Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?

  • 223 Replies
  • 11544 Views
*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #150 on: December 22, 2017, 10:01:19 AM »
Did you or did you not loose your full stop?
What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.

Itís about punctuation John, not sure you would understand.  Case of the missing full stop

See what I mean
You are most correct, I do not understand this gibberish. Please explain to me how I can loose punctuation.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #151 on: December 22, 2017, 12:09:23 PM »
Please don't spam the boards with your inane ramblings
That applies to you as well.

Now how about you try to address the issues with the math showing the common FE model is wrong?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #152 on: December 22, 2017, 02:35:31 PM »
There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #153 on: December 22, 2017, 02:49:38 PM »
There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.
There is plenty and I have provided plenty.

If you think it is wrong, explain why, don't just dismiss it.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #154 on: December 22, 2017, 04:32:09 PM »
Did you or did you not loose your full stop?
What are you trying to say here? This is complete nonsense.

Itís about punctuation John, not sure you would understand.  Case of the missing full stop

See what I mean

Please don't spam the boards with your inane ramblings
You are a funny little guy.  Very inconsequential, but funny just the same.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #155 on: December 22, 2017, 08:45:22 PM »
There is no math that shows the FE model is wrong, unless you are talking about the strawman FE you tried to knock down.
There is plenty and I have provided plenty.

If you think it is wrong, explain why, don't just dismiss it.
John won't explain, he doesn't actually believe in Flat Earth.  The proof is in how half assed his objections have gotten to at this point. 

*

41317

  • 244
  • You are so much greater than you think you are
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #156 on: December 23, 2017, 12:53:08 PM »
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.

Joe
Learn to see things as they truly are.
PM me if you ever need or want to talk.
The Sacred Steps

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #157 on: December 23, 2017, 01:09:44 PM »
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.

Joe
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.

*

41317

  • 244
  • You are so much greater than you think you are
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #158 on: December 23, 2017, 01:30:59 PM »
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why. There are countless articles written on math, and the math used to predict such things as eclipses, but no one on this forum has the skill to read or fully comprehend them. They don't give us any truth, they give us the semblance of it.
Truth cannot exist without understanding.

Joe
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.

Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?

Joe
Learn to see things as they truly are.
PM me if you ever need or want to talk.
The Sacred Steps

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #159 on: December 23, 2017, 01:58:50 PM »
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
And there you go making assumptions again.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.

*

41317

  • 244
  • You are so much greater than you think you are
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #160 on: December 23, 2017, 03:05:26 PM »
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
And there you go making assumptions again.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.

I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.

Joe
Learn to see things as they truly are.
PM me if you ever need or want to talk.
The Sacred Steps

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #161 on: December 23, 2017, 04:08:01 PM »
I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
No, it is a means of distinguishing a functional model with predictive power from a broken model which does not match reality.

Regardless, that is not the only math there is. There is much simpler math, which almost everyone could understand. It matches reality for a RE, but not for a FE.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #162 on: December 23, 2017, 04:13:42 PM »
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
And there you go making assumptions again.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.

I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.

Joe

That's rather bold.  Assuming the majority of people are just as incompetent at math as FE people are.

*

41317

  • 244
  • You are so much greater than you think you are
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #163 on: December 23, 2017, 05:26:40 PM »
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
And there you go making assumptions again.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.

I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.

Joe

That's rather bold.  Assuming the majority of people are just as incompetent at math as FE people are.

It isn't incompetence, very few people in the world could look at the math and get a proper understanding of what happens. Math isn't meant to be an explanation. Even if perception could be brought down to the level of mere numbers, what would you gain from reading the sums that words couldn't give you?

Joe
Learn to see things as they truly are.
PM me if you ever need or want to talk.
The Sacred Steps

*

41317

  • 244
  • You are so much greater than you think you are
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #164 on: December 23, 2017, 05:27:58 PM »
I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.
No, it is a means of distinguishing a functional model with predictive power from a broken model which does not match reality.

Regardless, that is not the only math there is. There is much simpler math, which almost everyone could understand. It matches reality for a RE, but not for a FE.
How could you determine which works and which fails without a full understanding?
The math necessary to model reality is never simple.

