An Ideal Projection of the Non-Euclidean Flat Earth

In short we know nothing about the shape of the earth. All we have managed to do is figure out the period of sin. I may need to revise my thoughts on mathematical nominalism.

Someone recently said to me something regarding the burden of proof. I think this might apply to you and your ideas.
Let examine the facts.
On a daily basis, thousands of flights all take off and later land at their destinations all with the help of accurate maps.
The planet is crisscrossed with roads and railways some thousands of miles long all with know point along their length.
The planet is orbited by thousands of satellites, a fact you don't like but a fact none the less.
Any claim you can make that there is a problem with our maps is rendered null and void by the daily fact of the thousands of trans-continental journies that take place and the frequency of the images of our planet that are transmitted back to the surface and are freely available on the web.

Due to recent research on the non-euclidean flat earth, it has been determined an appropriate projection for the use of mapmaking is one which uses a Euler Spiral as its basis. The centre of the two spirals represent the poles.

To increase the accuracy of such a projection, one need only sample smaller areas at a time. This resolves the earlier mentioned issue with this model in that it provides an answer to complaints centering around Gaussian Curvature. It should be noted that this never needed to be shown anyways, as the complaint in the first place was invalid. However, it is now tabled.

Can you provide information on who carried out this research and where it has been published?
to quote one of your own moderators...... "Burden of proof, and all that"

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2020, 01:08:29 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 12:55:35 PM

It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.

In what way?  Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.

It may provide a mathematically accurate way to predict certain phenomena, but that does not mean it is an accurate model of the earth. One can construct infinitely many as accurate projections and models that have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers, which leads any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily a correct way to look at reality simply because it holds these traits. It must be shown that these infinitely many other views are incorrect to take it on face value that it is the correct representation.

This proves difficult.

It does not 'predict' certain 'phenomena'. It is an accurate model of the earth, agreed and used internationally.

Can you please provide details of an accurate alternative that has the correct distances, maybe even a map of a flat earth.

That's not now things work, we do not prove everything we might come up with is wrong before we know what is correct.  However, nice try to confuse the discussion, millions base their navigation etc. on the WGS84 model and it works.  As requested, where are the errors in it?

That may not be how you work, but if you aren't working in such a way you have no logical basis to say your view is correct and this other one is not. In fact, people smarter than myself (yes, I was surprised they exist too!), founded science on this very basis; on the columns of empiricism. You are taking science and dragging it back to the stupid ages so that it can talk to you like an oracle.

Hell before even then. Even Plato had his cave.

I have no need to show the details of such a model; I am arguing against the method not the specific now. To see that any mathematical equation could be altered in a minor way and provide evidence that fits the same data set, altered greatly and fits the same dataset, or even have the same equation and be interpreted differently is not a point of contention amongst anyone. This is why we have things like "Ockham's Razor" and "Russel's Teapot."

Unfortunately, they rely entirely upon happenstance, fashion, and 'good feelings' rather than any sort of methodological, metalogical, or logical basis. They simply appealed to people at the time, and thus now.

Let's take a stupid example: curve fitting an equation over some points. Obviously, when one curve fits they can choose less than ideal parameters such that the curve has a very low period or they can choose it such that it fits closest. Both these are as valid for the same set of data. Honestly its elementary to show that there are infinite such other functions etc that might fulfill a data set.

So, given this is obviously the case, and given any amount of time I could construct more refined methods to produce similar results, I must wonder what your point is; why should we stick with WGS84 -

Is it because you happened to find it first? A temporal fallacy.
Is it because it is as you "agreed and used internationally"?  That raises some interesting questions of its own. Should we decree my law pi is 3, does that make it so?

Sorry for dumping the tea out of your teapot, but is there no rational reasonable reason for me assume it is "an accurate" model of earth, aside from "predicting" certain "phenomenae"? I see a lot of handwaving and stating "oh oh ho, that's the way things are done" and little justification or evidence that this is how they actually are done or that it should be done that way.

