Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

I agree with JackBlack.

Any inverse squared law can be reformulated in a way similar to Gauss' Flux Theorem or what is commonly known as Gauss' law. This leads to Gauss' law of magnetism and of gravity.

I believe the rest of his points stand pretty well too.

Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.

I guess I should been more specific and said practical math.  Simple math.  I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.  It doesn't have to be some drawn out esoteric, complicated, formula that few people can understand.  That's just an open invitation for someone to take you down a rabbit trail. It is the simple things like, how do you calculate the diameter of a flat earth?  How do you calculate the height of the dome?  What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?  If the answer is, "we just know". That is just a little thin on the evidence side and boarders on the side of an unsupported belief system. Which is just fine if you want to present it as a belief. 

And here I've derailed my own question!  Shame on me. I just think it would be a lot easier to present FET as a viable alternate theory with a little mathematical calculations to back it up. You can't relying on NASA lies and other conspiracy theories.  This could easily undermine your ability come to logical conclusions, based on facts, to come into question.   

And we now see why flat earthers don't often present mathematics to roundies:

I really never knew you for having a sense of humour!
Surely you jest when you put flat earthers and mathematics in the same sentence.
Are you not the one who claims that "The walls of tall buildings can be found to be parallel" is evidence against the Globe?

Show some of the mathematics that flat earthers have to present to roundies.

I suppose you could say that Samuel Birley Rowbotham used "mathematics" (if counting squares on graph paper counts) when he made some measurements then "calculated" that height of the sun.

Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe
CHAPTER V.THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.

The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute
miles.

Read all about it in ENaG Chapter 5 "THE   TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN".

Of course, he got a totally ridiculous answer of about 700 miles or 1127 km!

Then Thomas Winship assumes that globularist are telling the truth:

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator

. . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

See Zetetic Cosmogony, Thomas Winship

And used "trigonometry" to work out that tan(45°) = 1.00 and get quite a different height of the sun - big deal!

So, I ask again, "Please show some of the mathematics that flat earthers have to present to roundies."

Astronomy and mathematics kill any idea of a flat earth with sun, moon, planets and stars circling above stone dead!

how do you calculate the diameter of a flat earth?

Same way you measure any distance. The tricky part's in getting the resources.

How do you calculate the height of the dome?

I did that for fun with certain models, but you have to make certain assumptions. In models where meteorites fall from the dome, if you assume they will only be slowed by celestial gear systems and not accelerated, you can get a ballpark figure by applying the suvat equations to the fastest known meteors (the Leonids).
But not every FEer will accept that because, as said, it relies on making certain assumptions.

What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?

Most commonly is Eratosphenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun, rather than a round Earth and distance Sun.

If the answer is, "we just know". That is just a little thin on the evidence side and boarders on the side of an unsupported belief system. Which is just fine if you want to present it as a belief. 

Except it's rare they actually give the figures for this. REers ask for it, typically FEers pop by there's no feasible way to measure a lot of it, and ultimately that's all that really matters. If there's no way to give what you want them to give, regardless of which model you're in, there's no point in asking for it.

I agree with JackBlack.

Any inverse squared law can be reformulated in a way similar to Gauss' Flux Theorem or what is commonly known as Gauss' law. This leads to Gauss' law of magnetism and of gravity.

I believe the rest of his points stand pretty well too.

Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.

You know string  theory! ... I’m “flabbergasted as it’s  totally at odds with everything you believe in at the most fundemental basic level do you not get it. Have you ever read Feynman. Flat earth has no place in that world man, if you think so, then you really are on the wrong bus. It’s Applications to nuclear physics and condensed matter physics totally blow you out the water to name but two. And as for the implications for quantum gravity in relation to your shadow moon WTF!!

I guess I should been more specific and said practical math.  Simple math.  I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.

Basic data is not necessarily math.
For example, something being red, or something dying when in an airtight vessel is basic data.

What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?

Already told you that one.
Note that the sun appears directly overhead the equator at the equinox, while appearing at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees 5000 km north or south. That makes a right angle isosceles triangle and means the sun is 5000 km above the equator at the equinox.

I agree with JackBlack.

Any inverse squared law can be reformulated in a way similar to Gauss' Flux Theorem or what is commonly known as Gauss' law. This leads to Gauss' law of magnetism and of gravity.

I believe the rest of his points stand pretty well too.

Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.

The operations are only logical for finding the Ramanujan sum, not the actual sum. The sum of a series is defined as the limit of it's partial sums, you can prove that -1/12 is not the sum.
Assume for contradiction that the limit of the partial sums is -1/12. x_n is the partial sum of the first n positive numbers.
Let epsilon=1/24, then there exists an N such that for all n>N, abs(x_n+1/12)<1/24, so x_n<-1/24<0, but none of the partial sums are negative, contradiction. So the limit of the partial sums is not -1/12, aka the sum is not -1/12

Glad that's sorted. I do disagree though that the sum of all nat numbers = -1/12 isn't 'logical' as it follows from logical operations on the series. It also isn't completely irrelevant to 'math that attempts to describe reality' as that is its most recent origins - in string theory. Non-intuitive? Perhaps.

