[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Damn, Billy disappeared. Maybe he found the edge and fell off.
Correct.
If there is an apparent contradiction between Scripture and current Science, then either the current science (or my understanding of it) is wrong, or my interpretation of Scripture is wrong.
If there is a contradiction between Harry Potter and current science, does this also mean that either the current science is wrong, or my understanding of Harry Potter is wrong?
Ok, I'm pretty sure I have confirmed my formula is correct by thinking about it.
o = Observer height
t = Target height
R = Earth radius
D = Furthest away the target can be seen by observer as measured along the circumference of the Earth.
- R, o and t need to be in the same units inside the inverse cosine functions.
- R outside the brackets can be in different units. D will be returned in the same unit as R is entered outside the brackets. Inside the brackets we are calculating an angle, so it doesn't matter which units we use for distance in subsequent calculations.
- To calculate how far the horizon is for an observer of height o, use t=0.
- To account for atmospheric refraction, increase R by 12-18% from the actual value.
- Inverse cosines need to be in radians. If they are in degrees, multiply result by pi/180.
This formula agrees with Billy's 8inches/6.8inches per mile squared when t=0, but can be used for any target height.
The geometric intuition behind it is pretty straightforward:
We are keeping the length of segment AD fixed at R+t and pivoting the segment around point A until segment CD is tangent to the circle. This will happen when the altitude dropped from vertex A on to side CD has length exactly equal to R (not shown in diagram). We are then calculating the resulting angle at A and then using this angle to calculate the corresponding arclength along the circumference of the circle.
Comments on this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...
Introduction.
"Earth is flat" is not a hypothesis.
"Earth is spherical" is not a hypothesis.
There is no independent variable.
Curvature relation to radius, ok that is correct.
They say
"the flat-Earth movement is gathering
strength given its viral attractiveness in social network"
You said this was the serious stuff? It isn't just bunk science, it is unethical politicised polemical propaganda. This has no place in a scientific report.
"the flat-Earth hypothesis"
Independent variable and dependent variable leading to scientific prediction please.
"flirts with the broader spectrum of conspiracy theories, such as: Was JFK assassinated by the FBI? Were the moon landings faked? Was 9/11 an inside job?"
Wot? Science wot now? These guys passing the crack pipe here? JFK and the moon landings? You stoned brother.
"Testing for veracity or falsity is an arduous and socially valuable task because some
conspiracy theories have historically turned out to be conspiracy facts. Just to give one
big example: The entire Catholic Church hierarchy conspired to claim that the so-called “Donation of Constantine” had given them temporal control over Italy, and they got away with it for several centuries; however, it was fake news."
Calling e4 to the witness stand. Please use you code breaking skillz to deconstruct and extract meaning from this car crash of a sentence/s.
"The flat-Earth hypothesis"
What hypothesis would this be then.
"also of scientific interest"
Science? What is that? The author of this paper does not know believe me.
"because the response from
spherical-Earth proponents is usually limited to: (1) appeal to authority and (2) refusal to debate"
Really, and this bit of weak generalisation is relevant to your **** report because... ? Who cares who thinks and says what here. Give us some science one time only.
"Surely, astronauts or Antarctica explorers can opine and academics can publish
papers that are not accessible to mere mortals, but this is not enough to satisfy the
average educated, curious, and skeptical layperson."
Educated people are not reading past this. Well, only those after some self harm.
"As an example of appeal to academic authority, consider Kuzii and Rovenchak (2019).
This paper is mathematically masterful, but not readily accessible to those outside the
narrow field of theoretical physics. Starting with Newton’s law of gravitation, they derive
expressions for the gravitational field of a two-dimensional mass, namely the flat-Earth disk, with radius R and constant surface density"
Why on earth would they apply Newton's law of gravity here, and make bizarre baseless assumptions? Who is claiming this mad disk?
"In lay terms, the key qualitative insight
is that the radial component of gravitational force at distance r from the origin increases
sharply and non-linearly towards the ‘edge’ of the disk, as the ratio r/R approaches one:
An individual walking towards the edge of a flat Earth would, therefore, feel the need to
bend as they walked or, alternatively, have the sensation that they were ascending up a
‘bowl’ from the origin – as illustrated by Kuzii and Rovenchak (2019, Figures 2 and 9) – counter to actual sensorial experience."
Pass the pipe son i dont even... speechless.
