Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
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: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« Last post by Timeisup on Today at 06:52:48 AM »
No maths required.

The moon landings is a mater of historical fact doubted only by conspiracy nuts, though the exact history of the conspiracy is actually quite interesting. Lots of people, even amatures with some expert assistance have pinged lasers of the discs left on the moon. It's no big deal.

There are also images that show tracks in the lunar dust.

Just wait till 2024 when it will be a real slam dunk. I wonder what all the conspiracy people will say then? Watch this space....
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« Last post by Timeisup on Today at 06:46:03 AM »
Are you guys actually arguing over if the data used to build a map is actually a map or not?

I think so, but in order to confirm that we probably need a debate about the meaning of "argument" and "data".

Is a tree a forest?

Please don't do this to me.

Wait... it's moved on to if a screenshot of a GIF is still a GIF?

I'm so confused.  Is this like asking which Vision is the real one?

I think I came here for a 5 minute argument and ended up with the full half hour.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I bet you wished you had never asked. Don't say I didn't tell you. You want a map go buy one.
Dude you've already proved the earth is flat. You can give it a rest now.


Clean your specs man, then go read a book.
The problem with people with your attitude toward expert knowledge is that you will never rise above mediocrity. Admitting that you don’t know or have mastered everything is a sign of intelligence. Realising that and finding expert sources for the knowledge that you want or need  puts you on the right path.
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!

I think you kind of forgot to read everything that I said. Let me point out a pertinent quote...

You are misrepresenting my entire argument. I'm not saying you can't ever learn from other people. I'm not saying you HAVE to learn all on your own with no help from anyone, ever.

I'm not sure why you think I am somehow against learning from others, or that I think I am smarter than every human on the planet. Because I certainly didn't say that. In fact if you go through my recent posts I thought I made it very clear that I too go to societies to learn from others and have indeed, read books.

Just to make it extra clear, yes, you can learn from others. Yes, there are people smarter than me or who know more. Sometimes being taught is better than learning on your own, but not always. Learning on your own can lead to new discoveries, and sometimes it's just simply fun.

I think these are the same unicorns that helped Jack Black devise his secret non secret experiments!

Bullcrap! I do not share my unicorns! >:(

Yes you can learn from others WHAT !...hell man get real that is the MAIN way of learning. How often have you in reality learned things totally on your own?

it beggars belief the display of ignorance around here. People who know squat all about things pontificating on how easy they are to use basing their opinion on ignorance alone. When it comes to Photoshop, thats utter bollocks. People imagining photoshop is just about applying a filter here and there and sliding a few sliders are just displaying their level of utter 'dumbness'. You try doing a composite image on your own from scratch and let's see how you get on. Why a composite image? The creation of composite images uses many of the main basic photoshop skills.

At the moment Im learning to use Boris FX Optics plugin for Photoshop. Im learning it, not using Jack Blacks wasteful and inefficient trial and error reinvent a square wheel method, Im learning how to use it by listening to experts. Its a complex multilayered piece of software that I want to get up and running fast with. Expert advice is the BEST way.

I think you people have spent far too much time absorbing FE fantasy think. Come back to the real world.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« Last post by JackBlack 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
« Last post by JackBlack 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.
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: space tourism
« Last post by Themightykabool on Today at 06:31:48 AM »
Harvey birdman was the best.

Did you get the thing i sent you?
Flat Earth General / Re: Please Participate in my Research Project
« Last post by Amoranemix on Today at 06:28:37 AM »
There seems to be flaw in your survey. It seems to addressed at active members, but fail to mention so.
I started the survey and could only guess the first answers. Perhaps you should first ask information about the participant or add the option 'I don't know'.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ISS induced terrestrial wobble controversy
« Last post by Timeisup on Today at 06:25:31 AM »
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.

So where is any evidence of this? Where is this wobble effect on the earth?

Of course Alberto Behar died after his statements to the press on the issue and shortly later his only collaborating voice at NASA, Rafael Navarro Gonzalez passed away. Now the voices at NASA are silenced again into compliance and everybody is toeing the official line. But at least there's hope some scientists at NASA are sympathetic to the truth, and we have that forever memorialized on Mars where a hill was named after Rafael.

For now we have to rely on available amateur scientists that are allowed to share their data. But even with the cheap equipment flooding the market in astrosurveymetrics we still have no evidence of this effect occurring.

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

Equal and opposite amount!

Are you listening? Ill keep it simple.

ISS is very very small.
The Earth relatively is very very very large.

There you go, no maths required.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10