The single, biggest problem with FE-theory: There is no FE-theory.

Everything in physics is connected. You can go from one phenomenon to the next and the laws of nature guiding them overlap.

Spherical-Earth theory concects to so many phenomena:
* Coriolis-effect
* What is visible when and where in the sky.
* What is visible when and where on Earth's surface.
* What are distances and angles on Earth's surface.
* Weather, climate, oceanic streams.
* Geology, tectonics, earthquakes.
* How much energy does Earth get from the Sun and how much does it radiate back into the void of space? What are size, distance and temperature of the Sun? Why does the electromagnetic spectrum of the Sun look the way it looks, pointing to hydrogen-fusion?
* Tides. Solar and Lunar eclipses.
And so much more.

The explanations of all of these phenomena have in common that Earth is spherical.




If we look at Flat-Earth-theory, there is no Flat-Earth-theory. There is one FE-explanation for this phenomenon and one FE-explanation for that phenomenon and one FE-explanation for that phenomenon ...

But there is no FE-theory that can be used for SEVERAL EXPLANATIONS at the same time. There is no overlap.

* We have one explanation for gravity. Universal Acceleration. But Universal Acceleration would lead to a whole host of physical phenomena that would we would then see, such as relativistic redshift. Or secondary cosmic radiation. Or stars shifting positions. Universal Acceleration doesn't address any of these topics, which means that we need a "True Universal Acceleration" model that can handle these as well.

* We have one explanation for how the Sun and the Moon move. But that model cannot explain all these measurements of size and distance and position and mass and temperature we have made for Sun and Moon. Which means, that we need some kind of "True Flat-Earth Celestial Theory" that can explain all these phenomena as well. And connects with the "True Universal Acceleration" model, of course.



So, so many ways in which Flat-Earth explanations only work in that one specific instance. How come there is no Flat-Earth theory that actually describes a Flat Earth?

According to Rowbotham's Zetetic method, theories are for haters and losers and creating a model only results in dependence on phantoms, deceits, and pretenses.

Just because you have a need for there to be theory to explain the observable world does not compel others who adhere to another philosophy to follow your methods and ideas.

According to Rowbotham's Zetetic method, theories are for haters and losers and creating a model only results in dependence on phantoms, deceits, and pretenses.

Just because you have a need for there to be theory to explain the observable world does not compel others who adhere to another philosophy to follow your methods and ideas.

I'm starting to think of Rowbotham as the FE Ron Hubbard, oh well.

We should at least be able to agree that FET is not a theory to begin with.

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

As the FET cannot make any predictions, it is therefore not a theory.

Quote

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

I can haz quote too

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on July 12, 2018, 06:22:12 AM

Quote

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

I can haz quote too

Quote

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers.

Where is the quote from? I feel like it is not taking into account that most theories are built from observations of reality.

In the scientific method, theories are primarily built with the purpose of trying to verify its predictions.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on July 12, 2018, 08:22:16 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on July 12, 2018, 06:22:12 AM

Quote

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

I can haz quote too

Quote

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers.

Where is the quote from? I feel like it is not taking into account that most theories are built from observations of reality.

In the scientific method, theories are primarily built with the purpose of trying to verify its predictions.

I'm surprised that you don't know how to find the source of a quote.

Rowbotham's "Zetetic Astronomy" is key to many FE arguments and philosophy. If you're going to discuss and debate on an FE site, familiarity with the work is advised.

Your assertion that most theories are built from observations of reality, and your touting of the scientific method are in direct contradiction to the thesis of Rowbotham's work that theories are phantoms and deceits, and that the zetetic method is superior to the scientific method.

Everything in physics is connected.

How is Black Energy connected to the Electroweak Force?

My single, biggest problem with FE Theory is.:
Of course !
That there is nothing in FE that even qualifies as a theory.
Aside from that my single, biggest problem with FE is the horizon.

I can haz quote too

Quote

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers.

What a shame your quote is quite flawed.

Scientific theories are based upon the former. They are produced by collecting evidence (or undeniable facts), and making conclusions from them, to then produce a model based upon that evidence and conclusions. They are then tested with experiments.

