Flat earth

Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Moonpony, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    147
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Everything that we sense is being fed into our brains by a massive computer. The Earth isn't even real, man. Reality is a Jewish invention, and I don't even know what's going on anymore.
     
    • Possible x 1
  2. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    Never mind. If you can replicate Biruni's precision, you don't need a mountain! The horizontal deficiency at a normal man's height above the ocean is 0.04 degrees.

    By a curious coincidence, the deficiency in degrees, at x km above the ocean, is approximated by just sqrt(x). Less than 2% error for the first 500 km.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  3. Auriga

    Auriga New Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2017
    Posts:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Yes, the calculation for the sun angle on the equinox days is the following. I'm using (@) for sun polar angle because it's easier to type than the theta symbol:
    sun polar angle (@) = hours * pi / 12

    The sun degrees of distance cartesian components are:
    equinox x = sin(@), equinox y = cos(@)

    The distance of the observer in degrees of distance from the north pole is:
    observer y = 1 - latitude / 90

    So the total y distance between the sun and observer is:
    total equinox y distance = 1 - latitude / 90 + cos(@)

    So the observed horizontal sun angle at the equinox is:
    equinox horizontal sun angle = atan(sin(@) / (1 - latitude / 90 + cos(@)))

    The Christchurch, New Zealand latitude is -44, so:
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch = atan(sin(@) / (1 - -44 / 90 + cos(@)))
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch = atan(sin(@) / (1.49 + cos(@)))

    At 6 AM, @ = pi / 2:
    sin(pi / 2) = 1, cos(pi / 2) = 0
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 AM = atan(1 / (1.49 + 0))
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 AM = 34 degrees East of North (56 degrees North of East)

    At 6 PM (18 hours), @ = 3 * pi / 2:
    sin(3 * pi / 2) = -1, cos(3 * pi / 2) = 0
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 PM = atan(-1 / (1.49 + 0))
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 PM = -34 degrees East of North (56 degrees North of West)

    The calculation for the sun angle on the December solstice is the following. Only the differences from the equinox calculation are listed.

    The sun degrees of distance cartesian components are:
    december solstice x = sin(@) * (1 + 23.5 / 90) = 1.26 * sin(@), equinox y = 1.26 * cos(@)

    So the observed horizontal sun angle at the equinox is:
    equinox horizontal sun angle = atan(1.26 * sin(@) / (1 - latitude / 90 + 1.26 * cos(@)))

    The Christchurch, New Zealand latitude is -44, so:
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch = atan(1.26 * sin(@) / (1 - -44 / 90 + 1.26 * cos(@)))
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch = atan(1.26 * sin(@) / (1.49 + 1.26 * cos(@)))

    At 6 AM, @ = pi / 2:
    sin(pi / 2) = 1, cos(pi / 2) = 0
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 AM = atan(1.26 / (1.49 + 0))
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 AM = 40 degrees East of North (50 degrees North of East)

    At 6 PM (18 hours), @ = 3 * pi / 2:
    sin(3 * pi / 2) = -1, cos(3 * pi / 2) = 0
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 PM = atan(-1.26 / (1.49 + 0))
    equinox horizontal sun angle at Christchurch at 6 PM = -40 degrees East of North (50 degrees North of West)

    In conclusion, according to the flat earth model at both the equinox and the December solstice the sun is in the North at 6 AM and at 6 PM.

    In the round earth model, the sun is around due East at 6 AM on the equinox (orange line):
    SunCalc sun position and sunlight phases calculator | http://suncalc.net/#/-43.5321,172.6362,11/2017.09.23/11:22

    In the round earth model, the sun is around 15 degrees south of East at 6 AM on the December solstice (orange line):
    SunCalc sun position and sunlight phases calculator | http://suncalc.net/#/-43.5321,172.6362,11/2017.12.23/10:30

    The sun goes farther to the south at sunrise on the December solstice than at 6 AM, because sunrise on the December solstice is earlier than 6 AM. I didn't include that calculation because it's more math since the sin and cos are not nice round numbers, and I've spent enough time with this calculation already.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
    • Thank Thank x 1
    • Nobilid Nobilid x 1
  4. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    I started out agreeing but now I disagree. You think you're just mirroring his behaviour in terms of laziness, but you're not remotely doing the same thing. Because context. He's one-against-four, you are four-against-one. Do you expect a single man arguing against a group to do the same amount of work as the entire group can do together?