Given that there are infinite such views that fit empirical data equally, two reasonable choices are certain: decision cannot be made which is "accurate" or represents the true nature of things. There is a nominalism to math which is often ignored which is starkly separated by a line of interpretation from the story it is sold by. I can use the exact same mathematics for something, and say fae pull things about rather than time being warped and it is equally valid. Attempts might be made to show it requires more axioms, but in reality we are just trading one axiom for another, which is really just hiding our ignorance.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2020, 01:29:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2020, 01:08:29 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 12:55:35 PM

It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.

In what way?  Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.

It may provide a mathematically accurate way to predict certain phenomena, but that does not mean it is an accurate model of the earth. One can construct infinitely many as accurate projections and models that have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers, which leads any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily a correct way to look at reality simply because it holds these traits. It must be shown that these infinitely many other views are incorrect to take it on face value that it is the correct representation.

This proves difficult.

It does not 'predict' certain 'phenomena'. It is an accurate model of the earth, agreed and used internationally.

Can you please provide details of an accurate alternative that has the correct distances, maybe even a map of a flat earth.

That's not now things work, we do not prove everything we might come up with is wrong before we know what is correct.  However, nice try to confuse the discussion, millions base their navigation etc. on the WGS84 model and it works.  As requested, where are the errors in it?

That may not be how you work, but if you aren't working in such a way you have no logical basis to say your view is correct and this other one is not. In fact, people smarter than myself (yes, I was surprised they exist too!), founded science on this very basis; on the columns of empiricism. You are taking science and dragging it back to the stupid ages so that it can talk to you like an oracle.

Hell before even then. Even Plato had his cave.

I have no need to show the details of such a model; I am arguing against the method not the specific now. To see that any mathematical equation could be altered in a minor way and provide evidence that fits the same data set, altered greatly and fits the same dataset, or even have the same equation and be interpreted differently is not a point of contention amongst anyone. This is why we have things like "Ockham's Razor" and "Russel's Teapot."

Unfortunately, they rely entirely upon happenstance, fashion, and 'good feelings' rather than any sort of methodological, metalogical, or logical basis. They simply appealed to people at the time, and thus now.

Let's take a stupid example: curve fitting an equation over some points. Obviously, when one curve fits they can choose less than ideal parameters such that the curve has a very low period or they can choose it such that it fits closest. Both these are as valid for the same set of data. Honestly its elementary to show that there are infinite such other functions etc that might fulfill a data set.

So, given this is obviously the case, and given any amount of time I could construct more refined methods to produce similar results, I must wonder what your point is; why should we stick with WGS84 -

Is it because you happened to find it first? A temporal fallacy.
Is it because it is as you "agreed and used internationally"?  That raises some interesting questions of its own. Should we decree my law pi is 3, does that make it so?

Sorry for dumping the tea out of your teapot, but is there no rational reasonable reason for me assume it is "an accurate" model of earth, aside from "predicting" certain "phenomenae"? I see a lot of handwaving and stating "oh oh ho, that's the way things are done" and little justification or evidence that this is how they actually are done or that it should be done that way.

Given that there are infinite such views that fit empirical data equally, two reasonable choices are certain: decision cannot be made which is "accurate" or represents the true nature of things. There is a nominalism to math which is often ignored which is starkly separated by a line of interpretation from the story it is sold by. I can use the exact same mathematics for something, and say fae pull things about rather than time being warped and it is equally valid. Attempts might be made to show it requires more axioms, but in reality we are just trading one axiom for another, which is really just hiding our ignorance.

I take it then your not going to divulge who did the research or where we can have a look at it.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2020, 01:29:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2020, 01:08:29 PM

Quote from: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 12:55:35 PM

It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.

In what way?  Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.

It may provide a mathematically accurate way to predict certain phenomena, but that does not mean it is an accurate model of the earth. One can construct infinitely many as accurate projections and models that have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers, which leads any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily a correct way to look at reality simply because it holds these traits. It must be shown that these infinitely many other views are incorrect to take it on face value that it is the correct representation.

This proves difficult.

It does not 'predict' certain 'phenomena'. It is an accurate model of the earth, agreed and used internationally.

Can you please provide details of an accurate alternative that has the correct distances, maybe even a map of a flat earth.

That's not now things work, we do not prove everything we might come up with is wrong before we know what is correct.  However, nice try to confuse the discussion, millions base their navigation etc. on the WGS84 model and it works.  As requested, where are the errors in it?

