|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 25, 2018 18:48:35 GMT
I am not sure if you'll just delete this thread but since guests can post again I figured I'd give it a go.
If you are going to refrain from deleting the thread then let's leave all vitriol in the past and start a fresh.
The diameter of the globe earth is given as 12742km.
Is this the same diameter on the DET model?
Do the two disks share the same diameter?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 25, 2018 19:22:00 GMT
The two discs share the same diameter. I do not have the resources to calculate the diameter of the Earth, I cannot tell you precisely what it is.
I will give you a third and final chance, but I will not allow you to waste time and derail as you have previously. I expect you to actually read and respond to my posts rather than ignoring their contents. I have given you every chance, and this is the last one.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 27, 2018 16:05:45 GMT
The two discs share the same diameter. I do not have the resources to calculate the diameter of the Earth, I cannot tell you precisely what it is. I will give you a third and final chance, but I will not allow you to waste time and derail as you have previously. I expect you to actually read and respond to my posts rather than ignoring their contents. I have given you every chance, and this is the last one. How do you know the diameter of each disk is equal if you are unable to measure them? Do you believe the commonly accepted diameter of the Earth?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 27, 2018 17:20:57 GMT
There is nothing that would cause the diameter of one disc to be different to the diameter of the other. The forces at play ensure it. Again, I do not have the resources to calculate the diameter. There is no reliable means to calculate large-scale distances without error creeping in, without assuming certain distances, so I do not accept the commonly believed figure a priori.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 27, 2018 18:39:36 GMT
The problem is this is an ideal way to prove your model or disprove it.
The distance from the north pole to south pole via the equator is given as 8595 miles, but the distance via the centre of the earth is given as 7918 miles.
This is a massive discrepancy obviously. But more importantly there will be discrepancies over any long distance flights as a great circle will always be bigger than a line.
Now RET has measurements that can be falsified by anyone travelling long distances but your model does not, this is a big lack of data and one which would potentially stop people accepting your model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 27, 2018 18:49:08 GMT
It doesn't matter what the ideal state of affairs is, what matters is what's feasible to develop.
RE measurements give time, not distance, there is a substantial amount of error in assuming a vehicle will be travelling at a constant speed.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 27, 2018 20:23:44 GMT
It doesn't matter what the ideal state of affairs is, what matters is what's feasible to develop. RE measurements give time, not distance, there is a substantial amount of error in assuming a vehicle will be travelling at a constant speed. The measurements of the globe earth have been publicly available for a long time and no airlines have reported inconsistencies with the measurements provided. If your model is to dispute these measurements you will need your own counter measures otherwise the model can never be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 28, 2018 0:33:49 GMT
Please stop ignoring what I say. This is my problem with you. If you are only going to waste time, I will not humor you. RE measurements give time, not distance, there is a substantial amount of error in assuming a vehicle will be travelling at a constant speed.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 28, 2018 7:53:06 GMT
Please stop ignoring what I say. This is my problem with you. If you are only going to waste time, I will not humor you. RE measurements give time, not distance, there is a substantial amount of error in assuming a vehicle will be travelling at a constant speed. I haven't ignored what you said, I've disagreed with it. This is my problem with you, every time you are faced with an issue within your model you get very defensive and then became very aggressive. The measurements were found using s very quick Google search they were both measurements given in miles which is a unit of distance. Time does not tell you how far away you are travelling unless you are travelling at a constant speed in which case the distance can be easily calculated. Now please don't ignore what I am saying. The REST distances are readily available and easily disprovable if correct. The distances given can only work on a globe due to great circle Vs straight line. If you have issues with these measurements you need your own to counter with, failing that your model must be rejected.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 28, 2018 14:49:26 GMT
Please stop the posturing, we've been through eight pages of this before. If you merely disagreed with what I said, then you would have responded to it. Instead you make a post that can be replied to by the contents of what you're meant to be replying to. It is not defensive or aggressive to point out the objective fact that you are adding nothing new. I have given you my issues with the distance. They don't pull a string from Africa to America and measure how long it is, they use a plane or a boat, and any child could tell you how to turn an estimate for speed and a measurement of time into distance. They don't measure distance they measure speed and time, and both of those are far too error-filled to give an accurate view. It's confirmation bias. They don't use it as a proof, they believe it's already proven.
Or to put it another way: "RE measurements give time, not distance, there is a substantial amount of error in assuming a vehicle will be travelling at a constant speed."
This is my problem with the myriad pages I have put up with you. You are ignoring everything I say to you. Stop posturing, stop playing victim, stop claiming this is somehow insulting you, this is an objective fact. How do you think these distances are determined?
