### 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 - El Cid

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
91
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 20, 2011, 05:00:19 PM »
Round Earth map: distortions from projection
Flat Earth map: no distortions from projection
Incorrect.
An incorrect premise leads you to an incorrect conclusion.
You just don't get it.

According to you, Earth is flat.  Flat = two-dimensional.  Two-dimensional means a plane, like a sheet of paper.  Maps are written on a sheet of paper.  Paper = Earth = 2-D = the same = no distortion!!!  How hard is this to understand?

92
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:37:20 PM »
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km.  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

It's not wrong. It's more accurate. I used the same number as you, just with more decimal places.
It is more accurate, but it's inconsistent with FET.  Remember this?

So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

the FAQ is wrong
Well, fine.  So the diameter of the Earth is 25,512.5374 km, and we still have exactly the same distortions that have no effect on plane flights that happen every day.

93
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:33:38 PM »
http://www.south-pole.com/

They're all easy enough to explain, right up until NASA comes into play. Coincidence? I think not.
Or, maybe, they didn't have as descriptive records back then.  And I don't want an explanation.  The first person received government honors for going over Antarctica.  See http://www.south-pole.com/p0000107.htm.  Was there a conspiracy even then?  Has this been going on since the dawn of time?  Jeez, even my conspiracy theories aren't that implausible, and I think that the entire world has been ruled from behind the scenes by a secret society since 1948 or so.

94
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:28:00 PM »
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km.  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

It's not wrong. It's more accurate. I used the same number as you, just with more decimal places.
It is more accurate, but it's inconsistent with FET.  Remember this?

So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

95
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:24:26 PM »

96
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:21:12 PM »
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km.  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?
But where did you find that fact from?  Where did you find any of these numbers from at all?  They don't even make sense.  The equator is wrong.
What, exactly, does any of that have to do with anything? I added the change in as a little sidebar because I found it interesting.

97
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Reality Tunnel
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:17:26 PM »
I gave up tripping balls ages ago.
I don't know what that means...but I would recommend Zen to start with.

98
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 03:13:21 PM »
Well, this is all just great, but it solves nothing!  Now we know the distances on the distorted Earth, which are no good anyway because the equator is 40,075.0 km.  But mostly, we still don't know why the places more south are all wrong.  And if you don't know why the equator changes, then how do you know it happens?  Somehow I doubt you measured it every year accurately enough to find a discrepancy of a few feet.  Also on the plane you would have seen that the Earth is round.  Where did that even come from?  Did you just make that up right now?

99
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 17, 2011, 02:54:35 PM »
Alright, here's an equation for the length of the disk (what in RET would be lines of latitude) in kilometers. Note that it only works for negative values (below the equator)

(|X|445.277963)+40,075.016686

Where X= the degree of latitude. I can probably get distances between cities, too, but it'll take a lot longer.

BTW, are there any specific cities you want the distances between?
Is the first term supposed to be multiplied?  And is it supposed to be an absolute value?  If so, since it only works for negative values, couldn't you just put -445.277963X+40,075.016686?

I don't understand it anyway.  So, if, according to the FAQ, the diameter of the entire disc is 40,073 km, then the diameter of only the Northern Hemisphere should be 20,036.5 km, and the circumference of the NH (equator), should be C=(pi)(diameter), so we will get 62,946.5212 km for the equator.

In any case, this conclusion fixes nothing, because the lengths are still distorted.

100
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Reality Tunnel
« on: November 17, 2011, 02:35:00 PM »
I've been trying to detect my own confirmation bias when discussing things and searching for information on whatever subject under discussion. It's not easy.
And it will never work.  You need another method, other than pure willpower.  You will always have bias.

101
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Reality Tunnel
« on: November 16, 2011, 05:35:48 PM »
Reality tunnel is a term coined by Timothy Leary and popularised by Robert Anton Wilson.
The theory states that, with a subconscious set of mental "filters" formed from their beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets this same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".

This is not necessarily meant to imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs.

A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias—our tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm our beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with our prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the "one true objective reality," Robert Anton Wilson emphasizes that each person's reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not.

