Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #120 on: May 31, 2018, 01:09:40 PM »
Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.
Could some bona fide Flatearther confirm this please? The objections in question are not against the claims of established science themselves, but rather scientific methodology itself, i.e. the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm truth claims. That's pretty important.

I thought that FE did use the scientific methodology, except they come up with different answers.
This thread is probably relevant here.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3849.0

EDIT: I note that they misrepresent the Scientific method here:

Quote
Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

The part in bold is not true, the experiment is designed to TEST the hypothesis, not prove it true.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 01:12:18 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #121 on: May 31, 2018, 01:25:34 PM »
The part in bold is not true, the experiment is designed to TEST the hypothesis, not prove it true.
Picky point, the etymology of 'prove', which still reflects its sense, is the Latin 'probare', to test. 'Proof' in the sense of logical proof or deduction, is probably the strongest form of test.

Also, it is part of the methodology to have a group of people who will try and disconfirm or disprove the hypothesis, so science is a sort of Darwinian process where the fittest theory survives. Peer review is an important part of the process.

There is also a kind of courtesy system where you accept the people who are trying to disconfirm your theory, and you try not to punch them, much as you would like. There are some reviewers I would like to consign to the ninth rung of hell. But it's kind of accepted this is an important part of the process and they are working in the interests of the community as much as you are etc.

Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #122 on: May 31, 2018, 01:36:40 PM »
The part in bold is not true, the experiment is designed to TEST the hypothesis, not prove it true.
Picky point, the etymology of 'prove', which still reflects its sense, is the Latin 'probare', to test. 'Proof' in the sense of logical proof or deduction, is probably the strongest form of test.
Wow, that IS picky!  :D
And yes, thinking about it I did know that. It makes sense of the phrase "The exception which proves the rule" - it's prove in the sense of test.

But the fact they say "prove hypothesis true" clearly means they are using the word in the more conventional sense, that a hypothesis is made and then an experiment is constructed to show it true, which isn't what is done. Actually no experiment can prove a hypothesis true, it can only disprove it, or add more confidence that the hypothesis is true.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #123 on: May 31, 2018, 01:41:52 PM »
But the fact they say "prove hypothesis true" clearly means they are using the word in the more conventional sense, that a hypothesis is made and then an experiment is constructed to show it true, which isn't what is done. Actually no experiment can prove a hypothesis true, it can only disprove it, or add more confidence that the hypothesis is true.
Yes correct, as Popper would have said (I think). Sorry for being picky.

This thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3849.0 really is very strange, and I don't know what to make of it. Some of the statements would make interesting quotes.

[edit] E.g. this one

Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.
My emphasis. Wow.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #124 on: May 31, 2018, 01:51:08 PM »
Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.
Could some bona fide Flatearther confirm this please? The objections in question are not against the claims of established science themselves, but rather scientific methodology itself, i.e. the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm truth claims. That's pretty important.

I thought that FE did use the scientific methodology, except they come up with different answers.

Let's say they accept science where it is not in contradiction to the "obvious truth that the earth is flat". They throw away many areas of optics, gravity, the whole physics about planetary motion, the mechanism how the sun produces its energy, basically everything in astrophysics and geophysics. There are contradictions to quantum mechanics, the standard model in particle physics, electrodynamics, optics.

Roughly you can say, its a scientific picture like in the early 19th century. With some selective exceptions, e.g. there affinity to the equivalence principle.

Methodically they claim to be empiricists, which they call zetetics. Basically, that means draw conclusions only from direct observations with a minimum of tools and assumptions, just by your senses. Like looking out of the window or jumping from a chair to see how the earth is approaching you. And believe it only, if you tried and experienced yourself. 

       

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #125 on: May 31, 2018, 01:54:51 PM »
Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it  would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.

Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.     

Is this the model (below)? How would it not have distortions of distance? The equatorial regions for example? [edit] Also the mapping below has curved lines of longitude.




That model wont work.

At present we are sailing from North west Australia to japan, and i am pretty certain we are not going PAC~Man off the edge of the world doing it.....

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11122
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #126 on: May 31, 2018, 01:58:33 PM »
I used the word imply. So your claim, understood properly, is that no FE model implies the calculation he uses to calculate the distance between two points of different longitude, but identical latitude? Can you confirm please?
No, I can't confirm that. One's standards of implication can vary greatly. To me, the statement is utter nonsense, and I can't think of model in which it would apply. This is why it is absolutely essential for the author to provide his reference material and justify his assumptions. He does not do that, simply because he is not capable of doing it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #127 on: May 31, 2018, 02:02:34 PM »
To me, the statement is utter nonsense, and I can't think of model in which it would apply.
Sorry, which statement is utter nonsense?

