I'm new

  • 157 Replies
  • 23319 Views
Re: I'm new
« Reply #90 on: September 30, 2018, 06:16:03 AM »
First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: I'm new
« Reply #91 on: September 30, 2018, 06:19:08 AM »
It's very important that other's thoughts are controlled so they align with yours, right?

Re: I'm new
« Reply #92 on: September 30, 2018, 06:32:13 AM »
It's very important that other's thoughts are controlled so they align with yours, right?

Wrong.

It is, however, very important that people stop being so delusional.  Facts are all we have to have some sort of common ground.  When you have people who absolutely refuse to accept facts that are detrimental to their beliefs, those people have an extremely negative effect on a functional society...especially in large numbers.

John Davis is so high on himself, he is literally oblivious to the fact that he is completely full of shit.  It is some sort of psychosis.


*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I'm new
« Reply #93 on: September 30, 2018, 06:49:16 AM »

In the first place .......If we have any intelligence at all, we know the earth isn't flat.
But I AM interested in how it WOULD be done IF  the earth WAS  flat.
I promise I wouldn't "attack" you.
I might disagree with you, though. ???

That does not sound like a complement to me.   ::)

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #94 on: September 30, 2018, 06:02:20 PM »

In the first place .......If we have any intelligence at all, we know the earth isn't flat.
But I AM interested in how it WOULD be done IF  the earth WAS  flat.
I promise I wouldn't "attack" you.
I might disagree with you, though. ???

That does not sound like a complement to me.   ::)

The word, incidentally is "compliment". ???

No !

I would compliment you as being the first FE to show me some explanations on what the horizon is, where the horizon is, and how to estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth. Use my explanation as a guide and give me some facts and figures.There may have been some in past posts. Don't give me the old "look it up." Explain it as I did in my post regarding the horizon on the "round earth."

That is, in your own words.

I am really interested in seeing how this is done on a flat earth.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #95 on: September 30, 2018, 07:26:28 PM »
First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I'm new
« Reply #96 on: September 30, 2018, 07:32:55 PM »

Don't give me the old "look it up."


Or else what?

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: I'm new
« Reply #97 on: September 30, 2018, 07:35:52 PM »
JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.

Uhh... He said, to paraphrase, you measure stuff and take notes, and hopefully find a mathematical relationship you can use regularly.

Quote
However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.
Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #98 on: September 30, 2018, 07:37:07 PM »
You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

Would this render Rowbotham a dishonest scientist? In ENAG, he titles Chapter II "Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane".

And a claim that he solved the problem of induction with his limited series of experiments of dubious results and scripture bound conjecture is decidedly not earned nor warranted.

What would you say about a person who also uses the name of Dr. S. Golden, claims to have PhD and MD degrees and markets an elixir which is a cure for all known ills and diseases ?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 08:00:25 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #99 on: September 30, 2018, 07:39:50 PM »
JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.

Uhh... He said, to paraphrase, you measure stuff and take notes, and hopefully find a mathematical relationship you can use regularly.

Quote
However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.
Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.

Repeat. I asked for an actual result in plain facts and figures. He gave none as I did.

Simple.
Give an example showing the distance to the horizon and how it was computed for a flat earth as it has been presented for a round earth.

I will venture a guess :
Since there is no curvature on a flat earth ,the only place where the  horizon would be where the sky meets the ice dome .
The distance to the horizon would just be the distance from where the observer was to the ice ring.
How is that for a start ?

I realize this is all futile. FE's are never going to admit the earth isn't flat. Delusion and denial seem to be the FES rules.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 07:59:03 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: I'm new
« Reply #100 on: September 30, 2018, 07:45:14 PM »
I quoted your words.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #101 on: September 30, 2018, 08:04:53 PM »
I just though thought I might get something in reply.
I was mistaken.

Anyway.......The world will keep going on as usual regardless of the FES.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I'm new
« Reply #102 on: September 30, 2018, 09:27:59 PM »
I just though thought I might get something in reply.
I was mistaken.

