I'm new

  • 157 Replies
  • 23333 Views
?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #120 on: October 02, 2018, 05:00:09 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?

It is not jabberwocky. It is every day use and practice. Even back in 1912, for good or bad , ships were taking geat circle routes.
In one of the "Titanic" movies Captain Smith remarks "Of course we'll be taking the Great Circle Route."

If there is any jabberwocky it is all this flat earth nonsense and foolishness.

P.S. Have you been down to the sea shore or have you been on a ship and watched ships and/or land as they passed over or passed beyond the horizon lately ?

Have you ever done any estimations of the distance to the horizon on an imaginary flat earth ?
Those "round earth sailors" have for the real world.
Are you calling them liars ?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 05:05:22 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 !

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: I'm new
« Reply #121 on: October 02, 2018, 05:03:49 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.

I'm not sure I follow your "independence" bit. Yes, we measured the routes of flights. But we didn't simply come to an 'equation' that suites it best. We came to a conclusion that on a globe earth, great circles are shorter. Then applied math and tech to scale - Hence faster, less fuel consumption, more profit.

And the dataset is certainly not almost entirely in the Northern hemiplane. There are 10's of thousands of flights every year that are in the southern hemiplane and between the two. Your statement is blatantly false.

And no, long haul flights do not fly in a straight line on any map, they follow globe great circles. You ever been on a cross country flight before? Let alone pop over the pond? Those are by no means straight line flights. They are great circle flights and extremely well documented.

And for the record, the UN Logo is a Globe projection. So are all of the FE maps.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #122 on: October 02, 2018, 05:24:39 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?

It is not jabberwocky. It is every day use and practice. Even back in 1912, for good or bad , ships were taking geat circle routes.
In one of the "Titanic" movies Captain Smith remarks "Of course we'll be taking the Great Circle Route."

If there is any jabberwocky it is all this flat earth nonsense and foolishness.

P.S. Have you been down to the sea shore or have you been on a ship and watched ships and/or land as they passed over or passed beyond the horizon lately ?
Yes, I have travelled the world, most often by boat. More often than not they fade out to the distance. This is to be expected, but I assume you wish to talk of boat masts again. I have provided more than one way this could be explained earlier. If you would like me to expand on them, ask.
Quote
Have you ever done any estimations of the distance to the horizon on an imaginary flat earth ?
Those "round earth sailors" have for the real world.
Are you calling them liars ?
I imagine they are 'plane sailing'

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #123 on: October 02, 2018, 05:55:05 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?

It is not jabberwocky. It is every day use and practice. Even back in 1912, for good or bad , ships were taking geat circle routes.
In one of the "Titanic" movies Captain Smith remarks "Of course we'll be taking the Great Circle Route."

If there is any jabberwocky it is all this flat earth nonsense and foolishness.

P.S. Have you been down to the sea shore or have you been on a ship and watched ships and/or land as they passed over or passed beyond the horizon lately ?
Yes, I have travelled the world, most often by boat. More often than not they fade out to the distance. This is to be expected, but I assume you wish to talk of boat masts again. I have provided more than one way this could be explained earlier. If you would like me to expand on them, ask.
Quote
Have you ever done any estimations of the distance to the horizon on an imaginary flat earth ?
Those "round earth sailors" have for the real world.
Are you calling them liars ?
I imagine they are 'plane sailing'

Have you ever talked to any one in any navy or any one who is an officer on any civilian ship and mentioned the words "flat earth" ?
Have you ever read any history books and know the world has been known to be a globe for some 2500 years ?
Are you one of those persons who think all those pictures of the earth are fakes and NASA and all the other space agrencies of all the countries in the world are either non-existant  and/are composed of satanic satan worshippers and space travel does not exist and satellites do not exist ?

Hey, Stash and Themightykabool-
What is your opinion  this person who calls himself "John Davis" ?
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 !

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49695
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: I'm new
« Reply #124 on: October 02, 2018, 06:08:36 PM »
Googleotomy, you don't need your bffs to back you up. If you're going to pick a fight, I can just go ahead and ban you now. Your decision.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: I'm new
« Reply #125 on: October 02, 2018, 06:45:14 PM »
Yes, I have travelled the world, most often by boat. More often than not they fade out to the distance. This is to be expected, but I assume you wish to talk of boat masts again. I have provided more than one way this could be explained earlier. If you would like me to expand on them, ask.

I think it's far easier to proffer 'perspective', refraction, etc., when it comes to the 'sinking ship' effect. But what is undeniable is the mountain of data regarding flight travel.

