Geometry: Proof of the Plane.

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
479
I would like to take you through some information on the 6th stem of the liberal arts, geometry. We will look at how it has been applied in our objective world and how it has been twisted by sophisters to support their unrealistic claims. Please understand that I am not professing to know anything other than what we are not.

Geometry is all about measurement.
“Latin geometria, from Greek geometria "measurement of earth or land; geometry," from combining form of gē "earth, land" (see Gaia) + -metria "a measuring of" (see -metry). Old English used eorðcræft "earth-craft" as a loan-translation of Latin geometria”.

Screenshot 2019-01-26 at 07.58.18.png

Let’s start with few definitions and a certain Mathematician.

Euclid - Euclid - Wikipedia

Screenshot 2019-01-26 at 07.29.20.pngScreenshot 2019-01-26 at 08.25.21.png

Euclid 1500 years ago, Euclid’s Elements was one of the first books to start defining first principles based on definitions and axions. So 4 axioms were created as a base. The book it self was first translated to English around 17th century (questionable) This is the mathematical bible, its the foundations of mathematics and geometry, if anything in euclidian geometry fails, it all fails! It is the main pillar in geometry.

Let the following be postulated (never deduced):
  • 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
  • 2. To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
  • 3. To describe a circle with any centre and distance [radius].
  • 4. That all right angles are equal to one another.
5. [The parallel postulate]: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles.

Number 5 has been manipulated over the years, it is how things have been twisted with hypotheses, people have changed the meaning of a straight line, fabricating things like the bending of space time, hyperbolic geometry etc. If you can change the definition of a straight line you can hypothesise anything. So let's stick with the first 4 and use them as undeniable proofs.

These are facts in our objective existence, non of the above postulates can be deduced when applied practically here on “Earth” so we have starting blocks. Architects and engineers have always worked from Euclidean plane geometry. Plumb and Datum lines can only work using Euclidean first principles. Our objective dualistic world is built using the aforementioned, this is the only geometry we use here on "Earth". Surveyors are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals and railways, for example, train lines are always cut and laid horizontally for often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. We have fences that run for miles and miles built using plumb and datum lines.

J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded practically as level. The British Parliament Session in 1862 that approved its construction recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway,

“That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”

Let us move on to some more objective proofs, using Euclidian postulates.

In surveying, triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring only angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly as in trilateration. The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles.

Triangulation can also refer to the accurate surveying of systems of very large triangles, called triangulation networks. This followed from the work of Willebrord Snell in 1615–17, who showed how a point could be located from the angles subtended from three known points, but measured at the new unknown point rather than the previously fixed points, a problem called resectioning. Surveying error is minimised if a mesh of triangles at the largest appropriate scale is established first. Points inside the triangles can all then be accurately located with reference to it. Such triangulation methods were used for accurate large-scale land surveying until the rise of global navigation satellite systems in the 1980s.


The knowledge of the triangle is an essential piece of this puzzle. Triangulation today is used for many purposes, including surveying, navigation, metrology, astrometry, binocular vision, model rocketry and the directing of weapons.

180 degrees.png

The use of triangles to estimate distances dates to antiquity. In the 6th century BC, about 250 years prior to the establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty, the Greek philosopher Thales is recorded as using similar triangles to estimate the height of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. He measured the length of the pyramids' shadows and that of his own at the same moment, and compared the ratios to his height (intercept theorem). Thales also estimated the distances to ships at sea as seen from a clifftop by measuring the horizontal distance traversed by the line-of-sight for a known fall, and scaling up to the height of the whole cliff. Such techniques would have been familiar to the ancient Egyptians. Problem 57 of the Rhind papyrus, a thousand years earlier, defines the seqt or seked as the ratio of the run to the rise of a slope, i.e. the reciprocal of gradients as measured today. The slopes and angles were measured using a sighting rod that the Greeks called a dioptra, the forerunner of the Arabic alidade. A detailed contemporary collection of constructions for the determination of lengths from a distance using this instrument is known, the Dioptra of Hero of Alexandria (c. 10–70 AD), which survived in Arabic translation; but the knowledge became lost in Europe. In China, Pei Xiu (224–271) identified "measuring right angles and acute angles" as the fifth of his six principles for accurate map-making, necessary to accurately establish distances; while Liu Hui (c. 263) gives a version of the calculation above, for measuring perpendicular distances to inaccessible places.

