ChatGPT Proves Curvature

What are you talking about?  I was proving that that it does matter which definition of horizon is used, by choosing the most commonly used definition for horizon to refute your previous arguments.

I wasn't trying to explain your question "(please explain) how the FE would have a horizon that is a finite distance away, where objects are obscured by it." -- That is a new question.

You can answer this question yourself, but you first need to learn and understand what a "vanishing point" is.  Vanishing points exist on flat planes as well as curved surfaces. Research vanishing points on your own if you want to really understand the simple concept of a seeing the horizon on a horizontal surface.

Chat GPT is ultimately an word predictor.
It can come up with sentences that make sense, but they are not necessarily true.

Yes, I understand, but last week, Stephen Wolframm, creator of the computing answer engine "Wolframm/Alpha" announced last week that: "Thanks to some heroic software engineering by our team and by OpenAI, ChatGPT can now call on Wolfram|Alpha—and Wolfram Language as well—to give it what we might think of as “computational superpowers”

In the following article, he shows some answers that ChatGPT 4 gave using a fixed North Pole model of Earth: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its-wolfram-superpowers/

I was just curious if anyone tried to ask ChatGPT 4 if it could prove curvature by explaining how far a 6 ft. tall person could see if they were standing on the surface of a ball with a 4K mile radius. If it gave the expected answer of approx. 3 miles, what would that imply?

I was just curious if anyone tried to ask ChatGPT 4 if it could prove curvature by explaining how far a 6 ft. tall person could see if they were standing on the surface of a ball with a 4K mile radius. If it gave the expected answer of approx. 3 miles, what would that imply?

That would imply that it's programmed to use the same math that we have been using for ages. Paraphrasing Jack: just because it comes to a conclusion about something doesn't mean it's true.

That would imply that it's programmed to use the same math that we have been using for ages. Paraphrasing Jack: just because it comes to a conclusion about something doesn't mean it's true.

I was looking for an intellectually honest reply.  Of course, if GPT4 answered apx 3 miles, that would be based on geometry.  Also, nice that you 'paraphrase' Jack, but your doing so is an irrelevant and disingenuous reply to my question.  Are you sure your name isn't Captain Obvious?

I was just curious if anyone tried to ask ChatGPT 4 if it could prove curvature by explaining how far a 6 ft. tall person could see if they were standing on the surface of a ball with a 4K mile radius. If it gave the expected answer of approx. 3 miles, what would that imply?

Even if it understood the question and gave the correct answer, all that is doing is showing that a round Earth with a radius of ~6371 km, with a 6 archaic unit observer position would have the horizon 3 archaic units away.
This doesn't prove Earth is round.

Calculating how far away the horizon is on a round Earth doesn't prove Earth is round.
If you want to demonstrate Earth is round you need to get evidence from reality which matches the model.

If you want, I decided to ask it what the distance to the horizon was for an observer at 100 m and at 10 000 km.
For a height of 10 000 km, it told me 11 291.4 km. Given how bad that was I decided to push it to 35 000 km (approximately the height of a geostationary satellite).
For that it gave me the answer 23 094.7 km.
That applies in both directions, so if you go from one side to the other, that gives a total distance of 46 189.4 km.
Now this is a big problem.
With the radius of Earth being 6371 km, the circumference would be 40 030 km.
This means that according to Chat GPT, a geostationary satellite would be able to see more than the entire Earth. That is a geostationary satellite should be able to view a point exactly opposite on Earth, without Earth getting in the way. I would love to know how that is possible.

Perhaps it comes from the caveat it continually provided:
"assuming the ground is flat and there are no obstructions."
So even though it appeals to Earth's curvature in its calculation it says Earth needs to be flat to get this result.

I also see looking into it more, it decided to change the calculation, going from d = sqrt(2Rh), to d = sqrt(2 * R * (h + R)).
This almost looks correct if it was trying to measure from the observer directly to the horizon rather than along the surface.
But that should be d=sqrt(h*(2*R+h))=sqrt(2*r*h + h^2).
But doing that properly gives 40 877.5 km, so it clearly isn't doing that.

So I guess according to you this proves Earth isn't round? All because Chat GPT sucks at giving answers?

