Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...

  • 642 Replies
  • 53293 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #240 on: July 26, 2021, 02:15:32 PM »
Of course we can all do the sticks in the ground experiment. Unfortunately it was done a long long time ago by another dude who had no other option being short of live streams from space, or a seat up to the ISS.

In reality the only place where this is an issue is here or the other place that no one mentions. Most ordinary folk take most scientific knowledge  for granted as they have more important things to think about and do. In reality we put our trust in experts all the time. Those who are parents would have put the lives of their children in the hands of experts when their children were delivered. We do it all the time, trust. For some it appears to be a dirty word. Why? Whats the problem with trusting experts who have an area of knowledge outwith your own?

The other question that really needs to be asked is the one about the acquisition of knowledge along with its ratification.

Are there people here who have absorbed all their knowledge through an appendage or did they like everyone else read about it or were taught it?

I find it incredulous that some people appear to give the impression that they have discovered it!

Are we supposed to take seriously the idea that some people on this site verify ALL the scientific theories the come across OR do we take it on trust that:-
Gravitational waves exist
Photons exist
Exoplanets exist
etc etc......
Another reframe. Classic. Don't you get tired of doing this? At this point you've made it abundantly clear that you don't intend to have an honest conversation with anyone, and you've dropped some serious hints that you are actually incapable of doing so even if you intended to.

Can you point out the dishonesty in that post you are referring to. Thanks.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #241 on: July 26, 2021, 02:52:47 PM »
The reason why there are no specific experts on that subject is because it is no longer a subject that requires a specific "expert" unless you know better.
The why is irrelevant.
But this certainly is going against the idea of what you were saying before.

It is therefore impossible for someone to become an expert in today’s world without access to experts.
Did you Jack black learn to read on your own with no expert to help?
Did you Jack black learn colours on your own working out the names for yourself?
Did you Jack Black learn how to walk on your own?
Did you Jack Black learn to talk on your own with no expert input?
Did you Jack Bkack acquire a vocabulary with no expert input?
How did you manage to learn how to write on your own with no expert to assist?
Have you ever read any books on specific subjects who’s facts  were previously unknown to you?
If the answer is yes then you have consulted experts.
There you are acting like we have experts on talking, reading, colours, walking and so on, even though most people are just getting to the same level as the vast majority of people in the country they are in.

You seemed to be implying that almost everyone who can read is an expert on reading. But now you say everyone can know the shape of Earth without needing to be an expert.

As for current experts, ever heard of geodesists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy#Notable_geodesists

Wowoha....thats not what Brawndo said! You added some extra bits!
I paraphrased, I wouldn't call that adding extra bits.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.
Where did he say about not bothering? Thats something you added.
"the ONLY thing you could possibly do to understand"
That means no point in bothering with anything else, as there is only this one possible way.

I maintain he is correct. You maintain he is wrong.
I maintain the only way you could do it is by repeating a previous experiment or observation that others have devised thus you are using expert advice.
So you maintain he is correct, while directly contradicting him.
Where did he say you obtain this understanding by repeating previous experiments or observations?

Again, what he actually said is that the only possible way is by just accepting what the experts say Earth is.

Notice the key part you keep overlooking?
Again, it isn't just getting help from an expert, it is specifically accepting WHAT THEY SAY EARTH IS!
If they say Earth is round, you accept that and then "know" Earth is round, if they say Earth is flat, you accept that and "know" Earth is flat.

The only way experiments are linked to his claim is via their absence.
His claim indicates that experiments are NOT a viable way to gain an understanding of the shape of Earth, that the only possible way is by just accepting what an expert says.

And I object to that BS, and you have directly contradicted it as well.

So which is it?
Is Brawndo wrong and we don't just need to accept what they say Earth is, and instead we can do experiments?
Or do you think Brawndo is right and those experiments are pointless and do not give you any understanding of the shape of Earth and that the only way to get such an understanding is by just accepting what they say Earth is.

You appear not to accept that.
When you say that, are you saying I appear to not accept Brawndo's claim, or that I appear to not accept your contradictory claim?

No, I appear to outright reject Brawndos claim and instead claim as a possibility the very thing you are suggesting is the only way, which is in direct contradiction to Brawndo's claim.