If you had a shred of evidence that long haul flights don't follow great circles as the most fuel efficient, profitable manners of conducting their business, thereby following a globe theory, I would pause and reevaluate my entire line of thinking. In the absence of that, which is decidedly absent, rotundity of the earth is the most reasonable end point.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I'm new
« Reply #126 on: October 02, 2018, 06:54:35 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 Northern Hemisphericans seem to forget that there are many people living in the Southern Hemisphere who have long-distance flights between the southern cities.
I don't know if the "equation that suites it best" is this one, time(hrs) = 0.72 + distance(km)/871 or distance(km) = (time(hrs) - 0.72) * 871.
But using that equation for:
Johannesburg to/from Sydney the average time (for just one pair of flights) is 11.84 hours giving a distance = 9700 km, the GC ist is 11044 km.
Sydney to/from Santiago the average time (for just one pair of flights) is 12.71 hours giving a distance = 10440 km, the GC ist is 11362 km.

Averaging many flights will change these estimated distances a little but not greatly but that equation seems to underestimate distances.

I estimate that the shortest distances on the "UN map" would be:
Johannesburg to/from Sydney about 23,700 km and Sydney to/from Santiago about 25,500 km both far outside the ranges of the aircraft used.

Try to fit those onto your usual flat earth map, such as the UN logo or any other flat earth map.
 
Quote from: John Davis
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?
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.
Care to enlighten us as to how satellites fly over an earth shaped like the "UN logo" map or is another hypothesis needed for that?

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #127 on: October 02, 2018, 07:24:01 PM »
Googleotomy, you don't need your bffs to back you up. If you're going to pick a fight, I can just go ahead and ban you now. Your decision.

I see what I am up against, so I think it's best to abstain from any more posting and just go into the observer mode.
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
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #128 on: October 02, 2018, 07:31:56 PM »
D
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?

It is not jabberwocky. It is every day use and practice. Even back in 1912, for good or bad , ships were taking geat circle routes.
In one of the "Titanic" movies Captain Smith remarks "Of course we'll be taking the Great Circle Route."

If there is any jabberwocky it is all this flat earth nonsense and foolishness.

P.S. Have you been down to the sea shore or have you been on a ship and watched ships and/or land as they passed over or passed beyond the horizon lately ?
Yes, I have travelled the world, most often by boat. More often than not they fade out to the distance. This is to be expected, but I assume you wish to talk of boat masts again. I have provided more than one way this could be explained earlier. If you would like me to expand on them, ask.
Quote
Have you ever done any estimations of the distance to the horizon on an imaginary flat earth ?
Those "round earth sailors" have for the real world.
Are you calling them liars ?
I imagine they are 'plane sailing'

Have you ever talked to any one in any navy or any one who is an officer on any civilian ship and mentioned the words "flat earth" ?
Have you ever read any history books and know the world has been known to be a globe for some 2500 years ?
Are you one of those persons who think all those pictures of the earth are fakes and NASA and all the other space agrencies of all the countries in the world are either non-existant  and/are composed of satanic satan worshippers and space travel does not exist and satellites do not exist ?

Hey, Stash and Themightykabool-
What is your opinion  this person who calls himself "John Davis" ?
Yes I've read history. Again I ask you - how do you draw a line from calculations to "Fact"?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #129 on: October 02, 2018, 07:35:40 PM »
I'd really love to know.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I'm new
« Reply #130 on: October 02, 2018, 07:36:57 PM »
I would love to know what sets the horizon on a flat earth?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #131 on: October 02, 2018, 07:44:01 PM »
I would love to know what sets the horizon on a flat earth?
Go away, you are an awful relic of a disgusting past mindset.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #132 on: October 02, 2018, 07:45:55 PM »
http://tfes.org is a great place for you!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I'm new
« Reply #133 on: October 02, 2018, 07:51:26 PM »
I would love to know what sets the horizon on a flat earth?
Go away, you are an awful relic of a disgusting past mindset.
The great John Davis. Stumped by a one sentence post.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #134 on: October 02, 2018, 07:51:55 PM »
 Again I ask you - how do you draw a line from tabulation then to "Fact"?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #135 on: October 02, 2018, 07:52:41 PM »
Also go away. Be like a Thork. And Leave.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new
« Reply #136 on: October 02, 2018, 07:55:13 PM »
http://tfes.org is a great place for you!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: I'm new
« Reply #137 on: October 02, 2018, 08:00:06 PM »
Suppose a triangle with angle A being a right angle. Heights a will be set at 70 feet. Maybe that's close to a crow's nest. Side b is an unknown distance. Angle B will be the horizon. What sets the length of side b on a flat earth? Please note I'm not asking for a specific formula, like what would be found in a Navy book, I just want to know what physical property sets the length.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I'm new
« Reply #138 on: October 02, 2018, 08:26:54 PM »
http://tfes.org is a great place for you!
Why? I don't see you posting much there! Remember this?
I will personally ship each member of the administration staff ice-cream bars. We are taking this very seriously now. This is our final offer.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: I'm new
« Reply #139 on: October 02, 2018, 09:11:20 PM »
Again I ask you - how do you draw a line from tabulation then to "Fact"?

