This is what flerfs just don't get. The ability to predict astronomical observations. I doubt that a flerf knows when the next bus is arriving, let alone a planet.
Over the course of my life I have opened and examined a number of mechanical clocks and watches, in some cases even disassembling them (and almost as many times reassembling them! 😉). Learning how the mainspring, gears, ratchet pawls, balance wheels and pendulums all interacted with each other to produce an overall system taught me about relationships in other systems. Similar concepts apply to many other things, including astronomy, as Bob has shown here. It's a shame that many people ignore or fail to grasp the marvelous complexity of things in our daily lives, seeing the end result without appreciating the effort put into making them commonplace.
@@platformtwo9283 When you think about it, the triangle is really the shape most damaging to the FE idea. Anthony would need to put on his lab coat to explain how this all works on a flat Earth.
This is why the invention of trig is so important. Once you understand triangles and how the angles work with sides and each other you can work out so many things. However, flerfs love to claim that math isn’t reality so they can ignore any of those results that are damning to their position. For example, they love claiming that the erotostanies experiment can be done with a flat earth and a local sun. They do this while ignoring the implications that the claim includes once you add trig to the topic. If the Earth is flat and you read the shadow on the same day and time you can find how far away the sun should be. Add a third observation and you should find the sun to be in the same place for all three places. That’s what the rules of trig say will happen. We do said observation and not only do both places give you the same circumference for the Earth but also tell us the sun is in two places at the same time.
Flat earthers says math is not reality because it proves that a flat earth is not reality (we can see a flat earth is impossible without math: It is the same sky above the horizon, only the different ground below the horizon can simultaneously rotate in different direction, or point at different directions on a thing rotating in the same direction).
@@ReinoGoo I would ask a Flat Earther: do you understand Mandarin, or Japanese, or Portuguese? Do you deny that these languages exist because you don't understand them? If not, why do you deny Mathematics? Mathematics is a language. We use it to describe things. Unlike other languages, Mathematics allows us to describe these things without poetry or rhetoric, and with specificity, accuracy and precision. It allows us to describe things in such a way that our descriptions can be tested and validated. And it allows us to describe things in a way that allows us to make highly accurate predictions. But, even with these differences, it is still a language, just like Mandarin, Japanese, Portuguese, or English. Just because you, personally, don't understand Mandarin, Japanese, or Mathematics does not mean they do not exist and aren't valid languages that can be used to describe things. Denying that Mathematics can be used to describe things is, basically, denying that language exists.
I was lucky enough to see the transit in June. Had to travel 400 km east into the remote area of Western Australia, camp the night and set up my telescope with a filter. Caught the transit starting at dawn ( it had already crossed the limb) and observed the whole movement of Venus until the end of the transit just after 1200 hrs. My computer failed and I did not get any images. A cold front obscured the sun less than 1 hour after the end of the event and I had to pack up in the rain. One of the highlights of my observing hobby. My telescope is a home built 8" reflector. Thanks for your explanation of the math of the transit.
I hope I was able to explain I tell. There are additional details, such as how you approach if when Venus is not at the zenith at one of the sites, but this is the basics
That was fascinating. I wasn’t aware of that second method. Simple yet elegant. Looking forward to your next video with the example. I’ll see if I can do the calculations myself first, and then compare it to your example to see what I miss (or get right).
Dr. Bob, there were some comments on this video that I liked. So I made a short video about them and credited/linked back to your video. I hope you don't mind. I'll post a link to my video shortly if that's alright with you.
@@ResearchFlatMoon Here's the link to the video. It's short, 5 minutes, and focuses on how building ideas on established scientific theories is NOT "making assumptions".
Objections: Method assumes spherical Earth Method assumes circular orbits for both Earth and Venus Those are both really awkward things to accommodate. Good job they're nearly true.