Remember the meaning of the word appear!
It doesn't mean what you want it to.
You can't claim that something appears in a particular way just so you can blatantly misrepresent it.

If I say it "appears that you are claiming you are a complete imbecile that can't even tie your own shoes without some expert assistance", is that being honest?
No, because there is nothing that actually portrays that and it doesn't appear that way at all.
Likewise, when you claim it "appears" that I say something or claim something or think something, there is no evidence of that at all. It is a strawman you have constructed with no basis in reality.
It does not appear that way at all.

The word you are better off using is that you think that.
Then we can discuss why you think that when there is nothing to suggest that except your repeated strawmanning.

Perhaps you should try to read what is said, all of it, rather than just continually strawmanning.

You appear to be say that repeating a previous experiment devised by A. N. Other is NOT accepting expert advice!
No, I don't. That is your blatant lie so you can pretend to be correct, while continually avoiding what Brawndo's statement actually was and actually means.

You say you can disprove Brawndo's statement but never say how!
I do, you just keep on ignoring it.
Remember this logical argument you are yet to refute (another slight modification to deal with you claiming there are no experts.:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - Experts on the shape of Earth exist andPeople know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.

This logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute proves beyond any doubt that Brawndo's statement is wrong.
It doesn't prove you directly contradictory statement wrong, but again, I'm arguing against Brawndo's statement, not your contradictory one that you want to pretend I am arguing against.

No one has mentioned religion but you.
So creationist aren't religious? Mentioning them isn't mentioning religion?

You APPEAR to think accepting scientific knowledge is akin to religious belief!
You APPEAR to be saying that unless you prove each scientific concept you come across accepting some is akin to religious belief.
Again, that is your strawman, not what it actually appears to be.
What I say is religious is the idea that the only way you could possibly understand is by accepting what an expert says the truth is.
That is religion, not science.

Science would be saying you can use experiments to verify it.
It isn't saying you HAVE TO verify everything. It is the possibility to which changes it from religion to science.


Because that is irrelevant to the logical argument I made.
All that matters for that argument is that someone knows the shape of Earth now.

Evasion and a refusal to prove the very point your argument rests on.
You mean refusal to give in to your ridiculous demands to run off on a tangent.
I gave the point that is important. The point that my argument rests upon, that experts know the shape of Earth.
This gives you a problem, the only way to become an expert is by getting that knowledge. The only way to get that knowledge is by just accepting what an expert says it is.
That means no expert->no way to get the knowledge->No way to become an expert.

There is no way for you disprove what Brandow said.
Again, the logical argument disproving the statement still stands unchallenged.

Are you for real. I said YOU have NONE of YOUR own experiments or observations that YOU can do that are of YOUR own devising.
No, you didn't, at least not in context.
I repeatedly pointed out that we don't need brand new experiments.
I even provided an example of such a previous experiment that can be replicated.

So when you claim these experiments don't exist, you are saying experiments which show Earth is round, not experiments made up by me, with no resemblance to prior experiments.

I never once said  RE belief
And I never said you did.
I said you are pretending it is a religious belief, as that is how religious beliefs are passed on.
Your actions and claims about how people come to know Earth is round and that there are no experiments that show Earth is round is pretending it is a religious belief rather than a fact.
If it was a fact you wouldn't need to just accept what an expert says, you would be able to perform observations and experiments to show it is a fact.

The point that you are failing to understand is the experts experiment
I'm not failing to understand anything. That is a point you are trying to strawman.
What you are suggesting is nothing like what Brawndo said.
The point you repeatedly fail to understand is that Brawndo's claim said nothing about experiments. They only way they are involved is due to their absence, meaning according to his claims, experiments do not allow you to understand the shape of Earth.
According to his claim, the only way to understand is by accepting what the experts say Earth is.
Again, that is:
"Expert says Earth round, I know Earth round".
That is vastly different to:
"Expert describes an experiment to determine if Earth is round. I replicate this experiment. The results of the experiment indicate Earth is round. I know Earth is round".