Anyway.......The world will keep going on as usual regardless of the FES.
Try convincing gotham, dutchy or wise of that. They seem to think that this flat-earth movement will soon sweep the Globe.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #103 on: September 30, 2018, 10:05:39 PM »
I just though thought I might get something in reply.
I was mistaken.

Anyway.......The world will keep going on as usual regardless of the FES.
Try convincing gotham, dutchy or wise of that. They seem to think that this flat-earth movement will soon sweep the Globe.

I think they would get some opposition from a few sources.....Not enough space available here to list all of them.

Try convincing them ?
Are you serious ?
Remember an old TV series ?
......"Mission Impossible"
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 10:11:23 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #104 on: September 30, 2018, 10:23:00 PM »

Don't give me the old "look it up."


Or else what?

Or else I'll just give up and assume you don't have any answers.

Just do as I did it on my post.
Suggestions (fill in the blanks)
(1) The horizon on a flat earth is ______________
(2) The equation for estimating the distance to the horizon on a flat earth is ____________
(3) Some examples are ____________
(4) Some results of estimations of these are _________
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 10:25:49 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I'm new
« Reply #105 on: September 30, 2018, 10:56:55 PM »

Don't give me the old "look it up."

Or else what?

Or else I'll just give up and assume you don't have any answers.

That'll teach me!



?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #106 on: October 01, 2018, 10:09:17 AM »

Don't give me the old "look it up."

Or else what?

Or else I'll just give up and assume you don't have any answers.

That'll teach me!

I really would have liked to have seen some specific information on how the distance to the horizon would be estimated on a flat earth , the equation for this , and an example showing the results.
Getting none, I am doing the "or else".
I give up.

Meanwhile, the  lookouts in the navy will just keep on doing it the old reliable "round earth" way.
The United States Navy " Special Publication Lookout Training Handbbook NAVEDTRA 12968-D  February 2007"  has detailed instructions for lookouts.
Estimations for ranges are based on the distance to the horizon.
There are tables showing the distances to the horizon for the heights of the observers above the waterline of the ship.(See Page 22)
(This manual is easily available by search on the Internet for reference.)

How this would be done on a flat earth remains a mystery (if it could be done) ???
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 04:50:14 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #107 on: October 01, 2018, 11:39:53 AM »
You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

Would this render Rowbotham a dishonest scientist? In ENAG, he titles Chapter II "Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane".

And a claim that he solved the problem of induction with his limited series of experiments of dubious results and scripture bound conjecture is decidedly not earned nor warranted.
Yes, this would be dishonest of him.

Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. There is a necessary nominalism to mathematics that is lost when we try to make it relatable through theory. Isn't the curse of the universal language, is that it loses that truth in the details of the cultures that speak it? Isn't a universal language too ambiguous? What then of the language of math - and its tie to our ideas of what is round and what is not? Good sense tells us the earth is round. Good logic tells us to argue the other path, because history shows - we are wrong about most things.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right?

During the thousands of years the shape of the earth has been studied, if it were in fact flat, there would already be an existing formula to calculate the distance to the horizon on the flat earth.  You can make the claim that "NASA" controls the data, but that would just further indicate your state of denial.
There are said formula. Its the same formula as the round earth.

Again, science tells us nothing about the context of the data. It gives us laws and rules to help predict said data. None of these laws or rules say anything about the shape of the earth. That is all interpretation, and it can be interpreted either way.


Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? ;) You ;) possibly?

RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers.
They are just looking for something to attack.

I AM an RE who IS  interested in the answers to the question of  HOW an FE would estimate the  distance to the horizon on a flat earth.
Are FE's interested in RE answers ?
I've been in the navy (as Space Cow Girl should know by now....LOL) and  worked on radars and microwave repeaters and UHF and VHF radios both in the USN and the FAA so I know how it works as far as the distance to the horizon is concerned....On the "round earth".
The calculations are the same regardless of the shape of the earth. Unless you have some previously undiscovered attack on the methodology of modern science, you must accept this if you accept the methodology of science. Otherwise, you may as well go back to Aristotelian science. This is for reasons explained above, mainly those reasons that have come about due to the scientific revolution.