Meanwhile, the nonsense FEers come up with is closer to the latter, pathetic excuses to try and make things work with a FE. The FEers assume various causes and operations of which there is no evidence for (other than the results they are attempting to explain which work fine without their excuses with a RE), and it is only an attempt at providing an explanation, but it is quite often implausible. But that is not a theory. It is a hypothesis at best.

The final part of the quote also has some truth, with the speculative men inventing the idea of a flat Earth with nonsense to try and back it up, which the truth of a round Earth, dispelled. But we aren't happy with the deceit.

in direct contradiction to the thesis of Rowbotham's work

Which isn't surprising considering most of his work is pure bullshit, filled with so many lies it isn't funny.
No sane person would use him as a source for anything, except to demonstrate his dishonesty.

He is lying to everyone to try and pretend RE and science is a fraud and his nonsense is correct.

No sane person would use him as a source for anything, except to demonstrate his dishonesty.

Or to answer SphericalEarther's original question.

Or to point out that simply posting an unattributed quote, as SphericalEarther did, is no measure of its veracity.

Quote from: Pinky on July 12, 2018, 06:02:55 AM

Everything in physics is connected.

How is Black Energy connected to the Electroweak Force?

• What is "Black Energy"?
  
  
• And not only in Physics:

  Quote Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!" Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!" Ezekiel cried, "Dem dry bones!" "Oh, hear the word of the Lord." The foot bone connected to the leg bone, The leg bone connected to the knee bone, The knee bone connected to the thigh bone, The thigh bone connected to the back bone, The back bone connected to the neck bone, The neck bone connected to the head bone, Oh, hear the word of the Lord! Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk aroun', Dem bones, dem bones, gonna walk aroun' Dem bones, dem bones, gonna walk aroun' Oh, hear the word of the Lord. The head bone connected to the neck bone, The neck bone connected to the back bone, The back bone connected to the thigh bone, The thigh bone connected to the knee bone, The knee bone connected to the leg bone, The leg bone connected to the foot bone, Oh, hear the word of the Lord!

Some people succumb to temptation far too easily, don't I?

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 12, 2018, 12:56:53 PM

How is Black Energy connected to the Electroweak Force?

What is "Black Energy"?

Apparently something inextricably intertwined with everything else:

Everything in physics is connected.

Everything in physics is connected. You can go from one phenomenon to the next and the laws of nature guiding them overlap.

Spherical-Earth theory concects to so many phenomena:
* Coriolis-effect
* What is visible when and where in the sky.
* What is visible when and where on Earth's surface.
* What are distances and angles on Earth's surface.
* Weather, climate, oceanic streams.
* Geology, tectonics, earthquakes.
* How much energy does Earth get from the Sun and how much does it radiate back into the void of space? What are size, distance and temperature of the Sun? Why does the electromagnetic spectrum of the Sun look the way it looks, pointing to hydrogen-fusion?
* Tides. Solar and Lunar eclipses.
And so much more.

The explanations of all of these phenomena have in common that Earth is spherical.




If we look at Flat-Earth-theory, there is no Flat-Earth-theory. There is one FE-explanation for this phenomenon and one FE-explanation for that phenomenon and one FE-explanation for that phenomenon ...

But there is no FE-theory that can be used for SEVERAL EXPLANATIONS at the same time. There is no overlap.

* We have one explanation for gravity. Universal Acceleration. But Universal Acceleration would lead to a whole host of physical phenomena that would we would then see, such as relativistic redshift. Or secondary cosmic radiation. Or stars shifting positions. Universal Acceleration doesn't address any of these topics, which means that we need a "True Universal Acceleration" model that can handle these as well.

* We have one explanation for how the Sun and the Moon move. But that model cannot explain all these measurements of size and distance and position and mass and temperature we have made for Sun and Moon. Which means, that we need some kind of "True Flat-Earth Celestial Theory" that can explain all these phenomena as well. And connects with the "True Universal Acceleration" model, of course.



So, so many ways in which Flat-Earth explanations only work in that one specific instance. How come there is no Flat-Earth theory that actually describes a Flat Earth?

Physics is not connected. The loophole physics uses when things don't make sense is throwing words around like 'quantum'.

Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics '

The 'laws' of physics are always 'subject to change'.

tl;dr? Physics as you understand it, is nonsense

Physics is not connected. The loophole physics uses when things don't make sense is throwing words around like 'quantum'.

Really, Mr Shifter? Maybe quantum is thrown in where quantum mechanics is required?

Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics'.

Maybe your  'Eistenian physics' gives different answers.
Now you show some real practical examples of  'Newtonian' physics giving measurably different answers than if you used 'Einsteinian physics'.

The 'laws' of physics are always 'subject to change'.

Yes subject to updating as the physical world is better understood because unlike you, real scientists do not pretend to yet understand everything.

But even 'Newtonian Physics' is extremely accurate, even over most of the Solar System.
On earth for any calculations, other than those involved in particle physics and a few other esoteric areas the errors involved in using 'Newtonian Physics' is unmeasurably small.

Sure, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was found to be 5600 seconds of arc per century instead of the 5557 seconds of arc per century predicted by 'Newtonian Physics' - an error of 0.00012°/year. Can you measure that?

Who cares, other than astronomers and those sending spacecraft to Mercury?

Physics as you understand it, is nonsense.

Shifter, you talk nonsense as usual. Why don't you post it in Complete Nonsense, where it belongs?

Quote from: Shifter on July 12, 2018, 04:45:14 PM

Physics is not connected. The loophole physics uses when things don't make sense is throwing words around like 'quantum'.

Really, Mr Shifter? Maybe quantum is thrown in where quantum mechanics is required?

Quote from: Shifter

Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics'.

Maybe your  'Eistenian physics' gives different answers.
Now you show some real practical examples of  'Newtonian' physics giving measurably different answers than if you used 'Einsteinian physics'.

Quote from: Shifter

The 'laws' of physics are always 'subject to change'.

Yes subject to updating as the physical world is better understood because unlike you, real scientists do not pretend to yet understand everything.

But even 'Newtonian Physics' is extremely accurate, even over most of the Solar System.
On earth for any calculations, other than those involved in particle physics and a few other esoteric areas the errors involved in using 'Newtonian Physics' is unmeasurably small.

Sure, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was found to be 5600 seconds of arc per century instead of the 5557 seconds of arc per century predicted by 'Newtonian Physics' - an error of 0.00012°/year. Can you measure that?

Who cares, other than astronomers and those sending spacecraft to Mercury?

Quote from: Shifter

Physics as you understand it, is nonsense.

Shifter, you talk nonsense as usual. Why don't you post it in Complete Nonsense, where it belongs?

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14? That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics '

You mean you can use an approximation and get a different answer to a higher level of theory?

tl;dr? Physics as you understand it, is nonsense

No, it's just your understanding that is nonsense.

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14?

Who is this "we".
I never use that value.

That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved.

Not really.
It is only when pi is used in the calculation that the error grows.
If you just use more calculations without involving pi, the error is not compounded (except by other sources).

We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

Which would be entirely pointless if you can't already measure one to that level of accuracy.
If you get an error of 1 m in the circumference, then you will get an error in the diameter which is much larger than a plank length.

If you have a source of error which will far outweigh any others, why try using a value of pi that precise?

You are confusing not being lazy with being a complete moron and wasting time.

[I see JB has some of the same questions I do. Oh, well... the post was already written before I saw that, so here it is.]

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14?

Who is "we"?

That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved.

It's acceptable when it's a good enough approximation for the purpose at hand. 3.14 was often used in the days of slide-rule calculations since the typical slide 10" rule was good to about three digits of precision.

When you need a better approximation, or you need to control numerical precision issues, use a more precise approximation for pi. When you don't, any added precision is meaningless.

A circle is about 4 inches in diameter. What's its area?

Let's see... 4 inch diameter is 2 inch radius, and area is pi time radius squared, so it's

(2 in)² x 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 = 12.566370614359172953850573533118 in².

Um... no.

About 4 inches has one digit of precision. The diameter could be anywhere between 3.5 inches and 4.5 inches and still be right to a single digit of precision. A 3.5-inch diameter circle has an area 9.6211275016187417927918453612935 in². A 4.5-inch diameter circle has an area of 15.904312808798328269717132127852 using a value for pi with 32 digits of precision.

4 in² x 3.14 = 12.56 in², which is certainly precise enough considering the precision of the input data. In fact, if you round the value of pi to 3, you get an area for that circle of 12 in², and that's not any less accurate than 12.56,  It has the advantage of being very easy to calculate without the use of a calculator, slide rule, or

We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

That doesn't make sense, but we could know the circumference of a sphere to within a Planck length only if we knew its diameter to better than approximately 1/3.14 of a Planck length. Guess what... we don't.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

With digital calculators and computers it's fairly easy, but the precision of the result is still limited by the least-precise parameter in the calculation, so any extra digits of precision stated in the result is meaningless. So why bother?
 

