Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 329  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: May 05, 2022, 05:09:21 PM »
I think my argument is clear.
Your argument is obvious but you are (or, well, were) trying your best not to just state what you mean. You have now done so, so I'm happy.

and when challenged it's admitted some of it isn't flat earth related
I see no "admission" here. The part of the page you questioned was talking about geocentrism. You assumed, incorrectly, that it was also talking about FE and spent an excessively long time stating this assumption. You were then corrected on that. Life goes on.

Should I be challenging the wiki somewhere else? More than happy to be pointed to a more appropriate location.
Eh, technically Flat Earth Projects would be more appropriate, but it's hardly a big deal in this case. I can move this thread there if you'd like, or it can just continue here.

The 'contributor model' you speak of, this is the creating a thread in the projects forum? More than happy to write up a new Aviation page for comment if that's what you mean, and post it there.
It was a more general comment - whether it's the Wiki, the forum, or some other area of our site/services, the best way to see the changes you'd like to see made is to put in the work yourself.

But to answer your question more specifically: yes, if you'd like to propose changes to or a rewrite of a page, creating a Flat Earth Projects thread with your proposed changes would be the way to go.

Just to pre-empt some disappointment: if you believe that the page should be rewritten to state the RET consensus on aviation (as seems apparent from your tone thus far), you probably shouldn't expect much success. If you do intend on making an earnest contribution to FE, however, that's always welcome.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: May 05, 2022, 09:42:34 AM »
Gonzo, please drop this "Hmmm, how very strange! No doubt this minor issue will be amended momentarily!" facade. If you want to make an argument, just make it.

Similarly, if you want to make changes to the Wiki, your best option is to follow our contributor model and... actually contribute. Simply demanding that someone does work for you rarely works around here.

23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: May 03, 2022, 06:02:21 PM »
Euclidean or non has nothing to do with it.
Right, I know everything I needed to know. Before you come back to argue against RET (which is what you're currently trying to do), get a grasp of geometry.

If the OP has different metric for his globe model and his FE model
He doesn't, and it's not a FE model. Please form an understanding of what's being discussed before you explain how proudly you disagree with it.

24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: May 03, 2022, 04:11:36 PM »
You can't just choose whatever metric you want to use.
Of course you can. In fact, you have no other option than to do so.

Metric tensors transform according to specific rules and that's what determines the geometry.
In Euclidean spaces, sure. This is emphatically not one. Considering you've missed that, I somehow doubt you know what you're talking about.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 03, 2022, 02:16:30 PM »
tusstoss, if you have an argument to make, make it. If you have nothing to say, consider saying nothing.

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: May 01, 2022, 07:03:49 PM »
You are saying that in the RET model, lines of longitude don’t converge as they go south and then meet at the South Pole?
No, I'm saying they don't diverge, as long as we only consider what's happening south of the equator.

What terminology do you suggest to be clearer in explaining how lines of longitude differ in the RET and FET (monopole) models than “converging” and “diverging” ?  (Referring to the lines as one moves south along them, to be clear).
Let's be extremely clear here - troolon's "model" is not an FET model in any sense of the word, and it certainly is not a monopole model. It's RET with extra steps. It is nothing more, and it is nothing less. It is just RET, stated in a way that's confusing to some. If you think it is anything other than that, you are mistaken.

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: May 01, 2022, 03:14:38 PM »
I should have written: "In reality, the same lines of longitude cannot both converge and diverge in the same direction moving  south of the equator."

Better?
But that's not what happens under RET (which I presuppose to be your definition of reality), and troolon's "model" is just a restatement of RET with no functional changes. His entire argument relies on taking RET piecemeal and throwing a layer of confusion on top of it.

28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: April 30, 2022, 06:17:30 PM »
In reality, the same lines of longitude cannot both converge and diverge.
I'm glad that you agree RET is an impossibility, but in this specific instance you happen to be wrong.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism
« on: April 27, 2022, 12:43:27 PM »
I can only go what is on the wiki.
No. You can also ask questions, perhaps in a thread titled "Questions about Zeteticism".

And the wiki implies his method is the method TFES uses.
That's your interpretation, and not something that's stated in the Wiki. I once again invite you to further your understanding before jumping to conclusions. This conversation will never progress if you just keep saying "YOU BELIEVE <something nobody believes> AND THAT'S WRONG!!!". You've already lost your entire audience, except for me; and I'm not sticking around for much longer if you're not willing to have an adult conversation.

The wiki should say so if TFES doesn't completely endorse his methods.
A ridiculous proposition. We would have to include such a statement with every person we've ever cited (and so would you, if you held yourself to the same standard). Written communication usually relies on the good faith of the reader. If you're not willing to extend that, then you're the architect of your own failure to understand.