    Regarding all the abuse you cited, I have to disagree with that too. Not to be taken out of context. I don't know about all of it, but here's the context for the two directed at me: The comment that "those blinders must be comfy" was following a bit of snarkiness on my part. It pissed me off, but I chose to drop it, and subsequently so did Moonie. The one where he called me a fool was directly following me calling him a fool.

    Don't know the full context for the abuse against the others, but anyway what you have to realize is that Moonie also has mirroring as an MO. Sometimes he escalates too much, but most of the time not.

    I disagree with this attitude. We should always endeavour to give others and the world at large more than they deserve. It's the only way to improve relations. Consider that if we only gave people what we think they deserve, the world would soon be nothing but ruins and ashes.

    Example: Should I want to save my people? If I wanted them to have what they deserve, I should rather welcome their destruction at the hands of Them. Destruction is precisely what they have deserved, by being naive and blind and uninterested in their own flourishing. But to love them means to want the best for them, even when they don't deserve it.

    By the way I still haven't seen a response to my math related to cannonball launching, all the way back at page 1. I really do insist you tell me what you think about it, and especially if you still maintain that you haven't been refuted on a single point.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13

    Cool.


    I'm not going to revisit the cannonball thing, for the simple reason of I can't be bothered. It was a *thought experiment*, not an actual experiment, and seeing as neither of us have a cannon handy, it was to show the principle that objects should always fall westwards due to the increasing radius. The question of whether this is large or small enough to measure is a different question.


    It also built on the first thought experiment, that *if* gravity pulls towards the centre of mass, *then* the coriolis effect should be a 500 metres/second windblast, because the earth would be immersed and rotating in a gas, and the only way for the atmosphere to stick to it in such a geostationary way is... magic.


    Of course, all these points were largely ignored or dealt with with bullshit (I'm not going to go back and look, because why bother).


    Instead, the thread, from the moment I stated I was a flat earther, became am baiting game of "who can disprove flat earth."


    Like, fuck off. I didn't want this stupid argument. As far as I can trust my own reasoning, I am a flat earther. Y'all chose to fucking dogpile me for no other reason than you think I'm a stupid for being a flat earther. Well, great. And collectively you expect me to be interested in educating you? AND, specifically, addressing arguments YOU choose for the purpose of attacking my beliefs, whilst ignoring the proofs I've put forward for my beliefs?


    "You're a flat earther, huh? Wow, that's dumb."


    "Yes, based on these proofs."


    "Yeah, but those proofs are dumb. Try and disprove THESE proofs that I pulled off some random website by googling "flat earth is bullshit.""


    "No, fuck off. Research it for yourself from a neutral point of view rather than trying to disprove me."


    "Yeah, and these proofs I have specifically gathered to show you are wrong, show you are wrong. Look, I have math and everything. Math is important and for smart people. Dumb flat earthers don't like math."


    And so on.


    I *Could* make a flat earth video with a scale sized sphere and camera movement to test whether the horizon really rises or not, a la flat earth proofs. But, why bother?


    1) Other people are already doing this on sources I have named - Rob Skiba of proving the globe is doing a scale model test of the horizon rising, a test of EXACTLY what is being discussed with the "you just didn't go high enough to see the horizon drop" argument. His last video said he was working with someone on producing it currently and I have no reason to doubt him. So, go subscribe to his channel, and if it never materialises, feel free to do it yourself or consider flat earth bullshit, if you are so easily dissuaded. Ditto for other youtube channels with other proofs that the globe is impossiball.


    2) I have linked various bite sized youtube videos, often with watertight cases offered for dissident beliefs around the topic, ie, space is bullshit, NASA is bullshit, and so on.