That may not be how you work, but if you aren't working in such a way you have no logical basis to say your view is correct and this other one is not. In fact, people smarter than myself (yes, I was surprised they exist too!), founded science on this very basis; on the columns of empiricism. You are taking science and dragging it back to the stupid ages so that it can talk to you like an oracle.

Hell before even then. Even Plato had his cave.

I have no need to show the details of such a model; I am arguing against the method not the specific now. To see that any mathematical equation could be altered in a minor way and provide evidence that fits the same data set, altered greatly and fits the same dataset, or even have the same equation and be interpreted differently is not a point of contention amongst anyone. This is why we have things like "Ockham's Razor" and "Russel's Teapot."

Unfortunately, they rely entirely upon happenstance, fashion, and 'good feelings' rather than any sort of methodological, metalogical, or logical basis. They simply appealed to people at the time, and thus now.

Let's take a stupid example: curve fitting an equation over some points. Obviously, when one curve fits they can choose less than ideal parameters such that the curve has a very low period or they can choose it such that it fits closest. Both these are as valid for the same set of data. Honestly its elementary to show that there are infinite such other functions etc that might fulfill a data set.

So, given this is obviously the case, and given any amount of time I could construct more refined methods to produce similar results, I must wonder what your point is; why should we stick with WGS84 -

Is it because you happened to find it first? A temporal fallacy.
Is it because it is as you "agreed and used internationally"?  That raises some interesting questions of its own. Should we decree my law pi is 3, does that make it so?

Sorry for dumping the tea out of your teapot, but is there no rational reasonable reason for me assume it is "an accurate" model of earth, aside from "predicting" certain "phenomenae"? I see a lot of handwaving and stating "oh oh ho, that's the way things are done" and little justification or evidence that this is how they actually are done or that it should be done that way.

Given that there are infinite such views that fit empirical data equally, two reasonable choices are certain: decision cannot be made which is "accurate" or represents the true nature of things. There is a nominalism to math which is often ignored which is starkly separated by a line of interpretation from the story it is sold by. I can use the exact same mathematics for something, and say fae pull things about rather than time being warped and it is equally valid. Attempts might be made to show it requires more axioms, but in reality we are just trading one axiom for another, which is really just hiding our ignorance.

I am not saying my view is correct.  Producing an accurate model of the earth has been studied for many years and the WGS84 produced by scientists and engineers has been shown to be correct and therefore used for navigation etc.

Equations are nothing to do with producing a model of the earth.

Do you have a method to produce maps, from 1:500 upwards?  Do you agree that we know the distances between different points on earth that confirm a round earth?

Producing an accurate model of the earth has been studied for many years and the WGS84 produced by scientists and engineers has been shown to be correct and therefore used for navigation etc.

The point he is making is that it has been shown to work, not be correct.
Technically with science nothing can be shown (i.e. proven) to be correct. Instead we can only show that it works to describe reality.

Most people would accept that it is correct, but John Davis likes saying we can't possibly know anything (at least anything that supports the RE) as everything is built up by inductive reasoning.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 22, 2020, 12:12:34 PM

Producing an accurate model of the earth has been studied for many years and the WGS84 produced by scientists and engineers has been shown to be correct and therefore used for navigation etc.

The point he is making is that it has been shown to work, not be correct.
Technically with science nothing can be shown (i.e. proven) to be correct. Instead we can only show that it works to describe reality.

Most people would accept that it is correct, but John Davis likes saying we can't possibly know anything (at least anything that supports the RE) as everything is built up by inductive reasoning.

All a bit sad that he can spend time saying the shape of this big rock we live on is unknown.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 22, 2020, 12:12:34 PM

Producing an accurate model of the earth has been studied for many years and the WGS84 produced by scientists and engineers has been shown to be correct and therefore used for navigation etc.

The point he is making is that it has been shown to work, not be correct.
Technically with science nothing can be shown (i.e. proven) to be correct. Instead we can only show that it works to describe reality.

Most people would accept that it is correct, but John Davis likes saying we can't possibly know anything (at least anything that supports the RE) as everything is built up by inductive reasoning.

Not true.

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

Not true.

Care to elaborate?
What part wasn't true, and why isn't it true?