Notice the difference?
With one, specifically the one showing Brawndo's claim, all you are doing is accepting what they say Earth is.
With the other, you aren't, you don't even need them to say Earth is round.

the ONLY way you could prove Brawndo is wrong, and it is conceivable it could be done is to come up with a new set of experiments and observations that have never been carried out before. Why anyone would wish to do that is another matter.
Again, that would be proving your strawman wrong.
The logical argument I have provided proves he is wrong beyond any sane doubt.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #242 on: July 26, 2021, 03:00:46 PM »
Ill have to read thru all this. I stand by my statement. An everyday person can only get the definitive shape of the Earth from an expert. Not doing experiments and drawing conclusions.
And that statement is still just as wrong.
Again, if that is the case, how did you get your first expert?
If the only way to get knowledge is by getting it from an expert?

Or if someone tries to get to a position where they could get it for themselves, are you now excluding them from being an "everyday person"?

Simple single definitive evidence would be any picture from space.
Which still isn't just accepting what an expert says Earth is.

Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope. He isn't going to board a flight with Branson or Bezos. He isn't going to interpret satellite telemetry signals, or even view the ISS from the ground. He has to rely on an expert. I wish more people had the ability to do experiments and correctly interpret data. Thats all part of being a scientist and its a great career.
All you are saying with that is that the average Joe doesn't care and isn't going to try.
But that isn't what is being discussed. What is at issue is what is possible for the average Joe to do.


Unfortunately it was done a long long time ago by another dude
Which in no way negates the possibility for us to do it, nor does it negate the possibility for someone with no knowledge of that experiment to come up with the idea on their own.

Even FEers here come up with their own experiments to try to determine the shape of Earth.
A lot are flawed, but they are still coming up with experiments.

In reality we put our trust in experts all the time.
Again, the issue isn't what is done most of the time, the issue is what is possible.

I find it incredulous that some people appear to give the impression that they have discovered it!
Then stop pretending people give that impression.

If you look at the history of mathematics and calculus in particular you will see that there was hundreds of years of groundwork from hundreds of mathematicians before its eventual discovery, which was why it was discovered around about the same time as all the clues were there.
Then why didn't every mathematician discover it at the same time?

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #243 on: July 26, 2021, 05:22:46 PM »
Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope.

There is a huge difference between saying the average Joe won't do something and that he can't do something.

Measuring the Suns angle, determining the gravitational constant, looking through a telescope, all these things are certainly possible for the average Joe. They just have to want to do them, or given the opportunity. I've shown plenty of average Joes the wonders of the universe.

I think it's more than plausible to do enough experiments, by ones own hand to determine the shape of the Earth.

But I'm not sure you can really answer the question in the subject, as everyone is going to disagree on what constitutes definitive evidence.

Say you were serious about doing some experiments or an experiment, exactly how would you go about determining which was the best to do?

The answer is all of them. I'm not being facetious, the more you do the higher your certainty can be. Do them from easiest to hardest. Measuring the angle of the Sun from multiple locations at once is the easiest, just a few friends who can measure and a sunny day is all you need.

I saw some notes on using digital cameras to take pictures of the moon from various locations and get some pretty good positional and size data out of it. Lots of experiments can be done just with cameras and the internet. I'm sure you can think up new ones too.  I've always wanted to try and do parallax triangulation of the ISS.

The rest is all determined by what you have available. Living next to a big city gives you a lot more resources than if you live in the Australian outback.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #244 on: July 26, 2021, 06:05:16 PM »
Just a little info for a curious mind.  Calculus was invented by two people without communications between them at pretty much the same time.  There were some minor differences in method and of course notation but the end result was very similar.  They were trying to answer some questions that trigonometry itself couldn't answer.  No experts in calculus existed prior to that point.  Newton and Leibniz.

You give the impression that it appeared magically out of thin air which was certainly not the case. If you look at the history of mathematics and calculus in particular you will see that there was hundreds of years of groundwork from hundreds of mathematicians before its eventual discovery, which was why it was discovered around about the same time as all the clues were there. All it took was couple of extremely clever mathematicians to use the same clues to make the last few steps.

What is interesting is the HOW. Both Newton and Leibniz most likely had similar source materials to work from, better known as books written by earlier experts in mathematics. Incremental discovery. For example  Arab mathematician Ibn al-Haytham derived a formula for the sum of fourth powers. He used the results to carry out what would now be called an integration. That was in the C11th over 500 years before calculus was 'discovered'

In other words a great example of how experts learn from earlier experts. Discoveries are not made in a vacuum.

