|
Post by David OrJohn on Mar 1, 2018 7:49:14 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. I'm not going to let you derail the thread with your petty insults. I have not ever denied the existence of your answer, I have disagreed with your answer. Your answer is that big distances are measured using time, you have not backed up that claim, there is no citation, no source, no justification, just an assertion. You have said you don't have the resources to measure distance yourself, I've presented something that can be done with few resources and only one assumption, you've rejected it but not presented your own experiment in response. When I mentioned lasers I meant to measure from the stick to the tip of the shadow, I assumed you would understand that but apparently I wasn't clear enough, fair play. Measurements would mean everything as I have explained to you numerous times now, the difference between a great circle and a straight line is unquestionably a huge difference between your model and my model. Your statement about not having resources is lazy. How many experiments have you considered, researched and attempted? How can you look at this thread and say I've not replied to you when I have literally replied to every single word you have written.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Mar 1, 2018 8:03:25 GMT
And since you think I haven't made a point I'll lay it now concisely.
The measurements of the globe are readily available to anyone with internet access. These measurements have not been questioned it refuted by those who travel big distances such as pilots.
With these measurements we can calculate the great circle between any two points and verify its accuracy. It stands up to observations.
In your model there is no measurements given so we do not know if the distance between two points is in line with what your model predicts. Due to your lack of measurements your model must be rejected.
This is not an issue shared by the models it is an issue with your model alone.
To make it even more concise so you absolutely cannot claim I'm not making a point:
RET has measurements that can be verified by observations.
DET has no verifiable measurements so must be rejected.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Mar 1, 2018 10:38:19 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. Excellent points and that's what I'm getting at here. If we are to accept this model we must have measurements so that we can verify them ourselves. Failing these measurements unfortunately results in having to reject this model.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 1, 2018 10:58:27 GMT
Once again: if you had done that, you would have responded to it. It staggers me how hypocritical you are being. You claim you are not ignoring what I say in the exact same sentence you do just that; I have already explained why you are denying rather than disagreeing, and you go ahead and just do it again. And stop playing the victim, these are not 'petty insults,' this is a systemic and fundamental problem with the pages and pages and pages of discussion I have had with you.
Issue with measuring a shadow with lasers still hold; angle, stopping at the right time, starting at the right point etc. And that's only one of the multiple flaws you haven't acknowledged. Your experiment isn't feasible. Stop acting like it is my fault. It does not matter what you want to be the case, what matters is what is the case. Your experiment is so fraught with error it is not going to give any workable or meaningful data. Stop ignoring this. And yes, I am going to say you are ignoring it, because you are not responding to a single one of the times I have explained this to you. You are not providing a way to lessen error, you are not explaining how the major forms of error can be omitted, you are not showing that there would be no error, you are just complaining that this is not a feasible thing to do and blaming me for the size of the world it seems like.
And I have already been over how those measurements verified are not of distance, but of time, and the difficulties in measuring a constant speed render them unreliable. Besides, if you have ever been on a plane you would know how unpredictable times can be. RET measurements are within some pretty staggering error bars, that does not mean much.
Yet again: "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."
Stop ignoring every word I say. Stop acting like it is an insult to call you out when you refuse to respond to my points and demand I repeat myself. Stop denying the error (unless you can actually justify it). Stop acting You are doing nothing except demanding I repeat what I have already said, and you are just ignoring it again and again. You are not disagreeing, yet again. Stop ignoring that too. If you were disagreeing, you would be able to make a point. Instead you are just making claims I have already refuted, apparently thinking the brute fact that you have made those claims somehow trumps all the reasoning I have given. That is not true. You have to be able to respond to reasoning, and in all the time I have known you that is the one thing you have been incapable of. If you are not going to stop completely ignoring me, I ask you to leave. It is completely impossible to debate with you when you refuse to ever move on or engage with anything.