Having assumptions isn’t an inherently flawed thing, provided the usage of the assumption is to test its validity. That rhetoric is something flatties have poisoned by pretending presuppositions are inherently illogical, until it suits them to have their own. Then they pretend their claims aren’t assumptions. Regardless, that’s the relationship between a hypothesis and its experiment. You take an educated guess, assume it’s true, and go looking for its repercussions. Failing to find these is a compelling way to demonstrate the assumption cannot be true. Find them, then the assumption could be true. Repeat this process until you’ve convincingly demonstrated your assumption is the best, most parsimonious, “could be true” explanation. That is science.
Only, it's not assumption, is it. You can't assume established fact. This is what flerfs fail to understand; their personal incredulity and blind denial of facts doesn't change reality.
Yes, we basically derive the results that best match reality and allow for accurate predictions. We then constantly work to refine those results for even more accuracy, ever closer to "true" reality. Assumptions are the starting points for our tests; as they get better and more accurate, so do our results. It's like having a bias. Whether positive or negative, the important thing is to accept that bias exists and take it into account to reduce its effects on the results.
@@sphaera2520 a great explanation of assumptions.. wish FE's could grasp and apply this. they discount this because they think assumptions are wrong by the definition of the word.. its not fact.. best example is their water is always flat and level as their winning proof.. because they want to claim this is a "FACT" not an assumption. Bob could do a whole series on this "assumption" topic.
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
This is what flerfs just don't get. The ability to predict astronomical observations. I doubt that a flerf knows when the next bus is arriving, let alone a planet.
How do flat Earthers explain Venus passing before their close Sun?
That Venus thingy must really be bothersome to commercial airplanes!
Over the course of my life I have opened and examined a number of mechanical clocks and watches, in some cases even disassembling them (and almost as many times reassembling them! 😉). Learning how the mainspring, gears, ratchet pawls, balance wheels and pendulums all interacted with each other to produce an overall system taught me about relationships in other systems. Similar concepts apply to many other things, including astronomy, as Bob has shown here.
It's a shame that many people ignore or fail to grasp the marvelous complexity of things in our daily lives, seeing the end result without appreciating the effort put into making them commonplace.
The triangle- best friend to mathematicians, engineers, and astronomers everywhere!
@@platformtwo9283 "let me get out my triangle calculator" ! 🤣🤣🤣
@@platformtwo9283 When you think about it, the triangle is really the shape most damaging to the FE idea. Anthony would need to put on his lab coat to explain how this all works on a flat Earth.
Peeing warrior. "Thats not a triangle, that's an egg"
"To measure a triangle you use the units of unicorn farts."
@@dogwalker666 Asked my dog how many degrees in a triangle- she turned around once, then lay down.
SW needs a calculator.
@@adventureswithdogs2251 so your dog is more intelligent than the whole flurf club, no surprise there.
This is why the invention of trig is so important. Once you understand triangles and how the angles work with sides and each other you can work out so many things.
However, flerfs love to claim that math isn’t reality so they can ignore any of those results that are damning to their position.
For example, they love claiming that the erotostanies experiment can be done with a flat earth and a local sun. They do this while ignoring the implications that the claim includes once you add trig to the topic. If the Earth is flat and you read the shadow on the same day and time you can find how far away the sun should be. Add a third observation and you should find the sun to be in the same place for all three places. That’s what the rules of trig say will happen. We do said observation and not only do both places give you the same circumference for the Earth but also tell us the sun is in two places at the same time.
Flat earthers says math is not reality because it proves that a flat earth is not reality (we can see a flat earth is impossible without math: It is the same sky above the horizon, only the different ground below the horizon can simultaneously rotate in different direction, or point at different directions on a thing rotating in the same direction).
@@ReinoGoo I would ask a Flat Earther: do you understand Mandarin, or Japanese, or Portuguese? Do you deny that these languages exist because you don't understand them?
If not, why do you deny Mathematics?
Mathematics is a language. We use it to describe things. Unlike other languages, Mathematics allows us to describe these things without poetry or rhetoric, and with specificity, accuracy and precision. It allows us to describe things in such a way that our descriptions can be tested and validated. And it allows us to describe things in a way that allows us to make highly accurate predictions.
But, even with these differences, it is still a language, just like Mandarin, Japanese, Portuguese, or English. Just because you, personally, don't understand Mandarin, Japanese, or Mathematics does not mean they do not exist and aren't valid languages that can be used to describe things.