    3) If noone wants to address proofs they don't have an easy and immediate refute for, why should I believe they are going to pay attention to an explanation of something where they won't have an easy and immediate refute for?


    But anyway.


    Let's consider, for a moment, the difference between an apparent and an absolute proof. Something that the people on this thread need to be able to Get before they can be serious about the subject (or any subject, really).


    The key is in the words. The stars in the southern hemisphere having antirotation to the stars in the northern hemisphere seems to prove the earth is a globe. It appears to be the case, hence, it is an "apparent" proof. However, there are many explanations that are consistent with the laws of physics for this. We could live in a giant dome (as according to scripture) with reflective properties. The stars could be hologram built by NASA. And so on. The same with the sun rising and setting, it appears as if the earth must be spherical. But due to the size of the sun and the difficulty of testing for perspective tricks, this is again an appearance, and not an absolute proof.


    An absolute proof is one where you eliminate these other factors as best as possible. This proof can then be used in conditional reasoning, rather than appeals to appearances, theory, and so on.


    For example. To repeat my reasoning for the umpteenth time...


    IF the earth is a sphere approximatey 25K across possessing the force of "Gravity", THEN it must have an easily measurable curvature of 8 inches to the mile.


    Because, IF the earths gravity is not strong enough to make standing water have a definite curvature, THEN the theory that it is gravity pulling towards a centre that makes things fall "up" or "down" must be reexamined.


    IF the earth has bodies of water which stretch around the globe without interruption, THEN this curvature must also be present (allowing for gravitational irregularity) in all standing water.


    Otherwise, how else can water stick to the ball earth consistently all the way around, if gravity is not strong enough to pull water into the curved surface that indicates we are on a globe?


    So, IF you can control for atmospheric refraction through some means (lasers, using a large enough stretch of water and surveying equipment, taking the same measurements repeatedly, and so on), and you find that all standing water is flat and level and does not curve,


    THEN


    1) The earth must be so large that the curvature is impossible to measure, or


    2) The earth, and all territories with large bodies of water standing flat and level, must be (barring territorial irregularities) a flat plane, insofar as that water extends.


    This is relying on the assumption that


    1) All water is water, and water in a lake or canal does not have physical properties that makes it different from water in oceans, etc


    2) Water in the measured area is unaffected by electromagnetism, god and or gods, occult forces, etc,


    basically 3), that if gravity is unable to curve lake water around the "globe", then it is similar unable to curve ocean water around the "globe."


    This is an absolute proof.


    Regardless of the appearance of the stars, regardless of the appearance of the sun, regardless of Al-Biruni or whateverthefuck some towelhead proto-NASA globeearther did way back in the day, regardless of the positions of the sun on maps or the speed of flights, regardless of all other apparent proofs, IF standing water is consistently level and flat, THEN all other apparent proofs of the globe must be scrapped, reconsidered, and dispensed with, because it would be impossible for the earth to be a globe with water curved around it.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  6. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    That is, as far as I'm concerned, the end of the globe for any intellectually honest person. You can try and reconcile the appearance of the sun, moon and stars with the existence of flat water however you like, but so long as standing water is level and flat, the earth must also be flat. In order to refute this, you have to find absolute proof that water curves according to gravity, something globe-earthers have been completely unable to do without the old chesnut of "look, the boat is going over the horizon" (but if you use binoculars, suddenly it will reappear thanks to "atmospheric refraction"). Or else, you have to find fault with the conditional reasoning, or demonstrate some other absolute proof and conditional reasoning to show the world is a globe that is able to account for flat and level water. Similarly, Airy's Failure and the MM experiments show that the earth is stationary.