There is no feasible way to calculate it, that's all. The historical way the world was mapped required fleets of ships and centuries, neither of which I have, and it was fraught with the error I have already gone into. The history of mapping takes a long detour through assumption, circularity (after all they didn't try to prove the world was round, just to fit a map to a globe by the time they were doing it), and using landmarks more than distance as a guide. But regardless, as nice as ballpark figures are I'm not going to base any of my model on unjustified speculation.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Mar 1, 2018 11:48:47 GMT
Once again: if you had done that, you would have responded to it. It staggers me how hypocritical you are being. You claim you are not ignoring what I say in the exact same sentence you do just that; I have already explained why you are denying rather than disagreeing, and you go ahead and just do it again. And stop playing the victim, these are not 'petty insults,' this is a systemic and fundamental problem with the pages and pages and pages of discussion I have had with you. Issue with measuring a shadow with lasers still hold; angle, stopping at the right time, starting at the right point etc. And that's only one of the multiple flaws you haven't acknowledged. Your experiment isn't feasible. Stop acting like it is my fault. It does not matter what you want to be the case, what matters is what is the case. Your experiment is so fraught with error it is not going to give any workable or meaningful data. Stop ignoring this. And yes, I am going to say you are ignoring it, because you are not responding to a single one of the times I have explained this to you. You are not providing a way to lessen error, you are not explaining how the major forms of error can be omitted, you are not showing that there would be no error, you are just complaining that this is not a feasible thing to do and blaming me for the size of the world it seems like. And I have already been over how those measurements verified are not of distance, but of time, and the difficulties in measuring a constant speed render them unreliable. Besides, if you have ever been on a plane you would know how unpredictable times can be. RET measurements are within some pretty staggering error bars, that does not mean much. Yet again: "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." Stop ignoring every word I say. Stop acting like it is an insult to call you out when you refuse to respond to my points and demand I repeat myself. Stop denying the error (unless you can actually justify it). Stop acting You are doing nothing except demanding I repeat what I have already said, and you are just ignoring it again and again. You are not disagreeing, yet again. Stop ignoring that too. If you were disagreeing, you would be able to make a point. Instead you are just making claims I have already refuted, apparently thinking the brute fact that you have made those claims somehow trumps all the reasoning I have given. That is not true. You have to be able to respond to reasoning, and in all the time I have known you that is the one thing you have been incapable of. If you are not going to stop completely ignoring me, I ask you to leave. It is completely impossible to debate with you when you refuse to ever move on or engage with anything. There is no feasible way to calculate it, that's all. The historical way the world was mapped required fleets of ships and centuries, neither of which I have, and it was fraught with the error I have already gone into. The history of mapping takes a long detour through assumption, circularity (after all they didn't try to prove the world was round, just to fit a map to a globe by the time they were doing it), and using landmarks more than distance as a guide. But regardless, as nice as ballpark figures are I'm not going to base any of my model on unjustified speculation. I have told you my response to your answer, my response is I must reject your model due to lack of workable measurements. Ok to address the issues you have with the experiment. You would place a marker at the tip of the shadow and measure with a laser the distance from the marker to the stick. That should be reasonably accurate. To measure the angle you would produce a triangle and due trigonometry with your observed measurements. To ensure its at the right time you would syncronise with someone. To get the right location it just need to be north or south and at a measurable distance. Are there any issues with my rebuttals or any further flaws you would like to discuss? You said this distances are not verified but you are still yet to produce any sources backing up your claims. I have refuted your claim it is the same with every model RET has produced measurements, DET has not. I would be happy to move in if you had a direction to go in other than "I can't measure it and I don't trust the measurements given". This is your forum, you have the power to ban me whenever you wish, I am merely discussing an issue I have with your model. The lack of a working diameter is a pretty big issue.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 1, 2018 14:30:42 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."
"measuring the length of a shadow (which isn't well-defined at the best of times)" "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." "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."
Context: the measurements you referred to are "These measurements have not been questioned it refuted by those who travel big distances such as pilots." "those measurements verified are not of distance, but of time, and the difficulties in measuring a constant speed render them unreliable. Besides, if you have ever been on a plane you would know how unpredictable times can be. RET measurements are within some pretty staggering error bars, that does not mean much.
It is a non-issue, as has already been explained. it would be the same regardless of what shape the world is. You don't care. i can respond to everything you say by copy/pasting the rest of this thread, because you are doing nothing except ignoring me. You aren't disagreeing, you aren't responding, you are wasting everybody's time. You are trolling. You have been warned for this myriad times before, and banned temporarily when you refused to acknowledge it. Each and every time you circumvent the ban, knowingly, and even followed me to a whole other site to complain. Your refusal to accept a ban and to circumvent it (to the point of just spamming a grudge) was so great I had to briefly disallow guests from posting. That more than anything solidifies you as a troll; an honest user who wanted discussion would have listened to a warning and not tried to weasel around so greatly to the point that it affected every other user of the site. I have given you every possible chance and you do the exact same thing over and over again. You lie, you ignore, you waste time, and you wrap it all up in an act of playing victim. I have given you ten pages now to make even one point, and you consistently avoid doing so. You make a post to start the thread, and never acknowledge or reply to the responses. You just repeat it with no variation, never even trying to refute the replies. I am not going to keep putting up with it.