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

Not necessarily sloppy at all. Anyone who assumes the data is perfect is deceiving himself. When multiplying a measurement good to three digits of precision by a parameter good to 60 digits of precision, the product has only three digits of precision (maybe four in some circumstances). So the extra work is wasted (and, worse, can give a false sense of precision that isn't real). Look at the example above: using the Windows calculator with its value for pi with 32-digits of precision to calculate the area of a 4" circle with 1 digit of precision gives an answer that could legitimately be between 9.6 and 16 (to two digits). 12 is a perfectly good answer to the stated precision. Anything beyond that has no meaning and should be avoided in serious work.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 12, 2018, 03:30:45 PM

No sane person would use him as a source for anything, except to demonstrate his dishonesty.

Or to answer SphericalEarther's original question.

Or to point out that simply posting an unattributed quote, as SphericalEarther did, is no measure of its veracity.

Your post didn't really say if you acknowledged or rejected the statement.

It is wikipedia, besides it seems from your quote that Rowbowtham didn't disagree what a theory is, he merely tries to say they are irrelevant.
Now, let me ask you... Do you agree with him or do you prefer the scientific methods?

Do you believe what is written in his book completely or just partially, simply because he thinks the earth is flat?

Quote from: Pinky on July 12, 2018, 06:02:55 AM

Everything in physics is connected.

How is Black Energy connected to the Electroweak Force?

It's called Dark Energy and we don't know.

How are any two Flat-Earth-theories connected?

Quote from: Pinky on July 12, 2018, 06:02:55 AM

Everything in physics is connected. You can go from one phenomenon to the next and the laws of nature guiding them overlap.

Spherical-Earth theory concects to so many phenomena:
* Coriolis-effect
* What is visible when and where in the sky.
* What is visible when and where on Earth's surface.
* What are distances and angles on Earth's surface.
* Weather, climate, oceanic streams.
* Geology, tectonics, earthquakes.
* How much energy does Earth get from the Sun and how much does it radiate back into the void of space? What are size, distance and temperature of the Sun? Why does the electromagnetic spectrum of the Sun look the way it looks, pointing to hydrogen-fusion?
* Tides. Solar and Lunar eclipses.
And so much more.

The explanations of all of these phenomena have in common that Earth is spherical.




If we look at Flat-Earth-theory, there is no Flat-Earth-theory. There is one FE-explanation for this phenomenon and one FE-explanation for that phenomenon and one FE-explanation for that phenomenon ...

But there is no FE-theory that can be used for SEVERAL EXPLANATIONS at the same time. There is no overlap.

* We have one explanation for gravity. Universal Acceleration. But Universal Acceleration would lead to a whole host of physical phenomena that would we would then see, such as relativistic redshift. Or secondary cosmic radiation. Or stars shifting positions. Universal Acceleration doesn't address any of these topics, which means that we need a "True Universal Acceleration" model that can handle these as well.

* We have one explanation for how the Sun and the Moon move. But that model cannot explain all these measurements of size and distance and position and mass and temperature we have made for Sun and Moon. Which means, that we need some kind of "True Flat-Earth Celestial Theory" that can explain all these phenomena as well. And connects with the "True Universal Acceleration" model, of course.



So, so many ways in which Flat-Earth explanations only work in that one specific instance. How come there is no Flat-Earth theory that actually describes a Flat Earth?

Physics is not connected. The loophole physics uses when things don't make sense is throwing words around like 'quantum'.

Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics '

The 'laws' of physics are always 'subject to change'.

tl;dr? Physics as you understand it, is nonsense

You sound like someone who has never read a physics-book.

Here are some nice examples:
* If you take Special Relativity and take the velocity of light to be infinite (instead of merely very, very big), you get Newtonian physics.
* If you take General Relativity and reduce the curvature of space-time to zero and, again, take the velocity of light to be infinite, you get Newtonian physics.
* If you take a quantummechanical system and make the system bigger and bigger by looking at bodies that are comprised of more and more atoms, you, again, get Newtonian physics.