Joe
Learn to see things as they truly are.
PM me if you ever need or want to talk.
The Sacred Steps

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #165 on: December 23, 2017, 05:44:16 PM »
It isn't incompetence, very few people in the world could look at the math and get a proper understanding of what happens. Math isn't meant to be an explanation. Even if perception could be brought down to the level of mere numbers, what would you gain from reading the sums that words couldn't give you?
A quantitative understanding, a tool which you can use to measure the validity of a model, by making explicit numerical predictions and comparing them to reality.

How could you determine which works and which fails without a full understanding?
Not everyone would be able to understand it, but some could. Just because some people can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't real.

Also remember that math is not only numbers, it is also other concepts like geometry.

The math necessary to model reality is never simple.
That depends vastly on what level of accuracy you are going for.

One is measuring the circumference of Earth based upon a distant sun and round Earth vs measuring the height of the sun based upon a near sun and flat Earth.
Both will be limited by the accuracy of measurements and slight issues with refraction, however there is very simple math which can be used.

For a round Earth you use the different in angle to determine how far around Earth you are, and the distance between the 2 points to determine the total circumference.
For a FE you use 1 or 2 right angle triangles and simple trig to determine the height.

This is simple math that almost anyone can understand.
Guess which one matches reality when you have multiple measurement points?
The RE math. It returns a consistent answer.
The FE math fails spectacularly.

Then there are other times where the math to understand reality is complex, but the math to understand a FE is quite simple, such as the bearing to the sun.
Again, FE fails to match reality, while RE matches quite well.

Some more simple math is regarding eclipses, not their timing but their apparence.
In order to have an annular eclipse (which happens in reality), the moon needs to be smaller than the sun.
In order to have a total eclipse which is larger than the moon, the moon needs to be larger than the sun.
In the FE model, the moon and sun are both tiny. roughly 30 miles across if I recall correctly. Yet there are total solar eclipses which are much larger.
Again, this shows the FE model to be false.

This provides a measure between the 2 models which shows RE models match reality while FE models do not. This allows us to rationally conclude that Earth is almost certainly round, and that these FE models are false, i.e. they are not accurate representations of reality.

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #166 on: December 23, 2017, 05:46:03 PM »
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!

There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #167 on: December 23, 2017, 06:48:51 PM »
You being unable to comprehend the math doesn't make it any less of a truth.
It can also be said the other way, you cannot truly understand something unless you understand the math involved in predicting it.
Why do you want something you could not understand? What is the benefit in that?
And there you go making assumptions again.
Who said I can't understand?
I said you not being able to understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Some people have the ability to learn so they can understand it.

I was speaking generally. Why would you ask for something the majority of people, and likely all users of this site, could not understand?
It is a means of feeling superior, not of gaining comprehension.

Joe

That's rather bold.  Assuming the majority of people are just as incompetent at math as FE people are.

It isn't incompetence, very few people in the world could look at the math and get a proper understanding of what happens. Math isn't meant to be an explanation. Even if perception could be brought down to the level of mere numbers, what would you gain from reading the sums that words couldn't give you?

Joe
Perhaps I underestimate my own ability, and all four of my children's ability, and pretty much everyone else's ability in my immediate circle.  Perhaps I am looking at the rest of humanity through rose tinted glasses and I assume they are smarter than that.  Which is rather sad, considering I think most people are dumbasses.
 

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #168 on: December 26, 2017, 07:29:34 AM »
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!

There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.

Read the FAQ

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #169 on: December 26, 2017, 12:12:12 PM »
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!

There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.

Read the FAQ
We have, now how about you address the issue?
The issue is how uncommon math is in FE models, and how math used from these models with the results compared to reality shows the models to be incorrect.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #170 on: December 26, 2017, 12:17:28 PM »
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!

There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.

Read the FAQ
We have, now how about you address the issue?
The issue is how uncommon math is in FE models, and how math used from these models with the results compared to reality shows the models to be incorrect.

Care to give an example of your claim?

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #171 on: December 26, 2017, 12:27:10 PM »
Care to give an example of your claim?
I have already provided them in this thread. At least one of which you have already responded to, with you being completely unable to show a problem.

