Offline Jane

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2015, 10:14:14 PM »
Assuming that hundreds if not thousands of people are either lying, or utterly incompetent despite years of training, is the claim you're making. You have the burden of proof for that, do you have any non-circular means of justifying it?

I never made that claim. I don't think anyone in this thread has made that claim.

Why are you refusing to do the measurements? You don't think there's a conspiracy so your "concerns" about the measurements are just a sly jab at us. Why do you expect me to respond to passive aggressive behavior?

It's a consequence of what you're saying. Apologies for thinking mathematically.
If what you say is true, then what I've said is true. By contraposition, if the 'then' is not true, the 'if' cannot be true. That's the basis.

If you have an alternative explanation, I'm waiting for it.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2015, 08:11:18 AM »
This is yet another time you have made me repeat myself.
You're making the tragic mistake of assuming that repeating your answer will make it any less incomplete.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Jane

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2015, 10:13:40 AM »
You're making the tragic mistake of assuming that repeating your answer will make it any less incomplete.

If my answer's incomplete, it should be possible to pose a question for which repetition is not a valid response. If he's stuck asking the same question, with basically no alteration, that does seem to imply my answer's enough.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2015, 11:26:41 AM »
If my answer's incomplete, it should be possible to pose a question for which repetition is not a valid response. If he's stuck asking the same question, with basically no alteration, that does seem to imply my answer's enough.
No, it implies the very opposite. If your "answer" does nothing to actually answer the question, people will keep asking you the same question until they actually get an answer. Well, either that or they'll give up, whichever comes first.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Jane

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2015, 11:28:48 AM »
No, it implies the very opposite. If your "answer" does nothing to actually answer the question, people will keep asking you the same question until they actually get an answer. Well, either that or they'll give up, whichever comes first.

In which case it should be possible to say why my answer isn't satisfactory rather than just repeating yourself.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2015, 11:44:00 AM »
In which case it should be possible to say why my answer isn't satisfactory rather than just repeating yourself.
You're the only one who's repeating yourself over and over again (even in this very stream of discussion! Your two posts addressed at me say the exact same thing while completely disregarding anything I said). Vauxxy has gone through quite some effort to explain the lacks in your answer to you, and you, as you so aptly pointed out, felt the need to repeat yourself instead of actually progressing. Similarly, I explained to you why the exact opposite of what you thought is actually the case, but you made no use of that information and instead restated your assertion, throwing in an "In that case". Do you not see how useless this is?

If I can offer some advice: If you think that repeating yourself will help, you're probably wrong. Most people here have reasonably good reading comprehension, and they probably heard you the first time. If you feel that your response doesn't add anything to the thread (by virtue of being a simple restatement, as you yourself noticed), don't post it. It helps nobody.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2015, 11:48:54 AM by pizaaplanet »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Jane

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2015, 12:10:36 PM »
You're the only one who's repeating yourself over and over again (even in this very stream of discussion! Your two posts addressed at me say the exact same thing while completely disregarding anything I said).
They say similar things, yes. (The rather crucial difference being that the first was about posing a new question, and the second being about crafting a rebuttal). Consider that's because you added nothing with your second post also.

Quote
Vauxxy has gone through quite some effort to explain the lacks in your answer to you, and you, as you so aptly pointed out, felt the need to repeat yourself instead of actually progressing. Similarly, I explained to you why the exact opposite of what you thought is actually the case, but you made no use of that information and instead restated your assertion, throwing in an "In that case". Do you not see how useless this is?
It should be possible to construct a reply for which repetition is not a valid response: and to point out the flaws in said response if repetition is done. That simply hasn't happened. if you follow the discussion, it took quite a while for Vauxy to actually make his central point (that all distances are unreliable), and when asked for how and why that is the case, he changed the topic to what could only be the assertion that they're not reliable, and that I should measure the distances myself. I asked for two things before I did that (a reason to think it was necessary, and to think it was safe), I've yet to read a reply to that.
The alternative is that at least one of us is being unclear: after all, I know what I intend to say, you know what you intend to say, so any losses of clarity are going to be harder to notice given that we know how to fill in the gaps in our own statements. That's why pointing out flaws in statements is crucial, rather than just repeating a question you feel hasn't been answered. if the answer's unsatisfactory, you have to say why, not just handwave and say it is.

After all, I could respond to anything with a complete non-sequitur, or copy an already-refuted rebuttal, and you'd be entirely within your rights to just repeat yourself because the question went thoroughly unanswered. From my perspective (and experience on the other site), Vauxy's done just that.


Quote
If I can offer some advice: If you think that repeating yourself will help, you're probably wrong. Most people here have reasonably good reading comprehension, and they probably heard you the first time. If you feel that your response doesn't add anything to the thread (by virtue of being a simple restatement, as you yourself noticed), don't post it. It helps nobody.

