Ultimate question to round-earthers

Quote from: "Raa"

if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 13 degrees on sept 21st and if the north pole is pointing at the north star at 28.5 degrees on march 21st [ taking into consideration that the north star is not moving] then where is the symmetry; physical or mathematical.

What are you talking about? The earth has a constant axial tilt of 23.5 degrees.

if the axial tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees on both sides of the sun then that means that the north star moved also...other wise the angle of the tilt should be a little less or a little more, NO MATTER HOW FAR THE NORTH STAR IS

Quote from: "Raa"

if the axial tilt of the earth is 23.5 degrees on both sides of the sun then that means that the north star moved also...other wise the angle of the tilt should be a little less or a little more, NO MATTER HOW FAR THE NORTH STAR IS

In principle, the North Star isn't exactly directly over the North Pole all the time.  Because it's very far away, it is directly over the North Pole to an extremely close degree of precision.

The angle of the Earth's axial tilt remains the same, and the North star remains in the same place.  The exact direction to the North Star changes, but not enough for the change to be detectable.

Raa, you're retarded.  The angle to Polaris changes, but only SLIGHTLY.  Polaris is insanely far away.  Also, your theory makes MUCH LESS SENSE than RE.  Still, RE perfectly explains Polaris.  It probably does change like 0.00000000000000001 degrees or something.  (Okay, maybe a bit more than that, but you get my point.)

you are contradicting yourself mathematically.

B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving

A-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and always pointing at polaris, then that means that polaris is also moving
--
B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving
--
can all you round earthers pick one of the above A or B and tell us which one y'all believe in
--
can't have round earthers with 2 different theories

Quote from: "Raa"

A-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and always pointing at polaris, then that means that polaris is also moving
--
B-if the earth is always at 23.5 degrees and not always pointing at polaris, then that means that the earth is moving but polaris is not moving
--
can all you round earthers pick one of the above A or B and tell us which one y'all believe in
--
can't have round earthers with 2 different theories

There are not two different theories. There is one theory, which people agree on. The thing is, people often state "facts" which are not exactly true, but very close to true, to a very good approximation. In fact, Erasmus is doing the same thing right now. Polaris is moving, as are all of the stars in the milky way galaxy, and the galaxy itself is moving away from all other galaxies. Also, the north pole is not always pointing in the same direction. There is a small wobble in the earth's spin, which causes the axis to move over time. Several thousand years from now, polaris will no longer be the north star, and another star will. Hence Erasmus comment of "this one, approximately."

The problem is that stating precisely what is going on in a given situation with meticulous detail requires, well, meticulous detail, most of which is irrelevent to the explanation of the phenomena in question. So when round-earthers state that the north pole always points at polaris, they aren't lying, and they aren't wrong, they're just not elaborating on all of the irrelevant details, and stating a "fact" which is not precisely true, but true to a very high order of precision.

DID SOMEBODY CUT HALF OF YOUR RIGHT EYE OUT?[/b]

ok, I will dig out Platos' Crtiaeus' definition of vision and then come back to this last post. we must consider the fundamental definition of 'parallax' !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Quote from: "Raa"

ok, I will dig out Platos' Crtiaeus' definition of vision and then come back to this last post. we must consider the fundamental definition of 'parallax' !!

We must confuse simple logic with philosophy?  Why?SIMPLE LOGIC COMES FROM PHILOSOPHY, NOT CAVEMEN. i don't confuse the 2. simple logic needs mathematics to relate with philosophy
Below is a good reference explaining stellar Parallax, and gives a calculation for the parallax of Proxima Centauri.  The star is 1% the distance of Polaris, and the measured angular difference is as .77233 seconds of arc (±.00242") since a second is 1/3600th of a degree, you would be hard pressed to disern the parallax for Proxima Centauri, let alone the much more distant Polaris. As I wrote before, there is already a 44 minute difference between Polar North and the position of Polaris, that would be about 2700 times the difference for Proxima Centauri, which as I wrote is 1% the distance as Polaris.I still haven't dug out Critaeous, but in the mean time, it is an obligation to through out any mirror which has parallax

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

SIMPLE LOGIC COMES FROM PHILOSOPHY, NOT CAVEMEN. i don't confuse the 2. simple logic needs mathematics to relate with philosophy[/b]

I still haven't dug out Critaeous, but in the mean time, it is an obligation to through out any mirror which has parallax

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

Maybe somene should post the mathematics behind it (if it isn't to much ), I that way he wont have to think.