Here one is again:
Here is an example of math for a FE, using the common FE map: Note: 0 degrees is an example, due to rotational symmetry the same is true for any longitude.
On the equinox, at roughly 6 am (solar time) for people at 0 degrees, east/west, the sun is directly overhead the equator at 90 degrees east.
This would mean the apparent direction to the sun (ignoring elevation) would be NE (i.e. a bearing of 45 degrees) for a person on the equator at 0 degrees east/west.
As you move further north, it would drift towards the east, only reaching ~due east just before the north pole.
As you move further south, the sun would drift further north.
For a given distance d away from the north pole (along 0 degrees east) the sun would appear at a bearing given by:
tan(a)=10000 km/d

So at the southern tip of Chile, some 16 000 km away from the north pole, it should be tan(a)=10/16, and thus a=32 degrees. So it should be north of north east.

Instead, the sun appears roughly due east.

We can also do this the other way to determine how far away the sun is from the north pole (x). Assuming a 1 degree error (to be nice, and meaning we get an underestimate) the sun is off at a bearing of 89 degrees.
Thus, tan(89 deg)=x/16000
Thus x~=915 000 km.
This puts it well outside the range of a FE.

This simple math shows the common FE model to be impossible.
Now are you going to offer anything constructive or just more crap.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #172 on: December 26, 2017, 12:38:24 PM »
Oh yeah, you were talking about sea people inventing boats. I remember now.

Your first error is assuming rotational symmetry. Try again.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #173 on: December 26, 2017, 12:52:41 PM »
Oh yeah, you were talking about sea people inventing boats. I remember now.

Your first error is assuming rotational symmetry. Try again.
No, I was talking about the direction to the sun on the equinox.
As you know this destroys the FE model, you attempt to pathetically deflect to whatever else you can to avoid admitting it destroys your pathetic FE model.

Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?
The sun allegedly follows a circular path centred on the North Pole, with that circular path having the radius change depending on time of year.

As this is a circular path, it has rotational symmetry.

Try again.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #174 on: December 26, 2017, 01:01:50 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #175 on: December 26, 2017, 03:25:41 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.

Where is your evidence that it's anything like a disc or an ellipse, rather than (for example) square or pentagonal?
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #176 on: December 26, 2017, 04:41:13 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
You are really ignorant of the writings in your Sacred Texts! Read, learn and inwardly digest this:
Quote from: Dr Samuel Birley Rowbotham
CHAPTER XI.
CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.

A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon.
So Mr Narcberry, if you claim that your flat "disc . . (has) . . rotation" you are a heretic and a traitor to your cause!

So where is there some evidence or measurement of the ellipticity of the flat earth that shows when it rotates?

Or is it to be found in:
All the important fairy tales on the Flatish Earth Hypothethes
« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 09:21:12 PM by rabinoz »

*

rabinoz

  • 26396
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #177 on: December 26, 2017, 06:25:58 PM »
Mathmatics is so Uncommon in the Heliocentric Theory that it is completely non-existent!

There is considerable Mathematics involved in a detailed description, but little is needed for a qualitative explanation.
Read the FAQ
Why?
I can get all the fiction I need about FET from:
Everything that's ridiculous about FET

PS Is there ANY Mathmatics in FET? - I insist that there is none at all, so there put that in you pipe and smoke it!

Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #178 on: December 26, 2017, 07:43:04 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
Go and read what I said and respond to that, rather than just repeatedly ignoring/avoiding the issue.

The simple fact is that on the equinox, the sun is observed to rise from roughly due east and set roughly due west, while being above some point on the equator. This would be impossible on a flat Earth.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Why Mathmatics so Uncommon in FE Theory?
« Reply #179 on: December 26, 2017, 07:56:08 PM »
Why is it an error to assume rotational symmetry?

The earth is not a perfect disc, there is an elliptical nature to it's rotation.
Go and read what I said and respond to that, rather than just repeatedly ignoring/avoiding the issue.

The simple fact is that on the equinox, the sun is observed to rise from roughly due east and set roughly due west, while being above some point on the equator. This would be impossible on a flat Earth.

Here's another one that would be impossible on a flat earth:

Nullius in Verba