41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 18, 2022, 03:04:20 PM »

What do funhouses, smartphones or the shape of a screen have to do with using a globe?

I use an actual globe, it's sitting next to my desk right now, not a flat map.  An actual physical sphere on a stand.  When I use that to examine flights around the world I have taken, distances and directions I have driven across countries, it all matches perfectly.  I can measure distances between cities anywhere on the globe and they match the known values, which even you admit we know very well.

So, what you were told matches what you can see in the wee corner of your damp hovel.

Personal insults are not helpful.

At times, you seem blessed to have had the good fortune, as described by you, to exit said abode, TRUSTY GLOBE under one arm, pinned tightly against thy body (you dare not lose it after all, your very life could depend on its life saving, directional powers!), meager lunch sack grasped firmly betwixt thumb and three remaining fingertips of the opposite hand, off to work, navigating your way through the various glens and flowered meadows, stopped only by the occasional ogre at a stone bridge, demanding the toll.

Also not helpful.

Again, what does this have to do with the shape of the earth?

Answer - Nothing.

The flight time could be stated as having been x hours.

The true flight speed could be stated as having been y mph.

Resulting in a set outcome, proven by the math!

Therefore, the distance traveled MUST have been such and such!

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the flight took place over a globe.

I have driven thousands of miles and my cars odometer matches what my GPS tells me.  I have personally verified the width of entire continents by driving them myself.

I have flown to multiple continents, I have measured the airspeed with both a GPS and landmarks.

So yes, the distance I traveled does indeed match such and such.

The distances match what a globe map and math tells me, so that tells me the Earth is actually a globe.  If you try and plot just the places I have personally visited and verified the distances of, they will not fit on a flat earth map.

What travels and observations have you made that contradict known distances on a globe map?

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 18, 2022, 02:55:38 PM »

I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post.  I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.

It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented.  If you can't provide it, please explain why?

My flat map shows the distance from St. Louis, MO to Dallas, TX to be 630 miles.

Roughly correct.

You have been asked half a dozen times to show your flat map, and have deflected or made excuses or flat out ignored each one. 

This is another example pertaining to the OPs question.  You can't expect to change anyone mind if you claim to have a perfectly functioning map, but repeatedly refuse to show it to anyone. 

I'll ask again, can you link to the map of the entire world you just used to measure that distance?  Why can't we see it?  Is it because it's only "roughly correct" and not actually accurate?

43

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: February 18, 2022, 02:33:26 PM »

Fair, but Tom Hanks is also Tom mawfuckin Hanks…

^ This

44

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 18, 2022, 02:32:44 PM »

Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.

Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.

Nonsense. The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.

Please provide your source for this claim.  Which flat map shows the correct distances between cities on all 7 continents?  Please link to it.

It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?

I noticed you completely ignored this question in my previous post.  I am very interested in the flat map you claim to have that shows the correct distances between cities.

It should be simple for you to link this map that you claim is quite well represented.  If you can't provide it, please explain why?

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 18, 2022, 02:28:55 PM »

I've answered it many times. It shows that if you can plot the distances between cities on a sphere, then the surface can not be a plane because the topological surfaces are incompatible. The same works in reverse, if the Earth is flat then a globe map can't show the distances between all cities correctly.

Actually, no you have not until just now.

You presuppose there is such a thing as a GLOBE map.

There isn't.

Thanks for discussing.

There is such a thing as a globe map, it's called a globe.  It certainly exists, I am looking at one in my room right now.

I use a globe map for navigation and it works just fine.  It works better than any flat map I have seen because it shows the entire planet to scale with no distortions. There is no flat map of the entire earth where you can measure distances with a ruler anywhere without severe distortions.  If there is, please link it.

^This is quite funny.

Someone believes that because a funhouse mirror gag can be simulated on smartphone and applied to an app, resulting in a fat picture or a skinny picture, neither of which will be ultimately the view chosen to rely upon (that view chosen would be a flat x-y coordinate based system by the way) it somehow proves a globe.

Truly remarkable!