That all depends on what constitutes logical.
Yes, it follows from apparently logical operations but reaches an apparently contradictory result, at least when compared with other operations.
For example, the sum of any 2 positive numbers is a positive number, which means you should have a positive number at the end.

There are also other operations, for example, if you add 1 to every term and add 1 to the start, you have added an infinite amount of 1s, yet  still end up with the same series which would have the same sum; which requires 1+1+1+1+1=0.
You can then subtract this new series/sum from itself (but shifted once) to obtain 1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0.
That ends up with 1=0.
In fact, you can have it shift however much you want and be left with a finite sum of "1"s to be equal to 0.

it is a problem with dealing with infinities, like the old paradox of the hotel.

Quote from: suseuser on December 14, 2017, 02:23:51 PM

What formula is used to calculate the distance of the moon and sun?

Most commonly is Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun, rather than a round Earth and distance Sun.

And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out that
                       "Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.
The height of the sun, moon or Polaris over a flat earth using "Eratosthenes' method"
                        can give any answer from zero to about 6370 km depending on the spacing of the points.

Yet you, like all flat earthers continue to push the silly idea that these bodies can be around 5000 km above the earth.

On the other hand using "Eratosphenes' method" on the Globe fits perfectly with a distant sun and a circumference of about 40,000 km.

But, flat earthers, and you, seem totally incapable of comprehending such a simple concept.

The most trivial bit of astronomy and a bit of simple math shows that the flat earth model with celestial bodies circling above is totally impossible.
Why do you think the ancient Babylonians, Chinese and Greeks discarded such an idea thousands of years ago?
In some cases this was long before they discarded the idea of a flat earth.

Some ancient Chinese did postulate that there was an earthly plane and a celestial plane where the celestial bodies "circled".
But that idea was discarded in favour of celestial spheres because it could not explain sunrises and sunsets.
And, guess what, modern flat earthers still cannot explain sunrises and sunsets.

And you, Jane, continue to do you best to prop up a long dead horse.

And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out that
                       "Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.

Yes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned. When it gets used as an argument, feel free, when it's an offhand mention to a borderline tangent to explain how FEers do use mathematics to reach conclusions you do not need to bring it up constantly. It is not relevant here. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm just not going to drag them into a very vague mention just like I wouldn't bring up spectroscopy any time there's the slightest mention of the Sun.

I guess I should been more specific and said practical math.  Simple math.  I just am actually more interested in seeing basic data.

Thank you, I just gained a bucket or two full of respect for why you are banging about.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:05:43 PM

And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out that
                       "Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.

Yes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned. When it gets used as an argument, feel free, when it's an offhand mention to a borderline tangent to explain how FEers do use mathematics to reach conclusions you do not need to bring it up constantly. It is not relevant here. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm just not going to drag them into a very vague mention just like I wouldn't bring up spectroscopy any time there's the slightest mention of the Sun.

You are the best poster on this forum by far. Perhaps I should mention empiricism less, but I feel others are not quite as aware as you.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:05:43 PM

And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out that
                       "Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.

Yes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned.

And why not?
The "Eratosthenes' experiment might be used by flat earthers, just as the "shadow object" is proposed to explain lunar eclipses.
But both are easily disposed as useful explanations.

I fail to see how you have to keep dragging these things in as if they were possible explanations of occurrences on the flat earth.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 05:05:43 PM

And how many dozen more times does it have to be pointed out that
                       "Eratosthenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth and nearby Sun" does not give consistent answers.

Yes, that's a whole other topic and doesn't need to be brought up every single time Eratosphenes gets mentioned. When it gets used as an argument, feel free, when it's an offhand mention to a borderline tangent to explain how FEers do use mathematics to reach conclusions you do not need to bring it up constantly. It is not relevant here. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm just not going to drag them into a very vague mention just like I wouldn't bring up spectroscopy any time there's the slightest mention of the Sun.

The 2 are fundamentally different.
Not every discussion of the sun involves spectroscopy, but Eratosthenes is fundamentally about measuring the angle of elevation of the sun.
It can't be used to determine the height of the sun in an honest manner as it varies drastically depending on where you measure.

I fail to see how you have to keep dragging these things in as if they were possible explanations of occurrences on the flat earth.

Because you'd happily butt in and say everything on a FE is impossible and thus prevent any actual discussion and make this site unendingly tedious.
Right now, I don't care if it's possible. I wasn't talking about that. they asked for how a figure is arrived at, I gave the answer, that doesn't mean every FEer holds to the figures (as I also pointed out).