Screenshot 2019-01-26 at 09.01.31.png

Here is why triangulation doesn’t work on their fantasy sphere …
Imagine if I drew a triangle on a piece of paper, everyone knows that all of the interior angles equate to 180° and no matter how I orientate the paper, no matter which way you turn the paper all said interior angles remain the same.

If I sew to draw a triangle on a deflated balloon, and the proceed to blow up the balloon, the bigger the balloon becomes, the properties of the triangle will change; the bigger the balloon, the bigger the angles become.

There is no such thing in spherical geometry as congruency. Using Euclidian postulates, if I draw a small triangle and a large triangle I can scale them, all angles will remain the same. No matter how big the triangle becomes comparative to the other triangle, they are congruent. But when applied to a 3 dimensional ball the angles dramatically change!

TRIANGULATION DOESN’T WORK ON A SPHERE
We have to understand that objective practical mathematics is what rings true, formal mathematics is absolute nonsense. At some point maths as a useful tool was formalised to a language that only mathematicians supposed to understand. Maths was formalised to confuse, the change of mathematics to algebra changes mathematics to a formal language, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that practicality and the application of practical mathematics would come before the formal arts of applying numbers to letters!

Deduction vs Induction
Let’s look at how we use our experience to come to conclusions, we take a bunch of axioms or assumptions and then deduce everything that doesn’t work with practical experimentation to come to the reality of our objective world.

Inductive reasoning is where we are today, stuck with physicists and astronomers who hold modern nihilistic educations, splurting hypothesise and more general theorems making it impossible to prove them wrong, as long as you can’t prove it wrong, its true! Madness.

Deduction from axioms or known facts is what the world is built on, not inductive ideas that we cant prove or disprove.

Screenshot 2019-01-26 at 07.29.32.png

"Despite the man’s awkward gestures, unkempt hair, and ill-fitting suit, it was one of the most extraordinary speeches that Reverend John Gulliver had ever heard. It was March 1860, and the venue was Norwich, Connecticut. The following morning Gulliver struck up conversation with the speaker, a politician by the name of Abraham Lincoln, as he caught a train down to Bridgeport.

As the pair took their seats in the carriage, Gulliver asked Lincoln about his remarkable oratory skill: “I want very much to know how you got this unusual power of ‘putting things.’ ” According to Gulliver, Lincoln said it wasn’t a matter of formal education. “I never went to school more than six months in my life.” But he did find training elsewhere. “In the course of my law-reading I constantly came upon the word demonstrate,” Lincoln said. “I thought, at first, that I understood its meaning, but soon became satisfied that I did not.” Resolving to understand it better, he went to his father’s house and “staid there till I could give any propositions in the six books of Euclid at sight.”

He was referring to the first six of books of Euclid’s Elements, an Ancient Greek mathematical text. On the face of it, Euclid’s Elements was nothing but a dry textbook: There were no illustrative examples, no mention of people, and no motivation for the analyses it presented. But it was also a landmark, a way of constructing universal truths, a wonder that would outlast even the great lighthouse in Euclid’s home city of Alexandria.

Elements proposed that definitions were at the foundation of knowledge, and led to self-evident axioms that needed no proof. From these definitions and axioms, Euclid showed how to prove dozens of mathematical propositions, producing knowledge that was objective and undeniable. A person of reason would have to accept a proven fact, no matter what their personal beliefs or convictions were.


Elements would become a best-selling work, second only to the bible in printed editions, and used until recently as the standard text for mathematics classes. It profoundly influenced Western thought, and shaped Western science and art. What’s less recognised is its role in the creation of modern politics: The distance from proofs about equilateral triangles to the foundations of democracy in Europe and the United States turned out to be just about two millennia."
- Carpenter, F.B. The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln: Six Months at the White House Hurd & Houghton, New York, NY (1874).


To conclude, the whole world has been built using the aforementioned elements of goemetry. They are universal ideas, universal ideas are universal truths, such truths one can’t deduct from their existence. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal. If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal. Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.

