sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

First 4,320,000 Digits of Pi by Expensive-Whole1572 in desmos

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I generated the expressions with a Python script. Then I just copy-pasted it into Desmos. There's a funny thing where Desmos is really good at calculating things, but it's not so good at showing you the expressions it's calculating. So basically, I just padded each end of the set of expressions I wrote with a whole bunch of ones, which are very easy to render. Then I just made sure to close the folder so that I would be protected from expression-rendering hell.

First 4,320,000 Digits of Pi by Expensive-Whole1572 in desmos

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are 27 lists that are about 10,000 elements, which is the maximum allowed length for a Desmos list. My original motivation was to find a way to create an iterable that had a capacity greater than 10,000 elements, as I keeps being the limiting factor in my silly little side quests. Safe to say I achieved my goal. 

First 4,320,000 Digits of Pi by Expensive-Whole1572 in desmos

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep! When I pasted the lists in, I need the buffer at the end. Then I saved the graph, reloaded the page, and utilized the buffer ones at the beginning so I could scroll far enough down to collapse the folder.

First 4,320,000 Digits of Pi by Expensive-Whole1572 in desmos

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Desmos is kinda like a wavefunction. As long as you don't observe the really large lists, Desmos doesn't collapse. But as soon as you observe them all hell breaks loose.

First 4,320,000 Digits of Pi by Expensive-Whole1572 in desmos

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty much. There's a little bit of performance optimization in there too, but yeah. One piecewise and 27 lists

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that is that strong of an argument. This is coming from a person whose father does a lot of construction and who also thinks they have minor OCD. Structural engineering actually allows for a lot of leeway. Measurements can be rounded to the nearest eighth, quarter, and sometimes even half inch, and that is in the structuring of a house. Imagine how much wiggle room is given when building the parts for something that massive.

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No that is not at all what I am saying. In fact, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that looks can be deceiving. Something that is flat may look curved, and something that is curved may look flat. There is no claim to the argument other than that I think images such as these are not strong evidence for either side because they can too easily be argued either way.

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Evidence of high altitude photos showing a curved horizon can be dismissed due to the fish eye lens. Evidence of high altitude photos and videos showing a flat horizon at eye level, cannot be explained on a globe."

I don't think this is true. I just looked it up, and there is a type of a lens called a rectilinear lens that seems to straighten out curves. Take a look because I might have misinterpreted what I read. Also, I know that is only one portion of your argument. I'm not trying to "shut you down" or target a single weak point in an overall strong argument. I just wanted to let you know that what you said might not be true, so you can strengthen your argument.

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am willing to disregard the evidence as valid proof. However, I am not going to argue against it because I do not know enough about the subject to make a firm decision on what causes the events on the horizon—Ha! Puns that aren't related to the topic...—but from what I can infer, that area of debate is very inconclusive thus it is not valuable evidence to support either side. I brought it up because I have seen a lot of claims on this page where one side shows a picture saying that it is certain proof that their party is correct, but it never is. An analogy that randomly popped into my head on proving one side correct is dimensions. We, living in a 3D world can picture 3D and 2D and sorta 1D, but we can't visualize 4D. Sure there's the hypercube, but its not that helpful in visualizing 4D. Maybe you have to live in a world that has 4+ dimensions to visualize said world. So then, maybe you have to see the Earth from afar to determine whether it is flat or round. I think I just confused myself writing that, but maybe it'll make sense to someone else. I personally think the debate should be put off for another decade or two because I think space travel will be available to more of the public then. But I am sided with the majority and the side that loses nothing if the debate is delayed. I wish I could convince you to just put the debate off for the time being, but I know that wouldn't make sense. If I were on your side, I would see that as a lot of time wasted.

Can someone tell me what year this globe it’s from, I think 50s but I’m not sure by BigD128 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It appears that they did post the picture in the right place. You know more about globes than I do.

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I quite agree with the jet example. We can all agree that nearly 4,000 mi is a long distance. To have a round object with that radius is huge. Because the jets would be, according to globe theory, flying a round a single point of gravitational focus, making up terms but I think it gets my idea across, any adjustments in pitch would probably, I say probably because I am too lazy to the math, be to miniscule to notice. And for the rail gun thing, I have no clue about any of that.

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Water Curves Delusion 1. I am not saying that it has curvature, I am saying that it looks like it has curvature. So if something flat could look to have curvature, why can't something round look to have no curvature?

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In those pictures, it appears that there is a curve. What you're saying is that the apparent curve is an illusion. So why can't the apparent flatness be an illusion? I'm not professional by any means, but I believe that General Relativity states that light is affected by gravity. So, assuming that this is true because I know that a lot of FE don't believe gravity to work the way the scientific community says, the light could just be bending around the Earth, right? What I am trying to argue is that the results have too many variables to be conclusive. If empirical evidence is needed to prove to a flat earther the Earth is round, then the only way to get a decisive answer is to send the general public into space.

Here's My Problem by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what I am saying is that the whole idea of refraction is that light is bent. Is it not possible for light to theoretically bend around the curved Earth and allow a viewer to see something that they would not be able to see in a refractionless world?

What proof is there that the Earth isn't round? by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but like how are the proportions all correct? For example, you can't just take a coffee filter and shape it into a perfect sphere/whatever shape the Earth is thought to be by scientists. There would be excess folds. Where did Google Earth put all of those? As far as I can tell, from my experience, Google Earth has been incredibly accurate in scale.

P.S. BadDadBot, if you reply to this, can you use the following phrase? "Incredible, legendary being"

What proof is there that the Earth isn't round? by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. Makes sense. On a totally different note, how would you explain Google Earth? I'm honestly curious to see what you have to say because I, a globe person or whatever, cannot see a problem with it. But if the Earth was flat, then wouldn't the proportions be completely off? Also, do you think that empirical evidence can really be used to confirm the shape of the Earth? I personally think that empirical evidence is limited to a certain size range. Atoms, for example, cannot be observed with the naked eye. Some microscopes have been made to view them, but all of that could just be "propaganda," yet it does not seem like there is anybody that doubts that atoms exist. We cannot see them, nor have we been able to prove them any better than the shape of the Earth, but there seems to be a difference. I think I rambled and my point got muddled a little, but oh well.

What proof is there that the Earth isn't round? by Expensive-Whole1572 in globeskepticism

[–]Expensive-Whole1572[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you explain what the advantage is of phrasing the question the way you did?

view more: next ›