It is believed that through various techniques one can break down old reality tunnels and impose new reality tunnels by removing old filters and replacing them with new ones, new perspectives on reality—at will. This is achieved through various processes of deprogramming using neuro-linguistic programming, cybernetics, hypnosis, biofeedback devices, meditation, controlled use of hallucinogens, and forcibly acting out other reality tunnels. Thus, it is believed one's reality tunnel can be widened to take full advantage of human potential and experience reality on more positive levels. Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising is (among other things) a guidebook to the exploration of various reality tunnels.

So you're arguing that we should force hallucinogenic drugs on to RE'rs to help them escape the fake reality tunnel they've made around their minds, while making them see the objective truth of FE?
*holds finger up to lips* Ssshhhhhhh.  Don't tell anyone.

102
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Reality Tunnel
« on: November 16, 2011, 04:10:59 PM »
Reality tunnel is a term coined by Timothy Leary and popularised by Robert Anton Wilson.
The theory states that, with a subconscious set of mental "filters" formed from their beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets this same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".

This is not necessarily meant to imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs.

A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias—our tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm our beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with our prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the "one true objective reality," Robert Anton Wilson emphasizes that each person's reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not.

It is believed that through various techniques one can break down old reality tunnels and impose new reality tunnels by removing old filters and replacing them with new ones, new perspectives on reality—at will. This is achieved through various processes of deprogramming using neuro-linguistic programming, cybernetics, hypnosis, biofeedback devices, meditation, controlled use of hallucinogens, and forcibly acting out other reality tunnels. Thus, it is believed one's reality tunnel can be widened to take full advantage of human potential and experience reality on more positive levels. Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising is (among other things) a guidebook to the exploration of various reality tunnels.

103
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 03:15:36 PM »
If your map is length-preserving, that means that "official" maps would be distorted by more than the factor 2, including roads, flight distances, crop fields, streets, large buildings etc.
This is, of course, entirely untrue, for reasons explained many times now.

Also, I'm pretty sure that according to RET the Google Maps representation of Australia. I am basing this off your own claim that it's impossible to project Australia on a flat surface without distorting it; and yet, you didn't notice that, and decided to use it as your template. Perhaps it's not so outlandish of a claim that people wouldn't notice, after all?
That map is roughly correct.  FE map is extremely distorted.

104
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff
« on: November 16, 2011, 03:00:53 PM »
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

What a nice two-dimensional circle. What is it?

Looks to me like north america wrapping around a sphere.  Observe the image below I just put together in Photoshop:

On the left is the picture you provided.  In the middle is a head-on satellite image of western North America.  It's the closest thing you'll find to a flat image of North America.  You'll see that it doesn't really resemble the first picture.  Now, for the 3rd picture, I took the head-on satellite image and adjusted the dimensions to make it look more similar to the first picture.  In order to do that, I rotated the map (to about the same degree as the Earth's "alleged" rotational axis), and scrunched it up in width, leaving the height alone.  Which... if North America was on a sphere that was rotating, away from the observer, that's exactly how it would look.

So, that piture proves to me the Earth is round.

And besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why you can see stars just over the horizon if the Earth were flat?  If it were flat, those stars would be behind the dark portion of the flat Earth, and thus not in sight, right?

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.
I don't think it's funny.  Especially not when they take satellite photographs when there are no clouds.  Either way, definitely not funny.

105
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:56:24 PM »
Harry Potter is more believable than Flat Earth.
So true.  They don't tell us muggles anything, and they have magic.  Easy peasy.

106
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:52:00 PM »
I am of course speaking of a length-preserving map, as I said about 371624 times. If the Gauss Curvature of earth is zero, such a map should exist, but FEers have so far failed to provide it. (If it's not zero, the earth is not flat.)
Well, yes, the fact that you refuse to accept certain facts and cling to your religion of mathematics does make it quite tedious. But hey, I can say it for the n+1st time. Your RET assumptions do not apply outside of RET.

Mathematics are the same no matter if the Earth is a sphere, plane, or hyperbola.

The validity of mathematics is an assumption made by both RET and FET. Live with it.

Not so. It's been questioned a few times. For instance, by Ichi.