Screenshot 2019-01-26 at 07.40.01.png

The latter section of the above diagram (Geometry of Physical Space) constitutes to our real objective world, the former (Geometry of Visible Space) delves in to the realms of subjectivity.

TH
 
Last edited:

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
47
Reactions
195
A well-reasoned and informative presentation, thank you and kudos.

I look forward to hearing what others may have observed as errors or fallacious reasoning contained in any of the claims that you’ve presented (and not just one’s opinions or unsubstantiated claims). I equally look forward to reading counter-arguments that are backed by reason and not based solely on fallacious appeals.
Inductive reasoning is where we are today, stuck with physicists and astronomers who hold modern nihilistic educations, splurting hypothesise and more general theorems making it impossible to prove them wrong, as long as you can’t prove it wrong, its true! Madness.
I would argue that most institutional thinking today uses abductive reasoning, which is just a euphemism for cart-before-the-horse story-telling with an air of assumed expertise behind it. We sometimes call it “using Occam’s razor”, but even that is often only applied/invoked when it’s convenient, and to manipulatively serve one’s ends. Otherwise, when necessary, it may be said that things are complex, mysterious, and/or infinitely unfathomable.
 
Last edited:

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
116
Reactions
431
Why would one use triangulation when dealing with a sphere. They use gyroscopes, altimeters, sensors, course data, radio and satellite links....
 

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
47
Reactions
195
Why would one use triangulation when dealing with a sphere. They use gyroscopes, altimeters, sensors, course data, radio and satellite links....
That, unfortunately, is an appeal to ignorance and just a faulty premise in general.

There are plenty of examples of why and how humans, both before the advent of directional *assisting* devices and in continued use today, "use triangulation when dealing with a sphere" (which they call 'Earth') and measure as if it were flat. I'm confident that most here could not only agree with that but also provide examples.

Also, the "sensors" that were mentioned merely provide positioning and reckoning data (on a "flat" earth), it does not perform triangulation but rather *does* assist in providing locational cues from which planar triangulation on a map *may* be performed.

To be sure, through the presentation of this data, I'm not trying to argue for flat earth here, but rather, I'm just trying to understand and address to what extent your claim has gravity.
 
Last edited:
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
479
That, unfortunately, is an appeal to ignorance and just a faulty premise in general.
Couldn't have put it any better myself @kentucky, Sailors and navigators of ships have used Cartesian coordinate systems and Triangulation to navigate for 100s of years. Both only work on a level plane.

Cartesian coordinate system

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it’s liable to be a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

Naturally, we are all ignorant of many things, but it is cheap and manipulative to allow this unfortunate aspect of the human condition to do most of our heavy lifting in an argument.

Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t know something.

Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once. Consider the following two claims: “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials exist, so they must not be real.” “No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials do not exist, so they must be real.” If the same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims, then it’s not a good argument strategy.

Ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that one doesn’t know something. If no one has proven the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster, that’s hardly proof that he either exist or don’t exist. If we don’t know whether he exists, then we don’t know that he does exist or that he doesn't exist. Ignorance doesn’t prove anything,

TH
 
Last edited:

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
568
Reactions
1,118
Why would one use triangulation when dealing with a sphere. They use gyroscopes, altimeters, sensors, course data, radio and satellite links....
I'd say because spherical geometry gets complicated, and basic trig is going to be close enough for all practical purposes.
I would like to take you through some information on the 6th stem of the liberal arts, geometry. We will look at how it has been applied in our objective world and how it has been twisted by sophisters to support their unrealistic claims. Please understand that I am not professing to know anything other than what we are not.

Geometry is all about measurement.
“Latin geometria, from Greek geometria "measurement of earth or land; geometry," from combining form of gē "earth, land" (see Gaia) + -metria "a measuring of" (see -metry). Old English used eorðcræft "earth-craft" as a loan-translation of Latin geometria”.


Let’s start with few definitions and a certain Mathematician.

Euclid - Euclid - Wikipedia


Euclid 1500 years ago, Euclid’s Elements was one of the first books to start defining first principles based on definitions and axions. So 4 axioms were created as a base. The book it self was first translated to English around 17th century (questionable) This is the mathematical bible, its the foundations of mathematics and geometry, if anything in euclidian geometry fails, it all fails! It is the main pillar in geometry.