And the laws of physics are subject to change because scientists recognize that we cannot get perfect information from limited experiments.

The laws of physics are subject to change because, unlike Flat-Earthers, scientists accept that they could be wrong.

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14? That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

My pocket-calculator has pi preset with an accuracy of 10 decimal-numbers. And computer-programs use pi with an accuracy of at least 20 decimal numbers.

Also, your calculation with 60 decimal-numbers would still be inaccurate because pi has infinite decimal-numbers.

Quote from: Shifter on July 12, 2018, 06:26:37 PM

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14? That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

My pocket-calculator has pi preset with an accuracy of 10 decimal-numbers. And computer-programs use pi with an accuracy of at least 20 decimal numbers.

Also, your calculation with 60 decimal-numbers would still be inaccurate because pi has infinite decimal-numbers.

A sphere the size of the observable universe would only need pi calculated to around 63 places to get accuracy to within a Planck length. Any more and it's really just 'showing off'

Quote from: Pinky on July 13, 2018, 02:10:31 AM

Quote from: Shifter on July 12, 2018, 06:26:37 PM

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14? That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

My pocket-calculator has pi preset with an accuracy of 10 decimal-numbers. And computer-programs use pi with an accuracy of at least 20 decimal numbers.

Also, your calculation with 60 decimal-numbers would still be inaccurate because pi has infinite decimal-numbers.

A sphere the size of the observable universe would only need pi calculated to around 63 places to get accuracy to within a Planck length. Any more and it's really just 'showing off'

Shifter is right, just to get the universe as a sphere within an accuracy of a  hydrogen atoms width, we only need 39 digits.
3.14 is inaccurate to use for any precise calculations, but the difference between 3.14 and using a million digits is about 0.05%. But generally for proper calculations, the built in Pi button on calculators will work perfectly for basically any calculation you need. On windows calculator it has 31 digits among others.

Calculating billions of digits of Pi is just showing off and also attempts at creating better algorithms for calculating Pi.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14?

You might use "pi = 3.14", but I and anyone doing serious engineering calculations don't round pi to 3.14.
Excel uses IEEE 754 double-precision binary floating-point format with at least 15 significant digits.
And the calculator I use on the tablet also works to 15 significant digits so pi is rounded to 3.14159265358979.

That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

Irrelevant! Nobody needs to know "circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter".

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

It's obvious that you have never done a practical calculation in your life - Shifter, all talk,  no substance!
If you want to prove me wrong:
Calculate to 60 significant digits, using only Einstein's General Relativity, the orbital velocity and period of a satellite in a perfectly circular orbit of 2000 km radius above centre of the Moon.

I don't claim that I could do it, but you are the one saying that "We should be using ~60 decimal places" and that we should use 'Einsteinian physics' and not 'Newtonian physics'.

Now you ignored this bit:

Maybe your  'Eistenian physics' gives different answers.
Now you show some real practical examples of 'Newtonian' physics giving measurably different answers than if you used 'Einsteinian physics'.

If the differences between "Newtonian physics" and "Einsteinian physics" are immeasurably small then we use "Newtonian physics".
NASA does use "Einsteinian physics" for planning long distance space missions, but for us here on earth it's rarely needed.

Some answers please!

A sphere the size of the observable universe would only need pi calculated to around 63 places to get accuracy to within a Planck length. Any more and it's really just 'showing off'

No it wouldn't.
You would need a measurement of one accurate to a plank length (or more accuracy). That is impossible.
As such, trying to get it to pi to a high enough accuracy is pointless.

But considering you don't seem to care about that, why stop at 63 (and why now 63 instead of the 60 you said before?)?
Or was your "~60" good enough for that?

Again, why should we care?

And another problem, you claimed the universe has a diameter of 93^10^10^10^108 light years
Now for that to not be a completely useless way of expressing it (i.e. rather than 93^108000) this would be 93^(10^(10^(10^108))) light years. That would require vastly more digits of pi. So are you now admitting that claim was BS?

Now, let me ask you... Do you agree with him or do you prefer the scientific methods?

Now, let me ask you... Do you prefer vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream?

Oh, wait. I neither do care, nor should care about what you prefer.