Quote from: rabinoz on December 14, 2017, 08:40:22 PM

I fail to see how you have to keep dragging these things in as if they were possible explanations of occurrences on the flat earth.

Because you'd happily butt in and say everything on a FE is impossible and thus prevent any actual discussion and make this site unendingly tedious.
Right now, I don't care if it's possible. I wasn't talking about that. they asked for how a figure is arrived at, I gave the answer, that doesn't mean every FEer holds to the figures (as I also pointed out).

And I can point out why their figure is incorrect.

To me, the fact that there are nearly as many FE theories as FEers makes it very likely that no FE theories are true.

And I can point out why their figure is incorrect.

Yes, and I bet you can point out why FET is incorrect to, you don't have to do so every damn time FET gets brought up. It's not smart, it's not clever, it's tedious.

To me, the fact that there are nearly as many FE theories as FEers makes it very likely that no FE theories are true.

Good for you. I don't really care. It doesn't convince anyone when you point that out, it's not interesting to point that out, all in all it's pretty pointless.

Because you'd happily butt in and say everything on a FE is impossible and thus prevent any actual discussion and make this site unendingly tedious.

It being possible or not is part of the discussion.
You are the one trying to prevent actual discussion.

they asked for how a figure is arrived at, I gave the answer, that doesn't mean every FEer holds to the figures (as I also pointed out).

And pointing out that by using the same method you can get completely different results is a valid part of the discussion.

It almost seems pointless to even start a topic when they almost always end on the same path. The topic starts off on the subject at hand for a little while. Then out comes something that takes the subject off in a direction that ends up being argued that has nothing to do with the original subject. It’s like herding cats!  Sooner or later something that has no basis in fact gets thrown in. The topic of an infinite flat plane pops up. Which starts out with the “assumption” we actually live on an infinite flat plane. And that’s a pretty huge assumption about something that by it’s very nature can not be measured. And has never been measured. And is not even universally accepted among FE. Like something stated earlier, “garbage in garbage out.” If you start out with a false premise. Anything becomes possible. And on it goes.  Sooner or later it’s guaranteed that someone is going call someone else an idiot. Then a little rant takes off. I wonder if a single subject has ever come to an actual conclusion? 

It almost seems pointless to even start a topic when they almost always end on the same path. The topic starts off on the subject at hand for a little while.

Then perhaps you should try a more specific topic rather than just asking for math.
After all, math for an infinite plane Earth is still math.

My specific question was, “why is mathematics so uncommon in FET.”  I never once saw the answer to the question, “why is mathematics so uncommon in FET?”  It is not “common”.  I never claimed its doesn’t exist.  It just seems that there is a huge chasm between FE and RE when it comes to math use.  That was the original question. Nothing more. Saying, “hey look I have an equation” doesn’t answer the original question. It is a valid observation that math in FET is not common. That’s not up for debate.  It is not common.

Edit:spelling.

Surely mathematics has to be avoided at all costs,   as it combined with measurement (also to be avoided!) easily  proves the earth to be approximately spherical.

That’s not up for debate.

Then why post in the debate section?

It’s a fact is it’s not common. The question and debate is “WHY” isn’t it common. It has nothing to do with the accurate observation that it is not common. The question seems pretty clear.

Tesla insinuated that formula ain't match reality but people kept using it.

Sure, accuracy is something extremely expensive. It needs extra stamina to reach it.

Something illogical looks logical because people ain't test it, or test it under wrong assumptions.
Sophism is also prevalent in science.
Presenting complicated explanations n formulas which are basically ...... (what should I call it?)

I couldn’t understand your post. There seems to be a language barrier here. Maybe someone can clarify the information that was presented.

1. So many formulas n theories don't meet reality.
2. The sentences "I know the truth" is not recommended coz reality is not that simple.
3. Complicated theories can be a deception tool for common people while its basic is still problematic.

Edited: 3. Complicated theories can be a "deception" tool for common people while its basic is still problematic.

Tesla insinuated that formula ain't match reality but people kept using it.

I have seen you assert this claim before, but I haven't seen any evidence for it.
What formula are you referring to?

Regardless, he would still be wrong. If it was wrong, it would be public knowledge by now and it would have been replaced.

Something illogical looks logical because people ain't test it, or test it under wrong assumptions.

You mean like you not testing your nonsense math or testing it under the wrong assumptions?

1. So many formulas n theories don't meet reality.

Yes, like the ones you provide.

1. By the very basis random theory of gravity, the building of modern physics stands... like a drunk man.
2.
3.
4.
.
.
.
10785307478. Globe map

1. By the very basis random theory of gravity, the building of modern physics stands... like a drunk man.

Except you are unable to show a single thing wrong with it.