Here is a list of some of the books Newton had for bedtime reading:-
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-library/books-in-newtons-library
Again, no expert was available in calculus prior to there discoveries.  Using information and then deriving new and unheard of previously techniques is not the same as an expert in the field taught them how to do it.  Of course you would assume it appeared by magic, you seem to not understand the concept of invention, discovery, etc.  The statement once again, for the thousandth time, was you can't understand something without having an expert teach it to you.  That's what you have been defending, it's stupid, it's wrong.  I'd it were true there would never be progress, new ideas, new technologies.  Plus never blindly trust a so called expert, I don't noone should.  But small minded people who can't seem to actually extrapolate what they see around them and gain an understanding will be forever doomed to go nowhere. 
I now am positive the claim of being a teacher was just a lie to try to use it as an appeal to authority for you. 
Also, good comeback on the phone number, I got a good laugh.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #245 on: July 26, 2021, 11:08:28 PM »
Interesting to note that Jack Black keeps shying away from presenting his experiments to prove his point. Instead his tactic is to throw around as many meaningless word as possible to obscure the fact that he has lost.

He says he could know the shape of the world with no expert help but has never revealed what these experiments are, preferring to call their explanation irrelevant!

How can that be when it is the crux of the whole argument. He says expert help or assistance is NOT required. I say for this issue expert assistance IS required.

To win his point all Jack Black needs to do is describe his experiments, something he has failed to do after 9 pages of pointless posting!

Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #246 on: July 27, 2021, 03:40:55 AM »
Of course what is being forgotten is , evidence to convince who?

At present there is no evidence available that convinces flat earth believers. If there was such evidence there would be no Flat Earth believers.

If Jack black is going to present observations and experiments to convince all I can say is they better be dam good
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #247 on: July 27, 2021, 04:06:53 AM »
Interesting to note that Jack Black keeps shying away from presenting his experiments to prove his point.
You mean, interesting to note that I don't run off on your tangent.
Again, the logical argument proves you and Brawndo are wrong.
Interesting that you keep ignoring it.
Interesting that you continue to strawman, rather than focus on the actual argument.

He says he could know the shape of the world with no expert help
How many times will you repeat this same pathetic lie?
I get that you basically need to keep repeating it to pretend to have a case, but every time you do, you just further show how pathetic and futile your position is.

How can that be when it is the crux of the whole argument. He says expert help or assistance is NOT required. I say for this issue expert assistance IS required.
Again, that is the crux of your strawman, of what you want to pretend the argument is as you have no chance at all of defending the actual claim made by Brawndo.

To win his point all Jack Black needs to do
You really don't understand the burden of proof do you?
All I need to do to "win" is show that you haven't substantiated your claim.
But I have done more than that. I provided you with a logical argument to prove Brawndo's claim is wrong. And you just keep ignoring it.

But it seems your entire technique is to run away from the initial claim, lie about your opponent, and demand they prove your strawman of their position.

If you want to win, you need to actually prove the claim. That means proving that the only way to know Earth is round is by accepting the word of an expert saying it is round. No experiments, no observations, just what they say Earth is.
You need to prove there is no other way.
And that means actually proving the claim that was made, not the one you want to pretend it is.

And that means you proving the claim rather than trying to demand others disprove you.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #248 on: July 27, 2021, 05:37:05 AM »
When man invented the wheel, what expert showed man how to make it?
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #249 on: July 27, 2021, 07:14:46 AM »
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #250 on: July 27, 2021, 08:21:10 AM »
Interesting to note that Jack Black keeps shying away from presenting his experiments to prove his point.
You mean, interesting to note that I don't run off on your tangent.
Again, the logical argument proves you and Brawndo are wrong.
Interesting that you keep ignoring it.
Interesting that you continue to strawman, rather than focus on the actual argument.

He says he could know the shape of the world with no expert help
How many times will you repeat this same pathetic lie?
I get that you basically need to keep repeating it to pretend to have a case, but every time you do, you just further show how pathetic and futile your position is.

How can that be when it is the crux of the whole argument. He says expert help or assistance is NOT required. I say for this issue expert assistance IS required.
Again, that is the crux of your strawman, of what you want to pretend the argument is as you have no chance at all of defending the actual claim made by Brawndo.