    This is my foundation for my opinion that believing in the heliocentric globe theory is primitive, backwards and superstitious:


    1) because it invokes the occult (gravity)

    2) and mathematical absurdity (The sun is double-digit million miles away and is many times the size of earth, Polaris is a quadrillion miles away and is the size of the sun, and so on),


    to account for everyday experience and to rationalise the appearance of certain things that require investigation, whilst ignoring absolute proofs like:


    1) All standing water is flat and level,

    2) Airy's failure demonstrates the earth is stationary relative to the stars,

    3) The angle of crepuscular rays cannot be accounted for by atmospheric refraction due to the low refractive index of air compared to vacuum (if the light was being refracted by atmosphere, it would all be consistently refracted in the same direction, like shining a torch into a pool of water), instead, crepuscular rays diverge,

    4) Circular star trails indicate a geocentric universe,


    And also simple conditional reasoning regarding their own theories:


    IF vacuum does not diminish the intensity of sunlight, and the sun is the stated size at the stated distance 93 million miles away (or whatever they are deciding it is this week), THEN how come the antartic and artic have such wildly different climates when the only difference in the suns distance between them is roughly 4000 miles (the radius of earth) which is 0.00004% of the suns distance from earth, which is made up only of vacuum?


    IF the moons gravity is strong enough to pull trillions of tonnes of water to create the tides, THEN how come we are completely unable to feel the moons gravity (let alone the inconsistent time of tides in comparison to moon orbits)?


    And missing the irony of their own group-think and absurd belief system:


    "Hahaha, dumb flat earther, don'tcha know Earth is a TIME CUBE?! Only the TIME CUBE can account for us careening through space at millions of miles per hour, with the stars also all flying away from us at mind-boggling speeds with strings of zeroes on the end, whilst on a spinning ball that we stick to thanks to occult forces, away from the BIG BANG that created all life and all naturally present elements like uranium, nickel and complex organisms out of pure hydrogen and a mishmash of charged quantum particles..."


    Remember:


    WINNARS USE MATH!!!


    "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, giving the commonest flat earther quote ever.


    Dumb flat earthers HATE math, they do actual experiments instead.


    Flat earthers are DUMB, my math calculations about the apparent location of the sun told me so!
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  7. Boneflour

    Boneflour Moderator SuperMod

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    1,112
    Thanks Received:
    750
    Lorien, thanks for that. You make some good points. I hadn't considered the amount of stuff Moonpony had to field. I agree that the quote directed at you could just be snarking back and forth.

    My first post in this thread was agreeing with Moonpony about the possibility that HIV was fake/more than we're told. He's also responded to a couple of the things I posted, so that's good. I disagree with Moonpony's characterization that I "started out trying to bring him down" given that I started out agreeing with one of his statements and only responded after 3-4 posts of "Life is an IQ test and you are failing miserably". (besides the timecube joke to vejiortan)

    I agree you should give people more than you think they deserve. We're all human and make mistakes. I also think you have to have solid boundaries on how you allow other people to treat you and yours, especially on the internet. Otherwise all conversations devolve into calling each other motherfuckers (see also: Godwin's Law).

    Obviously we need a 4-page breakdown of the various social/psychocultural dynamics of this thread For Great Learning... complete with type systems, lengthy analysis, and charts. Lots of charts. Physiognomify this!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Kensuimo

    Kensuimo Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    1,874
    Thanks Received:
    648
    @Ophiuchus This motherfucker talking shit behind your back, you just gonna sit there and take it? o_O
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    That saddens me. I'll write my own post-mortem of the thread within a few days.

    I completely disagree that this is what's happening in this thread. Will explain in post-mortem.

    kek

    So, are you expecting us to deal with all your points all at once? I disagree with that, for two reasons.

    1) In complex online discussions, the post size tends to grow exponentially. The only way around that is to ignore a bunch of points which seem less essential. If you disagree about which points require more attention and which should be be dropped, you are free to request that we deal with such points. Just like I requested that you deal with the point I think is most essential. Of course, if you aren't going to honour such requests, no one else has a reason to honour yours either.

    2) Sometimes its impossible to reach a conclusion because of irreconcilable differences in standards of truth, or style of argumentation, etc. I have something deep to say about half of your points, roughly, but each one if those statments will be rather labour intensive in terms of doing calculations and drawing diagrams for you. Spending that effort is foolish unless I can first determine that we are able to reach a mutual conclusion on a single point.

