1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: June 04, 2018, 03:02:33 AM »

Just so you know Pete doesn't normally take a stance on these issues. As such it can be frustratingly difficult to get a straight answer from him. After all you can't be wrong if you don't commit to anything.
[/quote]

Wow. Thanks for pointing that out. It seems dishonest for Pete to even comment on the topic then. What a tragedy.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: June 01, 2018, 03:58:12 PM »

...the geometry of a flat plane

Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.

Hi Pete

I keep seeing you and other people do this. I'm actually on your side on this. Note that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I'd rather discuss with you your thoughts about this subject, instead of what I think are your thoughts on the subject. The latter gets us nowhere, as we're seeing in this thread. Since there are many models (or no models apparently, in some people's view) let's just focus on you, then. I think that will be the most productive use of our time here.

On what model or, system of measurements, do you base your position that the earth is flat? That's what I was getting at anyways in my first post where I asked what would be an appropriate correction to CHL's assumptions, so let's just jump to that end and discuss it.

If you have time (I know you said you're a busy guy, so am I), could you go over some of the wave tops? I don't need supreme detail - though an idea of some of the maths involved would be a nice addition. For example, if I were making some claim based on arc lengths I'd bring up trigonometry but save the details of S=rθ

NOTE: My arc length bit is just a "for instance."  I just want to provide an idea of the level of detail (not much) that I'm looking for as a stepping off point for our conversation.

JQV

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 07:18:35 PM »

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?

For the purpose of a video like this, it doesn't matter in particular - it'll just be addressing the specific model you've chosen. It's when you choose to make up your own version of the argument you're debunking that you've got a problem.

A couple of questions on that.

1. Why doesn't it matter which model he uses? The whole point of his video is to demonstrate, via geometric analysis, that the model we use to represent and make useful predictions about the earth absolutely does matter. I understand that there are several flat Earth models, so it's seems that for any geometric analysis, it ought to matter which of these flat Earth models we use. Maybe I'm interpreting what you said in the wrong way. If so, please clarify.

2. What statements make his version of the flat Earth argument erroneous? In what way are they misrepresentative of the flat Earth argument?

2b. Please correct the statements by providing an accurate representation of your version of the flat Earth argument, so we can talk about those, instead of wasting time (and causing you frustration) due to me informing my dialogue based on my erroneous misinterpretation of what those arguments are.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 06:03:24 PM »

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

For the record, in general the FE side insists that there IS no model of the flat Earth. "We don't have a map" is an oft repeated phrase. Hence none of your questions, or indeed CHL's video, contains any relevance.

And that is just a tragedy... I looked through your links in your signature. Wow. "The distance is unknown" has to be one of the most uninformed replies I've ever seen on any topic anywhere. There's no way that guy believes that. He must be making money off of this somehow. I wonder what they think the distance is from one wall to another in their home. Is that unknown too?

I'm hoping my first two replies will catch the eye and response of someone who is as willing to have their opinion informed as I am, rather than viewing this forum a place where one must defend their ideas. Based on your comment, I'm not holding my breath.

It seems more and more like the flat Earth hypothesis is based on the limits of the human body and intuition, and seeks no help from precision measurement tools or mathematical augmentation. Worse, it seems, the hypothesis requires the absence of such tools and augmentation.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 05:33:35 PM »

I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.

1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?

It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.

1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?

JQV

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 06:28:54 AM »

Here to resurrect this dead post. I made an account and everything, just to post and have a discussion. Let's stay on topic, according to the rules, shall we? I'm here for serious inquiry and discussion. I've looked at the wiki and all of that. I've spent considerable time doing so and exploring many of the interesting topics there.

Okay, we're here to talk about the original post, the video by CoolHardLogic. Here we go.

I don't see anything countering CHL's arguments in the video post by the OP in this thread. I'm curious as to what the retort/s is/are to CHL's arguments (there are 3 arguments in this video) involving geometric analysis. It seems that the math just isn't on the side of this flat Earth model. I did see a brief mention that CHL has made some assumptions, which is understandable. I hope this statement was only considering the mathematical assumptions.

I realize that CHL is making assumptions. That's what must be done in order to do science in a reasonable and practicable way. For example, we trust (or assume) that 9.8 m/s^2 is constant so we don't have to continuously test the acceleration due to gravity in the midst of other experimentation with, say, falling objects.

However, if any of CHL's assumptions (with regard to the maths) in this video are erroneous, please clarify and provide a correction to that assumption. I see there are a lot of places in the tfes forums and associated wiki and resources that address some maths, but none addressing these specific problems.

For the sake of time, I'll add this now as well: in addition to clarifying and correcting any of his assumptions (again, only assumptions regarding the maths), please explain how the assumptions affect the geometric analysis; how those effects are great enough to adversely impact the results of CHL's geometric analysis; and how (with the corrections) the results of a geometric analysis regarding the same problem can confirm that the flat Earth model is correct.

Thanks much. I look forward to hearing from those of you who will participate.

JQV