RET and mathematics

The amount of arrogance here is simply astounding! 

You've taken some university level calculus and feel justified in calling the works of some of the greatest mathematicians to ever live a "parlor trick"?  Yes, there are unsolved problems.  However, these are being worked on and does not damage the credibility or consistency of established mathematics.

Consider this: I have DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE that advanced calculus works, because as a civil engineering student we use vast amounts of calculus to solve complex problems and to build ACTUAL, WORKING THINGS.  Go observe a bridge, or a highway, or a power plant, or a wastewater plant, or your car, or the gas inside it.  All of these problems have been solved with the current models of mathematics.  We use math to make predictions about the things we build and, lo and behold, the predictions come true. 

There are veritable mountains of evidence for the credibility of our mathematics.  Even DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE you seem to love so much.  If you like, you could even throw a ball in the air and solve for its velocity and maximum height using algebraic or calculus based models.  Your answers will be the same and will match your observations provided you perform the experiment correctly.  In fact, you'll find that many of the algebraic formulas used in physics were actually derived from calculus based models. 

I totally agree. The only reason Gotham has to talk about Mathematics is that the number of unsolved problems in every field of human knowledge is enormous, so in that respect the "FE theories" are just as full of unsolved problems as everything else.

This argument appears every now and then in a slightly different wording: "nobody knows the truth, so FE is just as lost as any other 'theory'", "if you cannot explain the movement of the galaxies then it is acceptable that FE cannot predict where Mars will be tonight", "if you cannot explain the mechanism of gravity you are totally lost, so I am a genius".

But quite on the contrary, any discipline with lots of solved problems is invigorated by a large list of unsolved problems. No problems to solve means a discipline not worth researching.

Quote from: nerooren on December 14, 2010, 07:20:13 AM

The amount of arrogance here is simply astounding! 

You've taken some university level calculus and feel justified in calling the works of some of the greatest mathematicians to ever live a "parlor trick"?  Yes, there are unsolved problems.  However, these are being worked on and does not damage the credibility or consistency of established mathematics.

Consider this: I have DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE that advanced calculus works, because as a civil engineering student we use vast amounts of calculus to solve complex problems and to build ACTUAL, WORKING THINGS.  Go observe a bridge, or a highway, or a power plant, or a wastewater plant, or your car, or the gas inside it.  All of these problems have been solved with the current models of mathematics.  We use math to make predictions about the things we build and, lo and behold, the predictions come true. 

There are veritable mountains of evidence for the credibility of our mathematics.  Even DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE you seem to love so much.  If you like, you could even throw a ball in the air and solve for its velocity and maximum height using algebraic or calculus based models.  Your answers will be the same and will match your observations provided you perform the experiment correctly.  In fact, you'll find that many of the algebraic formulas used in physics were actually derived from calculus based models. 

I totally agree. The only reason Gotham has to talk about Mathematics is that the number of unsolved problems in every field of human knowledge is enormous, so in that respect the "FE theories" are just as full of unsolved problems as everything else.

This argument appears every now and then in a slightly different wording: "nobody knows the truth, so FE is just as lost as any other 'theory'", "if you cannot explain the movement of the galaxies then it is acceptable that FE cannot predict where Mars will be tonight", "if you cannot explain the mechanism of gravity you are totally lost, so I am a genius".

But quite on the contrary, any discipline with lots of solved problems is invigorated by a large list of unsolved problems. No problems to solve means a discipline not worth researching.

Nerooren, that still won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology.  When you get time from your studies you will be well served by spending time on the site searching for data.  Take extra care to look for helpful links along the way. It does sound like you have a good base for understanding higher level concepts.   Yes magicians can do parlor tricks and mathematicians can do parlor tricks.  Some of the brightest people have never stepped into a college classroom, BTW. 

Quote from: trig on December 14, 2010, 08:20:59 AM

Quote from: nerooren on December 14, 2010, 07:20:13 AM

The amount of arrogance here is simply astounding! 

You've taken some university level calculus and feel justified in calling the works of some of the greatest mathematicians to ever live a "parlor trick"?  Yes, there are unsolved problems.  However, these are being worked on and does not damage the credibility or consistency of established mathematics.

Consider this: I have DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE that advanced calculus works, because as a civil engineering student we use vast amounts of calculus to solve complex problems and to build ACTUAL, WORKING THINGS.  Go observe a bridge, or a highway, or a power plant, or a wastewater plant, or your car, or the gas inside it.  All of these problems have been solved with the current models of mathematics.  We use math to make predictions about the things we build and, lo and behold, the predictions come true. 