I also decided to go one step further, and ask it about other possibilities, i.e. "What would be the distance to the horizon for an observer height of 2 m if Earth had a radius of 1000 km".
And it told me 2 km.
Does this mean the radius of Earth is 1000 km and the distance to the horizon is 2 km?

Even if it could actually think, it would be no better than asking a person who thinks Earth is round.
It doesn't prove Earth is round. It is just dealing with hypotheticals.

If you want to demonstrate Earth is round you need evidence from reality.

As for Alpha2Omega's reply, there is nothing irrelevant or disingenuous about it.
Asking Chat GPT doesn't demonstrate Earth is round.

And if you think it is so obvious, then why are you asking such a foolish question (note the key part of it being foolish is you thinking the answer is obvious, with that obvious answer being that it wont prove Earth is round)?

Quote from: AdamQuantum on March 28, 2023, 10:24:22 AM

I was just curious if anyone tried to ask ChatGPT 4 if it could prove curvature by explaining how far a 6 ft. tall person could see if they were standing on the surface of a ball with a 4K mile radius. If it gave the expected answer of approx. 3 miles, what would that imply?

Even if it understood the question and gave the correct answer, all that is doing is showing that a round Earth with a radius of ~6371 km, with a 6 archaic unit observer position would have the horizon 3 archaic units away.
This doesn't prove Earth is round.

Calculating how far away the horizon is on a round Earth doesn't prove Earth is round.

Wow, you don't understand where I am coming from at all.  Do you really think I am trying to prove the earth is round?  Roflmao. If so, you assume way too much. I know a lot more about this subject than you give me credit for.  As far as the rest of your word salad, I will only consider a reply after you admit that you assumed with no good reason that I was trying to prove the earth is round. 

I asked chat gpt to verify my flat earth theory and it did.

That said, its a text predictor, not an oracle.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 28, 2023, 02:06:56 PM

Quote from: AdamQuantum on March 28, 2023, 10:24:22 AM

I was just curious if anyone tried to ask ChatGPT 4 if it could prove curvature by explaining how far a 6 ft. tall person could see if they were standing on the surface of a ball with a 4K mile radius. If it gave the expected answer of approx. 3 miles, what would that imply?

Even if it understood the question and gave the correct answer, all that is doing is showing that a round Earth with a radius of ~6371 km, with a 6 archaic unit observer position would have the horizon 3 archaic units away.
This doesn't prove Earth is round.

Calculating how far away the horizon is on a round Earth doesn't prove Earth is round.

Wow, you really didn't understand the question.  Do you really think I am trying to prove the earth is round?  Roflmao. You assume way too much. I know a lot more about this subject than you give me credit for.  As far as the rest of your word salad, I will only consider a reply after you admit that you assumed with no good reason I was trying to prove the earth is round.

Instead of getting mad, maybe you should ask ChatGPT to do your homework for you.

Wow, you really didn't understand the question.  Do you really think I am trying to prove the earth is round?

Then maybe you should have phrased your question better so people can understand it.

The title of this thread is "ChatGPT Proves Curvature".

You then followed that up with comment like:
"ChatGPT can answer questions that could prove or debunk theories about the Earth."
"has anyone ever asked a similar question that can prove or debunk ideas about curvature?"

It certainly seems like that was what you were going for.

So I shouldn't have bothered reading what you said to understand what you meant?
What alternative do you propose?
I will not admit I assumed with no good reason.
I concluded what you were asking based upon what you said, including the title of the topic.

How about instead of shifting the blame away from others, you try clarifying exactly what your intent is.
Just what are you trying to do if not see if ChatGPT Proves Curvature?

I have to agree with Jack on this one.

Then maybe you should have phrased your question better so people can understand it.

The title of this thread is "ChatGPT Proves Curvature".

You then followed that up with comment like:
"ChatGPT can answer questions that could prove or debunk theories about the Earth."
"has anyone ever asked a similar question that can prove or debunk ideas about curvature?"

It certainly seems like that was what you were going for.

So I shouldn't have bothered reading what you said to understand what you meant?
What alternative do you propose?
I will not admit I assumed with no good reason.
I concluded what you were asking based upon what you said, including the title of the topic.

