Still on the reality of subjective vs objective, You need to understand that if you did not know what you are seeing then it is what you accept. For example.
I read a newspaper article talking about something I know lots about. I proceed to expose all the holes in the article, information left out, not explained or just plain wrong. I know this because of my own information on the given topic.
I turn the page and read an article I know nothing about... I have a completely different mindset, this information is new to me and the author is the expert, we are trained to trust and accept information and bam, there it is.
So subjective analysis is when you form a conclusion based on the information you have and it cannot be definitely tested with an experiment that produces measurable results.
In the example of the velocity, you have no idea what forces are at play when it comes to moving massive bodies thru the cosmos, you are maybe able to understand the physics information and ideas we have produced so far, but none of that includes moving planets in the cosmos.
So when it comes to building that formula, please feel free to write what you have here and I will reveal as many blanks as I can think of, nevermind the ones that truly exist that noone has a clue about. Way too much fudge in this analysis the data set is garbage in, garbage out. its like doing astrology for your dog.
lets go back to questioning and testing the absurd heliocentric model, but we will still keep it super simple.
What the heck is this rubbish? Look, you cannot simplify a complex problem and carve out half the analysis and come up with usable results, it just does not work that way.
If you want to talk about the orbit the planet makes in the year cycle there are already tons of immeasurable parameters required out of the gate, this is all just guesswork.
People much more informed than us have been working this shit over for a long time and have all revealed, sorry folks, its just guesswork.
There is no way to use this conclusively to prove anything at all, for example.
Given a point in time, when will we return? Say take a snapshot of the solar system and record the bodies locations, at what point will we return?
When our solar system moves, what is moving? who moves? If you wanted to reference the current astrophysics for the response instead of flat earth, you would find that nobody has your answer.
Flat earth will tell you we are not moving and the whole shit revolves around us. hahah, this, I have big problems with. It makes no rational sense in any of my understandings. If you have this belief, care to give me an idea why?
So much exchange and you pretty much missed it entirely.
That is a typo, I meant to write definitively. As in the ability to define something without ambiguity.
So to start with the claim of the flat horizon, indeed. Your view will always be flat as you are capturing but a small slice of what exists. This is easily understood using the example of the diminishing tracks. Basically the same concept. If I put you on a tennis ball, you would be able to tell right away. If I place you on a sphere large enough you would have no idea.
Do you find it hard to believe that no scientist, engineer, surveyor, has ever measured curve?
This is silly, there are a vast number of people in all of the listed fields who have proposed a myriad of methods to estimate curvature based on the inputs at hand.
Worth pointing out, there are also a vast number of people in all the listed fields who refute curvature, why not? what is vast? a few hundred? a few thousand? I honestly have no idea, could be 50/50 just because I am a fair person.
is that it must be more complicated and take into account all variables before you will consider than a change in velocity exists.
I am glad we have reached agreement here, measuring velocity without knowing how to correctly calculate the various other forces with respect to all bodies in question is just too much for us with our measly instrumentation, we fall back to estimations and either accept it, or reject it. Indeed not a valid tool to be used to make proclamations based upon.
You lied about researching flat earth.
I never lied, nor did I suggest I was done, none of what you say here has any merit, this is a work in progress. I am drilling for answers to obtain understanding, the first stages is to rely on the experience of others and collect.
When you talk of my lazy scientific approaches, surely you must realize I am but a keyboard analyst in this perspective, I am not building tools and performing experiments, I am much before that stage. I can lean on what has been done to confer my own start point, which is not yet materialized. So far nothing is of interest to me.
You really didn't even try to process the day light shift.
This is correct, because in the simple image provided there are far too many missing variables for it to be explaining anything to me. It is incorrect, it is an oversimplification of a given understanding that is already well measured over the past 1000 years in many areas of the planet.
You don't know the flat earth model.
Fine, forgive my ignorance on the nomenclature used to identify the pattern of the sun and the moon and its crisscross stuff, there is nothing there but hyperbole and broken theory, I have no need to dig to that depth of something I do not agree with.
it and that was not in the list.