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

And what observations or experiments were they?
What was the basis for that conclusion?

Please explain how these conclusions were reached, without needing any inductive reasoning.

Regardless, that is all in the past. It is only by inductive reasoning that you can claim it is still that way.

Again, it is based upon inductive reasoning, and for most people there is nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:23:24 PM

Not true.

Care to elaborate?
What part wasn't true, and why isn't it true?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:31:02 PM

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

And what observations or experiments were they?
What was the basis for that conclusion?

Please explain how these conclusions were reached, without needing any inductive reasoning.

Regardless, that is all in the past. It is only by inductive reasoning that you can claim it is still that way.

Again, it is based upon inductive reasoning, and for most people there is nothing wrong with that.

Most people would be confident the shape of the earth was determined by accurate measurement.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:23:24 PM

Not true.

Care to elaborate?
What part wasn't true, and why isn't it true?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:31:02 PM

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

And what observations or experiments were they?
What was the basis for that conclusion?

Please explain how these conclusions were reached, without needing any inductive reasoning.

Regardless, that is all in the past. It is only by inductive reasoning that you can claim it is still that way.

Again, it is based upon inductive reasoning, and for most people there is nothing wrong with that.

Sure thing.
As this discussion started off by mentioning mapping, let’s start there by being specific. I’m travelling to France in April, do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning? Though the question could apply to any country or land mass, but it just so happens France was one of the first European countries to be accurately mapped.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 02:39:32 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:23:24 PM

Not true.

Care to elaborate?
What part wasn't true, and why isn't it true?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:31:02 PM

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

And what observations or experiments were they?
What was the basis for that conclusion?

Please explain how these conclusions were reached, without needing any inductive reasoning.

Regardless, that is all in the past. It is only by inductive reasoning that you can claim it is still that way.

Again, it is based upon inductive reasoning, and for most people there is nothing wrong with that.

Sure thing.
As this discussion started off by mentioning mapping, let’s start there by being specific. I’m travelling to France in April, do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning? Though the question could apply to any country or land mass, but it just so happens France was one of the first European countries to be accurately mapped.

Are you starting with a special case here, namely the map of France, and looking to extrapolate out to something more generalized?

I take it then your not going to divulge who did the research or where we can have a look at it.

I think the original reference point is this:

Cornu Spirals and the Triangular Lacunary Trigonometric System
by Trenton Vogt and Darin J. Ulness

https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3110/3/3/40/htm

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:59:30 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 02:39:32 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:23:24 PM

Not true.

Care to elaborate?
What part wasn't true, and why isn't it true?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:31:02 PM

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

And what observations or experiments were they?
What was the basis for that conclusion?

Please explain how these conclusions were reached, without needing any inductive reasoning.

Regardless, that is all in the past. It is only by inductive reasoning that you can claim it is still that way.

Again, it is based upon inductive reasoning, and for most people there is nothing wrong with that.

Sure thing.
As this discussion started off by mentioning mapping, let’s start there by being specific. I’m travelling to France in April, do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning? Though the question could apply to any country or land mass, but it just so happens France was one of the first European countries to be accurately mapped.

Are you starting with a special case here, namely the map of France, and looking to extrapolate out to something more generalized?

Read my post. I said it could apply to any country where a similar approach to cartography is used.
Do you think maps of counties are produced by inductive reasoning?
The reason why I actually chose France was I wrote a paper back in the day on the Cassini family who were real innovators in both surveying and cartography in which disciplines inductive reasoning has no place, only precise measurements and accurate calculations.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:41:41 AM

I take it then your not going to divulge who did the research or where we can have a look at it.

I think the original reference point is this:

Cornu Spirals and the Triangular Lacunary Trigonometric System
by Trenton Vogt and Darin J. Ulness

https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3110/3/3/40/htm

Thanks for that, though I fail to see how such a technique could be used to produce a flat earth map. Cutting a sphere along a spiral with width 1 / N and flattening out the resulting shape yields an Euler spiral, sure.  If the sphere happens to be the globe, this produces a map projection with little if any distortion, so I imagine we would end up with a more accurate projection of the globe.

Most people would be confident the shape of the earth was determined by accurate measurement.