Denying that Mathematics can be used to describe things is, basically, denying that language exists.
I was lucky enough to see the transit in June. Had to travel 400 km east into the remote area of Western Australia, camp the night and set up my telescope with a filter. Caught the transit starting at dawn ( it had already crossed the limb) and observed the whole movement of Venus until the end of the transit just after 1200 hrs. My computer failed and I did not get any images. A cold front obscured the sun less than 1 hour after the end of the event and I had to pack up in the rain. One of the highlights of my observing hobby. My telescope is a home built 8" reflector. Thanks for your explanation of the math of the transit.
Well done!!
This seems very complicated at first glance but when explained well it makes perfect sense.
I hope I was able to explain I tell. There are additional details, such as how you approach if when Venus is not at the zenith at one of the sites, but this is the basics
@@ResearchFlatMoon you did a very good job of explaining it, I did look it up previously but it didn't quite click, thank you for helping me get it.
It underlines how brilliant Edmund Halley was.
Dr. Bob, I've been reading the book that you recommended "Chasing Venus - The Race to Measure the Heavens". This historical account is fascinating.
I just downloaded that book last week. I’m looking forward to starting it.
@@chrisconnors7418 Same here. It is in the reading queue on my Kindle.
@@arctic_haze Her previous book, The Invention of Nature (on Humboldt), was my favourite non-fiction book of the year.
Someone got a great shot.
I love this image showing that ✈️ plane being so small in relation to the sun.
No down votes? It seems it is enough to add "Mathematics" in the video title to frighten all flerfs away.
This was great! I'm really looking forward to the next with the 2012 transit.
That was fascinating. I wasn’t aware of that second method. Simple yet elegant. Looking forward to your next video with the example. I’ll see if I can do the calculations myself first, and then compare it to your example to see what I miss (or get right).
The video is short but I linked to the paper. It will come out tomorrow
Dr. Bob, there were some comments on this video that I liked. So I made a short video about them and credited/linked back to your video. I hope you don't mind. I'll post a link to my video shortly if that's alright with you.
of course
@@ResearchFlatMoon Here's the link to the video. It's short, 5 minutes, and focuses on how building ideas on established scientific theories is NOT "making assumptions".
ruclips.net/video/ahlPdljAnxs/видео.html
👍👍👍
Objections:
Method assumes spherical Earth
Method assumes circular orbits for both Earth and Venus
Those are both really awkward things to accommodate. Good job they're nearly true.
Having assumptions isn’t an inherently flawed thing, provided the usage of the assumption is to test its validity. That rhetoric is something flatties have poisoned by pretending presuppositions are inherently illogical, until it suits them to have their own. Then they pretend their claims aren’t assumptions. Regardless, that’s the relationship between a hypothesis and its experiment. You take an educated guess, assume it’s true, and go looking for its repercussions. Failing to find these is a compelling way to demonstrate the assumption cannot be true. Find them, then the assumption could be true. Repeat this process until you’ve convincingly demonstrated your assumption is the best, most parsimonious, “could be true” explanation. That is science.
Only, it's not assumption, is it. You can't assume established fact.
This is what flerfs fail to understand; their personal incredulity and blind denial of facts doesn't change reality.
Yes, we basically derive the results that best match reality and allow for accurate predictions. We then constantly work to refine those results for even more accuracy, ever closer to "true" reality. Assumptions are the starting points for our tests; as they get better and more accurate, so do our results.
It's like having a bias. Whether positive or negative, the important thing is to accept that bias exists and take it into account to reduce its effects on the results.
A great example of assumption is : "hey, this looks flat to me, therefor I'm going to assume it is, and all evidence to the contrary be damned".
@@sphaera2520 a great explanation of assumptions.. wish FE's could grasp and apply this.
they discount this because they think assumptions are wrong by the definition of the word.. its not fact..
best example is their water is always flat and level as their winning proof.. because they want to claim this is a "FACT" not an assumption.
Bob could do a whole series on this "assumption" topic.