Those aren’t reasons why zecticism hasn’t produced any real results. They are evidence that it is a flawed system to begin with.
Your reasoning is circular. You cannot presuppose that Zeteticism is flawed while presenting a logical argument for whether it is flawed.

If it had merit, qualified and knowledgeable people, trained scientists, would practice it and resources would be available.
History is against you, here. Multiple areas of science which we now consider mainstream were originally unable to progress due to a lack of resources, social stigma, or active suppression by those in power. A lack of success (which, by the way, you have yet to demonstrate - see critique above) is not an indication of unsound methods.

I did ask.
You asked one question, based on a plethora of misunderstandings of the subject you're trying to discuss. I propose that you should develop a basic understanding of the subject to begin with. Note that this will require you to do some work, as opposed to starting with a hypothesis and demanding that someone defends it for you.

30
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: SMF software update
« on: April 26, 2022, 10:42:34 PM »
Along with our implementation of practically everything else we've changed.
In this case, I think our solutions are roughly on par (e.g. you could make a purely academic argument that 2.1's session cookies are slightly nicer). It's the fact that they've only moved on from sha1 in 2022 that scares me.

31
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: SMF software update
« on: April 26, 2022, 10:31:37 PM »
Yup, I rewrote our password hashing a few years ago to use password_hash() and password_verify(). Right now this means that passwords are hashed using bcrypt, but that could of course change. The added benefit on our end is that if the PHP defaults change, all active users' passwords will get rehashed on their first successful login. In that way, our implementation is arguably superior to SMF 2.1's.

32
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: SMF software update
« on: April 26, 2022, 10:09:50 PM »
For what it's worth, I've done some work reviewing the changes in both 2.0.18 and 2.0.19 (though admittedly mostly the former). It doesn't look like we're missing out on much. I am particularly grumpy with how SMF handles security patches. They just say "security improvements" without elaborating further, and in the past we've seen them introduce more bugs than they fixed, even in vanilla.

I might have some time for testing early next week, but I wouldn't want to make that a promise.

As for 2.1, I think it might actually be easier to backport any individual improvements that you think may be beneficial. I've made a couple of (very small) contributions to that project, and I've watched it closely. The code quality is not good, even by SMF's standards. It might simply not be worth it.

33
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Let's use the site-wide theme in CN
« on: April 26, 2022, 05:07:09 PM »
That would be awesome. I'd be happy to chip in, too.

34
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Let's use the site-wide theme in CN
« on: April 26, 2022, 04:34:24 PM »
Fair enough, there seems to be a much stronger feeling towards it this time around.

I'd still be in favour of bringing in a theme that continues the CN tradition, rather than just using the site-wide theme. Something that's usable, but which still reminds people that they're in the silly place.

If nobody else cares for maintaining CN as a tradition, then I'd say merging them (and coming up with a new name for the resultant board) is the sensible way forward.

35
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Let's use the site-wide theme in CN
« on: April 26, 2022, 03:24:55 PM »
And sometimes you punt stuff in to CN which isn't really nonsense.
If this does occur with any noticeable regularity (I didn't think it did, and a cursory look through the logs for the last few months only reveals the recent markjo thread), then that is the problem that needs fixing. Destroying part of the forum is a poor workaround, even if you personally dislike that part of it.

As far as a solution to that goes, it seems pretty straight-forward. If you think a thread has been moved to CN when it should have gone to AR, you can ping me and I'll fix it. I'm sure other mods would be happy to oblige, too.

36
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« on: April 26, 2022, 02:40:22 PM »
To whoever punted this to CN  >:(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-gbJvrOnUE
Good song choice. Consider yourself restored to the Lounge.

37
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Let's use the site-wide theme in CN
« on: April 26, 2022, 02:39:24 PM »
imo just let markjo keep his thread in the lounge
I agree with this, and since I was the one to move it in the first place, I'll also be the one to restore it. It was a bad judgement on my part.

or let markjo post in all the lower forums's
This, IMO, is the logical conclusion of all this. In fact, why don't we take this 5 steps further and just try freeing markjo altogether? If he misbehaves, we can restrict him from just S&C and the FE boards.

That said, I'm still against de-CN-ifying CN. Threads shouldn't be moved into it (and it's why we normally go with AR for thread moves), but if we're going to make it identical to other boards, it may as well not exist.