These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning.

Again, most people would be confident that inductive reasoning works.

do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning

Yes, or at least techniques which use it.

How do you think the map was produced?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 22, 2020, 02:52:10 PM

Most people would be confident the shape of the earth was determined by accurate measurement.

These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning.

Again, most people would be confident that inductive reasoning works.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:59:30 PM

do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning

Yes, or at least techniques which use it.

How do you think the map was produced?

By agreeing a technique of measuring distances and angles and plotting on paper.  Clearly the path of the sun shows that the earth is round.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 22, 2020, 02:52:10 PM

Most people would be confident the shape of the earth was determined by accurate measurement.

These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning.

Again, most people would be confident that inductive reasoning works.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:59:30 PM

do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning

Yes, or at least techniques which use it.

How do you think the map was produced?

I know how the map was produced, as I said I wrote a paper back in the day about the family who produced it. Before we go on it might be helpful if we define inductive reasoning.

A form of reasoning in which a conclusion is reached based on a pattern present in numerous observations.

Or

Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.

I suppose what makes the Cassini map unique is that it was the first map to be based on geodesic triangulation. That aside while there is indeed observation in the process, the whole thing hangs on the accuracy of the hands on measurements taken by the surveyor on site, and I suppose in the accuracy of the following calculations. While the process does rely on the known rules of geometry that can hardly be said to use reasoning of the inductive type, as the geometry is true all of the time in that particular situation. If anything I would say this process is an example of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true.

I think deductive reasoning describes the map making process far better than your claim that it is inductive.

By agreeing a technique of measuring distances and angles and plotting on paper.  Clearly the path of the sun shows that the earth is round.

And how do you measure those angles and distances?

I know how the map was produced

So it should be easy for you to explain it all and clearly explain how no inductive reasoning was used all.
Make sure you don't appeal to any scientific theory, as that is based upon inductive reasoning.
If you use deductive reasoning, but take premises which rely upon inductive reasoning, then you are still using inductive reasoning.

I suppose what makes the Cassini map unique is that it was the first map to be based on geodesic triangulation.

Which doesn't explain anything at all.
How does this work?
What observations are being made?
How do these observations then translate into a map?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 23, 2020, 12:57:09 AM

By agreeing a technique of measuring distances and angles and plotting on paper.  Clearly the path of the sun shows that the earth is round.

And how do you measure those angles and distances?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 01:04:39 AM

I know how the map was produced

So it should be easy for you to explain it all and clearly explain how no inductive reasoning was used all.
Make sure you don't appeal to any scientific theory, as that is based upon inductive reasoning.
If you use deductive reasoning, but take premises which rely upon inductive reasoning, then you are still using inductive reasoning.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 01:04:39 AM

I suppose what makes the Cassini map unique is that it was the first map to be based on geodesic triangulation.

Which doesn't explain anything at all.
How does this work?
What observations are being made?
How do these observations then translate into a map?

If you want a lesson on surveying in the 18/19 century go look it up.
I just happened to mention geodesic triangulation as it was significant as it explains their method.
You ask a lot of questions. If you were that interested you could go look it up. Every thing is there that you need.
As inductive reasoning tends to use broad generalisations something that is not used in surveying may I again state there is no inductive reasoning used in either taking precise measurements, using geometric principles or straightforward mathematics.
If you think inductive reasoning is used please elaborate, as you made the claim, you must know something I don’t, so please share that we may all learn something.
Can I remind you what you said:

These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning.

Please explain.
 

When will Tim have a stroke?

Over / under is 418 posts.

(just for fun)

When will Tim have a stroke?

Over / under is 418 posts.

(just for fun)

I see the comedy turn has appeared. Do you wear bells on your hat and a funny costume?

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 23, 2020, 02:11:45 AM

When will Tim have a stroke?

Over / under is 418 posts.

(just for fun)

I see the comedy turn has appeared. Do you wear bells on your hat and a funny costume?

Bells on my toes, Hawaiian shirt.

If you want a lesson on surveying in the 18/19 century go look it up.

And again, you just spout a bunch of baseless garbage and then refuse to back it up once you have been shown to be wrong.