How about instead of shifting the blame away from others, you try clarifying exactly what your intent is.
Just what are you trying to do if not see if ChatGPT Proves Curvature?

I wanted to know if anyone had asked ChatGPT a simple Geometry question whose expected answer (apx 3 mi.) would debunk the ball theory.

The title was intended to be worded in a neutral and discreet way.  However, people obviously misunderstood, so I guess that is my bad.  Other than the title, the only reasons you gave for making the wrong assumption about my position on the flat vs. ball earth debate is that I asked "prove or debunk" twice.  I asked the either/or question to invite input from both sides of the issue.

I can tell you, I immediately understood the work of Sargent, Skiba and Dubay when I first saw their work years ago.  I don't care what you think, but don't attack me whether I believe one way or another. 

Instead of getting mad, maybe you should ask ChatGPT to do your homework for you.

I'm not mad, but thanks for the suggestion.

I have to agree with Jack on this one.

You agree that I'm a ball earther?  or that it's ok to make the wrong assumptions about me without good reason? hmmm....ok 

No it doesn't.

ChatGPT is a chatbot. It's by definition incapable of proving anything, because sentience is a requirement of offering proof. If you have no self-awareness, you can only repeat the same arguments. Kinda like DataOverload.

I wanted to know if anyone had asked ChatGPT a simple Geometry question whose expected answer (apx 3 mi.) would debunk the ball theory.

The title was intended to be worded in a neutral and discreet way.  However, people obviously misunderstood, so I guess that is my bad.  Other than the title, the only reasons you gave for making the wrong assumption about my position on the flat vs. ball earth debate is that I asked "prove or debunk" twice.  I asked the either/or question to invite input from both sides of the issue.

I can tell you, I immediately understood the work of Sargent, Skiba and Dubay when I first saw their work years ago.  I don't care what you think, but don't attack me whether I believe one way or another.

So you were being disingenuous, and instead of wanting to know if it proves the curvature was hoping for it to debunk it?

I don't really care what your position is on the flat vs ball debate, as it doesn't significantly change what I said.
Guess what? It is still just a text generator. It saying something doesn't debunk the RE model either.

It providing an answer is not proof the answer is true, and so it doesn't demonstrate Earth is round or flat.

I also have understood the work of Sargent, Skiba and Dubay; the big difference is I understand that it is BS, which doesn't refute the RE or prove the FE.

But the bigger issue here seems to be that you think a distance to the horizon would refute the RE model. Why?
The model that is refuted with regards to the horizon is the FE model. For this I can even quote Chat GPT for you:

However, since the radius of the Earth would be infinite in this scenario, the distance to the horizon would also be infinite. This means that an observer at any height would be able to see an infinite distance in all directions.
Therefore, in the case of a flat Earth, there is no specific distance to the horizon, and the concept of the horizon itself does not exist as there is no curvature in the surface of the Earth to block one's view.

Quote from: Username on March 28, 2023, 04:05:38 PM

I have to agree with Jack on this one.

You agree that I'm a ball earther?  or that it's ok to make the wrong assumptions about me without good reason? hmmm....ok 

I didn't assume you are a ball earther, but if you believe the drivel Dubay drools out, you might as well be. Aside from being wrong he also thinks hitler is a cool guy, lied about us, and does nothing but plagarize.

So you were being disingenuous, and instead of wanting to know if it proves the curvature was hoping for it to debunk it?

No, and no. I wanted to know if anyone ever asked ChatGPT a specific geometry question whose expected answer could be used to (help) prove or debunk theories regarding the Earth's curvature or lack thereof. 

I don't really care what your position is on the flat vs ball debate, as it doesn't significantly change what I said.

ok, got it.

Guess what?

It is still just a text generator. It saying something doesn't debunk the RE model either.

It providing an answer is not proof the answer is true, and so it doesn't demonstrate Earth is round or flat.

Good to know.

I also have understood the work of Sargent, Skiba and Dubay; the big difference is I understand that it is BS, which doesn't refute the RE or prove the FE.

How profound. I also don't know if you exist, but I know that I do.

But the bigger issue here seems to be that you think a distance to the horizon would refute the RE model. Why?