Quote from: "Raa"

SIMPLE LOGIC COMES FROM PHILOSOPHY, NOT CAVEMEN. i don't confuse the 2. simple logic needs mathematics to relate with philosophy[/b]

You are confused, Philosophy does not need to be logical, nor does logic have to be able to be expressed in Mathematics.a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher  Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't yet defy logic.  emotions are the lack of logic

Quote from: "Raa"

I still haven't dug out Critaeous, but in the mean time, it is an obligation to through out any mirror which has parallax

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

I have no understanding of what you are attempting to say.  Are you trying to address something about the parallax of an image in a glass mirror?

Quote from: "Jake"

Maybe somene should post the mathematics behind it (if it isn't to much ), I that way he wont have to think.

We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking,its an additive to simple logic because you still have to think to understand what is written,no you don't and why it is true not really (sometimes quite a lot).I don't

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking,its an additive to simple logic because you still have to think to understand what is written,no you don't and why it is true not really (sometimes quite a lot).I don't

a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher

 Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't
yet defy logic.  emotions are the lack of logic

Philosophy is a field of study in which people question, and create theories about, the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields, such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as the existence or absence of a divine being, the nature of being and the universe, the pursuit of truth, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of actions.

Quote from: "Raa"

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

We did. Posting the mathematics isn't a substitute to thinking,its an additive to simple logic because you still have to think to understand what is written,no you don't and why it is true not really (sometimes quite a lot).I don't

Oh really? So I assume that if I give you a reference to Sylow's Theorem and proof,proof has to be PRACTICAL you'll be perfectly comfortable with it, the reasons convincing factors that it is true, and can use it to prove that "if"? G is a finite simple group with order at most 200, then G is isomorphic to the alternating group on 5 letters, the projective special linear group of dimension 2 over the field with 7 elements, or a cyclic group of prime order?

I'm not saying simple equations need to be verified and checked and studied to be understood. I am saying that mathematics can be very complicated,I know and simply understanding something written in the language of mathematics can take effort.that's for the mathematician to do , and if he can do it, then he can talk to a philosopher, other wise he will have to learn philosophy.the students of Socrates were students of philosophy, not mathematics, and they were able to converse about the actual reality of reality. mathematics is only a PRESENTATION of ideas, and therefore you cannot have a CONVERSATION with a mathematician, only a talk, or discussion, debate, or argument.

Quote from: "Raa"

a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher

 Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't
yet defy logic.  emotions are the lack of logic

Let's start with Wiki:

Quote

Philosophy is a field of study in which people question, and create theories about, the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields, such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as the existence or absence of a divine being, the nature of being and the universe, the pursuit of truth, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of actions.

So by definition, logic falls within the realm of Philosophy, but other subfields, outside pure logic also do.  There is little logical about aesthetics, what is aesthetically pleasing to one, does not always appeal to all.  Nor do ethics and law always follow a logical route.  They often shift, and just as often disagree with each other.  If all philosophy were based on logic, then law and ethics would be one.

Emotions may be the lack of logic, but are tied to ethics and aesthetics, and therefore a part of philosophy.

In fact, while logic itself is philosophical, those devotions that rely on logic, such as mathematics, lay outside of philosophy.  They deal in quantifiable, material matters whereas philosophy by definition does not.

Quote from: "Curious"

Quote from: "Raa"

a simple logician needs mathematics to talk to a philosopher

 Emotions can be dealt with in a philosophical way,no they can't
yet defy logic.  emotions are the lack of logic

Let's start with Wiki:

Quote

Philosophy is a field of study in which people question, and create theories about, the nature of reality. It includes diverse subfields, such as aesthetics, epistemology, ontology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, and law. Philosophers concern themselves with such fundamental and mysterious topics as the existence or absence of a divine being, the nature of being and the universe, the pursuit of truth, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of actions.

So by definition, logic falls within the realm of Philosophy, but other subfields, outside pure logic also do.  There is little logical about aesthetics, what is aesthetically pleasing to one, does not always appeal to all.  Nor do ethics and law always follow a logical route.  They often shift, and just as often disagree with each other.  If all philosophy were based on logic, then law and ethics would be one.

Emotions may be the lack of logic, but are tied to ethics and aesthetics, and therefore a part of philosophy.

In fact, while logic itself is philosophical, those devotions that rely on logic, such as mathematics, lay outside of philosophy.  They deal in quantifiable, material matters whereas philosophy by definition does not.

Quote

philosophers don't divide philosophy into subfields.

I don't think that answer would have gotten far with my philosphy professor.

Quote

why do you think Socrates used [or refered to] the word "chicken" in his last breath???

Everybody knows Socrates last words, they were "I Drank What!??".

Actually, according to Plato, Socrates was paying off his debt with a chicken:

The alleged last words of Socrates as he died from hemlock poisoning, as recounted by Plato, were "Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?", signififying that death was a cure for the illness of life.