden is also on you.

It doesn't matter how much you dishonestly want to push the burden of proof, it wont magically go onto me.

You have the burden, you need to prove the claim.
That means you need to show that the only way to obtain knowledge (on the shape of Earth), is to just accept what an expert says that knowledge is.
And that means no experiments or observations, but just accepting what the expert says.

And again, even if I had a burden of proof, that has been more than met with the logical argument I have provided.
That means even if I did start with it, as I have proven my position, the burden shifts to you to refute that argument, something you refuse to even attempt because you know you can't.

So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head.
Or they just look around the menus to see what options there are.

As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
No, a sensible person would just use a camera and take a picture, and if it doesn't turn out well, change the settings on the camera. That would likely be a lot faster than trying to look it up.

Ah.... you like secrets to, just like Jack.
I'm not keeping secrets. You are blatantly lying about me to pretend I am, to pretend I am making points I am not so you can pretend you are right.
But it doesn't matter how many lies you spout, how many times you deflect and try to shift the burden of proof; you will still be wrong.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 02:07:27 PM »
I was talking about the one the Russians took from SPACE that far away place, high high high up in the sky. Have you had a memory lapse? The highest resolution image to date.
Yet still not good enough to give you the exact shape.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« on: July 27, 2021, 05:09:27 AM »
And you accuse me of missing the point?
Yes, the point is that you haven't really mapped anything. You have put a bunch of dots on a page, with no labels, nor any indication of what they are.

We aren't talking about a printed map either. If you noticed one of the suggestions I gave needs it to not be printed, as it is interactive.

When I see a map or satellite image on TV news, it usually has an acknowledgement saying it's Google or whatever. I imagine that's because the news organisation has a specific legal agreement with Google, allowing them to do this. If I were to do the same and sell the image without permission, I would get into legal trouble over it.
You mean a specific legal agreement to make sure they don't get sued.
It can be a lot easier to have an agreement in place to avoid being sued, rather than trying to stand on the moral high ground and get sued.

You've stated many times that using GeoNames in the way that I do is no different to screenshotting a Google map
No, I sated that calling what you did making a map is like saying taking a screenshot of Google maps is making a map.
There is a difference between making a map and the legal standard of copyright infringement.

Courts decide these issues all the time.
But not by asking people to just decide on instinct with no arguments?
How many court cases do you know of that just had a simple statement of the case to the jury for them to then go away and decide? I don't know of any.

No, it's almost as if there are lots of maps available you can use and it's wasted effort to do it all yourself. However, if you are a flat earther and don't trust anything, you've ruled out using these maps and any software you didn't write yourself and you do need to make your own.

I'm offering a recipe for doing that. It has to be simple and it has to produce something that is recognisably a map with things in the right places.
No, you aren't. You are offering a recipe of just taking an existing maps and converting it to a different form. Why should they trust that map, but not software?

It doesn't fail my personal duck test
Because you happily manipulate your duck test to pretend that everything you want to be a map is a map, and everything you don't' want to be a map isn't.

There is a style of painting known as pointillism.
There you go deflecting yet again.
You acted as if the osm format is a map because of that connection. Now you are saying no connection is actually required and just point are fine.

Again, you contradict yourself. Try being consistent for once.

If you want to write some software to generate your own map from an OSM export, you go ahead, but it'll be a lot more complicated.
The only part making it more "complicated" is that it is in xml format.
Instead of just grabbing the nth section of text to determine latitude and longitude, all you need to do is grab the nicely labelled lat and lon tags. A fairly trivial modification.

There is a another good reason why my dots are not connected. GeoNames only contains points, nothing else, no information about if or how the points relate to each other. That is yet another reason why I reject your claim that it is a map. It is deficient for that purpose.
Which would also mean what you produced isn't a map.

You can't have it both ways. Either that connection is required so you didn't make a map, or it isn't so GeoNames can be a map. Make up your mind and stick with it.
Stop contradicting yourself so you can pretend what you made is a map and what you used to make it isn't.

GIS can make use of it, but won't recognise it as a map.
You mean GIS wont produce it in a way you recognise as a map?
Just how does your GIS software render it?
Can it display it as a bunch of points on a blank canvas?

I can't make anything useful out of a single brick, but with enough I could make a wall or a house even. That doesn't mean the pile of bricks are interacting. No brick is any more important than any other.
It is a good thing you aren't an architect.
Each brick must hold the load of the bricks above. Take out enough and the wall collapses.
They do interact.
The fact that you can remove 1 without a problem (or possibly even several) doesn't mean they don't interact, it doesn't mean it isn't complex.
Take away the foundation and what do you think will happen?

Again, your argument appears to be that redundancy means it isn't complex.
Again, a plane has lots of redundancy. Does that mean a plane isn't complex?
You can take away load of individual parts and the plane will still fly just fine?

A clock doesn't typically need such redundancy as people's lives typically do not depend on it. The simplest redundancy is multiple clocks.

That's my gold standard, yes. If you send me a file and I can double click on it and it opens as a photo of a cat or a video or a spreadsheet or a document, then I instantly recognise it for what it is.
Yet you then contradict that standard with OSM.
What you should be doing is either claiming OSM isn't a map, because I can't just double click and open it, or claiming my device is defective because I can't open it.

But no, instead you say that YOU can open it so that is all that matters so you can keep on claiming everything you want to be a map is a map and nothing that you don't want to be a map is.

And remember, YOU were the one who brought in GeoNames, not me.
So why should I find software to open the format YOU provided?
And again, you have already said GIS software can open it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 515