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.
I most certainly did provide a coherent answer. If you are confused by it, why not ask a question?

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.
Facts do not exist in science. What would you like a figure of? Its hard to create a figure about how your understanding of science is bunk.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.

Uhh... He said, to paraphrase, you measure stuff and take notes, and hopefully find a mathematical relationship you can use regularly.

Quote
However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.
Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.

Repeat. I asked for an actual result in plain facts and figures. He gave none as I did.

Simple.
Give an example showing the distance to the horizon and how it was computed for a flat earth as it has been presented for a round earth.

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Now please provide me with the basis for your presumed claim that science can tell us about true causes or how this calculation, tabulation, mathematics or empiricalism is theory dependent.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: I'm new
« Reply #108 on: October 01, 2018, 12:13:21 PM »
I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #109 on: October 01, 2018, 03:33:46 PM »
I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

It is really not necessary to say anything about the shape of the earth in the manual  because in the real world the shape of the earth is the globe and is a known fact . In the real world you deal with reality. I realize that this is the FES website and FE's minds are programmed to deny any thing of reality. In the navy and the FAA you work in the real world.

The FAA also makes it clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to the spacing of microwave repeater stations.
The navy also makes it clear that they use Oceanic Charts made from a projection of a globe.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #110 on: October 01, 2018, 04:39:08 PM »
You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

Would this render Rowbotham a dishonest scientist? In ENAG, he titles Chapter II "Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane".

And a claim that he solved the problem of induction with his limited series of experiments of dubious results and scripture bound conjecture is decidedly not earned nor warranted.
Yes, this would be dishonest of him.

Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. There is a necessary nominalism to mathematics that is lost when we try to make it relatable through theory. Isn't the curse of the universal language, is that it loses that truth in the details of the cultures that speak it? Isn't a universal language too ambiguous? What then of the language of math - and its tie to our ideas of what is round and what is not? Good sense tells us the earth is round. Good logic tells us to argue the other path, because history shows - we are wrong about most things.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right?

During the thousands of years the shape of the earth has been studied, if it were in fact flat, there would already be an existing formula to calculate the distance to the horizon on the flat earth.  You can make the claim that "NASA" controls the data, but that would just further indicate your state of denial.
There are said formula. Its the same formula as the round earth.

Again, science tells us nothing about the context of the data. It gives us laws and rules to help predict said data. None of these laws or rules say anything about the shape of the earth. That is all interpretation, and it can be interpreted either way.


Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? ;) You ;) possibly?

RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers.
They are just looking for something to attack.

I AM an RE who IS  interested in the answers to the question of  HOW an FE would estimate the  distance to the horizon on a flat earth.
Are FE's interested in RE answers ?
I've been in the navy (as Space Cow Girl should know by now....LOL) and  worked on radars and microwave repeaters and UHF and VHF radios both in the USN and the FAA so I know how it works as far as the distance to the horizon is concerned....On the "round earth".
The calculations are the same regardless of the shape of the earth. Unless you have some previously undiscovered attack on the methodology of modern science, you must accept this if you accept the methodology of science. Otherwise, you may as well go back to Aristotelian science. This is for reasons explained above, mainly those reasons that have come about due to the scientific revolution.

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.

Flat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.
I most certainly did provide a coherent answer. If you are confused by it, why not ask a question?

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.

JD didn't provide a coherent answer.  He babbles incoherently to try and avoid answering the question.
lat earthers that stick around here, do so for validation, nothing more.

If people were smart enough to realize when they are wrong, you list of "hit men" above wouldn't have to be so relentless.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.
Facts do not exist in science. What would you like a figure of? Its hard to create a figure about how your understanding of science is bunk.

