The Geometry of Circumpolar Stars

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:43:55 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 08:42:40 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:17:13 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 06, 2015, 05:43:32 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 03:46:52 AM

I use logic. Your refusal to accept it is no one's fault but your own.

Nope. you don't use "logic".  You don't even understand what logic actually is.  You seem to think it entails proposing outlandish pseudo-scientific notions that contradict all the laws of science, and then insulting the intelligence of anybody who points out all the obvious errors in those notions.

Logic involves rules of inference and defined axioms.  You use neither.  End of story.

logic is logic. if logic defies your precious science, then your science is wrong unless you would rather say it depends on something other than logic.
i'm waiting for you to make one relevant point, or one thing that's more than assertion.

Logic = math and math doesn't go against science.

if you define science as truth, that is accurate. what you call science is not truth, if it can be defied by simple logic. please don't make me repeat myself again, i am very tired of doing so.

You didn't actually answer his post. He accurately said, Logic = Math.

Mathematics is literally just logic boiled down to its most simple form. It is humans attempt to remove words from the process of looking at things logically. Mathematics is literally Logic distilled.

Round Earth science is 100% backed up by math, ergo 100% backed up by logic.

Think for yourself. Use logic(math) and then come back when you have.

math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:48:46 AM

math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.

2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out.  I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you.  Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.

"...that the degrees of latitude must diminish towards the poles, ...

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 09:36:06 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:48:46 AM

math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.

2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out.  I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you.  Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.

think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.

logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 09:40:28 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 09:36:06 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:48:46 AM

math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.

2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out.  I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you.  Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.

think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.

logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.

Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it.  I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 09:40:28 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 09:36:06 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:48:46 AM

math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.

2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out.  I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you.  Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.

think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.

logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.

Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it.  I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 10:08:43 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 09:40:28 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 09:36:06 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 08:48:46 AM

math alone is abstract. it takes data and interpretation in order to apply it to the real world, and it is those that i have a problem with.
finding the equations takes more resources than i have. i do not ask you to demonstrate and deduce the equations for your fantasy (even though you can appeal to others whose word you take blindly), i ask for the same courtesy.

2+2=4, that is so abstract, I wonder how many experiments had to be done to figure that out.  I know that you say you don't have the resources, and if that's the case then stop advertising your views as fact until math supports you.  Until then you are just wasting the time of yourself and everyone around you.

think before you speak. of course it's abstract, what could you possibly apply that to? add a raindrop to a raindrop, you still only have one raindrop, because they combine. that is only relevant for discrete entities, which you can only verify with experimentation, or observation, and if you seriously think the kind of math you require is as simple as 2+2 you are lying, plain and simple.
think. please.

logic supports me. you're insistent on math, which is only part of logic, and you've decided to reject logic. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
think. please, just think, you are asking the unnecessary, the absurd, and the meaningless.

Anything you can do with logic you can do with math, adding 2 raindrops together does give you 1 rain drop but that raindrop is twice as big as the raindrops that made it.  I think that all of the other round Earthers and even a few flat earthers will agree with me on this.

i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.

i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:03:53 PM

i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.

Computers can simulate causality and they do nothing but math.

Also, negative numbers do exist in the real world.  If you have 2 apples and you take one away then you just added -1 apples and if you travel 5 feet forward then you go one foot backwards then you went a total of 4 feet because you moved one foot in the negative direction so it was a negative foot.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 08:25:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 06, 2015, 01:03:53 PM

i refer you to the bold. math is a written form of logic, but it relies on something to apply it to the real world. mathematically there are negative numbers, but find me one in reality, for example.
logic does not need mathematically. see, again, the bold.

Computers can simulate causality and they do nothing but math.

Also, negative numbers do exist in the real world.  If you have 2 apples and you take one away then you just added -1 apples and if you travel 5 feet forward then you go one foot backwards then you went a total of 4 feet because you moved one foot in the negative direction so it was a negative foot.

Don't forget negatively charged atoms.

Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math.  Logic can be philosophical as well.  It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.

Quote from: jroa on March 06, 2015, 10:03:27 PM

Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math.  Logic can be philosophical as well.  It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.

The difference between a square and a rectangle is how many dimensions it occupies and that is totally a mathematical thing.  Logic is math and math is logic.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 06, 2015, 10:06:35 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 06, 2015, 10:03:27 PM

Math is logic, but logic is not necessarily math.  Logic can be philosophical as well.  It is like the difference between a square and a rectangle.

The difference between a square and a rectangle is how many dimensions it occupies and that is totally a mathematical thing.  Logic is math and math is logic.

