Support NeoGAF

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I think heard it’s effectively accurate up to 8000 miles before it starts to go off but I will need to check my space maths on that one.

Not sure how it'd affect their experiments, in that video it seems to show differences even at a few tens of miles. But some cameras have shown the actual shore at about 7-8 miles, meaning zero drop rate, they also have the mirror and laser experiments. They've also shown that the amount of coast hidden by curvature can vary by time of day temperature, etc.

It is explainable by refraction, but such experiments still show interesting phenomena, like the amount of coast hidden varying over time by refraction.

 

[Nymphae]

If it were fisheye you would clearly see it before it gets that high.

The white things on the left I'm assuming are trees very clearly show this is a lens effect.

 

[TylersProphecy4.0]

They are real things they are just suspended from balloons.

the people making them believe in the space maths. It all works out on paper.

But really it’s a load of shit

As far as fake math goes, READ THIS SHIT.

Number Theorist Fears All Published Math Is Wrong

"I think there is a non-zero chance that some of our great castles are built on sand," he said, arguing that we must begin to rely on AI to verify proofs.

www.google.com

 

[TylersProphecy4.0]

Balloons would burst eventually there must be something else

Perhaps a team of steroid enhanced humming birds working a 24hr shift pattern

Satellites for companies go down all the time.

 

[infinitys_7th]

As far as fake math goes, READ THIS SHIT.

Number Theorist Fears All Published Math Is Wrong

"I think there is a non-zero chance that some of our great castles are built on sand," he said, arguing that we must begin to rely on AI to verify proofs.

www.google.com

So you (and the writer) do not think that anyone has ever verified the solution to FLT or walked through it step-by-step? That's absurd.

Obviously as proofs get more complex and have more underlying assumptions it is possible for them to be applied incorrectly. But most of the math used in science and engineer is pretty simple; even concepts like integrals and derivatives and tensors are just a few steps away from very basic concepts like the axiom of completeness of the real numbers. With most of these, doing the actual math (e.g. integrating some odd function) is not required - numerical methods are what drive engineering, and those are just repetitions of simple math.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

axiom of completeness of the real numbers.

there are mathematicians that debate the validity of real numbers.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Come on stop schooling it up.

Less maths more crazy

 

[Barsinister]

 

[infinitys_7th]

there are mathematicians that debate the validity of real numbers.

I've watched through most of it. I had pretty minimal experience with analysis in college (I focused in stochastics, numerical methods, algebras, and calculus courses), but it seems like he is looking to dismiss specific mathematical phenomenon (e.g. Cauchy sequence convergence) based on counterexamples and clunkiness. Cauchy sequences are about using the natural numbers to generate a continuous spectrum. Obviously there are going to be uncomputable infinite sequences.

One of the comments had some good counterpoints from someone with more experience than me:

1. I think you are missing the point why the definition of real numbers use Cauchy sequences: it does not matter what the first finite number of elements look like, only the case when n --> ∞ and m --> ∞ is considered!
2. Cauchy sequences are equivalent if they are close in the ε-sense. Very simple, intuitive and well-defined, ideed.
3. Doing arithmetics with real numbers is not impossible, e.g. sum of Cauchy sequences is Cauchy sequence & sums of equivalent Cauchy sequences are equivalent. We can define multiplication of real numbers in the same manner.
4. Practical arithmetics of real numbers rely on suitable approximations in ε-sense. But with the least upper bound property we do know that, for example, there is a positive real number such that x² = 2.
5. Your desperate resort to examples, where one must compute everything to "get" the limit, is not any counter-example against real numbers since by definition you must deal with Cauchy sequences of rational numbers, otherwise you are not talking about real numbers. So you are badly missing your target. Summa summarum: your finitist-minded handwaving cannot raise any mist of confusion upon this beautiful theory of real numbers.

It sounds like he is looking at this from a CS point of view, which is odd because CS relies on much of the same logic as analysis, just with finite sets of machine numbers.

 

[TylersProphecy4.0]

So you (and the writer) do not think that anyone has ever verified the solution to FLT or walked through it step-by-step? That's absurd.