This is your last chance. If you are not going to make an actual point, all your posts will be deleted on sight and your IP banned each time. I have no interest in going for another ten pages of just repeating myself. I have given you far more chances than you deserved and you spend them all the exact same way. If your next post is the exact same again, that I can just respond to with copy/pasting, then it'll be clear. You are either unwilling or unable to discuss honestly.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Mar 1, 2018 15:36:42 GMT
Your attempts at copying and pasting did not respond to my post. I'll continue even though you have proven what you do at this stage, you delete.
I have proven to you the problem doesn't exist over multiple models, just yours.
How much faith do you have in distances as according to GPS systems? That is something you have not mentioned so far. If you measured a short distance with a measuring stick and it agreed with a GPS given distance would that be enough to convince you that a larger distance is accurate?
You still have yet to back up your claim that large distances are measured in terms of time. You keep refusing to justify this claim. you might well be correct, I don't know, but as you make this claim the burden of proof is yours alone.
If you wish to pretend this post can be addressed by copy/pasting as you did the previous post go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 1, 2018 18:26:42 GMT
There's no pretense going on, you post was responded to and was responded to since before you made it. I am not the one that needs to be dishonest here. Look at your post, look at how you decided to do that self-righteous posturing than bother explaining a single one of your points.
"There is no feasible way to calculate it, that's all. The historical way the world was mapped required fleets of ships and centuries, neither of which I have, and it was fraught with the error I have already gone into." "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."
"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." "How do you think these distances are determined?"
I haven't mentioned GPS because you haven't. I should not be expected to make your own argument for you. But as far as GPS goes, the source is on the overview, it works basically via landmark (distance from set locations), so via assumed distance, and as far as short distances go commercial GPS tends to only be accurate to within about 10m so that is a hell of a lot of error to be thrown in for a distance measured via stick, even on top of the natural errors that creep in with angle, alignment etc. And I've already been over the issues with getting an accurate measure of long distances to compare that too, if you want to compare it to one longer.
So theoretically you managed one new point, but it was either a ludicrous one expecting GPS to measure within its error bars, or a nonsensical one already dealt with.
I have given you every possible chance and each and every time you prove you are only here to waste time. Stop playing victim for once, stop acting innocent. I have given you ten pages to make a point and you refuse. You are not some meek innocent victim here, you are trolling. You are now at the point of blaming me for not making your argument for you. You complain I didn't address something you didn't bring up with GPS, object that I haven't provided the evidence for your claims for long distances (you are the one that referred to planes, I remind you), and blame me for the fact that your experiment is not feasible. This is absurd, and I am done with it.
I am not hiding, I welcome questions, I answered your questions several times over. You responded with constant posturing, dishonesty and spamming. I do not delete posts unless they are from someone trying to circumvent a ban, or someone just posting obscenity. You have had months at this point and in all that time you do nothing but demand I repeat myself. This is a consistent pattern of behavior from you, not some idle one-off mistake. You never stop. I ask you refrain from spamming the forum this time. I do not wish to ban guests again, but it was apparently the only way to shut you up before. I hope you are not going to let your dishonesty ruin the forum for other users as well.
I am finished wasting my time on you. I am not going to be charitable with your nonsense and refusal to make a point any longer. This is a forum for discussion, not humoring trolls and talking to a brick wall.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 1, 2018 22:11:34 GMT
It isn't really a flaw of the model, we know this disc (s) must have x diameter, but for this, it is more about acknowledging that you don't really know and aren't going to make an estimate. It would be helpful to have distances, but JRowe not claiming to know the distances on their map isn't going to prove a weakness in the model itself. I would just make an estimate based off of some area on Earth that you believe has been accurately measured within an appropriate margin of error. If you are confident about a specific determined distance across the U.S., you can derive the other distances on such a map. And it is a bit easier on a two sided disc considering that the longitude's are concentric circles increasing radius to an equator and converging at two sides. But the issue pointed out here is very real (concerning flight paths and GPS being based on time itself, and not necessarily distance). If the Dual Earth had a 7,958 mile diameter, then a flight from Santiago-Sydney would be straight at about 4,000 miles (compared to about 7,000 on the Globe). The documented speeds and distance are of course most consistent with a spherical earth with a 7,958 mile diameter, but that is based on specific assumptions. On the DE with a 7,958 mile diameter, the plane would have to be slower than we think and the measured speeds would then probably have incorrect assumptions and therefore wrong distances.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 1, 2018 23:01:31 GMT