That's not what I think, but let me indulge you.  Yes, if a 6ft person is standing on a ball with a 4000 mile radius and they shouldn't be able to see more than around 3 mile in the horizon, then if I can see a lot more than 3 miles in the horizon, that shows at least something wrong with the ball model.  By the way, even if I did think what you claimed, its not some bigger issue; it was just an original post for a thread.

The model that is refuted with regards to the horizon is the FE model. For this I can even quote Chat GPT for you:

Quote

However, since the radius of the Earth would be infinite in this scenario, the distance to the horizon would also be infinite. This means that an observer at any height would be able to see an infinite distance in all directions.
Therefore, in the case of a flat Earth, there is no specific distance to the horizon, and the concept of the horizon itself does not exist as there is no curvature in the surface of the Earth to block one's view.

You failed to show how your quote refutes the FE model with regard to the horizon.  To start, you didn't share what question was posed. 

Quote from: AdamQuantum on March 28, 2023, 07:01:59 PM

Quote from: Username on March 28, 2023, 04:05:38 PM

I have to agree with Jack on this one.

You agree that I'm a ball earther?  or that it's ok to make the wrong assumptions about me without good reason? hmmm....ok 

I didn't assume you are a ball earther...

What was "this one" that you agreed with JackBlack on then? 

...but if you believe the drivel Dubay drools out, you might as well be. Aside from being wrong he also thinks hitler is a cool guy, lied about us, and does nothing but plagarize.

I don't believe the drivel Eric Dubay or anyone else drools out. "...you might as well be?"- why the ad hominem...that's something that a preteen online bully would say.

I wouldn't believe an AI if I was you but whatever.

Yes, I understand, but last week, Stephen Wolframm, creator of the computing answer engine "Wolframm/Alpha" announced last week that: "Thanks to some heroic software engineering by our team and by OpenAI, ChatGPT can now call on Wolfram|Alpha—and Wolfram Language as well—to give it what we might think of as “computational superpowers”

In the following article, he shows some answers that ChatGPT 4 gave using a fixed North Pole model of Earth: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/03/chatgpt-gets-its-wolfram-superpowers/

I was just curious if anyone tried to ask ChatGPT 4 if it could prove curvature by explaining how far a 6 ft. tall person could see if they were standing on the surface of a ball with a 4K mile radius. If it gave the expected answer of approx. 3 miles, what would that imply?

It would imply that the ChatGPT is stupid.  A 6ft person, with average vision can see an almost infinite distance, as long as sufficient light from that distance can reach their eyes.

Quote from: Username on March 29, 2023, 10:17:45 AM

Quote from: AdamQuantum on March 28, 2023, 07:01:59 PM

Quote from: Username on March 28, 2023, 04:05:38 PM

I have to agree with Jack on this one.

You agree that I'm a ball earther?  or that it's ok to make the wrong assumptions about me without good reason? hmmm....ok 

I didn't assume you are a ball earther...

What was "this one" that you agreed with JackBlack on then? 

Quote

...but if you believe the drivel Dubay drools out, you might as well be. Aside from being wrong he also thinks hitler is a cool guy, lied about us, and does nothing but plagarize.

I don't believe the drivel Eric Dubay or anyone else drools out. "...you might as well be?"- why the ad hominem...that's something that a preteen online bully would say.

That's good. My sincere apologies for any offense.

I agreed that you query could have been phrased better to avoid the confusion that has come out of it. Come to think of it, my response should have been phrased more specifically as well.

That's good. My sincere apologies for any offense.

I agreed that you query could have been phrased better to avoid the confusion that has come out of it.

Thank you for the apologies, no offense taken. Thanks also for the clarification, it makes sense and I agree that my query could have been phrased better.  As you can easily gather, I am very new to this forum.  I would like to see this unfortunate thread fade away soon.  Hopefully everyone can get their last word in, and we can all put this one behind us.

Quote from: Username on March 29, 2023, 12:33:37 PM

That's good. My sincere apologies for any offense.

I agreed that you query could have been phrased better to avoid the confusion that has come out of it.