There are veritable mountains of evidence for the credibility of our mathematics.  Even DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE you seem to love so much.  If you like, you could even throw a ball in the air and solve for its velocity and maximum height using algebraic or calculus based models.  Your answers will be the same and will match your observations provided you perform the experiment correctly.  In fact, you'll find that many of the algebraic formulas used in physics were actually derived from calculus based models. 

I totally agree. The only reason Gotham has to talk about Mathematics is that the number of unsolved problems in every field of human knowledge is enormous, so in that respect the "FE theories" are just as full of unsolved problems as everything else.

This argument appears every now and then in a slightly different wording: "nobody knows the truth, so FE is just as lost as any other 'theory'", "if you cannot explain the movement of the galaxies then it is acceptable that FE cannot predict where Mars will be tonight", "if you cannot explain the mechanism of gravity you are totally lost, so I am a genius".

But quite on the contrary, any discipline with lots of solved problems is invigorated by a large list of unsolved problems. No problems to solve means a discipline not worth researching.

Nerooren, that still won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology.  When you get time from your studies you will be well served by spending time on the site searching for data.  Take extra care to look for helpful links along the way. It does sound like you have a good base for understanding higher level concepts.   Yes magicians can do parlor tricks and mathematicians can do parlor tricks.  Some of the brightest people have never stepped into a college classroom, BTW. 

Reference this thread for my issues on Zetetic methodology:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44630.80

Fourth post down.  Its just my opinion, but will help you follow my thinking.  In the meantime, Im happily reading away.  I love to learn and I love opposing viewpoints. 

Some of the brightest people dropped out of high school!  But when dealing with advanced sciences, I feel like time spent at an institution of higher learning indicates that you are properly educated on contemporary theories, wether you agree with them or not.  Its therefore highly relevant to a discussion such as this. 

Quote from: gotham on December 14, 2010, 09:08:23 AM

Quote from: trig on December 14, 2010, 08:20:59 AM

Quote from: nerooren on December 14, 2010, 07:20:13 AM

The amount of arrogance here is simply astounding! 

You've taken some university level calculus and feel justified in calling the works of some of the greatest mathematicians to ever live a "parlor trick"?  Yes, there are unsolved problems.  However, these are being worked on and does not damage the credibility or consistency of established mathematics.

Consider this: I have DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE that advanced calculus works, because as a civil engineering student we use vast amounts of calculus to solve complex problems and to build ACTUAL, WORKING THINGS.  Go observe a bridge, or a highway, or a power plant, or a wastewater plant, or your car, or the gas inside it.  All of these problems have been solved with the current models of mathematics.  We use math to make predictions about the things we build and, lo and behold, the predictions come true. 

There are veritable mountains of evidence for the credibility of our mathematics.  Even DIRECT SENSORY EVIDENCE you seem to love so much.  If you like, you could even throw a ball in the air and solve for its velocity and maximum height using algebraic or calculus based models.  Your answers will be the same and will match your observations provided you perform the experiment correctly.  In fact, you'll find that many of the algebraic formulas used in physics were actually derived from calculus based models. 

I totally agree. The only reason Gotham has to talk about Mathematics is that the number of unsolved problems in every field of human knowledge is enormous, so in that respect the "FE theories" are just as full of unsolved problems as everything else.

This argument appears every now and then in a slightly different wording: "nobody knows the truth, so FE is just as lost as any other 'theory'", "if you cannot explain the movement of the galaxies then it is acceptable that FE cannot predict where Mars will be tonight", "if you cannot explain the mechanism of gravity you are totally lost, so I am a genius".

But quite on the contrary, any discipline with lots of solved problems is invigorated by a large list of unsolved problems. No problems to solve means a discipline not worth researching.

Nerooren, that still won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology.  When you get time from your studies you will be well served by spending time on the site searching for data.  Take extra care to look for helpful links along the way. It does sound like you have a good base for understanding higher level concepts.   Yes magicians can do parlor tricks and mathematicians can do parlor tricks.  Some of the brightest people have never stepped into a college classroom, BTW. 

Reference this thread for my issues on Zetetic methodology:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44630.80

Fourth post down.  Its just my opinion, but will help you follow my thinking.  In the meantime, Im happily reading away.  I love to learn and I love opposing viewpoints. 