Obviously as proofs get more complex and have more underlying assumptions it is possible for them to be applied incorrectly. But most of the math used in science and engineer is pretty simple; even concepts like integrals and derivatives and tensors are just a few steps away from very basic concepts like the axiom of completeness of the real numbers. With most of these, doing the actual math (e.g. integrating some odd function) is not required - numerical methods are what drive engineering, and those are just repetitions of simple math.

I didnt write the shit. Vice wrote it. Did you actually read it? Just wondering.

Edit: I should preface that you obviously understand mathematics more than myself. I was just posting an interesting vice article that may or may not be pertinent to the conversation.

 

[infinitys_7th]

I didnt write the shit. Vice wrote it. Did you actually read it? Just wondering.

Yes, I did. He is complaining about very high level math, built on lots of simpler concepts, potentially having flaws due to accumulated errors or politics.

This does not apply to most math, especially the kind used in engineering. Most of our math is just a few steps above the common axioms. You might see some of it in theoretical physics, but even that is usually not as advanced as you would expect.

 

[TylersProphecy4.0]

Yes, I did. He is complaining about very high level math, built on lots of simpler concepts, potentially having flaws due to accumulated errors or politics.

This does not apply to most math, especially the kind used in engineering. Most of our math is just a few steps above the common axioms. You might see some of it in theoretical physics, but even that is usually not as advanced as you would expect.

For sure. Thank you for clearing that up for me, no lie.

 

[infinitys_7th]

For sure. Thank you for clearing that up for me, no lie.

No problem. It is really the same concern as any other branch of science. Regardless of what scientists say, they get dogmatic about entrenched ideas, and it does become harder to dissuade them of them without "extraordinary evidence" (which is a term I dislike). That is the political side. Then there are going to be accumulated errors in any complex system, but generally once something is complex enough parts can function well enough that the errors are isolated away and do not cause a problem.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Moon landing never happened. Everything else about space exploration not being the "public" concern seem farfetched. Considering our world's limited resources of precious metal to make more fucking cellphones.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

It sounds like he is looking at this from a CS point of view, which is odd because CS relies on much of the same logic as analysis, just with finite sets of machine numbers.

I mean it is true that calculation wise you can only do what can be computed in finite time with finite length. You can't actually do calculations with infinite nonrepeating digits, that is uncomputable, and you can only do approximations.

Further I still don't like the idea that putting a . and numbers to the right somehow generates infinitely more numbers.

p-adic number - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The p-adic numbers show that it is conceivable to generate numbers like .....99999 with an infinite number of digits to the left.

The only reason natural numbers or integers cannot have infinite digits, is because they are defined as constructible, computable or potential infinities. That makes them always finite but since there is no greatest integer, or greatest natural number, if we actually allowed an actual infinity of time to pass, we'd have infinite digits.

Real numbers are defined as being allowed to use an actual infinity to produce the digits. All it is saying that an actual infinity is larger than a potential infinity. Or that computing in finite time will always be less than computing with infinite time.

But is it valid to use actual infinities? Do actual infinities even exist? If we try to compute or construct a real number, all constructible or computable real numbers would face a potential infinity and be no more numerous than the potential infinity of natural numbers or integers. The real numbers being able to use actual infinity as part of the definition, is indeed like using magic, it is something that simply cannot be constructed, computed, or perfomed by anyone in the real world.

Only approximations of real numbers are usable and computable. I think the idea of mathematics without real numbers, sounds very promising. Rather than approximating something, and simply using semantics to say we've grasped infinity, it is better to deal with the reality of the actual constrains on calculation that we have.

 

[Weilthain]

I think I understood that reference!

 

[Blade2.0]

How are there seasons in the flat Earth model?

 

[Weilthain]

How are there seasons in the flat Earth model?

there is no set model and I don’t subscribe to any model, but one explanation that is popular is
a local sun and moon that make circles around the earth. Over the year the paths they take expand and contract changing the seasons.

I was just about to declare victory for flat earth and thank my sponsors at Pizza Hut and the good guys over at the steam roller company, but I guess it’s not over yet!


Here’s a good video which might help explain the whole “disappearing bottom up” effect many people have trouble with.