Quite the contrary, it's the line from "Fact" that feeds the tabulation. You can't explain the fact that 100's of thousands of flights, extremely well documented, follow great circles around a globe. That's not an equation nor a tabulation, that's just a fact.

Nor can you answer sokarul's question.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #140 on: October 03, 2018, 09:45:49 AM »
I would love to know what sets the horizon on a flat earth?
I was going to take a break .
But it's a new day.
And I'm back.
Sorry about that, FE's. LOL

And I would still love to   know - straight from an FE :
(1) What is the definition of the horizon on a flat earth ?
(2) Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
(3) Show some figures and how you estimated the distance to the horizon ? (No-You can't use the round earth equation. The "constant" of those equatiions of 1.2 or 1.5 was derived from taking into account the curvature of the 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 #141 on: October 03, 2018, 09:48:34 AM »
Again I ask you - how do you draw a line from tabulation then to "Fact"?

Quite the contrary, it's the line from "Fact" that feeds the tabulation. You can't explain the fact that 100's of thousands of flights, extremely well documented, follow great circles around a globe. That's not an equation nor a tabulation, that's just a fact.

Nor can you answer sokarul's question.

Same for ship routes on the ocean.
Their trips have been well documented as to the distances involved.
Both north and south of the equator.

The problem with flat earthers is that they have no maps - no maps at all - let alone an accurate map.
The only map on which they usually refer to as their "model" is the North Polar Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.
Which of course is just one of the many proections of the globe.
This map has severe distortion south of the equator.
On this map, Antarctica is not shown as a continent, but as a ring around the rim of this map due to the extreme disortion south of the equator..
For this reason flat earthers claim this is the "ice ring".

One flat earth  "authority" claims that the Bipolar Projection is the "model".
It does show Antarctica as a continent
But is has even more problems than the Unipolar

The reason there are no accurate - or even any flat earth maps at all - is simple.:
The earth is not flat.
The earth is a globe.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 12:55:04 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 #142 on: October 03, 2018, 10:00:31 AM »

(1) What is the definition of the horizon on a flat earth ?

It's where the Earth and sky appear to converge.



(2) Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?

It's where the Earth and sky appear to converge.



(3) Show some figures and how you estimated the distance to the horizon ?

The horizon is not a place, it is where the Earth and sky appear to converge.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #143 on: October 03, 2018, 10:37:45 AM »

(1) What is the definition of the horizon on a flat earth ?

It's where the Earth and sky appear to converge.



(2) Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?

It's where the Earth and sky appear to converge.



(3) Show some figures and how you estimated the distance to the horizon ?

The horizon is not a place, it is where the Earth and sky appear to converge.

Thank you. We're getting somewhere.

On a flat earth :
But what I would love to know is : If you are a person, let us say- 6 feet tall - standing on the shore and looking out on the ocean - how far does the horizon appear to be from you - in miles ?
Or if you are on the upper story of a building , let us say -  a 10 story hotel, 100 feet above the level of the sea-  how far does the horizon appear to be from you - in miles  ?
Remember - If the earth is flat you should be able to see an infinite distance - if it wasn't for "the thickness of the atmoplane".

On the round earth, the distance that you can see to the horizon is limited by your height. An example was that the horizon appears to be 2.9 miles from you if you are a person 6 feet tall standing at sea level, looking out on the ocean. The horizon is a very distinct line where the sea and sky appear to meet. It is at a very distinct distance from the observer.Especially at this close distance there is very little, if any, haze or other atmospheric condition to obscure the view on a clear, calm, sunny dsy.

But what is this on a flat earth ?
What are the distances on a flat earth ?
How are they estimated ?  - Show the mathematics involved as was done in the "round earth"  example ?
My problem is I have problems envisioning just how these things would be on a flat earth - Especially just where the horizon would be on a flat earth ? -  How far ?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 11:16:59 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 !

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: I'm new
« Reply #144 on: October 03, 2018, 11:09:24 AM »

My problem is I have problems envisioning just how these things would be on a flat earth - especially just where the horizon would be on a flat earth - How far ?

As you have pointed out, the horizon is where the Earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.
How far away is the sky?

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #145 on: October 03, 2018, 12:50:35 PM »

My problem is I have problems envisioning just how these things would be on a flat earth - especially just where the horizon would be on a flat earth - How far ?

As you have pointed out, the horizon is where the Earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.
How far away is the sky?