"This is the epistemological gap the paper aims to fill."
Doing well thus far.
"We apply state-of-the-art statistical methodology in an innovative design to reverse engineer three-dimensional information about Earth’s curvature from data collected on the two-dimensional manifold that is the surface of the Earth."
This is the space age folks.
Ignore topography, ok.
"The only data needed are:
(i) longitude, (ii) distance from the North Pole"
So longitude and distance to the north pole are not measured values? They claimed boldly they have no physical measurements, no physics they said. So what is this.
Longitude: spherical coordinate system. Not submissible. I guess we can have a celestial longitude measurement (without measurement, nothing physical anyway) but that is hardly relevant to ball vs diskus radius R. Why distance to the north pole? Why not some other completely arbitrary location?
Next.
"(iii) flight times between airports connected by regularly scheduled commercial routes."
Ok.
"Both flat-Earth and spherical-Earth
models agree on the first two items."
What flat earth model is this? Is it necessary to subscribe to this model? How would a *flat* earth model incorporate a *spherical* coordinate system? It presumably would be Cartesian. Looking forward to the coordinate transformations in this report.
"The third item is essentially unfalsifiable due to the large number of sources that report aviation data, so it will act as the ‘Judge of Peace’ in the statistical analysis."
So "flight times" will arbitrate the ball vs strawman disk of radius R sucking in everything at broad angles nobody claimed. Let's go.
"First, we establish an accurate relation between (average) flight time and distance
using the routes where the two models most agree: along a North-South axis (allowing for North Pole flyover)"
Ok, but why a preference for the north pole?
"We obtain an estimated linear model with an adjusted R^2 of 99.9% that must be acceptable to both camps."
An R value is not acceptable no. This is over. Let's continue for amusement.
"Second, we use this relation to execute a powerful test using the routes where the two models most disagree: along an East-West axis far away from the North Pole. This even-handed test resolutely rejects the flat-Earth model, whereas it does not reject the orthodox spherical-Earth model."
*the* flat earth model? Where do we find this? I look forward to the reference at the end. No in-text citation though.
"The crucial breakthrough is to reverse-engineer from surface data an estimator of
the curvature of the Earth (and by implication its radius) that enjoys a near-perfect 99.3% relative accuracy just by applying the statistical method on publicly available and verifiable data, without relying on complex (and expensive) physical measurements."
I think they may be confusing primary data with physical measurements.
"Section 2 develops a general formula for the distance between two points on Earth that embeds both the flat-Earth and spherical-Earth models as special cases of a ‘curvature’ parameter"
*the* seems to now precede "flat earth model" every time. I would like to know about this model.
"Section 4 uses this relation to execute a formal hypothesis test by focusing on airline routes where the flat-Earth model and spherical Earth model are most in disagreement: the ones along an East-West axis far from the North Pole."
Begging the question everywhere.
But to the point:
Hypothesis = scientific prediction as to the effect on the dependent variable due to variation of the independent variable.
Looking forward to this experiment. The hypothesis usually goes in the intro. No sign of it yet.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
^^
You're a typical conspiracy NUT: Bobbing, weaving, avoiding, dodging legit questions with irrelevancies.
I am probably by far your most likely potential 'convert' in this thread , but even I can see your intellectual dishonesty.
Why? Because you believe some fantasy about Earth being 6000 years old?
Or because you didnt understand the horizon proof yet rather than ask me about it you chose to wait for your "friends" to explain it?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Please post a link to what you believe is the best map of the flat Earth. It's impossible to have a more specific discussion about flight times vs. map distances on a hypothetical flat Earth until you show us what you believe is an accurate map.
Why not ask the authors of the paper YOU cited? They seem to know *the flat earth model* with all its gory details.
Wait, you did read the paper... didnt you?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
billy,
On an unrelated note, what do you think accounts for the high levels of ignorance among PhD level physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, geologists, applied scientists, etc., about whether the Earth is spherical or disk-shaped?
"Disk" shaped? Please, enlighten us.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Obviously if they want to keep their jobs they have to keep their mouths shut. Even a flat-earther can put money ahead of principle.
Well yes, that is the sensible thing to do. Though it is more from social embarassment than threat of sacking. But what does tend to happen is some idiot online will say they are somehow also racist and a holocaust denier etc and they may lose their job because of that. This is justified to some people, it is ok to lie to get a flat earther sacked, they feel that strongly.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
This task (which I'm almost certain he won't perform) would take him less than two minutes to locate and post here.