    Thus my preferred style is to dig down on a single point and ignore as much else as possible. In this case it saved me. As you just stated that you have no interest in dealing in depth with the single point I choose to make, making 10 points at once would have just amounted to ten times as much wasted effort.

    I don't understand what you're explaining here. Lorien don't think too good. But from the example, it seems you are grasping toward the concept called Falsification in regular parlance. (See Karl Popper.)

    <sperge>
    The idea being that if the predictions made by a theory manifests in reality, that doesn't prove the theory true, because it could have manifested for many conceivable reasons. But if the predictions fail to manifest in reality, the theory is definitely proven to be false. As such, material science can never prove anything.

    Another flat earther (Drake Shelton) I read just yesterday pointed out that as such, scientific claims are not claims to Truth. They are at most pragmatically useful. It is therefore not "true" that the earth is round. It's only pragmatic to think that way. Or maybe it isn't; Engineers tend to like flat models. But of course by the same token it's not "true" that the earth is flat. Don't let that point be lost on you.

    If you want "truth", then, you have to turn to religion. As indeed this particular person does.

    Now by logic, if P is proven false, then (not P) is proven true. But make no mistake about what (not P) is. The proper opposite of "the earth is round" is not "the earth is flat", it is just "the earth is not round"**. The proper opposite of one theory is not another theory; The opposite of a theory is to not have a theory. Disproof of one theory is not proof of another theory; Disproof of a theory is merely a call to humility; "Apparently I have no clue what's going on."

    ** "flat" is not equivalent with "not round". Plenty of other things are not round, like a saddle, or a duck, or non-existence.
    </sperge>

    The logic seems flawless. In a sentence: "If the predictions from round earth model fails to be accurate, it is not the right model." However I disagree about what the particular predictions of the model looks like. That has been the main thrust of all my points. But if you're unwilling to deal carefully with what I'm saying about that on a single point, I certainly can't be asked to explain it on a bunch of more points. Though maybe I will just for my own satisfaction :3

    I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but that's literally true! It's literally impossible to fully grasp what the predictions of an earth model is by intuition alone, because the human mind is not adapted for that scale. Many unexpected things happen when you move away from the normal human scale of things.

    False dichotomy. The point is that you need both. You think Tesla did all his inventions without math?

    Ah, the olde problem of "how you be kind without being a doormat", or "how you be generous without becoming a 3rd world country." I had a think about that, and realized that I can't say anything for sure. But in the meanwhile I'll still have opinions about it!

    The answer is basically tit-for-tat, except you start out by giving them alot of tits. Demonstrate the behaviour you wish them to reciprocate, clearly. If they fail to do so, you can tell them, and keep demonstrating. (Maybe they're kind of heart but blind or slow or something.) If they still fail, they are not a reciprocator and are you start treating them in kind. How many tits you give before tatting is a matter of personal judgement, I suppose.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
    • Nobilid Nobilid x 1
  10. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Strategies | http://www.iterated-prisoners-dilemma.net/prisoners-dilemma-strategies.shtml

    Interesting website for this.
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Moonpony

    Moonpony Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2017
    Posts:
    95
    Thanks Received:
    13
    This thread should never have started. Delete
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. Kensuimo

    Kensuimo Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    1,874
    Thanks Received:
    648
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Apercus

    Apercus Benefactor of Humanity Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Posts:
    595
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Do you think gravity exists?
     
  14. Mycroft Jones

    Mycroft Jones The TM/FM Station Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Posts:
    301
    Thanks Received:
    113
    After all the times he has claimed that gravity does NOT exist? In Flat Earth circles, it is pretty standard to claim there is no such thing as gravity. Just as they mangle and abuse geocentrism, they mangle and distort the Electric Universe material. Electric Universe doesn't deny the PHENOMENON of gravity, they just believe it isn't a separate force on its own.
     
  15. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    147
    Thanks Received:
    33

    Tesla wasn't a flat-Earther, though, was he? Assuming that the quote has not been falsely attributed to Tesla, he seems to be saying that the scientists of his day constructed internally consistent mathematical models which failed to correspond to the actual behaviour of the universe. This doesn't suggest that he thought that the flat-Earth model was a good alternative to the popular scientific models of his day.
     