What do funhouses, smartphones or the shape of a screen have to do with using a globe?

I use an actual globe, it's sitting next to my desk right now, not a flat map.  An actual physical sphere on a stand.  When I use that to examine flights around the world I have taken, distances and directions I have driven across countries, it all matches perfectly.  I can measure distances between cities anywhere on the globe and they match the known values, which even you admit we know very well.

46

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: February 18, 2022, 01:09:26 PM »

I am also a fan.  I didn't find the eagle to be too bad, I suppose by now I'm just used to low quality special effects in TV shows.  It only bothers me if I see bad effects in a 300 million dollar movie.

Professional wrestlers are perfect for superhero movies.  They already have a lot of experience performing ridiculous stuff with a straight face, with the added benefit they also can whip out the tears and emotion when it's time for drama.

"You need to have an emotional moment where you break down in tears over your tragic past while bonding with a bug in a jar."

Most actors would struggle with that.  To an ex-wrestler it's just another day.

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 18, 2022, 01:03:01 PM »

Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"

So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it?  Who is presupposing here?

It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?

I've answered it many times. It shows that if you can plot the distances between cities on a sphere, then the surface can not be a plane because the topological surfaces are incompatible. The same works in reverse, if the Earth is flat then a globe map can't show the distances between all cities correctly.

Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.

Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.

Nonsense. The distances between cities is well known and are quite well represented in a flat plane presentation.

Please provide your source for this claim.  Which flat map shows the correct distances between cities on all 7 continents?  Please link to it.

It's a rather direct question. Can you answer it?

Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.

This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.

Your argument fails. Every map I use to navigate is flat in presentation and works just fine.

I use a globe map for navigation and it works just fine.  It works better than any flat map I have seen because it shows the entire planet to scale with no distortions. There is no flat map of the entire earth where you can measure distances with a ruler anywhere without severe distortions.  If there is, please link it.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 17, 2022, 10:57:02 PM »

If it is impossible for us to 'step outside' to see the true shape of things then there is no way of knowing if your theory is true or not.
If something is impossible to observe then there is no way to prove it exists one way or another.  If you can't disprove a theory, it's not a theory.

Very correct.
The only problem is that everything you've posited above is also true for orthonormal bases and globe earth.
So globe shape is also an unfalsifiable theory.
One minor detail i would like to clarify is that it's impossible to see a difference between the flat and globe representation of physics.
We can of course make measurements in reality and check that they align with what physics predicts in both models.
It's just the shape we can't differentiate.
Orthornormal bases have some nice properties, and we're so very used to them that we sometimes forget it's just a convention.

The difference is we can see the Earth. We can measure it. We can run experiments on and around it.

It's not the same as some otherworldly force or the universe being a simulation. Those are untestable and unverifiable.

Globe Earth can be disproved.  Finding a dome.  Locating the edge.  Drilling through to the underside.  Seeing it from high enough to see the entire earth as a disk. Plotting the locations of cities and finding them to align on a flat plane but not a sphere.  Exploring past the ice wall to find an infinite plane. 

We can only know what we can see and measure. In my experience, my measurements and observations show the Earth to be a globe. If it's another shape in a hypothetical greater universe that I can't see or touch or examine in any way, then that's the realm of religion, belief and faith.

I've just created a second model, that also explains all your experiences, measurements and observations equally well on a universe with a flat earth.
It's the same physics, just a different shape. Like bar charts and pie charts.... Math can't see shape, only numbers and relations between them.
So globe shape is indeed in the realm of speculation.
That's indeed the point i was making.
Do note it also works the other way around. If someone ever makes a flat-earth model, i'll use the same trick to turn it into a globe.

You can't simply apply a mathematical transformation to an object and claim that the object is now transformed.  I could write a formula to transform the Earth into a cube shape and render it, but it doesn't make it real.  I can multiply my height by a number and say I'm 100 feet tall and say that is my true height and shape, but that doesn't change my actual height.

I can say latitude ' = latitude x 2 and now have an Earth twice the size.  But it doesn't mean anything, even if I render a stretched Earth, flat or round.