To win his point all Jack Black needs to do
You really don't understand the burden of proof do you?
All I need to do to "win" is show that you haven't substantiated your claim.
But I have done more than that. I provided you with a logical argument to prove Brawndo's claim is wrong. And you just keep ignoring it.

But it seems your entire technique is to run away from the initial claim, lie about your opponent, and demand they prove your strawman of their position.

If you want to win, you need to actually prove the claim. That means proving that the only way to know Earth is round is by accepting the word of an expert saying it is round. No experiments, no observations, just what they say Earth is.
You need to prove there is no other way.
And that means actually proving the claim that was made, not the one you want to pretend it is.

And that means you proving the claim rather than trying to demand others disprove you.

The burden of proof can be a heavy load indeed, and it strikes me you are feeling it’s weight. Hence the repeated verbiage.
Wriggle all you want. You say you have observations and experiments. I say you’ve not. Thus the burden is all yours despite you trying in vain to say otherwise.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #251 on: July 27, 2021, 08:21:57 AM »
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

What?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #252 on: July 27, 2021, 08:23:03 AM »
When man invented the wheel, what expert showed man how to make it?

You sound as though you know the answer so why not share.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #253 on: July 27, 2021, 08:28:20 AM »
Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope.

There is a huge difference between saying the average Joe won't do something and that he can't do something.

Measuring the Suns angle, determining the gravitational constant, looking through a telescope, all these things are certainly possible for the average Joe. They just have to want to do them, or given the opportunity. I've shown plenty of average Joes the wonders of the universe.

I think it's more than plausible to do enough experiments, by ones own hand to determine the shape of the Earth.

But I'm not sure you can really answer the question in the subject, as everyone is going to disagree on what constitutes definitive evidence.

Say you were serious about doing some experiments or an experiment, exactly how would you go about determining which was the best to do?

The answer is all of them. I'm not being facetious, the more you do the higher your certainty can be. Do them from easiest to hardest. Measuring the angle of the Sun from multiple locations at once is the easiest, just a few friends who can measure and a sunny day is all you need.

I saw some notes on using digital cameras to take pictures of the moon from various locations and get some pretty good positional and size data out of it. Lots of experiments can be done just with cameras and the internet. I'm sure you can think up new ones too.  I've always wanted to try and do parallax triangulation of the ISS.

The rest is all determined by what you have available. Living next to a big city gives you a lot more resources than if you live in the Australian outback.

OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #254 on: July 27, 2021, 09:13:31 AM »
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #255 on: July 27, 2021, 09:32:14 AM »
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.
So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head. As a photoshop user and instructor I smell a little rat there. The use of unsharp mask is far from an obvious move. In fact using photoshop flying by the seat of your pants with no help or prior instruction I would say is a waste of time. As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #256 on: July 27, 2021, 09:34:43 AM »
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

What?
Try reading more slowly, it sometimes helps with comprehension.  If there are any words you need help with just ask.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #257 on: July 27, 2021, 09:36:59 AM »
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.
So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head. As a photoshop user and instructor I smell a little rat there. The use of unsharp mask is far from an obvious move. In fact using photoshop flying by the seat of your pants with no help or prior instruction I would say is a waste of time. As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
So you are saying the average person is too stupid to figure out photoshop.  Have you ever done anything on your own, just spent time figuring it out?  I worry for your survival if the internet ever goes down.  I bet you think the food magically appears at the grocery store too. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 09:39:48 AM by Mikey T. »

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #258 on: July 27, 2021, 09:44:44 AM »
So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head. As a photoshop user and instructor I smell a little rat there. The use of unsharp mask is far from an obvious move. In fact using photoshop flying by the seat of your pants with no help or prior instruction I would say is a waste of time. As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?

I don't use Photoshop, there are lots of easier to use programs out there, and free too. I also don't find it odd at all to click on stuff you don't know the meaning of and see what it does. I don't need a book to tell me what filter X does. I just need to apply it and look. I'm sure there are tons of Photoshop features that would confuse me, I'm also sure I could figure them out without needing a class if I needed to.

In all honestly I have no idea if an unsharp mask makes a Moon picture look better, I've never used it on the Moon as far as I can recall. I just threw out a random filter name as an example, it always stuck in my head as funny sounding. Unsharp.