Let the following be postulated (never deduced):
  • 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
  • 2. To produce [extend] a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
  • 3. To describe a circle with any centre and distance [radius].
  • 4. That all right angles are equal to one another.
5. [The parallel postulate]: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles.

Number 5 has been manipulated over the years, it is how things have been twisted with hypotheses, people have changed the meaning of a straight line, fabricating things like the bending of space time, hyperbolic geometry etc. If you can change the definition of a straight line you can hypothesise anything. So let's stick with the first 4 and use them as undeniable proofs.

These are facts in our objective existence, non of the above postulates can be deduced when applied practically here on “Earth” so we have starting blocks. Architects and engineers have always worked from Euclidean plane geometry. Plumb and Datum lines can only work using Euclidean first principles. Our objective dualistic world is built using the aforementioned, this is the only geometry we use here on "Earth". Surveyors are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals and railways, for example, train lines are always cut and laid horizontally for often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. We have fences that run for miles and miles built using plumb and datum lines.

J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded practically as level. The British Parliament Session in 1862 that approved its construction recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway,

“That the section be drawn to the same HORIZONTAL scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a DATUM HORIZONTAL LINE which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”

Let us move on to some more objective proofs, using Euclidian postulates.

In surveying, triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring only angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly as in trilateration. The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles.

Triangulation can also refer to the accurate surveying of systems of very large triangles, called triangulation networks. This followed from the work of Willebrord Snell in 1615–17, who showed how a point could be located from the angles subtended from three known points, but measured at the new unknown point rather than the previously fixed points, a problem called resectioning. Surveying error is minimised if a mesh of triangles at the largest appropriate scale is established first. Points inside the triangles can all then be accurately located with reference to it. Such triangulation methods were used for accurate large-scale land surveying until the rise of global navigation satellite systems in the 1980s.


The knowledge of the triangle is an essential piece of this puzzle. Triangulation today is used for many purposes, including surveying, navigation, metrology, astrometry, binocular vision, model rocketry and the directing of weapons.


The use of triangles to estimate distances dates to antiquity. In the 6th century BC, about 250 years prior to the establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty, the Greek philosopher Thales is recorded as using similar triangles to estimate the height of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. He measured the length of the pyramids' shadows and that of his own at the same moment, and compared the ratios to his height (intercept theorem). Thales also estimated the distances to ships at sea as seen from a clifftop by measuring the horizontal distance traversed by the line-of-sight for a known fall, and scaling up to the height of the whole cliff. Such techniques would have been familiar to the ancient Egyptians. Problem 57 of the Rhind papyrus, a thousand years earlier, defines the seqt or seked as the ratio of the run to the rise of a slope, i.e. the reciprocal of gradients as measured today. The slopes and angles were measured using a sighting rod that the Greeks called a dioptra, the forerunner of the Arabic alidade. A detailed contemporary collection of constructions for the determination of lengths from a distance using this instrument is known, the Dioptra of Hero of Alexandria (c. 10–70 AD), which survived in Arabic translation; but the knowledge became lost in Europe. In China, Pei Xiu (224–271) identified "measuring right angles and acute angles" as the fifth of his six principles for accurate map-making, necessary to accurately establish distances; while Liu Hui (c. 263) gives a version of the calculation above, for measuring perpendicular distances to inaccessible places.


Here is why triangulation doesn’t work on their fantasy sphere …
Imagine if I drew a triangle on a piece of paper, everyone knows that all of the interior angles equate to 180° and no matter how I orientate the paper, no matter which way you turn the paper all said interior angles remain the same.

If I sew to draw a triangle on a deflated balloon, and the proceed to blow up the balloon, the bigger the balloon becomes, the properties of the triangle will change; the bigger the balloon, the bigger the angles become.

There is no such thing in spherical geometry as congruency. Using Euclidian postulates, if I draw a small triangle and a large triangle I can scale them, all angles will remain the same. No matter how big the triangle becomes comparative to the other triangle, they are congruent. But when applied to a 3 dimensional ball the angles dramatically change!