Some of the brightest people dropped out of high school!  But when dealing with advanced sciences, I feel like time spent at an institution of higher learning indicates that you are properly educated on contemporary theories, wether you agree with them or not.  Its therefore highly relevant to a discussion such as this. 

Super.  I see from your link that you are already going through the site!  I had read this one first.  Welcome!

won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology. 

You don't get to solutions with Zetetic methodology, you only form a hypothesis. 

Zetetic:

"The Earth looks flat.  Therefore, it's flat."

That's only the first step in the Scientific Method.

Quote from: gotham on December 14, 2010, 09:08:23 AM

won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology. 

You don't get to solutions with Zetetic methodology, you only form a hypothesis. 

Zetetic:

"The Earth looks flat.  Therefore, it's flat."

That's only the first step in the Scientific Method.

I believe Rowbotham, for one, would disagree with that premise?

Quote from: Hessy on December 14, 2010, 09:26:30 AM

Quote from: gotham on December 14, 2010, 09:08:23 AM

won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology. 

You don't get to solutions with Zetetic methodology, you only form a hypothesis. 

Zetetic:

"The Earth looks flat.  Therefore, it's flat."

That's only the first step in the Scientific Method.

I believe Rowbotham, for one, would disagree with that premise?

Your point being...?

Quote from: gotham on December 14, 2010, 09:08:23 AM

won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology. 

You don't get to solutions with Zetetic methodology, you only form a hypothesis. 

Zetetic:

"The Earth looks flat.  Therefore, it's flat."

That's only the first step in the Scientific Method.

Technically the testing or experimentation stage is substituted by the senses of the observer.  That is, the theory is upheld by the evidence put forward by the direct sensory observations.  This methodology was employed for a very long time.  Think of the first cavemen: I hit Zugmar with a stick.  He died.  Sticks kill people.  These observations are often correct and can very well be valid.  However, in terms of the shape of the earth I feel like it is not applied correctly.  The zetetic argument of the shape of the earth stood for some time, but now that we have the technological means to test alternative theories we can finally reject this purist view of science. 

I'd like a FE'er to inform me wether my interpretation of the Zetetic method is incorrect or not. 

Quote from: Hessy on December 14, 2010, 09:26:30 AM

Quote from: gotham on December 14, 2010, 09:08:23 AM

won't help you get to the solutions you would with Zetetic methodology. 

You don't get to solutions with Zetetic methodology, you only form a hypothesis. 

Zetetic:

"The Earth looks flat.  Therefore, it's flat."

That's only the first step in the Scientific Method.

Technically the testing or experimentation stage is substituted by the senses of the observer.  That is, the theory is upheld by the evidence put forward by the direct sensory observations.  This methodology was employed for a very long time.  Think of the first cavemen: I hit Zugmar with a stick.  He died.  Sticks kill people.  These observations are often correct and can very well be valid.  However, in terms of the shape of the earth I feel like it is not applied correctly.  The zetetic argument of the shape of the earth stood for some time, but now that we have the technological means to test alternative theories we can finally reject this purist view of science. 

I'd like a FE'er to inform me wether my interpretation of the Zetetic method is incorrect or not. 

The senses of the observer don't (or shouldn't, rather) be substituted for testing/experimentation.  Rather, the senses are used to form a question and make a hypothesis... leaving Zeteticism as the first step of the Scientific Method.

Meaning Zeteticism is wholly and utterly incomplete.

I agree. The shape of th earth is a problem much too vast and complex to be solved by a simple sensory observation.

No one even knows if mathematics is consistent

No one even knows if mathematics is consistent

There are some unsolved problems, but these supposed inconsistencies (which may not even exist, they are being worked on) generally lie in the order of trillions of zeros.  The science is good enough, and I repeat, we use it to a great degree to build actual, working things.  Sounds consistent to me.

No one even knows if mathematics is consistent

And your senses are?

No one even knows if mathematics is consistent

Either stop posting vague, irrelevant, meaningless crap or elaborate/back up your statements.

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on December 15, 2010, 12:07:14 PM

No one even knows if mathematics is consistent

Either stop posting vague, irrelevant, meaningless crap or elaborate/back up your statements.

I was going to post something extremely sarcastic to the tune of what FE'ers already use to back up statements but I think my bitterness is just from me dropping my meds again.

Berny
Bitter