I think most people taking pictures of the Moon for the first time with a camera that has manual controls would just turn the dials until it looked good. Really, shutter speed and aperture are only two settings and easy to figure out what they do even if you never used a camera before. I rarely look up how to take a picture of something, I just experiment. I think most photographers, professional or not will just take a picture of something and adjust the dials rather than put the camera down, pick up a laptop and do research. It's not rocket science.

My current moon lens is a 300mm to 600mm zoom. And for the record, I have been taking pictures since before the internet existed and yes, we could take pictures without looking it up. :)

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #259 on: July 27, 2021, 10:25:38 AM »
When man invented the wheel, what expert showed man how to make it?

You sound as though you know the answer so why not share.
Nice try at deflecting.

It's a simple question.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #260 on: July 27, 2021, 10:46:48 AM »
When man invented the wheel, what expert showed man how to make it?

You sound as though you know the answer so why not share.
Nice try at deflecting.

It's a simple question.

Ah.... you like secrets to, just like Jack.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #261 on: July 27, 2021, 02:17:07 PM »
The burden of proof can be a heavy load indeed
So it isn't surprising you keep trying to shift it onto others.
Again, Brawndo made the claim, so the burden is on him.
You chose to help defend that claim, so the burden is also on you.

It doesn't matter how much you dishonestly want to push the burden of proof, it wont magically go onto me.

You have the burden, you need to prove the claim.
That means you need to show that the only way to obtain knowledge (on the shape of Earth), is to just accept what an expert says that knowledge is.
And that means no experiments or observations, but just accepting what the expert says.

And again, even if I had a burden of proof, that has been more than met with the logical argument I have provided.
That means even if I did start with it, as I have proven my position, the burden shifts to you to refute that argument, something you refuse to even attempt because you know you can't.

So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head.
Or they just look around the menus to see what options there are.

As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
No, a sensible person would just use a camera and take a picture, and if it doesn't turn out well, change the settings on the camera. That would likely be a lot faster than trying to look it up.

Ah.... you like secrets to, just like Jack.
I'm not keeping secrets. You are blatantly lying about me to pretend I am, to pretend I am making points I am not so you can pretend you are right.
But it doesn't matter how many lies you spout, how many times you deflect and try to shift the burden of proof; you will still be wrong.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #262 on: July 28, 2021, 10:24:49 AM »
The burden of proof can be a heavy load indeed
So it isn't surprising you keep trying to shift it onto others.
Again, Brawndo made the claim, so the burden is on him.
You chose to help defend that claim, so the burden is also on you.

It doesn't matter how much you dishonestly want to push the burden of proof, it wont magically go onto me.

You have the burden, you need to prove the claim.
That means you need to show that the only way to obtain knowledge (on the shape of Earth), is to just accept what an expert says that knowledge is.
And that means no experiments or observations, but just accepting what the expert says.

And again, even if I had a burden of proof, that has been more than met with the logical argument I have provided.
That means even if I did start with it, as I have proven my position, the burden shifts to you to refute that argument, something you refuse to even attempt because you know you can't.

So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head.
Or they just look around the menus to see what options there are.

As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
No, a sensible person would just use a camera and take a picture, and if it doesn't turn out well, change the settings on the camera. That would likely be a lot faster than trying to look it up.

Ah.... you like secrets to, just like Jack.
I'm not keeping secrets. You are blatantly lying about me to pretend I am, to pretend I am making points I am not so you can pretend you are right.
But it doesn't matter how many lies you spout, how many times you deflect and try to shift the burden of proof; you will still be wrong.

You are obviously not a photographer or photoshop user.

Change what settings! The image you have of the moon is blurry and overexposed what do you change? let's say you are shooting with a 600mm lens.
What mode are you in, what mode do you change to as there is normally around ten modes on the mode dial? what settings do you change first? Doing photography with you must be fun!

You say in response to," So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head" :-

Or they just look around the menus to see what options there are.

Have you ever opened up Photoshop recently?  See what options there are? Holy COW!!!!!

In photoshop Unsharp Mask is a nested command and by its name its NOT obvious what it does and as it has 3 sliders which one do you slide and where do you slide them to?
Going into photoshop with no clue as to what to do or any EXPERT help is utter futility as so many things are just  not obvious. Its a very complex piece of software and anyone who claims they can pick it up and use it straight off with no aid or assistance is talking utter bull.