TRIANGULATION DOESN’T WORK ON A SPHERE
We have to understand that objective practical mathematics is what rings true, formal mathematics is absolute nonsense. At some point maths as a useful tool was formalised to a language that only mathematicians supposed to understand. Maths was formalised to confuse, the change of mathematics to algebra changes mathematics to a formal language, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that practicality and the application of practical mathematics would come before the formal arts of applying numbers to letters!

Deduction vs Induction
Let’s look at how we use our experience to come to conclusions, we take a bunch of axioms or assumptions and then deduce everything that doesn’t work with practical experimentation to come to the reality of our objective world.

Inductive reasoning is where we are today, stuck with physicists and astronomers who hold modern nihilistic educations, splurting hypothesise and more general theorems making it impossible to prove them wrong, as long as you can’t prove it wrong, its true! Madness.

Deduction from axioms or known facts is what the world is built on, not inductive ideas that we cant prove or disprove.


"Despite the man’s awkward gestures, unkempt hair, and ill-fitting suit, it was one of the most extraordinary speeches that Reverend John Gulliver had ever heard. It was March 1860, and the venue was Norwich, Connecticut. The following morning Gulliver struck up conversation with the speaker, a politician by the name of Abraham Lincoln, as he caught a train down to Bridgeport.

As the pair took their seats in the carriage, Gulliver asked Lincoln about his remarkable oratory skill: “I want very much to know how you got this unusual power of ‘putting things.’ ” According to Gulliver, Lincoln said it wasn’t a matter of formal education. “I never went to school more than six months in my life.” But he did find training elsewhere. “In the course of my law-reading I constantly came upon the word demonstrate,” Lincoln said. “I thought, at first, that I understood its meaning, but soon became satisfied that I did not.” Resolving to understand it better, he went to his father’s house and “staid there till I could give any propositions in the six books of Euclid at sight.”

He was referring to the first six of books of Euclid’s Elements, an Ancient Greek mathematical text. On the face of it, Euclid’s Elements was nothing but a dry textbook: There were no illustrative examples, no mention of people, and no motivation for the analyses it presented. But it was also a landmark, a way of constructing universal truths, a wonder that would outlast even the great lighthouse in Euclid’s home city of Alexandria.

Elements proposed that definitions were at the foundation of knowledge, and led to self-evident axioms that needed no proof. From these definitions and axioms, Euclid showed how to prove dozens of mathematical propositions, producing knowledge that was objective and undeniable. A person of reason would have to accept a proven fact, no matter what their personal beliefs or convictions were.


Elements would become a best-selling work, second only to the bible in printed editions, and used until recently as the standard text for mathematics classes. It profoundly influenced Western thought, and shaped Western science and art. What’s less recognised is its role in the creation of modern politics: The distance from proofs about equilateral triangles to the foundations of democracy in Europe and the United States turned out to be just about two millennia."
- Carpenter, F.B. The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln: Six Months at the White House Hurd & Houghton, New York, NY (1874).


To conclude, the whole world has been built using the aforementioned elements of goemetry. They are universal ideas, universal ideas are universal truths, such truths one can’t deduct from their existence. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal. If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal. Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.

The latter section of the above diagram (Geometry of Physical Space) constitutes to our real objective world, the former (Geometry of Visible Space) delves in to the realms of subjectivity.

TH
The angles drawn on the balloon would not change. Well, that is a simplification. It depends on how you measure it. Measured in the tangential plane of the base point of the angle, it should be the same. (Assuming an equal expansion of the balloon of course, the area inside the angle and the are outside the angle, surrounding the central point of the angle, would expand equally)

Maths are models. They are not real. Approximations at best.

Any attempt to debunk triangulation in this regard is going to need to do the maths. I'll not be buggered, it's not my premise, but it shouldn't be hard. Just figure our how far our of whack your measurements get depending on the distances involved. I believe you'll find that for the types of distances triangulation is used, the difference is within the margin of error required. Also you might find that that it will behave in a predictable ratio, which can be further calculated and corrected for if necessary. I'm not sure about either of those two things, but it seems reasonable to me, and the first step in determining the efficacy of triangulation as a measuring method on a sphere of a given size.
 