 

[zeomax]

Here’s a good video which might help explain the whole “disappearing bottom up” effect many people have trouble with.

Put the camera on the table and not below the table and make this "experiment" again. And second, i never saw a giant lens floating around in real life.

 

[Blade2.0]

there is no set model and I don’t subscribe to any model, but one explanation that is popular is
a local sun and moon that make circles around the earth. Over the year the paths they take expand and contract changing the seasons.

I was just about to declare victory for flat earth and thank my sponsors at Pizza Hut and the good guys over at the steam roller company, but I guess it’s not over yet!


Here’s a good video which might help explain the whole “disappearing bottom up” effect many people have trouble with.

Why would they expand and contract. What force would cause that?

 

[Weilthain]

Put the camera on the table and not below the table and make this "experiment" again. And second, i never saw a giant lens floating around in real life.

I’ll make a flat earther out of you yet, you’ll get there.

Why would they expand and contract. What force would cause that?

I don’t know. What would cause all the matter in the universe to explode from a single point leading to a flat galaxy.

right back at you

 

[Blade2.0]

I’ll make a flat earther out of you yet, you’ll get there.


I don’t know. What would cause all the matter in the universe to explode from a single point leading to a flat galaxy.

right back at you

It was too dense to stay contracted.

 

[zeomax]

don’t know. What would cause all the matter in the universe to explode from a single point leading to a flat galaxy.

But space is not real?

 

[Weilthain]

But space is not real?

When I’m on the beach looking into the horizon am I “under the table” or above it?

Keep at it!

Spoiler

yes space is fake

 

[zeomax]

When I’m on the beach looking into the horizon am I “under the table” or above it?

Is this a real question or are you trolling again?

 

[Weilthain]

Is this a real question or are you trolling again?

It’s a real question. Just because I make fun of basic bitches who are extremely unpleasant to me first, it doesn’t mean I am trolling.

just pick it apart, no need for accusations of trollery.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

The flat earth thing is so insane. All the major governments would have to be in on it and somehow not have any leakers.

Edit: Also I don't know what they gain from everybody thinking the Earth is round.

 

[Grinchy]

The flat earth thing is so insane. All the major governments would have to be in on it and somehow not have any leakers.

Edit: Also I don't know what they gain from everybody thinking the Earth is round.

Well, read through the last 5 pages or so! You'll get...not a single concrete answer to that!

You will learn that although there doesn't exist a shred of evidence for the flat earth model, no evidence of the Earth being spherical is legitimate. So that's the difference. No one has proven yet that the Earth is flat, but it just is. And any proof that it isn't is a lie.

 

[Weilthain]

Well, read through the last 5 pages or so! You'll get...not a single concrete answer to that!

You will learn that although there doesn't exist a shred of evidence for the flat earth model, no evidence of the Earth being spherical is legitimate. So that's the difference. No one has proven yet that the Earth is flat, but it just is. And any proof that it isn't is a lie.

Keep saying that, hoping it will stop people from looking into it!

Won’t work on everybody!

 

[Nymphae]

Should there not be some sort of delay in that transmission? It's perfectly synced with the musicians on Earth.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Should there not be some sort of delay in that transmission? It's perfectly synced with the musicians on Earth.

Space music. Not the same as normal music. Theres all sorts of maths involved and umm ehhhh it just is alright dont ask any questions....

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Ffs all the way to space in a flying tin can with someone and the dick brings a guitar just to annoy you

 

[Prison Mike]

Ffs all the way to space in a flying tin can with someone and the dick brings a guitar just to annoy you

I'd jump out and take my chances

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

"Goodbye cruel world!"

Right out the window

A fading shout from the distance

"Hey you guys seen this? Its fla...................."

Silence

That dick starts playing the guitar again

The audio is deleted by NASA

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Dont you love it when you walk on solid rock but manage to leave a footprint that's about an inch HIGHER THAN THE SURFACE and is in fact so much higher it leaves a shadow?

Got a get me a pair of those moon shoes

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

You know, I've never really seriously read up on all this moon landing stuff because I've just never been interested.