No, I can't confirm that.
I was asking you to confirm what you actually meant. You misquoted me, and I replied saying perhaps you meant 'that'. You now say you can't confirm what you meant. So what did you mean? I find your English difficult to parse, by the way.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 02:05:42 PM by edby »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #128 on: May 31, 2018, 02:04:28 PM »
Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.
My emphasis. Wow.

This is indeed one of the most remarkable statements. Ironically, what he is criticizing here is exactly the zetetic way as it is exemplified in EnaG. A guy going around, doing some observations and interpreting them. 

"Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation": Take what they call the "Bishop experiment". A guy going down to the beach looking over the water and imaging up the explanation that the world is flat.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #129 on: May 31, 2018, 02:07:14 PM »
Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it  would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.

Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.     

Is this the model (below)? How would it not have distortions of distance? The equatorial regions for example? [edit] Also the mapping below has curved lines of longitude.




That model wont work.

At present we are sailing from North west Australia to japan, and i am pretty certain we are not going PAC~Man off the edge of the world doing it.....

Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #130 on: May 31, 2018, 02:14:13 PM »
Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...
Why is that?

[edit] Is it because to get from NW Aus to Japan, you have to go from bottom to top? Couldn't you roll it up like a cylinder?

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #131 on: May 31, 2018, 02:19:46 PM »
Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...
Why is that?

[edit] Is it because to get from NW Aus to Japan, you have to go from bottom to top? Couldn't you roll it up like a cylinder?

That works, sort of, but then how does the sun get from the end of the equatorial on the left to the right ?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #132 on: May 31, 2018, 02:45:08 PM »
Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...
Why is that?

[edit] Is it because to get from NW Aus to Japan, you have to go from bottom to top? Couldn't you roll it up like a cylinder?

Yes, if you're in the far east, no one can deny that you can go from there directly to a point in the far west without crossing the whole diameter of the disc. To explain this you need the pac-man effect.

Or look at the example in the wiki. Let's say you want to go from Peru to Indonesia. According to the map in the wiki you would have to cross South America, the Atlantic, Africa and the Indian Ocean. And then you would approach Indonesia from the west. But everyone who went there knows, that you can go straight east over the Pacific. So the plane or ship has to do it the pac-man way...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11122
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #133 on: May 31, 2018, 03:13:33 PM »
Sorry, which statement is utter nonsense?
The idea that Australia is some 8000km across.

I find your English difficult to parse, by the way.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure it's not perfect, but most people seem to cope just fine.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #134 on: May 31, 2018, 03:25:48 PM »
If this is utter nonsense, is it then correct to assume, that you believe Australia has the size one can find in usual sources like maps, wikipedia and other encyclopedias? And if yes, do you believe the same for other countries and continents, or just for Australia?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11122
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #135 on: May 31, 2018, 03:39:35 PM »
If this is utter nonsense, is it then correct to assume, that you believe Australia has the size one can find in usual sources like maps, wikipedia and other encyclopedias?
You continue to misunderstand my point. My personal views are of utterly no significance to my objections to how CHL does things.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #136 on: May 31, 2018, 03:42:18 PM »
What Hexagon said.

Also, it is now clear (1) which statement you think is nonsense (namely that Australia is some 8000km across). Also (2) you claim you ‘can't think of [any] model in which it would apply’ and (3) it is absolutely essential for the author to provide his reference material, implying he didn’t.

Yet the author clearly does specify which model he is referring to, namely the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. He says this at 141 secs, linked below. And it is mathematically true that this model has Australia coming out at 8000km across!



« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 03:43:59 PM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11122
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #137 on: May 31, 2018, 03:47:33 PM »
Yet the author clearly does specify which model he is referring to, namely the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.
That does nothing to clarify which model he's referring to. Very few models use different maps.

And it is mathematically true that this model has Australia coming out at 8000km across!
Ah, yes, emptily insisting that you can just transpose RET principles into FET is a great way of debating.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #138 on: May 31, 2018, 03:49:12 PM »
And it is mathematically true that this model has Australia coming out at 8000km across!
Ah, yes, emptily insisting that you can just transpose RET principles into FET is a great way of debating.
I said mathematically true. Mathematics is what mathematics is. It is indifferent to RE or FE models. If I claim that 2+1=3, is this RET? How?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1103
    • View Profile
Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1
« Reply #139 on: May 31, 2018, 03:59:21 PM »
Let’s really spell this out.
Quote
The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
So the author is making assumptions that both sides can agree with. Remember a large number of flat earthers claim the United Nations map is the real FE map. And he is using a bit of mathematics using an isosceles triangle. These are not ‘RET principles [transposed]into FET’. The starting point is assumptions both sides agree on.

Then he deduces, from these mutually agreed assumptions, the distance that you find ‘nonsensical’.

Quote
That does nothing to clarify which model he's referring to.
Lol the azimuthal equidistant projection is the model. That is all we need, see the definition of the model above.