JD did not give any actual facts and fgures as I requested.

Uhh... He said, to paraphrase, you measure stuff and take notes, and hopefully find a mathematical relationship you can use regularly.

Quote
However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.
Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.

Repeat. I asked for an actual result in plain facts and figures. He gave none as I did.

Simple.
Give an example showing the distance to the horizon and how it was computed for a flat earth as it has been presented for a round earth.

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Now please provide me with the basis for your presumed claim that science can tell us about true causes or how this calculation, tabulation, mathematics or empiricalism is theory dependent.

The "round earth" formula for estimating the distance from an observer to the horizon  takes into account the curvature of the earth.
In calculating this distance it takes into account that the height of the observer affects the distance .
The higher the observer is, the farther the observer can see to the horizon.
The horizon is defined as the distinct line where the sea and sky appear to meet.
This is used as an explanation since the horizon is most clearly seen at sea.

On the other hand , there is no curvature of the earth on a flat earth.
It would seem that the only place where the sea and sky appear to meet would be where the bottom of the dome meets the top of the ice ring on a flat earth .
Since there is no curvature of the earth it would seem that since there is no curvature of the earth, the horizon would  always be at that point.
The sight to the horizon would not be impeded by this curvature and it would be possible to see the ice ring from any point at sea on a flat earth.
The only way to estimate the distance on a flat earth  from the observer to the horizon would  be to locate the position of the observer on the earth and then using maps or other means measure the distance to the ice ring.
The height of the observer would affect the total length of distance from  the observer to the horizon , but very slightly.
The actual distance from the observer to the horizon would always be the same from the observer's point of reference, no matter how high he stood above that point.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 05:23:02 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #111 on: October 02, 2018, 09:19:03 AM »
I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

I have no question that the FAA believes the earth is round and would justify their views through the equations they use. However the methods and equations and tools they use say nothing of the shape of the earth, but only of predictable rules gathered through observation, mathematics, tabulation, and empiricism.

Further, I spent the time in the middle of my work day humouring you and reading Chapter 16. You are correct it assumes a round earth; however, the practical knowledge that one can use from this chapter (time zones, longitude and latitude, etc) hold no particular bias to whether the earth is flat, round, or donut shaped. All of it can (and was) determined through tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism. In fact, TheEngineer, a moderator here in the past and a pilot, has provided first hand accounts of how nothing he does when flying shows a round earth.

I will take out my navy manual and perform the calculation which was derived from tabulation, mathematics, and empiricism and says nothing about the shape of the earth.

Can't speak to Navy manuals, but the FAA makes it pretty clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to navigation - See chapter 16 for starters:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf

It is really not necessary to say anything about the shape of the earth in the manual  because in the real world the shape of the earth is the globe and is a known fact . In the real world you deal with reality. I realize that this is the FES website and FE's minds are programmed to deny any thing of reality. In the navy and the FAA you work in the real world.

The FAA also makes it clear that a globe earth needs to be factored in when it comes to the spacing of microwave repeater stations.
The navy also makes it clear that they use Oceanic Charts made from a projection of a globe.

Its not necessary because all that is necessary are the rules that are needed to be performed; rules that were calculated using empricism, tabulation and mathematics - not some imaginary theoretical layer that attempts to say something. I have asked you again and again for an answer - how does science tell us the shape of the earth if its powers are limited to prediction through tabulation based rules?

The fact that they use a globe as a model again says nothing of the shape of the earth. A flat non-euclidean closed surface earth would have an identical map. As would a model where the North pole and south pole were both in the center.
The "round earth" formula for estimating the distance from an observer to the horizon  takes into account the curvature of the earth.
It does no such thing. The round earth theory takes into account the distance to the horizon to calculate an assumed curvature of the earth - this is in contradistinction to your claim that it works the other way around and that the formula somehow magically knew there was a curvature to the earth in spite of it being based off pure tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. You are putting the cart before the horse.