You really have demonstrated just how ignorant you are about both photography and photoshop.  You may have a Phd in who knows what, but Im an EXPERT in both photoshop and photography. I know how much you LOVE experts. But what you have also demonstrated is you will call white black in an attempt to prove a cheap point.

You have also demonstrated that you will talk bullshit when you have naught else to say. The burden is clearly on you as the argument has boiled down to; can you use experiments to prove (insert whatever) instead of consulting EXPERTS?  I say NO you say YES.

Reveal the experiments or observations! Simple.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #263 on: July 28, 2021, 10:41:53 AM »
Tim can't figure out Photoshop, which is not even the app JJA was using, therefore no one can figure out any photo editing software without an expert to guide them. That's a new and also flawed assertion. Neato.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #264 on: July 28, 2021, 11:37:18 AM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 12:41:17 PM by Mikey T. »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #265 on: July 28, 2021, 02:51:18 PM »
You are obviously not a photographer or photoshop user.
Change what settings!
I don't know, I look through the settings available and try changing them.
Does the change make it better? Does it make it worse? It wont take long to make it look good.

Have you ever opened up Photoshop recently?  See what options there are? Holy COW!!!!!
Yes, there are a lot. Some can be dismissed quite quickly, like those involving colour.

The point is not that it is easy or fast, but that it is possible. You don't need someone there telling you what to use.

what you have also demonstrated is you will call white black in an attempt to prove a cheap point.
You mean I have demonstrated that I will continue to call you out on your BS, while you will continue to spout whatever BS you can think of to try to pretend you have never been wrong.

The burden is clearly on you as the argument has boiled down to; can you use experiments to prove (insert whatever) instead of consulting EXPERTS?
No, the burden is still entirely on you and Brawndo.

The argument has boiled down to you having chosen to defend Brawndo's claim that the only way to learn is by just accepting what an expert says, but being completely incapable of defending it; and me saying that is BS, and providing a logical argument you can't refute. As you can't refute my argument, nor defend the claim, you continually try to change the topic and demand I prove something I never claimed.

What you are doing is just as dishonest as demanding I prove the moon is made of cheese, and claiming that unless I can, I'm wrong.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #266 on: July 28, 2021, 11:56:14 PM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two I’ve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #267 on: July 29, 2021, 12:21:53 AM »
You are obviously not a photographer or photoshop user.
Change what settings!
I don't know, I look through the settings available and try changing them.
Does the change make it better? Does it make it worse? It wont take long to make it look good.

Have you ever opened up Photoshop recently?  See what options there are? Holy COW!!!!!
Yes, there are a lot. Some can be dismissed quite quickly, like those involving colour.

The point is not that it is easy or fast, but that it is possible. You don't need someone there telling you what to use.

what you have also demonstrated is you will call white black in an attempt to prove a cheap point.
You mean I have demonstrated that I will continue to call you out on your BS, while you will continue to spout whatever BS you can think of to try to pretend you have never been wrong.

The burden is clearly on you as the argument has boiled down to; can you use experiments to prove (insert whatever) instead of consulting EXPERTS?
No, the burden is still entirely on you and Brawndo.

The argument has boiled down to you having chosen to defend Brawndo's claim that the only way to learn is by just accepting what an expert says, but being completely incapable of defending it; and me saying that is BS, and providing a logical argument you can't refute. As you can't refute my argument, nor defend the claim, you continually try to change the topic and demand I prove something I never claimed.

What you are doing is just as dishonest as demanding I prove the moon is made of cheese, and claiming that unless I can, I'm wrong.

Now you are looking really foolish. Photography by trial and error!
I seriously hope your learning methods are not picked up by others, engineers, doctors etc!

What you are implying is just plain ridiculous. If someone wants to get the best out of a complex system one normally seeks some form of training. Why do you think companies look for people with previous experience backed by some form of qualifications to show competence?

Accepting expert advice! We, You do that all the time! The way you people have this anti - expert stance is unbelievable.