Last edited:

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
47
Reactions
195
I'd say because spherical geometry gets complicated, and basic trig is going to be close enough for all practical purposes.
Complexity may have little to do with why spherical geometry isn't used for "practical purposes". First, spherical geometry *is* the application of calculating distances on a sphere, and there is nothing complex about drawing a great circle on a spherical projection, flattening it out, and then measuring it. Excluding that method, the "basic trig" for that (requiring the incorporation of cartesian coordinates) could in itself be seen as the piece of complexity that is not required to be understood to perform such calculations.

Regardless, it does *not* follow that 'practical' measurements are merely "close enough", as 'practical' and 'precise' are not mutually exclusive. Practical (concerned with the actual doing of something rather than theory) measurements are also required to hit moving targets, such as the moon (anecdote below), and are key when engineering for low tolerances, of course.
Nevertheless, I would argue that continuing this line of thought is non-sequitur at best (and applies circular logic at worst) when approaching Op's original claim, which may be construed as this: Euclidian geometry is empirical by nature and that empiricism is the proper basis from which scientific observations may be *logically* and critically deduced.

In the case of invoking spherical geometry or "triangulation when dealing with a sphere", it involves non-euclidian geometry which is abstract and not empirical by nature, and its measurements are a *consequence* of the application of empirical data (projected into a 3d space), and not a predictor of it (outside of theoretical/abstract/mathematical applications).

Many argue that the advent of non-euclidian geometry is where empiricism and reasoning left the realm of critical Newtonian thought, and a new age of "strange", "fuzzy", and "mysterious" (all words of institutional science, not mine) things have since begun being theorized through abduction and "proven" by way of ever stranger and more mysterious narratives that unapologetically also have no empirical proof behind them, "dark matter" being a simple example of such.
Maths are models. They are not real. Approximations at best.

Any attempt to debunk triangulation in this regard is going to need to do the maths. I'll not be buggered, it's not my premise, but it shouldn't be hard.
As I eluded to above, you may have unintentionally invoked a strawman, because it may be construed that Op wasn't trying to debunk triangulation in this regard (it speaks for itself, euclidianly speaking) and does agree that maths are models. Rather he is making the case for an empirical approach to research, and spelling it out (euclidian vs non-euclidian), and for a case that "seeing is believing" is not the same as empiricism.
 
Last edited:
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
479
Complexity may have little to do with why spherical geometry isn't used for "practical purposes". First, spherical geometry *is* the application of calculating distances on a sphere, and there is nothing complex about drawing a great circle on a spherical projection, flattening it out, and then measuring it. Excluding that method, the "basic trig" for that (requiring the incorporation of cartesian coordinates) could in itself be seen as the piece of complexity that is not required to be understood to perform such calculations.

Regardless, it does *not* follow that 'practical' measurements are merely "close enough", as 'practical' and 'precise' are not mutually exclusive. Practical (concerned with the actual doing of something rather than theory) measurements are also required to hit moving targets, such as the moon (anecdote below), and are key when engineering for low tolerances, of course.

Nevertheless, I would argue that continuing this line of thought is non-sequitur at best (and applies circular logic at worst) when approaching Op's original claim, which may be construed as this: Euclidian geometry is empirical by nature and that empiricism is the proper basis from which scientific observations may be *logically* and critically deduced.

In the case of invoking spherical geometry or "triangulation when dealing with a sphere", it involves non-euclidian geometry which is abstract and not empirical by nature, and its measurements are a *consequence* of the application of empirical data (projected into a 3d space), and not a predictor of it (outside of theoretical/abstract/mathematical applications).

Many argue that the advent of non-euclidian geometry is where empiricism and reasoning left the realm of critical Newtonian thought, and a new age of "strange", "fuzzy", and "mysterious" (all words of institutional science, not mine) things have since begun being theorized through abduction and "proven" by way of ever stranger and more mysterious narratives that unapologetically also have no empirical proof behind them, "dark matter" being a simple example of such.

As I eluded to above, you may have unintentionally invoked a strawman, because it may be construed that Op wasn't trying to debunk triangulation in this regard (it speaks for itself, euclidianly speaking) and does agree that maths are models, but rather making a case for an empirical approach to research, and spelling it out (euclidian vs non-euclidian), and that "seeing is believing" is not the same as empiricism.
Expertly said @kentucky the science must be measurable, demonstrable and scalable. Non Euclidian principles or postulates hold no weight in natural science. Mathematics is enough of an application of truth for certain folk but for me it's not.