As inductive reasoning tends to use broad generalisations

While it can use broad generalisations, there is no need for it to.
Any extent of generalisation would make it inductive reasoning.
Such as observing that light travels in straight lines for some observations and generalising it to everywhere.

Can I remind you what you said:

How about I remind you of what you said:

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

But now that you can't actually justify it you try and run, just like another thread.

The exact justification of the use of inductive reasoning will depend upon exactly what methods are used, which is why I asked you to clearly explain what the observations were and how the map was produced.

All of science is based upon inductive reasoning.
It relies upon making assumptions about the universe, that it is homogeneous with the same laws of physics everywhere and for all time (this one would even match your criteria of a broad generalisation as we can only direct test these laws here, yet apply it to the entire universe), and that there is no preferred directionality.

One part which directly relates to mapping is that time part.
Are you saying these maps are accurate now, or just when they were made?
The problem with when they were made is that they were likely made with observations over a long period of time.
It is only with inductive reasoning that you can say that because it was like that back when the observations were made it is like that now.
In fact, plate tectonics show that isn't the case at all as the plates move around and makes maps inaccurate.

But inductive reasoning relates to something Tom Bishop loves bringing up, and even to this very thread, bendy light.
As I pointed out above, any observation of the direction to a distant object based upon light (as is common in surveying) is based upon light travelling in a straight line.
But how do we know it does?
Well there is the assumption that the universe is isotropic, or there is the experimental observations of that. But I highly doubt they measured every single piece of the light path to confirm that it would be in a straight line, especially as surveying likes using high points with a large distance that can be viewed from, with a lot of the light path passing through the air.
It is only with inductive reasoning that you can generalise from the small scale experiments showing that light travels in a straight line, to the large scale observations of the angles to distant objects.

The actual observation isn't that the object is in that direction. Instead it is that the light is coming from that direction. It is inductive reasoning (as above) that leads to the conclusion that the object is as well.

So do you have a method of mapping which doesn't rely upon inductive reasoning?

Why do some people have problems understanding how we make maps and models of all or part of the world?  It is an established process.

Key is that the measurements are repeatable and accurate.  GPS helps with this.

Any questions can be answered by looking up cartography.  Amy issues, please give details of the link that you do not understand.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 02:04:28 AM

If you want a lesson on surveying in the 18/19 century go look it up.

And again, you just spout a bunch of baseless garbage and then refuse to back it up once you have been shown to be wrong.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 02:04:28 AM

As inductive reasoning tends to use broad generalisations

While it can use broad generalisations, there is no need for it to.
Any extent of generalisation would make it inductive reasoning.
Such as observing that light travels in straight lines for some observations and generalising it to everywhere.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 02:04:28 AM

Can I remind you what you said:

How about I remind you of what you said:

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:31:02 PM

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. It’s total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.

But now that you can't actually justify it you try and run, just like another thread.

The exact justification of the use of inductive reasoning will depend upon exactly what methods are used, which is why I asked you to clearly explain what the observations were and how the map was produced.

All of science is based upon inductive reasoning.
It relies upon making assumptions about the universe, that it is homogeneous with the same laws of physics everywhere and for all time (this one would even match your criteria of a broad generalisation as we can only direct test these laws here, yet apply it to the entire universe), and that there is no preferred directionality.

One part which directly relates to mapping is that time part.
Are you saying these maps are accurate now, or just when they were made?
The problem with when they were made is that they were likely made with observations over a long period of time.
It is only with inductive reasoning that you can say that because it was like that back when the observations were made it is like that now.
In fact, plate tectonics show that isn't the case at all as the plates move around and makes maps inaccurate.

But inductive reasoning relates to something Tom Bishop loves bringing up, and even to this very thread, bendy light.
As I pointed out above, any observation of the direction to a distant object based upon light (as is common in surveying) is based upon light travelling in a straight line.
But how do we know it does?
Well there is the assumption that the universe is isotropic, or there is the experimental observations of that. But I highly doubt they measured every single piece of the light path to confirm that it would be in a straight line, especially as surveying likes using high points with a large distance that can be viewed from, with a lot of the light path passing through the air.
It is only with inductive reasoning that you can generalise from the small scale experiments showing that light travels in a straight line, to the large scale observations of the angles to distant objects.