We are still trying to ascertain what convincing points can be used to 'believe' in flat earth, to bring it past being a 'belief'. From there those points are then analyzed and the goal is to find something worth digging into.
Still on the reality of subjective vs objective, You need to understand that if you did not know what you are seeing then it is what you accept. For example.
I read a newspaper article talking about something I know lots about. I proceed to expose all the holes in the article, information left out, not explained or just plain wrong. I know this because of my own information on the given topic.
I turn the page and read an article I know nothing about... I have a completely different mindset, this information is new to me and the author is the expert, we are trained to trust and accept information and bam, there it is.
So subjective analysis is when you form a conclusion based on the information you have and it cannot be definitely tested with an experiment that produces measurable results.
In the example of the velocity, you have no idea what forces are at play when it comes to moving massive bodies thru the cosmos, you are maybe able to understand the physics information and ideas we have produced so far, but none of that includes moving planets in the cosmos.
So when it comes to building that formula, please feel free to write what you have here and I will reveal as many blanks as I can think of, nevermind the ones that truly exist that noone has a clue about. Way too much fudge in this analysis the data set is garbage in, garbage out. its like doing astrology for your dog.
What the heck is this rubbish? Look, you cannot simplify a complex problem and carve out half the analysis and come up with usable results, it just does not work that way.
If you want to talk about the orbit the planet makes in the year cycle there are already tons of immeasurable parameters required out of the gate, this is all just guesswork.
People much more informed than us have been working this shit over for a long time and have all revealed, sorry folks, its just guesswork.
There is no way to use this conclusively to prove anything at all, for example.
Given a point in time, when will we return? Say take a snapshot of the solar system and record the bodies locations, at what point will we return?
When our solar system moves, what is moving? who moves? If you wanted to reference the current astrophysics for the response instead of flat earth, you would find that nobody has your answer.
Flat earth will tell you we are not moving and the whole shit revolves around us. hahah, this, I have big problems with. It makes no rational sense in any of my understandings. If you have this belief, care to give me an idea why?
So much exchange and you pretty much missed it entirely.
That is a typo, I meant to write definitively. As in the ability to define something without ambiguity.
So to start with the claim of the flat horizon, indeed. Your view will always be flat as you are capturing but a small slice of what exists. This is easily understood using the example of the diminishing tracks. Basically the same concept. If I put you on a tennis ball, you would be able to tell right away. If I place you on a sphere large enough you would have no idea.
This is silly, there are a vast number of people in all of the listed fields who have proposed a myriad of methods to estimate curvature based on the inputs at hand.
Worth pointing out, there are also a vast number of people in all the listed fields who refute curvature, why not? what is vast? a few hundred? a few thousand? I honestly have no idea, could be 50/50 just because I am a fair person.
I am glad we have reached agreement here, measuring velocity without knowing how to correctly calculate the various other forces with respect to all bodies in question is just too much for us with our measly instrumentation, we fall back to estimations and either accept it, or reject it. Indeed not a valid tool to be used to make proclamations based upon.
I never lied, nor did I suggest I was done, none of what you say here has any merit, this is a work in progress. I am drilling for answers to obtain understanding, the first stages is to rely on the experience of others and collect.
When you talk of my lazy scientific approaches, surely you must realize I am but a keyboard analyst in this perspective, I am not building tools and performing experiments, I am much before that stage. I can lean on what has been done to confer my own start point, which is not yet materialized. So far nothing is of interest to me.
This is correct, because in the simple image provided there are far too many missing variables for it to be explaining anything to me. It is incorrect, it is an oversimplification of a given understanding that is already well measured over the past 1000 years in many areas of the planet.
Fine, forgive my ignorance on the nomenclature used to identify the pattern of the sun and the moon and its crisscross stuff, there is nothing there but hyperbole and broken theory, I have no need to dig to that depth of something I do not agree with.
it and that was not in the list.
We are still trying to ascertain what convincing points can be used to 'believe' in flat earth, to bring it past being a 'belief'. From there those points are then analyzed and the goal is to find something worth digging into.