49

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 17, 2022, 09:49:28 PM »

You are making up a response nobody has said.  Let me give you a real answer.

"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"

Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible.  It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere. 

Which next leads to the follow up,"Why of course! How does this concern the shape of the earth?"

So because an argument leads somewhere you don't like, you won't follow it?  Who is presupposing here?

The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.

This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand.

Here is another try.  Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this.  It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.

You just stated exactly why you demand the wrapping of paper around a sphere.

You presuppose a globe.

I've performed the experiment. Of course it cannot be done.

I know that and I also know it demonstrates nothing in support of a globe earth.

Your example of "I can make a flat map of my grocery store so the earth is flat" shows that you didn't really grasp this. Saying that it demonstrates nothing in support of the earth being a sphere shows that you still may not fully understand.

Take the known distances between cities and try and fit them onto a flat map, you can't.

Try and fit them on a cube, a torus, a pyramid. They don't work either.

Try it on a sphere and you will find that they fit.

This is what wrapping a sphere demonstrates. That if you can fit a set of points onto a sphere, it's because they represent a sphere. They simply can't have those distances and directions on anything but a sphere. It explains why you have so much trouble making a flat map of the earth that works.

50

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 17, 2022, 09:07:33 PM »

It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography.  Try this experiment.  Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper.  Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper.  You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.

This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible.  If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles.  This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible.  Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people.  You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school. 

This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.

On the contrary,  it is precisely this type of "debate," built upon a faulty presupposition, and the follow up statements such as, "you're ignorant," and,"you know very little about topography, " that led me to conversion. 

Me- Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?

Answer- Because the earth is a globe.

Ridiculous.

You are making up a response nobody has said.  Let me give you a real answer.

"Action80 - Why wrap a piece of paper around a sphere to begin with?"

Because it will demonstrate that a map of a sphere and a map of a plane are incompatible.  It shows that even if you can map a tiny spot on a sphere as a flat plane, you can't do that to the entire sphere. 

The discussion of the topological incompatibilities between a sphere and a plane began because of this exchange.

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.
Unbelievable.

This shows you don't really understand the problems with planes and spheres. It's why the example of wrapping paper around a sphere was given to you, to try and help you understand. 

Here is another try.  Wrap some paper around a basketball and trace the letters. Then unfold it and try and make a map that keeps the distance between all points. You are going to find that you can't do this.  It's a physical demonstration of the fact that you can't transform a sphere into a plane, which means if points and distances fit on a sphere, that surface can not be flat.

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 17, 2022, 08:57:41 PM »

I am under no pressure to map a spherical object onto a flat surface. It is nonsensical to do so.

Another good example for the subject of this thread showing how debates are very unlikely to change anyone mind, at least for this subject.

You can't have a successful debate with someone who is not willing to learn.  Nobody is asking Action80 to accept the world is round, just learn some simple geometry and topography. To try an experiment. There can be little hope of changing ones mind if they are not willing to learn, and learning something new is never a bad thing.

People in general don't like their assumptions and beliefs challenged. One thing this site has been good for, at least for me is doing just that.  I haven't changed my mind, but I've done a lot of experiments and discovered that many things I thought I knew well I only had a simple understanding of, and in some cases was flat out wrong. You can't truly know something unless you can fully explain it to another.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 17, 2022, 06:52:19 PM »

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

This is a ridiculous non-sequitur.

The fact anyone is even making a claim there are "distortions because of projections," is made with absolutely no direct personal knowledge of the matter.

Someone told you this, so it must absolutely be true.

Matching numerical entries to solutions can be formulated for any set of desired end parameters. That is exactly how math works.

Somebody came up with some numbers to match how things we appear if this was spherical and this far away.

Good for them.

Doesn't make it true.

It's clear you don't understand much about geometry or topography.  Try this experiment.  Take a basketball, or any other round object and a sheet of paper.  Now try and wrap that paper around the sphere without cutting or folding the paper.  You will find that you can't create a 1:1 map between the sphere and the paper without altering it.