I don't need my own measurements to point out that the existing means are inaccurate. You are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 28, 2018 17:49:40 GMT
Please stop the posturing, we've been through eight pages of this before. If you merely disagreed with what I said, then you would have responded to it. Instead you make a post that can be replied to by the contents of what you're meant to be replying to. It is not defensive or aggressive to point out the objective fact that you are adding nothing new. I have given you my issues with the distance. They don't pull a string from Africa to America and measure how long it is, they use a plane or a boat, and any child could tell you how to turn an estimate for speed and a measurement of time into distance. They don't measure distance they measure speed and time, and both of those are far too error-filled to give an accurate view. It's confirmation bias. They don't use it as a proof, they believe it's already proven. Or to put it another way: "RE measurements give time, not distance, there is a substantial amount of error in assuming a vehicle will be travelling at a constant speed." This is my problem with the myriad pages I have put up with you. You are ignoring everything I say to you. Stop posturing, stop playing victim, stop claiming this is somehow insulting you, this is an objective fact. How do you think these distances are determined? I don't need my own measurements to point out that the existing means are inaccurate. You are confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. It is not posturing, it is a disagreement with you and your model. Stop being intellectually dishonest, you have admitted your model has no measurements for diameter and that is your problem, not mine. It is clear from the posts so far that I have responded to everything you have said in a calm, polite manner. That being said you have requested more detail in my rebuttal and I'm happy to oblige. I don't know how those who form maps measure distances, I've never looked into it in enough detail, but I have a way that you can verify large distances. It's easily falsified and easy to carry out. Collude with a friend who is in a location either north or south of your location, at a distance that you can verify yourself. Give this person a meter stick and you will both place it in the ground at high noon when sun is overhead. You will both accurately measure the height of the stick above ground and then shadow, measure it accurately though. The difference between the two angles formed is called the angular separation. We will work on the initial hypothesis that earth is a globe seeing as that is the status quo. You can form the following ration based upon this hypothesis: AngularSeparataion/360 = distance/circumference. From there you can solve for the earth's circumference. If you repeat this at various locations the value of earth's circumference should remain constant if the hypothesis is correct. If the earth isn't a globe then the ratios will not hold true and you would end up with different results each time the experiment was carried out.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 28, 2018 18:57:06 GMT
I do not have the resources to measure the diameter of the world. it is 'intellectually dishonest' to claim that is a problem when it would be the same regardless of which model is true. You are posturing. It is tiresome. I am just trying to discuss. I have already spent far too much time on you.
What do you think the error bars in that situation is? If we go only with distances I can verify for myself (particularly given that I am currently situated in the UK which is smaller than some states I could mention) then that isn't much, and then measuring the length of a shadow (which isn't well-defined at the best of times) and managing to do the same at the exact same time as a friend... Those error bars will add up a lot over the course of a full journey. And further it could not in any way measure a circumference under DET, which after all is the model you are asking me to develop claims about, so what would happen on a globe is meaningless. Further there is the matter of how light behaves over longer distances, as mentioned in the FAQ. Light exists in space, same as everything else, and is subject to its movement.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Feb 28, 2018 21:07:12 GMT
I do not have the resources to measure the diameter of the world. it is 'intellectually dishonest' to claim that is a problem when it would be the same regardless of which model is true. You are posturing. It is tiresome. I am just trying to discuss. I have already spent far too much time on you. What do you think the error bars in that situation is? If we go only with distances I can verify for myself (particularly given that I am currently situated in the UK which is smaller than some states I could mention) then that isn't much, and then measuring the length of a shadow (which isn't well-defined at the best of times) and managing to do the same at the exact same time as a friend... Those error bars will add up a lot over the course of a full journey. And further it could not in any way measure a circumference under DET, which after all is the model you are asking me to develop claims about, so what would happen on a globe is meaningless. Further there is the matter of how light behaves over longer distances, as mentioned in the FAQ. Light exists in space, same as everything else, and is subject to its movement. We wouldn't know what those error bars would be unless the experiment itself was actually carried out, but my hypothesis is that the results would always tend to the same circumference being given for the earth. You are right, it could not possibly prove DET, but it could prove or disprove RET if the circumference results were shown to be consistent or not consistent. Do you have a better means of measuring the diameter? Or circumference? Short of using a measuring wheel you would have to utilise formulae which were reliant on a given model and use that as your hypothesis. Then using the results to confirm or reject that hypothesis. Explain exactly what I have done in this exchange of posts to lead you to believe I am posturing? I have produced a question which takes issues with your model, I have replied to your posts directly with my issues and potential solutions. Clearly great circle Vs straight line is a big competition between the two models. You have rejected the publicly available measurements and given an assertion (with no citation might I add) that the results are only a measure of time. I have suggested an experiment which can be completed on a small scale with limited resources and then scaled up to give a key component of the debate (circumference of the earth). You could use a laser to measure accurately and use the same laser for every measurement to be consistent. You have said there would be too much error, again an assertion which is not backed up by anything. you have failed to produce your own method of testing. This is a key difference between the two models, one has publicly available results which can be verified mathematically, one has no results and no way of measuring them. That is a very clear disagreement in line with a debate, absolutely not merely posturing.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 28, 2018 22:51:53 GMT
We've had about nine pages of discussion at this point, and you spend most of it putting on an act for a reader rather than making a point. Look at this thread, and look at how much time you spent avoiding actually justifying your claim (and how at this point your 'justification' is still just assertion). Look at how your previous threads were primarily composed of you asking the exact same question and ignoring the answer, and then making a second thread to ask questions already answered in the first. And any time I call you out on the objective fact that you are ignoring every word I say, you use it as a chance to play victim, to cry foul, as though it is my fault you refuse to pay attention. You pose a question that takes issue with my model; I answer. You then spend pages denying the existence of that answer and demand I repeat it over and over. This is not something I am saying quickly. I have given you every chance, far too many pages, and you are doing the exact same thing I called you out on, on page one. You are blatantly and openly wasting everybody's time.