It's impossible for anyone to prove the globe in a practical nature, always have to envoke some sort of wacked up assumptions that are not provable or disprovable here in our objective world.

Post automatically merged:

As I eluded to above, you may have unintentionally invoked a strawman, because it may be construed that Op wasn't trying to debunk triangulation in this regard (it speaks for itself, euclidianly speaking) and does agree that maths are models. Rather he is making the case for an empirical approach to research, and spelling it out (euclidian vs non-euclidian), and for a case that "seeing is believing" is not the same as empiricism.
I think this is the issue with most of the arguments attacking the "flat earth" community at the moment. They are envoking strawmen without even knowing it. The media has people so strung up on what to think we have trigger words that instantly induce strawmen.

I don't believe half of the so called "flat earth community" anymore because again their claims are sometimes that falacious it seems to me they are undeniably a shill. Mark Sargent for one, oozes shill.

This whole "debate" stigma around the FE needs to go, how can we debate something when one sides argument is locked in the realms of mathatics and theory with no practical proof of anything!

If we had some of the great minds from across the years around today, I seem to think our culture to them would be some sort of comedy show.

This is why I never label myself as a FEer as the dogmatic replies are too much to permanently fight off. A geocentrist, with a curiosity for what we are living on would seem a more fitting title.

TH
 
Last edited:

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
667
who calibrated such instru ments?

Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
it can be any shape or no shape, or both. why does it matter so much?

Matthew 7:3
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
 

PyraGorgon

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
37
If you can bend perception so below appears as above, some truth about the realm possibly appears in the middle.


FALSE. If you are bending/ manipulating perception, then that is sorcery, forbidden. Why is that forbidden? Well...if you are distorting perception, then that is corrupted knowledge leading to stupidity, ignorance, and thus: evil, sin, short, cheap, unclean, not real truth, not reality. Any understanding hoped to be gained is trash because it comes tarnished by way of its corrupted inception.
Whenever you introduce untruth, you will always have a corrupted meaning and purpose, and triply so when it applies to spiritual matters.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
568
Reactions
1,118
Well, practically speaking, this is what they do, so it does work in practice. Is it a globe or a plane, I do not know. Maybe I misunderstood, but the OP, to me, implied that the earth must be flat because triangulation works.

Now you say spherical geometry is non Euclidean, and has no basis in the real world, but that's what we should be using? Instead of the Euclidean triangulation? Not sure I follow. Or are you saying it's being applied to a globe which makes it wrong? So what's the proper Euclidiean way of locating a specific point on a sphere?

Did you catch the part about triangulation networks and why they are used?

I dunno, maybe I'm way off here.

What is non-euclidean about a sphere anyhow? I never did much geometry, was more into calculus, but I don't see anything non-euclidean about a sphere.

Maybe we need to take a step back and define some terms, we seem to be speaking different languages.

I mean, what is the problem with postulate 5? Manipulated?? If I take a stick and put it halfway into a pool, it will look bent. If I take a straight line and put it in hyperbolic geometry, it will look curved. It is just another representation of the exact same data. A straight line.

Algebra is not a formal language, it is just basic nuts and bolts, practical everyday math. It's basic double entry bookkeeping. I have 10 dollars and want to know how many apples I can buy. Or the opposite, I just spent ten bucks on Apple's, I got 12, how much was each.
Algebra is just applied arithmetic. Calculus looks much more like it's own language. Integrals, derivatives and limits, and a bunch of symbols with esoteric meanings.
 

Gerardgeert

Member
Messages
46
Reactions
42
@5. [The parallel postulate]: That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles are less than two right angles.
@TH Dialectic don’t you think Euclid may have turned mad because of this

I need to take a break for now, anyone else maybe The parallel postulate
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
568
Reactions
1,118
It just says two lines angled toward each other will eventually meet.
 

nothingnew

Active member
Messages
53
Reactions
222
Again the 3 and the 4, the 7th letter of the alphabet or the G. The 3 representing the concept of a pyramid (system) with 3 points, dating back to the worship of Isis, Seth and Horus.