The actual observation isn't that the object is in that direction. Instead it is that the light is coming from that direction. It is inductive reasoning (as above) that leads to the conclusion that the object is as well.

So do you have a method of mapping which doesn't rely upon inductive reasoning?

What are you on about there are many very good web resources on surveying techniques and tools used down through the ages, very interesting if you care to look. I can't for the life of me see what I said in my previous post that was "baseless garbage".

"If you want a lesson on surveying in the 18/19 century go look it up.
I just happened to mention geodesic triangulation as it was significant as it explains their method.
You ask a lot of questions. If you were that interested you could go look it up. Everything is there that you need.
As inductive reasoning tends to use broad generalisations something that is not used in surveying may I again state there is no inductive reasoning used in either taking precise measurements, using geometric principles or straightforward mathematics.
If you think inductive reasoning is used please elaborate, as you made the claim, you must know something I don’t, so please share that we may all learn something.
Can I remind you what you said:

These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning.

Please explain."

That's what I said, and there is nothing in that text that is baseless let alone garbage.
What is interesting is that once more you avoid answering a valid question I presented to you, why is that? are you not able to answer it so you go on the attack? If you are not able to explain that's well and good. The example I gave was mapping France so let's stick to that, shall we. if you would like to raise another point for discussion then go ahead.

Back to this discussion, you said:
"These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning"

My question to you is, what evidence have you got for that?

These maps were made over a period of about 80 years if I remember correctly though I would have to look it up to give you an accurate figure. What recent ariel and satellite surveys have shown is just how accurate these maps were. While tectonic plates do indeed move over time, France, as you will know, is part of the Eurasian plate which abuts the African plate, which does make for quite a complex situation. Over the time periods, we are dealing with I think it hardly makes a difference.  Comparisons between these maps and recent Google images bear this out.
Regarding the way you are treating light, only a flat earth person thinks that light behaves in a bendy bendy way. Ask any scientist who deals with, light or optics and they will tell you in air, light travels in a straight line. If you want to argue about the nature of light choose someone else as its a totally silly argument to have. It's on the same mornoic level as do satellites exist? One day you will tie yourself so tight up in systematics that who knows what may result.
According to your 'reasoning', as people were involved in surveying back in the late 1700s early 1800s, they will have had to have used their brains, according to you and you're warped logic that would imply inductive reasoning in the process! as they knew very little about the working of the brain!

Some people just get on and do things and don't worry about what type of reasoning they are using.

Tim Eisup is a 'right fighter'.
He will never engage in a fair argument.

What are you on about

That is quite clear.
How about you quit with the distractions and either explain how these measurements were made without inductive reasoning being involved at all, or explain what is wrong with my argument that it does use inductive reasoning?

That's what I said, and there is nothing in that text that is baseless let alone garbage.

Your baseless garbage is that we have a magical method of mapping that does not involve any inductive reasoning at all.
Rather than explain the deductive process which results in the creation of the map, you just deflect.

What is interesting is that once more you avoid answering a valid question I presented to you

You mean I answered it and you just ignored the answer.
You ignoring the answer doesn't magically make it go away. It is still there for everyone to see.

Regarding the way you are treating light, only a flat earth person thinks that light behaves in a bendy bendy way.

That is irrelevant.
The fact is, light travelling in straight lines everywhere is based upon inductive reasoning and thus everything that follows from that is also based upon inductive reasoning.

Like I said, all of science is based upon inductive reasoning.
It making observations from the world, trying to notice a pattern to come up with a theory which is a generalisation of these observations (i.e. inductive reasoning) and then testing this theory by applying it to other situations.
These theories are rarely perfect.

Now I have clearly explained how it uses inductive reasoning, for some of the most common methods of mapping large distances.

If you wish to disagree you need to explain why that isn't based upon inductive reasoning, i.e. refute my argument, such as by showing a method to know that light travels in a straight line based entirely upon deductive reasoning.

Some people just get on and do things and don't worry about what type of reasoning they are using.

Which is what my point was.
Most people are perfectly with inductive reasoning.
It is used all the time, and is required for knowledge about the real world.
But John Davis likes using that to say we don't actually know anything. But only when it comes to objecting to a RE.