Also, i is a copout.
So you disbelieve the most basic of mathematics, and yet you often cite Special Relativity, dark energy, etc., which are based heavily on mathematics.  Just look at the gabbeldy gook on this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

107
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just to clear things up
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:39:57 PM »
Just to clear things up gravity is not something pushing or pulling on anything. Gravity is the attraction between objects that have mass or energy. That is all

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!

108
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:55:32 PM »
Hee hee hee.  Old topic.

109
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:31:57 PM »
It's possible to do a lot of things.  For example, it's possible to assume that monkeys can fly; from that, we must determine that they only do it when we aren't looking, because we've never seen them do so.
Ah, so you agree that assuming the Earth's rotundity is horribly fallacious? How nice.
Horribly fallacious?  Yeah, I suppose fallacious thinking is pretty horrible.  Like Socrates said, "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance."

And yes, I do think that, which is why scientists try to prove the Earth's rotundity with repeatable and falsifiable experiments.  A pretty well established idea, if you look into it.

110
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:26:03 PM »
In fact, I've given you thirty pages of information here, and I'm constantly providing more.
That's not what I'm talking about.  You misunderstand.
You said that the phrase "Flat Earth = flat map" is incorrect.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.  I can see that when you quoted that phrase, you quoted, "Flat Earth = flat map = Euclidean geometry."  You said it was incorrect (again, without following up) because you were referring to your belief that a flat Earth doesn't necessarily mean Euclidean geometry, without explaining why.  Then, when jraffield1 misunderstood, taking a wrong assumption to base his or her argument off of, you said, "No, I didn't.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It doesn't help your position."  Which, of course, is true, but is anyone expected to care enough to realize that, or pursue that line of argument?  Saying things like, "It doesn't help your position" just makes you seem like a closed-minded, bad debater.

I'm not talking about the theory in general.  I realize that you have lots of information on it.

111
##### Flat Earth Debate / How to make the so-called "Flat Earth Theory" an actual scientific theory.
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:04:36 PM »
Firstly, I'd like to explain the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and law.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

The Flat Earth Theory is not a theory; in fact, it is not even a hypothesis.  A hypothesis and a theory must be testable.  Science is more than just a word meaning "physics, biology, chemistry, and other things I learned in school about that type of thing."

Science is a study of the natural world, but it is not simply guessing.  It is not religion, or philosophy.  It is something different.

The philosophy of science is that you have to be able to prove it.  If it's not provable, it's not science.  This is what science is.  Science is anything that can be proven.

In their attempt to prove things, scientists devise experiments.  This word is also perhaps more than you think.  An experiment is set up in a way such that a hypothesis can be proven.

Here is an example of an experiment.  You want to figure out whether eating at McDonald's every day will make you fat.  Your hypothesis:  "Eating at McDonald's every day will eventually make you get fat."

So, in order to test your hypothesis, you create a simple experiment:  you will have two people.  You will tell one of them to eat at McDonald's every day, and you will tell the other not to.  Wait for a while, and eventually you will see:  the first person will begin to get fat.  The other will not.  This proves your hypothesis true.

But what if the second person gets fat too?  This will prove that people just always get fat, and therefore you can discard the hypothesis.  Of course, you have to make sure that both people have about the same metabolism, about the same health to begin with; otherwise, who knows?  Maybe that was the reason that one got fat and the other didn't.

In order for something to be a theory, there must be a method to either prove or disprove it.  Currently, FET is not even very well-organized and developed enough to be sure whether something does prove or disprove it.  So then, my first step in my guide to you on how to make FET a theory, is as follows:

1.  Organize the thoughts of FET, into one, or possibly several, definite models, with clear explanations and mathematics on the theory's properties.  Explain how phenomena such as bendy light come into effect.  Publish your theory in a scientific journal, or somewhere else where it will get attention.

Then:

2.  Devise possible experiments to prove or disprove the theory.

Now, I should warn you.  You seem to be on this path already:  you change your model to fit the measurements.

If you do this so much that no measurement will ever be able to disprove FET, then it is automatically no longer a theory.  A theory must be testable.