Huh? They're both two dimensional.

people. i repeat myself again:
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?

as for your examples, you are confusing units with negativity when it comes to atoms. subtract one able from two, you are moving one apple, you are not adding minus one apple. show me a photo of -1 apple. you might as well say walking backwards is negative velocity. this is a way of thinking about things, but it's semantics.

math is one way logic can be applied, but there is a difference between pure math and applied math. everyone knows this. you've even seen it yourself. adding one raindrop to one raindrop gives one raindrop: but twice the mass. but add one apple to one apple, you'll get two apples but they won't both have the same mass, so 1+1=stupid decimal. you need logic separate from math, base don observation, to see the difference.

math is all well and good, but you need something to apply it accurately before it describes anything. or are you saying any math description must automatically be true? in this case, the pull of 'gravity' is 2006739070942m/s/s. that's bs. why? nothing to do with mass, it's to do with observation.

think. please.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 01:53:18 AM

people. i repeat myself again:
the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?

as for your examples, you are confusing units with negativity when it comes to atoms. subtract one able from two, you are moving one apple, you are not adding minus one apple. show me a photo of -1 apple. you might as well say walking backwards is negative velocity. this is a way of thinking about things, but it's semantics.

math is one way logic can be applied, but there is a difference between pure math and applied math. everyone knows this. you've even seen it yourself. adding one raindrop to one raindrop gives one raindrop: but twice the mass. but add one apple to one apple, you'll get two apples but they won't both have the same mass, so 1+1=stupid decimal. you need logic separate from math, base don observation, to see the difference.

math is all well and good, but you need something to apply it accurately before it describes anything. or are you saying any math description must automatically be true? in this case, the pull of 'gravity' is 2006739070942m/s/s. that's bs. why? nothing to do with mass, it's to do with observation.

think. please.

Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works.  If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math.  Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind.  If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math.  It may not be provable, but it can be described.

Describing something with math does not prove it, and the reason I am only asking you to mathematically describe the aether is so it can be tested by making a prediction and seeing if it comes true.

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.

i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.

Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works.  If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math.  Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind.  If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math.  It may not be provable, but it can be described.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 11:20:12 AM

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.

i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 07, 2015, 10:26:00 AM

Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works.  If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math.  Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind.  If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math.  It may not be provable, but it can be described.

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 07, 2015, 11:24:52 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 11:20:12 AM

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.

i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 07, 2015, 10:26:00 AM

Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works.  If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math.  Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind.  If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math.  It may not be provable, but it can be described.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 11:20:12 AM

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 11:44:29 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 07, 2015, 11:24:52 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 11:20:12 AM

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

math is not necessary to logically deduce something. stop moving the goalposts. i do not have the resources to come up with detailed math or equations. i have said this before. it is still easy to deduce from observation several facts.

i have offered possible experiments, but the resources they would take for explicit confirmation are extreme (measuring vertical refraction from a balloon would confirm the existence of whirlpools). this is why i prefer simple logic.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 07, 2015, 10:26:00 AM

Actually if you are working with apples and measuring mass it would not be 1+1= some stupid decimal because you are adding together the number of apples and expecting the output to be a mass, that's not how it works.  If you are dealing with mass then you have to add the mass of the two apples and you will get their combined mass, which is definitely math.  Nobody ever said that logic was a tangible thing, it doesn't physically exist in the real world but it is followed by everything in the universe, including your own mind.  If you can conceive of an idea, it can be described by math.  It may not be provable, but it can be described.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 07, 2015, 11:20:12 AM

the law of non-contradiction, for example, is that math? the law of causation, is that math?
how many times does something need to be said for you people to respond to it?

Yes.

Ahhh... huge bolded font.  That must mean the claim is undoubtedly true LOL.  Anything posted in a standard-sized font is obviously suspect.

Is this guy for real?   

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 08, 2015, 03:29:03 AM

Ahhh... huge bolded font.  That must mean the claim is undoubtedly true LOL.  Anything posted in a standard-sized font is obviously suspect.

Is this guy for real?   

In his defense that was a question, not a claim, although it was a question that I answered at least 2-3 times before.

tell me where. you repeatedly said 'all logic is mathematical' and i'm still waiting for how those laws could possibly be mathematical.
that is, unless you've just defined 'math' to be 'logic' and my logical deductions based on observation are therefore perfectly sound.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 08:44:13 AM

tell me where. you repeatedly said 'all logic is mathematical' and i'm still waiting for how those laws could possibly be mathematical.
that is, unless you've just defined 'math' to be 'logic' and my logical deductions based on observation are therefore perfectly sound.

Do you believe that the behavior of electricity is mathematicaly predictable?  If not then you have never experimented with electricity.  Your computer uses the properties of electricity to do calculations, and your computer can simulate non contradiction and causation.  In fact, it's possible (but really hard) to simulate such things on paper with a time variable.

look at that cop out.
if you want to use computer logic:

if {the earth is accelerating}
then {something must be causing acceleration}

alternatively just apply the law of causation. there you go, a mathematical explanation for aether. you reject the fact we live on a flat earth, there's logic for that too. i refer you to the faq once more.

please don't move the goalposts again.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 08, 2015, 10:07:14 AM

look at that cop out.
if you want to use computer logic:

if {the earth is accelerating}
then {something must be causing acceleration}

alternatively just apply the law of causation. there you go, a mathematical explanation for aether. you reject the fact we live on a flat earth, there's logic for that too. i refer you to the faq once more.

please don't move the goalposts again.

At least round earthers don't jump to conclusions like flat earthers and we admit that we don't know what is causing the universe to accelerate, but you hold to the aether as if it actually had even so much as a spread of evidence to support it.

if {earth == flat}
Sunsets = false
Southern constellations = impossible
Constant angular size of objects in the sky = makes no sense
else
You = wrong