  16. Boneflour

    Boneflour Moderator SuperMod

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    1,112
    Thanks Received:
    750
    This thread is amazing. It's ten pages long and has all kinds of people posting in here. Hall of Fame material imo plz no delete xD
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. BiceBiceBice

    BiceBiceBice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2016
    Posts:
    746
    Thanks Received:
    337
    Top three flat-earth hazards;

    1: Accidentally jumping off the edges of the earth into space that may or may not exist
    2: Accidentally swimming off the edges of the earth into space that may or may not exist
    3: Being blackmailed by the guy who owns the biggest drill on the planet and demands all shitcoins in exchange for not drilling a hole through the planet and vent all water into space that may or may not exist

    Fun Fact: The proper classic olympic games were always staged in Olympia, but the first game ever was held Atlantis but Atlantis was too close to space so the discus throwers would accidentally throw the discus into space (which may or may not exist) and were not able to retrieve them which lead to the discus shortage crisis of 10.000 BC. This is also why people abandoned Atlantis and moved East (to Europe). There were other reasons of course beside the discus throwers, entire rowing teams going off the edges and running a marathon at night was a bitch because pranksters would highlight the wrong way with the torches so many good atletes simply ran off the planet, this lead to the creation of Orienteering halfway through the first Olympic even, very boring now but vital back then.
    Thanks to orienteering they were able to arrive safely in Europe.

    I'm sure there are plenty more, you just need som imagination.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    Analysis: In Which The King of All Neanderthals Explains What's Going On In This Thread

    (Hint: It has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.)

    I'll start by repeating something courtesy of Jordy Peterson. Have you ever been told that "it doesn't matter if you win, what matters is that you are a good player," and been puzzled over what that means? Here's what it means. There's no such thing as a purely competitive game. All games are also co-operative. Not only are you co-operating with your own team mates for the win, while competing over who's the best on the team. You're also co-operating with the opposing team, in this sense: That you all choose to abide by the same rules, so that you can play over and over again, and all improve your skill over time. You are competing in every particular game, but you are co-operating in the meta-game.

    Being a good player matters more than winning any particular game, because what really matters is to have success over the sequence of all games. If you're being an asshole whenever you lose, or when you win for that matter, or if you try bending the rules just to win, then you become the ultimate loser in the meta-game; No one will invite you to play next time, and you will stagnate while they keep improving and flourishing. And hey, even if you turn out not be the most successful player on the most successful team, at least you have a team, and that's nothing to scoff at.

    Having humility over the fact that sometimes you lose is like a meta-skill that enables the mastery of other skills.

    The game of discussion we're enacting here also has this sort of structure. We're all competing with each other over Who Is Right, and everyone wants to be That One Nerd Who Is Never Wrong. At the same time we're co-operating across the set of all discussions, the point of which is to teach and learn new things, to root out fallacies and improve our thinking, and to become better at articulating what we mean in a correct and convincing manner. In short, the meta-discussion is to approach truth while becoming better thinkers and communicators.

    There are many ways to go wrong in the meta-discussion, most related with being too invested in Being Right. First however I want to illuminate the most impressive post in this whole thread: Aeolis swift and total admission of fault after it was pointed out that his piece of evidence was dumb. Basically acting like a Patron Saint of Truth. Highly Nobilid. We can all now have a renewed confidence that debating with Aeoli will be worth-while, because he will deal with the subject in an honest and forthright manner.

    End of preamble.

    Moonpony, the point of this thread was never to determine the shape of the Earth. It is not to defend our precious emotions against the flat-earth onslaught against scientific dogma, or to prove anyone's world-view wrong. No one cares all that much if science is right, or if you disagree with it. For fucks sake, Koanic believes humanity's origin is boar-raped-monkey, and you don't hear any of us complaining.