(I haven't scrolled ahead, so maybe this post is irrelevant already)
Sent from my tin-can with a string.
Ah I see your problem now.
Rather than have to work things out, calculate, use logic, you just want an easy to see off the shelf model. You want a ready made globe replacement.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, I'm pretty sure I have confirmed my formula is correct by thinking about it. o = Observer heightt = Target heightR = Earth radiusD = Furthest away the target can be seen by observer as measured along the circumference of the Earth. - R, o and t need to be in the same units inside the inverse cosine functions. - R outside the brackets can be in different units. D will be re
A+.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Why not ask the authors of the paper YOU cited? They seem to know *the flat earth model* with all its gory details.
Wait, you did read the paper... didnt you?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Someone else's paper can't tell me what you think an accurate map of the world looks like. You clearly are unwilling to discuss the academic paper, so I am trying to move on to a common-sense discussion based on whatever you believe is the most accurate representation of Earth. We all know why you are refusing to provide a link to a map that that you believe accurately represents the Earth.
Did that df ever respond to Santiago to Sydney?
I am not wed to a disk-shape, and I'm not asking you to be either. Most representations of a flat Earth that I have seen depict the Earth as disk-shaped, but if you believe the Earth when viewed from the correct angle has highly irregular borders, or you believe it more closely resembles a square, an isosceles triangle, a rhombus, a trapezoid, or an outline of Yosemite Sam, that's fine. Just link us to a map.
Let me make it as simple as I can. Imagine the earth is a chocolate chip cookie. It isn't two dimensional, but in common parlance, it is flattish. If I look at the cookie from directly above, what shape would the cookie resemble? Now place the continents of Earth in the appropriate places on the cookie. Where are they on the cookie?
Comments on this:
billy once again informs us that he doesn't know how science works.
An interesting corollary is that the farthest we can see a target is the sum of observer distance to its own horizon and target distance to its own horizon (which we get immediately by recognising that arccos(1) = 0 and therefore D(o, 0) + D(t, 0) = D(o, t)), which, at least to me, was not intuitively obvious.
This task (which I'm almost certain he won't perform) would take him less than two minutes to locate and post here.
To state the obvious, the amount of time required here isn't the impediment. billy has put in the time. I'm sure he has searched for maps that purport to solve for the question I am asking. He hasn't found anything that passes the red face test. And he's pretty sure he knows why. That's why he starts singing "la la la la la" with his fingers in his ears each time I ask for a link to a map.
Please post a link to what you believe is the best map of the flat Earth. It's impossible to have a more specific discussion about flight times vs. map distances on a hypothetical flat Earth until you show us what you believe is an accurate map.
He is possibly pretending to think it's infinite and therefore without shape or dimensions, which conveniently means he can't be pinned down as to what his supposed model actually is.
To state the obvious, the amount of time required here isn't the impediment. billy has put in the time. I'm sure he has searched for maps that purport to solve for the question I am asking. He hasn't found anything that passes the red face test. And he's pretty sure he knows why. That's why he starts singing "la la la la la" with his fingers in his ears each time I ask for
He is possibly pretending to think it's infinite and therefore without shape or dimensions, which conveniently means he can't be pinned down as to what his supposed model actually is.
As you (57) probably recall, I tried to pin him down on a shape before, and also asked the same questions as Rococo before about other celestial bodies, which just ended up in semantic wrangling about "what is a shape?", "what is a planet?" etc. etc. I think we did establish that Billy is agnostic as to whether the sun is round but does not believe it to be as far away as the ball-tards tell us, but I could be misremembering. Oh, and also it's electric or something I think. Not thermonuclear.
Comments on this:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...Introduction."Earth is flat" is not a hypothesis."Earth is spherical" is not a hypothesis.There is no independent variable.Curvature relation to radius, ok that is correct.They say"the flat-Earth movement is gatheringstrength given its viral attractiveness in social network"You said this was the serious
I'm trying to understand from reading this whether your issue is with them calling it hypothesis instead of a model or whatever, or you actually object to any of their findings. Can you hold your nose and separate the criticisms of the exact words they use from the actual substantive stuff? I want to know whether their calculations rule out 0 curvature as they claim, and if not, why not.