It also seems you are again and again purposefully missing the point.

Do the calculations provided by science work? Yes, more often than not.

Do they say anything about the shape of the earth? No; perhaps you can show me why they must rather than citing one after another when I already disproved your hypothesis by example: there have been many cultures over the years who have been able to calculate eclipses, or the distance to the horizon without the use of a 'round earth theory'. How did they do it? The same way they did any other science - by tabulation, mathematics and empiricism.


*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #112 on: October 02, 2018, 09:22:28 AM »
For example:
Distance to the horizon can be framed as - a curved earth, a non-euclidean earth, bendy light, or Rowbothamic perspective, an infinite number of other 'theories' that hold themselves to the same 'rules' calculated through tabulation.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #113 on: October 02, 2018, 09:40:25 AM »
Again, I have no doubt the Navy or FAA both believe the earth is round, and thus would frame their knowledge in this theory. This does not say the knowledge itself says the earth is round and you have yet to show it does.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #114 on: October 02, 2018, 09:41:07 AM »
For example:
Distance to the horizon can be framed as - a curved earth, a non-euclidean earth, bendy light, or Rowbothamic perspective, an infinite number of other 'theories' that hold themselves to the same 'rules' calculated through tabulation.

John Davis-
Again, John Davis, you claim to believe the earth is flat.
I don't know if you really believe that or if it's just an act.
But that is the way of the way of this website.
But all your babbling and nonsense won't change the fact that the world isn't some flat disc,

Everyone else in the real world , at least those who work in some field involving the globe, such as the FAA or the USN , know it's a globe.

I will leave you with something you can do to prove the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.
Go down to the shore or take a cruise on a ship at sea.
Watch ships come and go.

(1) If ships in the distance come and go in and out of the mist and just look larger as they approach and just look smaller and fade  away into the mist as they get farther away, there is no curvature to the earth, the earth is flat. If you can restore a ship to view with a telescope for a ship that has gotten so small you can't see it any more, the earth is flat. And those "flat earthers" are right.


(2) If you first just see the tops of the masts of the ships as they approach you and as the ships get nearer you finally see the whole ship when it get nearer, and as the ship goes away from you , the first thing disappearing being the hull and the last thing you see are the tops of the masts before it disappears. And once that ship disappears from view there is no way you can restore it to view with a telescope, then there is a curvature of the earth and the earth is a globe. And those "round earth" sailors in the navy are right.

Who's right ?
The "flat earthers" or the "round earthers" ?

I'm goiing to take a break for a while and let other people have a chance to have  fun in this nonsense. LOL
It gets old after a while.
Adieu, mon ami !
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 10:11:26 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #115 on: October 02, 2018, 10:38:49 AM »
For example:
Distance to the horizon can be framed as - a curved earth, a non-euclidean earth, bendy light, or Rowbothamic perspective, an infinite number of other 'theories' that hold themselves to the same 'rules' calculated through tabulation.

John Davis-
Again, John Davis, you claim to believe the earth is flat.
I don't know if you really believe that or if it's just an act.
But that is the way of the way of this website.
But all your babbling and nonsense won't change the fact that the world isn't some flat disc,

Everyone else in the real world , at least those who work in some field involving the globe, such as the FAA or the USN , know it's a globe.

I will leave you with something you can do to prove the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.
Go down to the shore or take a cruise on a ship at sea.
Watch ships come and go.

(1) If ships in the distance come and go in and out of the mist and just look larger as they approach and just look smaller and fade  away into the mist as they get farther away, there is no curvature to the earth, the earth is flat. If you can restore a ship to view with a telescope for a ship that has gotten so small you can't see it any more, the earth is flat. And those "flat earthers" are right.