This isn't just hard to do, it's impossible.  If you want an easy to understand example, on a sphere you can create a triangle with three right angles.  This is impossible on a flat piece of paper, so it should be pretty obvious a 1:1 map is impossible.  Try drawing a triangle with 3 right angles on a flat piece of paper for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have done all that I just described, so I do have "direct personal knowledge of the matter" as do most people.  You likely do too, but we all tend to forget a lot of what we learn in high school. 

This debate is a good example of the OPs question. Anyone looking from the outside would see nobody here is convincing anyone.

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is a bear free?

« on: February 17, 2022, 06:32:33 PM »

This site contains some of the most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed.

That is some highly exaggerated hyperbole and it doesn't even matter who you're talking about.  Nobody here on any side is even close to being on the top 100 list of "most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed."

Read The Boy that Cried Wolf.  If everything is the "worst ever" then nobody will take you seriously someday when you really mean it.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 17, 2022, 02:20:29 PM »

I don't think that particularly matters, frankly. Aside from the entertainment value that Pete already mentioned, it may very well not have many practical applications (hence, the phrase "logically sound but practically useless" or however it was phrased earlier). But lots of things start out that way, especially in mathematics. String theory was considered useless to the physics world shortly after its creation, and it was only after many years that people started revisiting it and finding it might possibly have some practical applications.

Actually String Theory is a good example of my point earlier.  It actually has no practical applications, and can't have any predictive models based on it due to the impossibility of testing the accuracy.

The core issue with String Theory is that it states that the laws of the universe are based on how 10 (or 11) dimensions are folded up. The problem is that to use String Theory to predict the behavior of our universe we need to know how those dimensions are folded.

There are 10^200000 possible combinations and String Theory as of yet has no way to even begin to try and identify which one we live in.  It's like having a book that describes all the laws of physics, but it's encrypted and the key is the full text of the book. We can't prove String Theory is correct until we already know how everything works, and can test it all.

Now, working on String Theory has advanced math by quite a bit. A lot of great discoveries have come from it, but none are related to the theory itself. It's certainly good people are working on it, but it's likely a dead end as fart as physics goes. As all things, this could change, but that's the state as I am aware of it currently.

55

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is a bear free?

« on: February 17, 2022, 01:53:11 PM »

In the most extreme interpretation nobody can be free unless they are alone in the universe.

If two beings with free will exist in the same location, they now are unable to do everything they want because there is another will to oppose them.

No freedom is absolute.

Even alone, you are not free to disobey the laws of physics.

Any debate on freedom is a actually a debate on the limits of that freedom, it's pretty self evident that freedom itself is never going to be complete.

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do debates ever convert anyone?

« on: February 17, 2022, 01:48:57 PM »

There is no way, for example, to map out where places are and the known distances between them on a flat plane.

And yet, I look at my flat map and it reflects the exact distance to my local grocer.

Unbelievable.

That is completely believable, unless your grocer is 7000 miles away.
The distortion in distances and land mass shapes is only noticeable on a macro scale.
This is what I was talking about above when I said ignorance. That isn't meant as an insult, but if you're not trolling then that's what your post betraying.

My post is betraying absolutely nothing.

You act as if 7000 mile distances cannot be mapped out on a flat surface either, using the term, "MACRO SCALE," as if it necessary to map it visually for an individual to comprehend to begin with.

Ridiculous.

You need to understand how scale works.  A flat map of a small area of a sphere works because the distortions are tiny. But if you try and map a larger percentage then you will run into problems.

I can claim a basketball is flat by making a flap map of the tiny dot on the i in 'Microfiber' and claiming it works to navigate inside that dot.  But try and make a flat map of those three lines going around it or a flat map of the distances between the S, G and 1 and you will quickly find that you can't. Trying to make a flat map of all the words on a basketball will quickly run into problems where you can't make all the distances fit.

You can not accurately map multiple distances 7000 miles apart on the surface of a sphere 8000 miles in diameter. You can map a distance of a few miles because the errors will be too small at human scales to matter.

Everything is not as it appears.