I would just make an estimate based off of some area on Earth that you believe has been accurately measured within an appropriate margin of error. If you are confident about a specific determined distance across the U.S., you can derive the other distances on such a map. And it is a bit easier on a two sided disc considering that the longitude's are concentric circles increasing radius to an equator and converging at two sides. But the issue pointed out here is very real (concerning flight paths and GPS being based on time itself, and not necessarily distance). If the Dual Earth had a 7,958 mile diameter, then a flight from Santiago-Sydney would be straight at about 4,000 miles (compared to about 7,000 on the Globe). The documented speeds and distance are of course most consistent with a spherical earth with a 7,958 mile diameter, but that is based on specific assumptions. On the DE with a 7,958 mile diameter, the plane would have to be slower than we think and the measured speeds would then probably have incorrect assumptions and therefore wrong distances. I dislike map arguments for the reasons I have gone into on this thread; it is not a feasible thing to do. I don't want to provide guesses because they are not going to be correct, and the means to accurately measure such vast scales do not exist. Whether the DE or RE model is true, I cannot measure the diameter of the Earth. It is just too vast. As far as the distances between areas go, there are no accurate measurements. Straight-line distances are non-existent because people take roads and those are the values you find all over the place. They naturally give an overestimation of the distance. Then you are faced with, not only gauging the speed of the plane, but compensating for jet streams and the fact that plane arrival times already come with a decent margin of error. It isn't a science, because it's not meant to be.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 2, 2018 3:18:54 GMT
It is possible to falsify DE by distances. By noting that the north star Polaris angle declination matches the observer's latitude, and that the sun overhead at the equinox also descends at a constant rate, then by knowing the distance between two locations we can determine by what distance the sun descends one degree, and do the same with two locations along the same line of latitude. We can determine the distance by which Polaris descends one degree. After all, Polaris is at the horizon at the equator with the south circumpolar rotation right in the south at the horizon. The RE model predicts that the distance between two points on the equator with a 1 degree difference of altitude for the sun (on the equinox would make it much easier) would be the same as the distance between two points on the line of latitude for which there is a 1 degree difference for Polaris. However, on the DE, the diameter of the disc has a ratio of pi to the circumference, so the distance between two points with a one degree celestial declination change would be different along a line of latitude with Polaris versus along the equator with the sun at the equinox. And of course, we know half of the circumference of the Earth would have a visible sun, considering the 12 hour days. And if it is different, then we can plot out the Earth from it and see if it matches a flat disc. Either way, one would falsify the other. If they do have different distances, that cannot work out in the RE model, because it is literally a Non-euclidean sphere (being oblate is too minuscule to change this to any significant extent), which have an equal circumference both ways. If it is the same, it would not be possible on a flat circular disc since the radius must be less than half the circumference, a basic geometric fact of a circle.
I am not well versed in how distances and all of that is measured on relatively small scales, but I do know that we can use base measurements to determine distances across cities or direct measurements and get an accurate distance. If we can at least put some trust in measuring distances within 100 miles, then this can be carried out and it would be possible to falsify either one.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 2, 2018 13:02:58 GMT
Perhaps, I'll have to put some thought into that. The obvious thing that stands out is that even an error within 100 miles is going to be multiplied considerably when extended to the whole world. But at the time of year when there are twelve hours days, the most important potential problem is light; after all, we're having a discussion on how it behaves over long horizontal distances in another thread. You would need measurements to be taken when Polaris and the Sun are directly overhead or as close to it as possible for accurate figures, which could prove problematic for Polaris.
With accurate means to assess angle, and so long as the error was kept track of, though, that seems more feasible.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 3, 2018 13:03:53 GMT
David. You were warned for your trolling and you have been informed that you are banned. Please stop spamming the forum. Your posts are not being read, they are being removed on sight because you are only making them by circumventing the ban. There are consequences for breaking the rules. Any sympathy I might have felt has long since been lost by your persistent refusal to ever accept this. Do not make me disallow guest posting again. I enjoy the discussions I have with users that actually engage and respond. But if it is the only way to prevent your spamming, I will have to do so. Do not ruin the site for other users simply because you are too spiteful to accept a ban.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 3, 2018 15:08:09 GMT
David. This is your final chance to stop. I warned you in this thread that your persistent timewasting would lead to a ban, you did not stop. You have just been explicitly reminded that you are banned, and you are still constantly spamming countless threads on this forum in an express attempt to circumvent the ban. If you are so petty you would rather ruin the site for others rather than accept the consequences of your actions, so be it, but it is on your shoulders. If the only way to prevent your trolling is to disallow guest posting, I will. It is disgusting that you would rather punish everyone else rather than accept the outcome of your actions.
|
|
|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Mar 3, 2018 15:12:56 GMT
Firstly, I did not waste time. I took up issue with your model and your vague arguments that contained no citation.
Secondly because I use a mobile device my IP refreshes every time I connect to the internet so it doesn't tell me I'm banned. Please leave a comment on here telling me the length of the ban and you will see it is adhered to.
Whilst I wholly disagree with your model, your vague arguments and your outright lies, this is your website so I will respect that.
|
|