Assuming you make your theory such that it is testable, I give you a final commandment:

3.  Explain why your theory explains the universe better than the current model, and show that it is more accurate.  Show the benefits to be had to adopt this theory.

112
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 02, 2011, 04:02:21 PM »
PizzaPlanet, let me teach you something I learned a long time ago.

My brother and I used to always have an argument about something.  Often, one of us would realize that the other had comitted a fatal error at the base of their argument, rendering it meaningless.  We would relish in it, when we saw this, and we would wait for the other to continue arguing, and just pretend that we didn't know that they had a wrong assumption.  Then, finally, we would say, "Oh!  Do you think that X?"  When they realized that it was not so, it was highly embarrassing, and they were put to shame.

Sometimes I would get the chance to do this, and sometimes he would.  Then, one time, I realized it was happening, except this time, he thought that he was doing it to me, but his belief was grounded in yet another wrong assumption!  I thought, "Well, jeez, this will take forever.  Forget it."  Then I told him the error he had comitted.  "Oh," he said, still somewhat embarrassed.

It seems to me that you are trying to do the same thing, but it's not working because you're giving so little information in hopes of this happenning, that no one ever really tries to rat you out, and you never get to reveal their wrong assumption.  This just makes you look like a terrible debater who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

113
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Bit Of Logic For You To Ponder.
« on: November 02, 2011, 03:41:29 PM »

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, the difference between a theory and a law are not whether they are proven.  Yes, gravity is a law, but this does not mean it has been "proved."  In fact, General Relativity makes it not entirely true, and yet it is still a law.

114
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: November 02, 2011, 03:34:13 PM »
I am not a seismologist. I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data. If you cannot comprehend why, I do not know how to help you.

That isn't how models are made.  Models are made to fit the data, not the other way around.

They are attempting to model the earth's composition, not it's shape. The assume the shape to determine the composition. It is possible to assume another shape and determine a differing composition.
It's possible to do a lot of things.  For example, it's possible to assume that monkeys can fly; from that, we must determine that they only do it when we aren't looking, because we've never seen them do so.

115
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 30, 2011, 05:31:12 PM »
It's pointless, the distances are wrong on this map (take Sydney, Santiago and Capetown).
Incorrect.
Let me fix that: Correct.

116
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 30, 2011, 05:18:07 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry

Generally accepted in mainstream science, not known to be faulty in "RE science," whatever that is.

And I know it says that Einstein diisproved it and all, but this only matters when spacetime is warped, and the warp around Earth is entirely undetected, and completely insignificant.

And I simply don't understand what other system you suggest.  Even if light is distorted, distance isn't distorted.  I would assume your map would show what's really there, not light distortion.

I thought that the weird-looking map was what was there, and bendy light explains the distortion.  This doesn't change distances, which is the problem I'm pointing out.  I don't understand "There would be an optical distortion which must be represented on the map."

117
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 30, 2011, 12:36:38 PM »
In RET, the reason a flat map is distorted is because the real world is spherical, which is impossible to flatten out without distorting it.

If the Earth were flat, there would be absolutely no distortion.  Projecting a flat Earth to a flat map will have no distortion.  The distances should all be perfectly accurate, even though they can't be on a globe.  We've measured Australia.  It's a lot bigger than your map shows.

The dimensions beyond the third are tiny and have practically no effect.  Also, they might not exist.

118
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 29, 2011, 10:35:08 PM »
We can't project the same distances on a flat Earth.
That is correct, assuming we're speaking from the Euclidean geometries' point of view. We're not.
On a flat Earth, don't we have to be?

119
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:53:03 PM »
No, the flight times will be the same. I've already said that twice. Both the distances and velocities remain unaffected. It only looks different when you observe it from space.
Unaffected relative to what?  Does that mean that the distances predicted by a globe (i.e., the ones we measure) are unaffected (by the switch to FET), and bendy light simply makes the hull-down phenomenon?  Although, that doesn't really make sense either, because then how can the Earth be flat still?  We can't project the same distances on a flat Earth.

OR, does it mean that the distances displayed on the map are unaffected?  Because, if so, then again, everything I just said!  Perception clashes with reality, and odd results are experienced!

I don't see how either of these positions can be held.

120
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:47:47 PM »