The question is not "How  far away is the sky ?"
The questiion is "How far away is the horizon ?"
On the "round earth) :
d=1.5 x (sq,rt.) h...The distance "d" (in miles) is equal to the product of  "1.5" (a constant) times "h" (the square root of the height of the observer in feet)

What is the equation, example and result for estimating the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
There is no curvature on a flat earth

My problem is I have problems envisioning just how these things would be on a flat earth - especially just where the horizon would be on a flat earth - How far ?

As you have pointed out, the horizon is where the Earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.
How far away is the sky?


The question is "How far away is the horizon on a flat earth ?"
The horizon is the distance to the sky and the sea where they appear to meet.
This is due to the curvature of the earth.
But there would be no curvature if the earth was flat.
Where would  the sky and the sea appear to meet  if the earth was flat ?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 01:03:05 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 !

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I'm new
« Reply #146 on: October 03, 2018, 04:36:55 PM »

My problem is I have problems envisioning just how these things would be on a flat earth - especially just where the horizon would be on a flat earth - How far ?

As you have pointed out, the horizon is where the Earth's surface and the sky appear to meet.
How far away is the sky?
How do you define "the sky"?

What we call "the sky" is just the light scattered in the atmosphere and simply fades out exponentially with altitude.

The effective height is often quoted as about 9 km, though it varies with latitude falling to about 6 km over the poles.
That 9 km effective height would put "the sky" on the horizon over 300 km away but I doubt that visibility in even the clearest air would extend that far.

But, on your flat earth, "How far away is the sky?"

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: I'm new
« Reply #147 on: October 03, 2018, 05:57:12 PM »
Suppose a triangle with angle A being a right angle. Heights a will be set at 70 feet. Maybe that's close to a crow's nest. Side b is an unknown distance. Angle B will be the horizon. What sets the length of side b on a flat earth? Please note I'm not asking for a specific formula, like what would be found in a Navy book, I just want to know what physical property sets the length.

Thank you, sokarul -

You said it a lot better than I did.
What we are both looking for is how you figure "What sets the length of side b on a flat earth ?"
The length of side b on a flat earth would be the length or distance to the horizon on a flat earth.

For the "round earth" , those constants of 1.2 or 1.5 were derived for finding the distance to the horizon.
There have been diagrams and computations showing how this was done on the "round earth ".
I'm not asking for the methods for deriving this on a flat earth.
Just an example of how "What sets the length of side b on a flat earth ?"

It's just my opinion , but the only place where the horizon would be on a flat earth would be at the edge, or rim,
where the sky , or the bottom  of the dome of the sky, rests on top on the top of the earth, on the top of the ice wall or ice ring.....Until I'm proven wrong.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 09:49:50 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 !

Re: I'm new
« Reply #148 on: October 04, 2018, 03:28:12 AM »

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.

....

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.

You really need to brush up on scientific theories and the scientific method.  Theories are not just an “imaginary layer”, they are both predictive and explanatory.  A hypothesis only becomes a theory after rigorous testing.

The shape of the earth is so ridiculously well established scientificly, I’m not even sure it still counts as a theory.  And the reason isn’t based on any one calculation, but everything working together.

Flat Earth hypotheses (it’s really not a theory) doesn’t have a mathematical model that matches even the most day to day observations.  The best you have is a few vague contradictory explanations, each one breaking another part of the “model”.

Your example of ancient civilizations tabulating certain astronomical events and making predictions based off them does not prove anything except that that’s what they did back then.

But modern science can do better than that.  Take the discovery of Neptune.  There was an anomaly in the orbit of Uranus.  Some said there might be a problem with Newton’s laws of gravity and motion, others that there must be another substantial body beyond Neptune’s orbit.   Urbain Le Verrier used Newton’s Laws and the Heliocentric model to calculate the position of this hypothetical planet.

When astronomers looked for this new plant based on Le Verrier’s predictions, it took less than a hour and they found it within 1 deg of the expected position.  Not bad considering the data available and Le Verrier had to do all the calculations by hand.

This is the predictive power of modern science. Something you absolutely can not do without a mathematical model.

If you’re really serious about challenging the shape of the Earth, you’re going to need an actual model and start working on detailed explanations.  Eventually, FEers would need to explain everything we see better than the heliocentric model and be able to make predictions to verify it.

Obviously you’re well short of that, so maybe just start by explaining what you mean by a “flat non-euclidean closed surface earth” or a “model where the North pole and south pole were both in the center”?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 03:44:00 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: I'm new
« Reply #149 on: October 04, 2018, 05:31:35 AM »
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) ???
I am beginning to sense you are completely full of the good ole and shinola my grandpappy used to tell me about...

Why do you continue to offer your tripe up for sale here?

I performed a search of your referenced manual and guess what...that's right...not one printed word coming close to "globe."

I am beginning to seriously doubt you were ever in the US Navy and if, by slim chance you ever were, I am sure that most of your cruises ended up like this:


LMMFAO!!!