Thank you for the apologies, no offense taken. Thanks also for the clarification, it makes sense and I agree that my query could have been phrased better.  As you can easily gather, I am very new to this forum.  I would like to see this unfortunate thread fade away soon.  Hopefully everyone can get their last word in, and we can all put this one behind us.

Alright. Let me know if you want it locked.

That's not what I think, but let me indulge you.  Yes, if a 6ft person is standing on a ball with a 4000 mile radius and they shouldn't be able to see more than around 3 mile in the horizon, then if I can see a lot more than 3 miles in the horizon, that shows at least something wrong with the ball model.  By the way, even if I did think what you claimed, its not some bigger issue; it was just an original post for a thread.

There are several issues, typically with the application of the model rather than the model itself.
The issue with the model is not accounting for refraction which will typically allow you to see slightly further.

The issues with the application are ignoring that if objects are tall enough (or high enough) they can still be seen beyond the horizon, and as you increase altitude the distance to the horizon increases.

You failed to show how your quote refutes the FE model with regard to the horizon.  To start, you didn't share what question was posed.

The question doesn't matter.
But if you really need it it was "What would be the distance to the horizon if Earth was flat?".
It correctly answered that there should be no horizon if Earth is flat.
The fact that we see a close horizon, which moves around with us, and the distance to it changes with altitude; and that as an object goes over the horizon it appears to sink and disappear from the bottom up is quite strong evidence that Earth is round.

There are several issues, typically with the application of the model rather than the model itself.
The issue with the model is not accounting for refraction which will typically allow you to see slightly further.

The issues with the application are ignoring that if objects are tall enough (or high enough) they can still be seen beyond the horizon, and as you increase altitude the distance to the horizon increases.

Understand and agree.

The question doesn't matter.
But if you really need it it was "What would be the distance to the horizon if Earth was flat?".
It correctly answered that there should be no horizon if Earth is flat.
The fact that we see a close horizon, which moves around with us, and the distance to it changes with altitude; and that as an object goes over the horizon it appears to sink and disappear from the bottom up is quite strong evidence that Earth is round.

Depends on the definition of horizon being used.

Depends on the definition of horizon being used.

How?
The horizon is fundamentally different from a mere inability to resolve objects.
And no definition of the horizon allows a flat Earth to obstruct the view to the bottom of distant objects.

Quote from: AdamQuantum on March 29, 2023, 01:44:06 PM

Depends on the definition of horizon being used.

How?
The horizon is fundamentally different from a mere inability to resolve objects.
And no definition of the horizon allows a flat Earth to obstruct the view to the bottom of distant objects.

Since you don't think the definition used matters, let's use the first one listed in Oxford's:

Horizon (noun): the line at which the earth's surface and the sky APPEAR to meet.

Using this definition, I totally and 100% disagree with your analysis. By the way, this is definition predominantly used when discussing the horizon in both flat and ball earth theories.

Since you don't think the definition used matters, let's use the first one listed in Oxford's:

Horizon (noun): the line at which the earth's surface and the sky APPEAR to meet.

Using this definition, I totally and 100% disagree with your analysis. By the way, this is definition predominantly used when discussing the horizon in both flat and ball earth theories.

This doesn't explain how the FE would have a horizon that is a finite distance away, where objects are obscured by it.

Quote from: AdamQuantum on March 29, 2023, 04:50:49 PM

Since you don't think the definition used matters, let's use the first one listed in Oxford's:

Horizon (noun): the line at which the earth's surface and the sky APPEAR to meet.

Using this definition, I totally and 100% disagree with your analysis. By the way, this is definition predominantly used when discussing the horizon in both flat and ball earth theories.

This doesn't explain how the FE would have a horizon that is a finite distance away, where objects are obscured by it.

What are you talking about?  I was showing that it does matter which definition of horizon is used, by using the most commonly used definition to refute your previous arguments. 

I wasn't trying to explain your question "(please explain) how the FE would have a horizon that is a finite distance away, where objects are obscured by it" -- that is a new question that you should be able to answer yourself. 

In order to answer, you first need to learn and understand what a "vanishing point" is.  Vanishing points exist on flat planes as well as curved surfaces. Research vanishing points on your own if you want to really understand the simple concept of a seeing the horizon on a horizontal surface.