(2) If you first just see the tops of the masts of the ships as they approach you and as the ships get nearer you finally see the whole ship when it get nearer, and as the ship goes away from you , the first thing disappearing being the hull and the last thing you see are the tops of the masts before it disappears. And once that ship disappears from view there is no way you can restore it to view with a telescope, then there is a curvature of the earth and the earth is a globe. And those "round earth" sailors in the navy are right.

Who's right ?
The "flat earthers" or the "round earthers" ?

I'm goiing to take a break for a while and let other people have a chance to have  fun in this nonsense. LOL
It gets old after a while.
Adieu, mon ami !
They don't know that, except in so much as they misuse science as some oracle.

If you choose to return, please answer my question - by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

Take care.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: I'm new
« Reply #116 on: October 02, 2018, 12:05:10 PM »
by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100’s of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.

Re: I'm new
« Reply #117 on: October 02, 2018, 12:56:48 PM »
You ask for science to show a spheriod earth, what issue do you have with the tabulated emperical video of the iss orbiting the earth?

2nd.   You keep using that word "non-euclid". 
Insert princess bride meme.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #118 on: October 02, 2018, 02:46:14 PM »
by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100’s of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.

Thanks, Stash and Themightykabool for stepping in.....in my absence.......

Same thing for great circle oceanic paths in the navy .
The coxswain on the Liberty Boat of a ship doesn't depend on globe theory to go from the ship to Fleet Landlng . .
The Captain and crew of the ship do for a cruise from any place on the ocean to any other place on the ocean do .
It is not globe theory .
It is globe fact.
California to Japan.
New York to France.

I have returned.???
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 09:30:53 AM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #119 on: October 02, 2018, 04:45:49 PM »
by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100’s of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.
How is this theory independent?  We measured the route of flights, and came to an equation that suites it best. More than this, the dataset is almost entirely in the Northern hemicircle -  which would yield a straight line on most flat earth maps, such as the UN logo.

You ask for science to show a spheriod earth, what issue do you have with the tabulated emperical video of the iss orbiting the earth?

2nd.   You keep using that word "non-euclid". 
Insert princess bride meme.
That would be a video of an artificial satellite that is above us. I agree with the observation, but I fail to see how that shows the earth is round. Enlighten me of this  burden.

Again, how will you take tabulation and turn it into theory, given an infinite amount of theories that would fit that tabulation? Is it trite like Ockham? Is it around convenience, or historical bias? Is it simply what suites the fancy? Because I've haven't heard an answer to this yet.


by what mechanism can one take empirical findings and tabulated results and turn them into a 'theory' of the type that the earth is round?

One example, great circle flight paths. 100’s of thousands of flights around the world. Documented, predictive durations/distances/fuel consumption/profit - Dependent upon the theory the earth is a globe. A crop-duster is not dependent on globe theory. A flight from LAX to Dubai is.

Thanks, Stash and Themightykabool for stepping in.....in my absence.......

Same thing for great circle oceanic paths in the navy .The coxswain on the Liberty Boat of a ship doesn't depend on globe theory to go from the ship to Fleet Landlng . The Captain and crew of the ship do for a cruise from any place on the ocean to any other place on the ocean. California to Japan. New York to France.



I have returned.???
They do not; they rely upon tabulation and iteration of this over a long time; look at the early success of the Portolan maps and the growth of the theory since then. It might make it easier to teach | adopt to think of it being based off some imaginary theory, but that is against the only fact we can have with empiricism - that there are no facts. Beyond this, are there infinitely countable ways one could explain these distances - we just happened upon one by popular convention. We have shown here over the last decade that there is at least one more. More than this, it is now simple to show there are many more.

By what metric do you take this tabulation and frame it in a theory of magical balls whirling about space like peas out of a shooter?

You, like many, want science to be a religion and give you footing in the world; so you know what is around you and can make rational acts. This is not the case. Science should not -- and can not -- do any such thing.

So again, I ask you as an interested person for an answer. How do you take these tabulations, and attribute them to some imaginary jabberwocky of an idea?