I'd agree in theory, less so in practice. If Vauxhall's serious about disagreement (which I have my doubts about, from my experiences with him on the other side), it may just be that I was unclear, or phrased something badly: in which case restatement to emphasize certain details, or re-express to answer a point explicitly, can be of use.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2015, 02:43:51 PM »
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?

No, there is no such device.
Actually there is. It's called a rope (along with a timer and a log book).
“With no landmarks to gauge their progress across the open sea, sailors couldn’t tell how fast or how far they were traveling,” explains Camila Caballero, an MIT senior and the academic coordinator for Amphibious Achievement, an athletic and academic outreach program for urban youth in Boston. But when the nautical mile – 1.852 kilometers – was introduced in the 15th century, they had a handy standard against which to measure speed and created out of necessity the chip log, the world’s first maritime speedometer. “They used materials they had on hand,” she explains. “A wedge-shaped piece of wood, a small glass timer, and a really long rope.”

But not just any rope would do. Based on the length of the nautical mile, knots were tied along the log line at intervals of 14.4 meters. One end was secured to the ship’s stern and the other was attached to the wooden board, which was dropped into the water. “As one sailor watched the sand empty through the 30-second glass, his shipmate held the line as it played out behind the ship and counted the knots as they passed between his fingers,” says Caballero. Dividing that 14.4 meters by 30 seconds told them that one knot equaled 1.85166 kilometers per hour, or one nautical mile. By performing the calculation using the actual number of knots that unspooled, the sailors were able to measure the ship’s speed.
When you multiply speed by time, you get distance.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Ghost of V

Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2015, 05:30:27 PM »
Jane, I just don't understand how you can get accurate math when you haven't done the measurements and you don't know the true shape of the Earth. You assume it's round, sure, and you take that assumption and apply it to a flat Earth model that's not a perfect circle (and quite possibly not a circle at all) thinking that it proves something... when in reality is doesn't.

If we had a map of the flat Earth with distances and measurements listed, and you based your math on that... then I would be more willingly to discuss this with you. Seeing as something like that doesn't exist at this time, I don't feel like this is a debate worth having.

Offline Jane

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2015, 05:37:52 PM »
Jane, I just don't understand how you can get accurate math when you haven't done the measurements
Would you care to respond to my two requests? Personal observation is not the only way to learn something. Until you can show the many times people rely on such distances (eg: any long-distance travel) is somehow unreliable, there is no need to repeat measurements that have already been done.

Quote
and you don't know the true shape of the Earth. You assume it's round, sure, and you take that assumption and apply it to a flat Earth model that's not a perfect circle (and quite possibly not a circle at all) thinking that it proves something... when in reality is doesn't.

Yet again, a point you have repeatedly ignored. A perfect circle is the best case scenario, if it is approximately flat. This is a basic mathematical fact. I do not care what shape it actually is, for the purposes of this thread, if it is not concave or convex then it is approximately a 2-D shape. If it is approximately a 2-D shape, the largest possible area that could be contained within the equator (of set length), is if the equator was a perfect circle. If it is not a perfect circle, as I have allowed for (and have explicitly said I have allowed for several times), the possible area within gets further from what we observe.
If your repeated mentions of 'the true shape' are of any relevance, then that is only possible if you accept the Earth is concave or convex. Do you, yes or no? Otherwise, please stop bringing that point up unless you can add anything new.

Until you take the time to actually respond to basically anything I have said, I'm not wasting any more time with you.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2015, 06:02:56 PM »
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?

No, there is no such device.
Actually there is. It's called a rope (along with a timer and a log book).
“With no landmarks to gauge their progress across the open sea, sailors couldn’t tell how fast or how far they were traveling,” explains Camila Caballero, an MIT senior and the academic coordinator for Amphibious Achievement, an athletic and academic outreach program for urban youth in Boston. But when the nautical mile – 1.852 kilometers – was introduced in the 15th century, they had a handy standard against which to measure speed and created out of necessity the chip log, the world’s first maritime speedometer. “They used materials they had on hand,” she explains. “A wedge-shaped piece of wood, a small glass timer, and a really long rope.”

But not just any rope would do. Based on the length of the nautical mile, knots were tied along the log line at intervals of 14.4 meters. One end was secured to the ship’s stern and the other was attached to the wooden board, which was dropped into the water. “As one sailor watched the sand empty through the 30-second glass, his shipmate held the line as it played out behind the ship and counted the knots as they passed between his fingers,” says Caballero. Dividing that 14.4 meters by 30 seconds told them that one knot equaled 1.85166 kilometers per hour, or one nautical mile. By performing the calculation using the actual number of knots that unspooled, the sailors were able to measure the ship’s speed.
When you multiply speed by time, you get distance.

Who has done that across a ocean?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2015, 06:59:36 PM »
If "distances are verifiable," please tell us how ships and airplanes measure distance. If you are the captain of a vessel, sailing on an endless ocean, what is the tool your ship would use analogous to an odometer? Is there some kind of device that goes into the water and spins with the current as the ship sails forward?