But having spent a few days now reading over it

Come on to fuck those photos are ridiculous

 

[C4lukin2]

Why are we entertaining this bull shit? Send these nuts to the new place. Where maybe they could thrive.

This forum can only survive if overt stupidity is removed. And just moderate levels of stupidity exist.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Why are we entertaining this bull shit? Send these nuts to the new place. Where maybe they could thrive.

This forum can only survive if overt stupidity is removed. And just moderate levels of stupidity exist.

You dont have to read the thread. Theres plenty others

But you WANT to

 

[Weilthain]

You know, I've never really seriously read up on all this moon landing stuff because I've just never been interested.

But having spent a few days now reading over it

Come on to fuck those photos are ridiculous

Your own eyes can figure out they are fake.

2 hours 16 mins into this documentary has some very well respected photographers break apart why the photography is undeniably faked.

would a basic bitch please address this?

Why are we entertaining this bull shit? Send these nuts to the new place. Where maybe they could thrive.

This forum can only survive if overt stupidity is removed. And just moderate levels of stupidity exist.

This is what they do. Mockery and censorship.

Why don’t you explain what you think about the photography? So you think it is real? what are you reasons for thinking they are real?

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Your own eyes can figure out they are fake.

2 hours 16 mins into this documentary has some very well respected photographers break apart why it is fake.





This is what they do. Mockery and censorship.

Why don’t you explain what you think about the photography? So you think it is real? what are you reasons for thinking they are real?

Re: mockery. Everything I've seen online about flat earth theories has the same tone "fanatics", "fantasists" etc

Kinda like if I say God is my dad and start my own cult I'll be labelled a wacko.

Yet SOMEONE ELSE done it and......

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Like if someone religious who believes that God can talk to a guy through setting a bush on fire.

If I were to set a tree in the garden on fire and say I heard God talking to me they wouldn't believe me.

But will believe the "official" version.

This is the same thing.

 

[C4lukin2]

Jesus Christ I do not know where to begin, and I do not even believe in Jesus Christ.

Just give me a minute.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Religious people - is space or the moon or anything mentioned in the bible? What does it say etc?

Genuine question

 

[C4lukin2]

I am not a religious person. But yes the heavens and the Earth are mentioned in the Bible. But in the Bible it is implied that the Earth is the center of what God created.

Also women were created from the first mans rib. And the entirety of humanity is based on incest, coming from a single male and female.

Now I could knock on the Old Testament for this. Or I can say that the origin story is misrepresented. Either way.... what have I gotten myself into?

 

[C4lukin2]

I will take any faithful religious person over moon landing deniers. We have telescopes, that you can visit, which you can visit and see the shit we left on the moon.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

I will take any faithful religious person over moon landing deniers. We have telescopes, that you can visit, which you can visit and see the shit we left on the moon.

Nah.

You dont believe people questioning the authenticity of some dodgy looking photos

But because someone is "faithful" then theres no questioning that otherwise intelligent adults believe the bible and literally "take it as gospel" no questions asked?

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

Theres doctors, lawyers, etc literally believing people came back from the dead had two of every animal on the world on a big boat but scoff at people questioning space.

WHERE THE FUCK WOULD NOAH HAVE GOT 2 POLAR BEARS

 

[Weilthain]

I need the basic bitch explanation of those photos.

 

[The Brooklyn Brawler]

I will take any faithful religious person over moon landing deniers. We have telescopes, that you can visit, which you can visit and see the shit we left on the moon.

Probably just a wee TV screen you are looking at. Bet they dont let you try pointing it at anything else

 

[C4lukin2]

So let’s say we did not make it to the moon. What do you hope to accomplish?

I mean we brought rocks back, left visible shit that is visible from telescopes on the Moon.

The Soviet Union, did not challenge us on our landing.

We must have been in cahoots with them.

I hate to argue this stuff, so I will stop. This amount of clownery is such a small percentage of human history, not worth it. Stay ignorant.

But one thing I do believe. Science has told us the molten core of volcanos is super hot. I do not believe it.

So yeah just jump in an active volcano. It is obvious that the powers that be do not want you to know the true secrets that lie at the center of the earth.