Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Ancient internet?
« Last post by Tal Cohen on July 30, 2021, 03:51:58 PM »
Title sums it up, I'll clarify though:
It's most likely the internet has existed for centuries if not more.
I'm kinda new to this, are there any theories?
Like maybe the Dark Web is in fact all the information that has existed for centuries/millennia?
92
We should all build our own plastic dome like head coverings. Like that one person did when there were no masks.
93
Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.
« Last post by JackBlack 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.
How?
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?
94
The nice thing about an N95 mask is that I can figure out how to use it properly and it still protects me even if no one else is wearing one.

With cloth masks I'm at the mercy of everyone else.  It only takes one person wearing it under their nose to make it pointless for everyone else in the room to wear one.

God I hate how they wear it under the nose. Looks even more stupid on them too.

Then you have the morons who have the vented ones. May as well be not wearing one
95
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE map with scale
« Last post by JackBlack 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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
https://www.geonames.org/maps/mountains.html
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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:
https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/data/geodatabases/overview/the-architecture-of-a-geodatabase.htm
https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/help/data/geodatabases/overview/feature-class-basics.htm
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
96
Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.
« Last post by Stash on July 30, 2021, 01:57:46 PM »
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.

How so?
97
Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.
« Last post by AlexandrKushnirtshuk on July 30, 2021, 01:36:50 PM »
The Bible is an ambiguous, not very scientific and many times rewritten source.
There is one interesting point in the Bible - the appearance of the rainbow after the flood.
Before the flood, giants, dinosaurs lived on Earth, people supposedly lived for several hundred years, and, most interestingly, there was no rainbow. That is, before the flood, the conditions of life on Earth were very different from the current (post-Flood) ones. This is indicated, among other things, by the absence of a rainbow before the flood, which clearly emerges from the quote below.

I lay My rainbow in the cloud, so that it would be a sign of the covenant between Me and between the earth ... When I bring the cloud to the earth, then a rainbow in the cloud will appear ... and I will remember the eternal covenant between God and between every living soul ... This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and between all flesh that is on the earth. (Genesis 9: 13-17)

Strongly different antediluvian conditions on Earth ... There are quite a few weighty arguments in favor of the fact that before the flood the Earth (and the Universe) looked something like this schematic diagram:



The sun was probably colder, the moon hotter. When the Sun and the Moon separated from Proto-Earth, the smaller Moon quickly cooled down, and on the larger Sun, nuclear processes were activated, which, by the way, are now systematically declining. Solar activity has been declining for the fifth consecutive cycle (50 years). The duration of the solar cycle is about 10 years.



And this is the forecast for the 25th solar cycle, which is being confirmed more and more every day.



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.

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.

Arial of armadillos and Arial of hedgehogs.

98
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)
99
Flat Earth General / Re: THE 1ST DOME IS NOT AS HIGH AS YOU THINK
« Last post by Solarwind on July 30, 2021, 01:29:25 PM »
Quote
Aren't you at least interested in why he thinks this? How he may have arrived at it? I am.
Same here. I'd love to what evidence he has to support his claims. Beyond just his own personal beliefs that is. How did he come up with this so far apparently random figure of 17,000ft for instance? When I flew between LGW and JFK a couple of years back the maximum altitude shown by the screens on the plane showing the flight track data was 41,000ft and looking out of the window it was obvious that we were definitely a lot higher than 17,000ft! At no point did I hear or feel the plane collide with anything that could pass as a 'dome'.

We know how big an Airbus A380 (for example) is physically because the dimensions are freely available. For example the wingspan is just a few cm under 80m or 262.47 ft. We can work out what the angle subtended by the wings would be as seen from a distance of 17,000 ft from simple trig. Inv tan (262.47/17000) comes to 0.88 deg. So larger than the full Moon by some distance. Yet there are load of photos online showing an A380 passing across the Moon and visibly much smaller.

I can then use flightradar24 for example to identify when an A380 is due to pass over my location and observe the plane as it passes overhead at cruising altitude through my telescope. Next I can choose from a selection of eyepieces to give me a magnification that provides a view of the whole plane so it just fits into the FOV. From that I know the angular size of the aircraft on the sky and from that I can easily measure the height because I know what its physical size is.

Unfortunately as is often the case with flat earthers though, after publishing a couple of posts declaring this sort of thing, they then fall strangely silent when those claims are subsequently challenged.  Danang is no different.

100
The Lounge / Re: Jamie Out
« Last post by Jura-Glenlivet II on July 30, 2021, 01:18:38 PM »

I am happy today.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]