38
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism
« on: April 26, 2022, 08:37:11 AM »
Your society accepts the results of Rothbotham’s experiments, so it should follow that it agrees with the way he conducted his experiments.  Except it doesn’t.
This conversation is bound to go in circles. You imagine something about FE or FE'ers, I tell you that you that it's not at all accurate and you should probably learn what you're discussing before discussing it, so you move on to another thing you've imagined or guessed. We can talk about Zeteticism, but you need to stop with the endless strawmans. You'd be well displeased if I did the same with you.

In this case, you have made 3 statements, comprising 3 critical errors:
  • A sweeping statement on how our society accepts the results of Rowbotham's experiments. In reality, some FE'ers accept some of Rowbotham's results. The claim that Rowbotham is some sort of "Flat Earth Messiah" is only ever used by RE'ers, and only by ones who don't know what they're talking about.
  • You then claim that "it should follow that it agrees with the way he conducted his experiments". It absolutely shouldn't, and it absolutely doesn't. Science is an adequate method of inquiry, even if it is flawed. Furthermore, many of the world's great discoveries were made by accident, which is a considerably worse method than science. And yet, to everyone's shock, these discoveries are not discarded, merely verified.
  • Finally, you reach your conclusion - "except it doesn't". I think most of the suspense has waned off by now, but let's say it anything: this, too, is incorrect. Some of Rowbotham's experiments were sound, some weren't.

So, I repeat myself: If you don't understand something, ask. Don't imagine an answer and demand that someone defends it for you.

I haven’t proposed any “experimental set up”
Of course you have. If you had simply read that comment in context, you would have realised that. Your experiment was to take both methods, as they're currently used in the real world, and compare their outputs. You have stated so clearly here:

Here’s a question.  Using the zetetic method, what knowledge has been gained about the flat earth over the last couple of hundred years?  The proof is in the pudding, so they say.  If the zetetic method is superior, it seems like a lot more should have been learned.

When I asked you to clarify, multiple times, you chose to simply repeat yourself. Example:

You asked on what basis I thought zecticism should have contributed more knowledge than it has about the flat earth.  I responded because a superior method, which the wiki claims it to be, should produce superior results.  If zecticism is a superior method of scientific inquiry, then there should be some results that show that.

However, your experimental setup sucks. You are comparing the output of a couple centuries of isolated enthusiasts who deliberately avoid funding with, well, the whole worlds of academia and business. This is an extremely poor performance regardless of which philosophy you prefer. By contrast, if we ordered 2 followers of each methodology to perform the same experiment, the veracity of their results will be affected by many more factors. A couple of quick examples:
  • Their competence. We've seen plenty of RE'ers who claim to be "true disciples of science", but who struggle to distinguish the concepts of velocity and acceleration in their minds.
  • Resources. If you start me off with a budget of £10,000,000, I sure as hell am gonna do better than the science enthusiast starting with £50.
  • Time. This one hopefully doesn't require an explanation.

So, to drive this point home: no, the logic of "if Zeteticism is so good, then why hasn't it done more than it already has?" doesn't even begin to work. You chose an arbitrary (and undefined) threshold for "making enough progress" and unilaterally declared that Zeteticism hasn't met that threshold. You've done so without knowing what Zeteticism is (as demonstrated above), too.

You started this thread as "Questions about Zeteticism", but so far you haven't had many questions. You're just explaining to us what you think Zeteticism is, and how what you've imagined doesn't make sense. I don't see what you hope to achieve here.

39
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism
« on: April 25, 2022, 07:24:31 AM »
He’s apparently the “father” of the it, or at least the version of it the flat earth movement seems to embrace.
Incorrect on both fronts. His contribution was promoting Zeteticism within FE circles, and promoting FE more broadly.

it’s a pretty glaring inconsistency if you do believe that its ok to base a conclusion on an “ initial theory that is to be proved or disproved” or “speculate on what the right answer might be”
No, you just have a poor understanding of Zeteticism, but you decided that it is everyone else who must be wrong. You once again reveal the flaws of your philosophy.

What are you talking about?  What experimental set up?  Maybe I wasn’t clear in my response.
Gosh, you're doing it again. You openly admit you didn't understand what I said, but you still feel compelled to answer. You don't know how to simply ask a question, do you?

If zecticism is a superior method of scientific inquiry, then there should be some results that show that.
This is incorrect (or, to be more precise: it is conditionally correct, but the conditions are not met here) and I already told you why. You chose not to address it.

40
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What religion do you practice?
« on: April 24, 2022, 07:52:32 PM »
Pastafarianism
Thats not really a religion, its a parody
JSS is a Christian and firmly believes that his religion should be exempt from the same scrutiny as everyone else's. Pay him no heed, he won't be sticking around for long anyway.

Myself, I'm non-religious. Not necessarily "atheist" since that carries certain connotations I'm not too happy with, but it's close enough.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 329  Next >