No, there is no such device.
Actually there is. It's called a rope (along with a timer and a log book).
“With no landmarks to gauge their progress across the open sea, sailors couldn’t tell how fast or how far they were traveling,” explains Camila Caballero, an MIT senior and the academic coordinator for Amphibious Achievement, an athletic and academic outreach program for urban youth in Boston. But when the nautical mile – 1.852 kilometers – was introduced in the 15th century, they had a handy standard against which to measure speed and created out of necessity the chip log, the world’s first maritime speedometer. “They used materials they had on hand,” she explains. “A wedge-shaped piece of wood, a small glass timer, and a really long rope.”

But not just any rope would do. Based on the length of the nautical mile, knots were tied along the log line at intervals of 14.4 meters. One end was secured to the ship’s stern and the other was attached to the wooden board, which was dropped into the water. “As one sailor watched the sand empty through the 30-second glass, his shipmate held the line as it played out behind the ship and counted the knots as they passed between his fingers,” says Caballero. Dividing that 14.4 meters by 30 seconds told them that one knot equaled 1.85166 kilometers per hour, or one nautical mile. By performing the calculation using the actual number of knots that unspooled, the sailors were able to measure the ship’s speed.
When you multiply speed by time, you get distance.

Who has done that across a ocean?
Seriously Tom?  How do you think that sailors navigated across the oceans hundreds of years ago?  When it's too cloudy to take celestial readings, then you need to rely on dead reckoning until you can take another reading.

Then again, a more modern instrument for measuring a ship's speed is a pitot tube.  Honestly Tom, you should know better than to ask such silly questions.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2015, 08:05:14 PM »
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?

And I looked at your link. How does a tube that measures the speed of the air outside your plane tell you how fast your plane is traveling?

Rama Set

Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2015, 10:49:59 PM »
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?

It was the standard way to measure speed from the 15th century until the mid-19th century; so, everyone for about 400 years.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 12:56:03 PM by Rama Set »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2015, 12:17:57 AM »
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?
Like Rama said, pretty much everyone who sailed the oceans.

And I looked at your link. How does a tube that measures the speed of the air outside your plane tell you how fast your plane is traveling?
???  How does a tube that measures the speed of a fluid tell you how fast you're traveling in that fluid?  Is that the question that you're asking?  Seriously? 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2015, 06:09:30 AM »
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?[/url]

Someone did it constantly all the way across an ocean? ???

???  How does a tube that measures the speed of a fluid tell you how fast you're traveling in that fluid?  Is that the question that you're asking?  Seriously? 

Considering that air is in motion, and a plane is in motion, sticking a tube out of your airplane to measure the speed of the air seems pretty unreliable in telling you how fast you are moving. How does the device tell what is the wind and what is the plane?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2015, 12:34:31 PM »
You didn't answer my question. Who used that rope method to measure the speed of a ship across an ocean?[/url]

Someone did it constantly all the way across an ocean? ???
Did someone measure the 3000 mile distance from the equator to 45 degrees latitude so that you could calculate the distance to the sun?

???  How does a tube that measures the speed of a fluid tell you how fast you're traveling in that fluid?  Is that the question that you're asking?  Seriously? 

Considering that air is in motion, and a plane is in motion, sticking a tube out of your airplane to measure the speed of the air seems pretty unreliable in telling you how fast you are moving. How does the device tell what is the wind and what is the plane?
First of all, if you don't think that air speed is important for a pilot to know, then you don't know much about how airplanes work.  Although airspeed will probably vary from true ground speed, larger aircraft can measure their true ground speed via RADAR.

Secondly, you do understand that pitot tubes measure the speed of fluids, which can include water, don't you?  Many fish finders use pitot tubes to measure a boat's speed.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Binder

  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2015, 10:19:51 PM »
"And I looked at your link. How does a tube that measures the speed of the air outside your plane tell you how fast your plane is traveling?"

If your asking how does a pitot tube work, here is the theory behind it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube

As for measuring a distance it's not good because the fluid or air can be moving. So, if you're traveling at 100 kph, and the wind is traveling at 30 kph towards your nose, the pitot tube will read 100kph but over the ground you'll be traveling at 70 kph.

True airspeed has nothing to do with speed over the ground though. It has to do with temperature and altitude.

If you guys are arguing about measuring the Earth you can do it yourself.
http://stardate.org/astro-guide/faqs/how-was-size-earth-first-measured

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2015, 11:06:11 PM »
Think about it. The stick-shadow experiment will only tell you about the circumference of a round earth if it is assumed the earth is a sphere. If it is assumed that the earth is flat the shadow experiment tells you about the area of land the light of the sun affects on a flat earth. We use that shadow experiment to get our diameter.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2015, 11:10:18 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Binder

  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2015, 11:23:13 PM »
Well, let's do the math for a flat earth and a spherical earth and see which angles we get? Wouldn't that say something towards determining which is correct?

If the sun is 150,000 or 150,000,000 km away we should be able to tell by the angles of shadows. No?