For example, here: "You have rejected the publicly available measurements and given an assertion (with no citation might I add) that the results are only a measure of time." That is a lie, plain and simple. And you're going to do the whole act you always do, how dare I call you a liar etc etc. But it is just not true, I explained above where such measurements come from. They time a journey from point A to point B and assume a constant speed, which is fraught with error but that is how it is done. You are just pretending I never said that.
And "You have said there would be too much error, again an assertion which is not backed up by anything." Again, this is totally wrong, I went through the sources of error in detail. You don't need to carry out an experiment to know that there's error, scientists are able to do that literally all the time. Even just the act of using a ruler likely gives you error of a few mm at least (assuming it's perfectly aligned and parallel), and that is going to really add up when multiplied a few hundred times at both locations, and that's just one source of error. Then there's timing, getting a good distance between the two locations; that'll likely run into the same time/speed problem because for a long distance there's no practical way to directly measure it, to say nothing of the problem with finding a straight road etc. The longer the distance, the more error in measuring it. The shorter, the more error from multiplying it. I have already said all of this, and you completely ignored it. Don't complain when you get called out when this is all you ever do.
"You could use a laser to measure accurately and use the same laser for every measurement to be consistent," is such a ludicrous statement I don't even know where to begin and it just epitomises the fact you aren't trying to make an informed point as you don't even seem to understand what it is you are standing by. You are just saying it to waste time. Lasers disperse in air, and the absolute best top-of-the-line military-grade laser rangefinders you refer to have an estimated range of 25km. I am not going to be able to get my hands on military hardware (often mounted in vehicles) and even if I did you are not going to find any significantly measurable variation in shadow-length at that distance. You'd have to chain measurements with the rangefinder, be able to pinpoint increments of, say, 20km, with all the human error that entails (subtly changing angle each time, being a few cm off with placing it...). And all that's assuming sufficiently flat groud or level aiming.
Plus there's the fact that, as I pointed out, due to the behavior of light in space all this is pointless as the long distance between us and the Sun will make the measurements not as simple as you need them to be. This undercuts your entire point, makes all this pointless, and you didn't even acknowledge that fact.
And as far as "You have failed to produce your own method of testing." I remind you of yet another thing you ignore: "I do not have the resources to measure the diameter of the world. it is 'intellectually dishonest' to claim that is a problem when it would be the same regardless of which model is true."
Not everything is feasible. That is not a flaw with DET.
You want measurements that cannot feasibly be gotten, and even if you could it would not mean anything. This has been explained to you several times over.
I am done. All you ever do is waste my time, ignore everything I say, then try to make me feel bad about calling you out on it. Stop acting like you are trying to debate. If you wanted a discussion, you would be capable of replying, not merely ignoring.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 1, 2018 3:08:56 GMT
I just assumed it would be something like a 25,000 mile circumference. Considering that it is a flat disc we talk about here rather than a sphere, it would then have a diameter of about 7, 958 miles, while travelling that distance across the northern hemisphere on a Globe would be 12,500 miles. Now, if it was 12,500 miles across the dual earth northern hemiplane, that would give a 39, 270 mile equator. It would need to be somewhere between 20k to 40k miles in circumference considering the rough idea that we have on Earth's scale. I mean, common sense would tell us that the U.S. is less than 10k miles across, quite a bit less, so we can work off of a rough estimate, even if we acknowledge that we don't truly know for sure. In fact, if we have an estimate for the circumference of Earth, the other distances follow, we can use it as a scale and determine distances everywhere. I think the U.S. would be about 1,900-2,000 miles straight across on a dual disc flat earth with a diameter of 7, 958 miles.
|
|