Jump to content

Flat Earth?


gerrydandridge
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul, we all know you are certain you are right, but hold your horses and let’s work at this. 

Let’s start with these variables both independentl and dependent. 

You do understand this is going to involve maths don’t you?

Are you any good at it Paul?

 I hope you’re not going to embarrass who ever taught you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."

now that's what i call science! it's the fairy tale slayer

anyone else got any scientific evidence that the earth is a spinning oblate spheroid?

care to plug it into the scientific method to check it's validity?

or do you think i'm trying to trick you?!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come, come now Uhtred, give him a chance to redeem himself, maybe you could try doing some maths too?!

Paul, believe it or not I am doing exactly what you are asking me - you have to be patient, but beyond that, why not actually try to engage with this and think about how hypotheses and experiments interact.

I'll get onto experiment in a while, but now the first hypothesis - we'll start assuming the world is flat.

I'm too busy to draw a diagram now, but probably will later, but the first maths challenge for all who wish to accept it is:

Assuming the earth is a flat plain, with the sun a height, h, vertically above a point, O, on this plain, if you are a distance x from the point O (measured along a straight line from O to x), what is the distance y, further away from O along the straight line, you must move such that the angle between the point on the plain at your location (a distance x+y from O) and the sun decreases by 1 degree compared to when you were at x.

I hope that is clear enough.  I'll post a diagram later and then a solution.

I wonder if anyone will bother with the maths?  

No sneering now Paul.  Try to work through the problem - it is at the level of about a 14 year old GCSE class.

Good luck.

 

Edited by Chinahand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

china how can you challenge anyone about science after your complete failure to provide any for eratosthenes? some neck on  you!

9 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Paul, we all know you are certain you are right, but hold your horses and let’s work at this. 

Let’s start with these variables both independentl and dependent. 

You do understand this is going to involve maths don’t you?

Are you any good at it Paul?

 I hope you’re not going to embarrass who ever taught you. 

i'm not right about anything china, science has a method and you failed to provide valid data. thats your problem not mine. i make no claims here, im just checking yours.

im actually class at maths china i just dont do very much of it! i got a d in gcse coz i dont care for it. my maths teachers already embarassed by your standards surely!.

but that has no bearing on intelligence. i could have got an A in maths easy if i spent time studying,  i can understand anything about it that you can. i think most people can but like me have little interest.but could just learn it. simple. like i think anyone can play an instrument. it just depends if you would like to or not. maths is just a language as i have told you. formal science. not natural. its an aid to the natural sciences

 

does it mention maths as any of the integral parts of the scientific method? observation, question,research, form hypothesis (if/then statement) experiment, results, evaluations?

no because maths is not a natural science. the shape and size of the earth comes under the umbrella of the NATURAL sciences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Come, come now Uhtred, give him a chance to redeem himself, maybe you could try doing some maths too?!

Paul, believe it or not I am doing exactly what you are asking me - you have to be patient, but beyond that, why not actually try to engage with this and think about how hypotheses and experiments interact.

I'll get onto experiment in a while, but now the first hypothesis - we'll start assuming the world is flat.

I'm too busy to draw a diagram now, but probably will later, but the first maths challenge for all who wish to accept it is:

Assuming the earth is a flat plain, with the sun a height, h, vertically above a point, O, on this plain, if you are a distance x from the point O (measured along a straight line from O to x), what is the distance y, further away from O along the straight line, you must move such that the angle between the point on the plain at your location (a distance x+y from O) and the sun decreases by 1 degree compared to when you were at x.

I hope that is clear enough.  I'll post a diagram later and then a solution.

I wonder if anyone will bother with the maths?  

No sneering now Paul.  Try to work through the problem - it is at the level of about a 14 year old GCSE class.

Good luck.

 

presuppositions are not permissible in a formal scientific hypothesis china. you are in the realms of theory again. you failed to show anything experimental that would validate eratosthenes assumptions. i have defined the relationship between a scientific hypothesis and experiment, by way of citation, rochester university, and others.  so it's a bit rich goading me about it here! you have to validate in experiment first, anything that is to be put into theory, for it to be accepted as being valid, IN SCIENCE.

you are the one who didn't understand any of this before i had to point out your errors! distance is not a viable independent variable in SCIENCE china! It is a concept and will never be the CAUSE of anything. science is in the business of testing and validating/invalidating cause and effect relationships.

 are you proposing this as a scientific hypothesis? or mathematical, and to what end? nothing you can do will change the facts of the matter china. i would never sneer at your abilities china they are to be admired. but you are trying to apply the inapplicable in the scientific method, as your train wreck attempt perfectly demonstrated in the eratosthenes saga x

from the citation once again 

" Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

also,

"If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameter"

good luck debunking rochester university x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...