You have clearly demonstrated by not revealing your secret methods that you too would have to resort to expert advice. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

The photoshop/photography  tangent is a great example of deflection and the other introduction of an untestable or verifiable claims. Having seen new users of photoshop being overwhelmed I can only imagine the state yourself would get into using the trial and error approach.

You and others may CLAIM to be able to load up the software and start using it with no previous experience, but I call that claim false based on years of experience of using photoshop on a daily basis. While you may well be able to open it up, using it and achieving optimum results by trial and error is just not realistic. It equates to the infinite monkeys banging out a version of Hamlet!, with you as the monkey!

An injection of reality I think is required. At the moment we have you fiddling with camera, twisting and turning dials and buttons, fooling around with menus and sub menus, snapping away while forgetting to remove the lens cap!
While your pal is messing around in a ripped off version of photoshop doing who knows what!

What a fine team you would make.

How much easier would it have been to read the camera manual, and consult a photography book.

For photoshop the same would apply depending upon what you want to do.

The sight of you bunch working blindly without a clue speaks volumes of your individual mindsets.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #268 on: July 29, 2021, 03:57:41 AM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.
If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
Can you even read English?

Where did he say he got the best results?
Yet again, rather than even attempt to address what is said and deal with the issue at hand, you start off with a strawman and try to attack that to pretend you do no wrong.

Now you are looking really foolish. Photography by trial and error!
No, that would still be you.
Now even more so.
Plenty of things are done with trial and error. Why do you think people make prototypes?
The have an idea, design a prototype, trial it out, and fix errors found.

What you are implying is just plain ridiculous.
You mean what you are pretending I am implying, so you can pretend you are right.

You have clearly demonstrated by not revealing your secret methods
Again, they are not secret.
The experiments you can do to determine the shape of Earth have been discussed plenty, on this forum and elsewhere.

What you are falsely claiming is secrete is your fantasy idea of me claiming to have brand new, never before seen ones. But again, that is just your pathetic strawman to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Likewise, you have clearly demonstrated your completely inability to justify your claims by not revealing your proof that the moon is made of cheese.

You and others may CLAIM to be able to load up the software and start using it with no previous experience
So it is clear you also have no idea about designing software.
Do you know a hallmark of good software design? An intuitive interface where people can use it without needing to get training on it.
If you need to read manuals or have someone teach you how to use it, the software is crap.

It equates to the infinite monkeys banging out a version of Hamlet!, with you as the monkey!
Are you capable of making a single logical argument for once?
Do you know a big difference between me and those monkeys?
I can see if what I am doing is making progress towards the goal and adjust what I do accordingly.
The monkeys can't.

Since you like bringing up religion and creationists, what you are suggesting now is akin to a creationists argument against evolution; where the likelihood of any particular outcome coming to be, with all those parts, is so low it would never happen.

But with things like evolution, and a sentient individual analysing the results, they can selective keep good parts.

If you would like a better analogy, say you have 100 dice, and want to get all sixes. The monkeys just keep on rolling, until they do, with odds of getting all sixes as roughly 1 in 7*10^77, and it will take them roughly that many throws to get all sixes (i.e. that is the expected value). But me doing it, I'm smart enough to notice the sixes I do get, and not reroll them.
So I roll and get probably 16 or 16 sixes, and don't re-roll them. After the 14th roll, I would expect to only need to get 10 more, and be getting 1 or less each time, doing it a lot faster than your random monkeys.

So back to the camera and photoshop, the only limitation would be if I get stuck in a local maximum and need to leave that, getting worse, to get to the global maxmimum.
But again, this isn't about being the best, this is about getting something that works.

How much easier would it have been to read the camera manual, and consult a photography book.
How much easier would it be if you actually tried defending the claim and addressing the argument, rather than continually running off with these pathetic deflections?
Who gives a damn what would be easier.
This has no bearing on the argument at hand.
The argument is not that it is easiest to do it this way, but that it is possible to.
This is because the claim Brawndo made wasn't that it is EASIEST to consult the experts. Instead he claimed that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY is to just accept what an expert an SAYS EARTH IS!

And that claim is simply pure BS, and even though you claim he is right, you directly contradicted him and continually refuse to provide any justification for this claim, instead continually strawmanning and deflecting, trying to defend a different claim we didn't object to.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...
« Reply #269 on: July 29, 2021, 04:44:13 AM »
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two I’ve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.