Exactly. A sphere appears flat if you view a tiny section of if, which means you can't determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the distance to your grocer down the street.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 16, 2022, 09:36:51 PM »

You are doing the equivalent of looking at a funhouse mirror and seeing your legs looking a foot long and deciding you just don't know how long your legs are, any mirror could be right. Graph a ruler on cartessian, then logarithmic. The graph on cartessin will be isometric, linear, a multiple of the straight line. The graph on some coordinate system might be curved, but the ruler is still straight. It is not "could be any shape, no one knows". Please enroll in geometry class.

For a funhouse mirror it's quite easy for an outside observer to see the shapes don't match with the owner.
Problem is we can't step outside of the universe to check. We have no absolute references.
If the universe were a simulation, how would you tell it's simulating a flat earth or a globe?
For someone inside the simulation, Australia will have the same size regardless. And you just can't know what the computer is calculating.

If it is impossible for us to 'step outside' to see the true shape of things then there is no way of knowing if your theory is true or not.

If something is impossible to observe then there is no way to prove it exists one way or another.  If you can't disprove a theory, it's not a theory.

You might as well argue if whatever alien supercomputer that runs the universe uses binary or trinary logic circuits.  We can never know, and deciding it's one or the other can't produce any useful results.

We can only know what we can see and measure. In my experience, my measurements and observations show the Earth to be a globe. If it's another shape in a hypothetical greater universe that I can't see or touch or examine in any way, then that's the realm of religion, belief and faith. 

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 15, 2022, 05:20:27 PM »

Their work is only as good as the lies Trump tells them.  I'm sure they also didn't care he was lying to them, they get paid to do what he says after all.

LOL! Then why issue any statement at all if "they don't care."?

Do you think before you make any sort of comment?

You need to work on your reading comprehension and stop misquoting people.  I never said "don't care" what I said is "didn't care". Thinking before commenting is good advice.

In English "don't" and "didn't" are not the same.  One is present tense and the other is past tense.

They didn't care as long as nobody was paying attention. Now that the justice dept and the IRS are involved and looking at them they care very much. They are not going to take the fall for this, and Trump should be worried they are going to spill all his dirty little secrets.

The worst for him will be revealing how much money he is actually worth after losing so much of daddies money.

LMMFAO!!!

My reaction exactly to Trumps lies starting to finally catch up to him.  He never should have run for President, he could have gone to his grave with nobody ever taking a close hard look at his businesses.  You could see his stunned, numb expression when he was sitting in the room with Obama wondering what had he just done.

Poor guy.

LOL! Yeah, right. A lifelong Democrat who is merely serving to further the NAZI agenda being demonized by DARPA AI bots on various forums and social media sites in an effort to make him look like a sympathetic hero to the other half.

LMMFAO!

In the Unite the Right rally the folks literally waving NAZI flags were Trump supporters. Those are Trump's people. NAZIs, Proud Boys and White Supremacists vote Trump. His people, he said it himself, and just ask them who they voted for. I didn't see a lot of White Supremacists voting for Obama.

“These people love me. These are my people,” - Trump

As for DARPA AI bots attacking Trump, uh, I don't see the point in arguing unsupported conspiracy theories. 

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 15, 2022, 02:28:51 PM »

Sorry, but this sounds like a statement a hairstylist would make after making the first pass with the scissors.

Honestly, they perform and issue work for over 9 years, all the while. I'm sure, claiming it to be work of the highest, most reliable caliber.

Their work is only as good as the lies Trump tells them.  I'm sure they also didn't care he was lying to them, they get paid to do what he says after all.

LMMFAO!!!

My reaction exactly to Trumps lies starting to finally catch up to him.  He never should have run for President, he could have gone to his grave with nobody ever taking a close hard look at his businesses.  You could see his stunned, numb expression when he was sitting in the room with Obama wondering what had he just done.

Poor guy.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 14, 2022, 08:47:23 PM »

Completely making things up to suit your own narrative. Typical. 

I seem to recall someone else with a habit of doing that.  Typical.