Quote from: Shifter on July 13, 2018, 02:44:08 AM

A sphere the size of the observable universe would only need pi calculated to around 63 places to get accuracy to within a Planck length. Any more and it's really just 'showing off'

No it wouldn't.
You would need a measurement of one accurate to a plank length (or more accuracy). That is impossible.
As such, trying to get it to pi to a high enough accuracy is pointless.

But considering you don't seem to care about that, why stop at 63 (and why now 63 instead of the 60 you said before?)?
Or was your "~60" good enough for that?

Again, why should we care?

And another problem, you claimed the universe has a diameter of 93^10^10^10^108 light years
Now for that to not be a completely useless way of expressing it (i.e. rather than 93^108000) this would be 93^(10^(10^(10^108))) light years. That would require vastly more digits of pi. So are you now admitting that claim was BS?

I am talking here about the observable universe dumbo, not the universe in its entirety. Learn to read and comprehend before making an arse of yourself in the future (again).

I am talking here about the observable universe dumbo, not the universe in its entirety. Learn to read and comprehend before making an arse of yourself in the future (again).

And the topic happens to be "The single, biggest problem with FE-theory: There is no FE-theory" not  "the observable universe" nor "the universe in its entirety". Can't YOU read, jumbo dumbo?

What has the "observable universe" got to do with FE theory? Their observable seems to be limited to "a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth":

Shifting Constellations
Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth.
From: The Flat Earth Society, Shifting Constellations

Even your first post in this thread is quite off-topic and total garbage:

Physics is not connected. The loophole physics uses when things don't make sense is throwing words around like 'quantum'.
Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics '
The 'laws' of physics are always 'subject to change'.
tl;dr? Physics as you understand it, is nonsense

Quote from: Shifter on July 13, 2018, 06:35:59 PM

I am talking here about the observable universe dumbo, not the universe in its entirety. Learn to read and comprehend before making an arse of yourself in the future (again).

And the topic happens to be "The single, biggest problem with FE-theory: There is no FE-theory" not  "the observable universe" nor "the universe in its entirety". Can't YOU read, jumbo dumbo?

What has the "observable universe" got to do with FE theory? Their observable seems to be limited to "a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth":

Quote

Shifting Constellations
Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth.
From: The Flat Earth Society, Shifting Constellations

Even your first post in this thread is quite off-topic and total garbage:

Quote from: Shifter on July 12, 2018, 04:45:14 PM

Physics is not connected. The loophole physics uses when things don't make sense is throwing words around like 'quantum'.
Also you can use 'Newtonian' physics and get different answers than if you used 'Eistenian physics '
The 'laws' of physics are always 'subject to change'.
tl;dr? Physics as you understand it, is nonsense

It appears reading comprehension is above your skill set too. My post is a direct response to the very premise of his thread! His opening sentence is 'everything in physics is connected' which I disputed

Learn to read and comprehend before making a twit of yourself. Now stop veering this thread off course just to settle your personal vendetta against me

It appears reading comprehension is above your skill set too. My post is a direct response to the very premise of his thread! His opening sentence is 'everything in physics is connected' which I disputed

And you still refuse to respond to where I claimed that you post was ridiculous nonsense. All you come back with is more nonsense:

Why do we only round the value of pi in most instances to 3.14? That's a shitload of error that is accepted that gets compounded more and more the more calculations are involved. We should be using ~60 decimal places of pi because that would give us the precise measurement we need that could calculate a circumference the size of the universe to within a Planck lengths diameter.

But humans are lazy and they generally cant compute when things are more than 4 or 5 numbers.

Sloppy work. Good is the enemy of better and better is the enemy of PERFECT. Aim for perfection or accept your answers will be wrong.

And still more totally unrelated to the topic and OP:

A sphere the size of the observable universe would only need pi calculated to around 63 places to get accuracy to within a Planck length. Any more and it's really just 'showing off'

What about some answers relevant to the first post you made:

Now you ignored this bit:

Quote

Maybe your  'Eistenian physics' gives different answers.
Now you show some real practical examples of 'Newtonian' physics giving measurably different answers than if you used 'Einsteinian physics'.

If the differences between "Newtonian physics" and "Einsteinian physics" are immeasurably small then we use "Newtonian physics".
NASA does use "Einsteinian physics" for planning long-distance space missions, but for us here on earth it's rarely needed.

Some answers please!

I guess you don't have any answers.