    No, the point is to test where Moonpony fits in the meta-discussion. Will he be a good player, or will he be invested in Never Being Wrong? Previous experience suggests that maybe he won't be all that pleasant when challenged. There's good reason he was banned twice already. At the same time, we're all hoping he'll be a good sport this time around. He's a likeable guy with many good qualities, and if possible we want him around.

    My conscious strategy from the start was to create opportunities for you to admit fault. I did this in two ways: 1) point out that your intuitions are insufficient, (as are everyones), with some simple / broad arguments / examples, so that you may realize you have drawn hasty conclusions. Don't know how well I did this. 2) Make one point so thoroughly that no "rhetorical" response is plausible, that there is no response other than "I was wrong in that". The only option then being to deflect and ignore it.

    I don't know if Apercus and Aeoli were conscious of what they were doing, but anyway their modus operandi was perfectly consistent with the same motive. E.g. Aeolis first response was to ask about the effect on retrograde motion, not because that question is more important than any other, but to see if you're in any way humbled when confronted with something you almost certainly hadn't thought about. Likewise Apercus showing off the breadth of the subject, was giving you an opportunity to think "huh, I had never thought about any of these things. Maybe I shouldn't have such a strong opinion about a subject that I know almost nothing about."

    So there's been opportunity to show what, 3 or 4 kinds of humility, and none of them requiring you to abandon your position. Ones with small and ones with large impact. Ones explained in broad strokes and ones in painful detail. Proper humility has even been perfectly modelled by Aeoli, and I have made sure to criticise "my side" whenever appropriate, and they took it well. All do demonstrate that this is not a hostile atmosphere where you have to be on the defensive. Yet I have seen no measure of humility from you, Moon.

    Please do tell me if I'm blind and wrong about that.

    In conclusion:

    No one cares what your beliefs are. We have not been trying to make you say you're entirely wrong about the Flat Earth. We've been prodding to see if you're willing to humbly admit fault about a single point, however insignificant. It's because we really do want you around, see, for personal reasons. But only if you're also a good sport.
     
    • Nobilid Nobilid x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  19. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    What the hell, I'm interested in the flat earth now. In particular, experimental design for it.

    I propose an experiment variant to Rob Skiba's balloon launch you can do, to determine FOR SURE if the horizon "always rises to eye level" or not.

    Now, at 100,000 ft, the horizon should drop about 6 degees. In a photo that might correspond to about 10% of the picture height, although that will depend on the lens angle of view. That is, if you send a camera up and it remains perfectly level to the ground, the image of the earth will decrease from filling the bottom half of the image, to filling the bottom 40% of it.

    Now, in Skiba's launch the camera is flailing wildly up and down, and tumbling side to side. The effect of the slightly-lower horizon is obviously not measurable under those conditions, but here's my proposal: Get two cameras, and mount them securely against each other so that they point in the exact opposite directions. That way, when one camera tilts down, the other camera tilts up by the exact same amount. The number of "planet-pixels" in each image will vary as the contraption flails around in the wind, but the total number of planet-pixels in both images together should stay constant. That is, if the earth is flat. If it is round however, the total number of planet-pixels will gradually drop from 50% to 40% as you approach 100,000 ft.

    Put another way: if you put the two camera-feeds right next to each other, you should see that as one camera tilts and the earth rises 100 pixels, in the other one the earth correspondingly drops 100 pixels. The "average level" between them stays precisely still. But as the balloon rises, the average level slowly decreases from the exact middle of the images, to 10% below middle. *If* the round Earth is indeed possiball.

    I see no flaw in this scheme. I'd like you other physics nerds to weight in. Would you guys find this experiment convincing? If the planet-pixels failed to decrease, would you be convinced of the flat earth? If it's solid, I'll try to get it in front of Rob Skiba's eyes before his next balloon launch.
     
  20. Ulixes Orobar

    Ulixes Orobar Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Posts:
    147
    Thanks Received:
    33

    I suspect that this is fake news. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that...

    [​IMG]
    ( Believing Things Ironically | http://facebook.com/1308532755929896/photos/rpp.1308532755929896/1321012254681946 )
     

Share This Page