When I look at the buildings and architecture from previous civilizations, I cant help but notice the 3 entrances/doors/gates on them. One door in the middle is however slightly bigger, for Seth or Seth-on or Satan?

It not called entrance by chance - en trance ?!


To get a insight into our "reality" and the workings of our electro/magnetic universe I'd advise strongly for everyone to watch the miniseries on yt "The primer Fields" Part 1.
 
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
479
Mathematicians have tried to deduce the 5th from the first four postulates for hundreds and hundreds of years and all have failed. Instead of trying to prove the 5th they started to play with the meanings of it, with things that were logically equivalent. in mathematics logically equivalent isn’t truth as we know mathematics is a descriptor, a formal language.

None Euclidian Geometry (Riemannian geometry)
1 – Two point may determine more than one line (to replace axiom 1)
2 – All lines are finite in length but endless (circles – to replace axiom 2)
3 – There are no parallel lines (to replace axiom 5)

You you can see with Riemannian geometry he has flipped axioms 1, 2 and 5 which has inherently made room for inductive ideas such as spherical and hyperbolic geometry. Geometry that can’t be deduced due to its inductive nature. Working from flawed and indemonstrable assumptions to create wonderful sums and geometric patterns that can’t be demonstrated here on terra firma.

From antiquity to the modern world we have used Euclidian first principles to build everything. Absolutely everything is built using plumb and datum lines taking no curvature in to consideration when laying these lines. Using scalable models with scalable angles and scalable axis we have built incredible structures; architects and engineers have never had to take 7.9 inches per mile squared in to their considerations and planning.

Example
The world's longest bridge is the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge in China, part of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway. The bridge, which opened in June 2011, spans 102.4 miles (165 kilometres)

16355

Lets look at what the architects and engineers have simply dismissed when building the bridge.

16357

16358

16359

How is this dismissible?
We need to understand actual demonstrable first principles and self evident truths to understand our reality. This has become ridiculously hard as most things “psyence” are now used propagate mainstream narratives that hold no weight whatsoever when looked at with a logical mind.

Take a child for example, a child of 3 knows how he or she needs to pour water in to a cup without spilling it. This is something a child will do intuitively; a self evident objective truth not based on any reasoning just experience. They don’t have to be taught anything to enable them to do it, its based on self evident fundamentals and his or her direct experience. Another example is I know how to cough; I didn’t have to be taught how to cough, its something that is self evident through experience, my judgement on when needing to cough is excellent and unflawed. You catch my drift?

Where are all of the great scientists, why are we not questioning our dogmatic predecessors?
It seems the modern dogmatic institution we call university has done it job rather well. Go to university, recite other peoples work but only certain people who we well you about, tell me your ideas on this, speak reflectively about how this works in our “modern world”.

Excuse my French, but F*** OFF.
Children need to be taught the Trivium method, the art of logic and rhetoric; not a curriculum based on past event and other peoples work. An education built around experience, common decency and common sense. Branching out to the Quadrivium around the age of 7 thus forming the liberal arts.

16360


Trivium Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric.

Quadrivium - Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy.

I will post further on the above in the future but simply don’t have the time at the moment. I hope everyone will take a look if it is something that is new to them.

TH
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
530
Reactions
2,341
If you are bending/ manipulating perception, then that is sorcery, forbidden. Why is that forbidden? Well...if you are distorting perception, then that is corrupted knowledge leading to stupidity, ignorance, and thus: evil, sin, short, cheap, unclean, not real truth, not reality. Any understanding hoped to be gained is trash because it comes tarnished by way of its corrupted inception.
Whenever you introduce untruth, you will always have a corrupted meaning and purpose, and triply so when it applies to spiritual matters.
I agree with everything you say. With one caveat.
Your perception lies entirely within your own consciousness.
What you describe is what happens when a group secretly manipulates perception for their own benefit. And their master.

The realm ends up like this.

16361

Again the 3 and the 4, the 7th letter of the alphabet or the G. The 3 representing the concept of a pyramid (system) with 3 points, dating back to the worship of Isis, Seth and Horus.
The serpent Seth, Isis with moon-bump baby Horus, and the tree of knowledge.

16362
 

Top