Advertisement

Author Topic: Prove It! The Earth is Round  (Read 3706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bulbasaur

  • Guest
Prove It! The Earth is Round
« on: September 09, 2014, 08:54:34 AM »
We take this knowledge for granted.  Today, we have pictures of the Earth for verification.  Why would 17th century scholars believe the Earth is round despite not having access to satellites?  What's their proof? 



Like this post: 0

Adverstisement

minorcharacter

  • Guest
Re: Prove It! The Earth is Round
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2014, 09:07:26 AM »
Is this bait?  Cuz' if it is then we're going to eventually be arguing about whether the sun revolves around us or vice-versa.  If not then I'll have to assume we're on the same page as heliocentrism.  With that there's the lunar eclipse where the moon passes through umbra of the earth.  We'll notice then that the edges are always round.  We can then either assume that the earth is rounded like a sphere or it's rounded like a coin.



Like this post: 0

bulbasaur

  • Guest
Re: Prove It! The Earth is Round
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2014, 11:35:56 PM »
Was there any confusion when we used the term "round?"  For example, you meant "To be accurate," not really "To be precise."   Accuracy and precision are not really the same thing, but the point can still be understood.  No one misunderstood the point of the topic from using "round." 

That being said, what did those 17th century scholars think?   :2funny:

To be precise, the earth is not round like we think...It is not flat too.  It's sorta round but not really.





Like this post: 0

bulbasaur

  • Guest
Re: Prove It! The Earth is Round
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2014, 04:56:06 PM »
OMG, you know the definition of precise and accuracy, and you STILL don't know how to use them.   :idiot2:

1.  Technically, you wanted to use accurate because you wanted to correct a mistake.  It doesn't really matter because we still know what you meant.  The problem now is that you are confusing the two. 

2.  Scientists want to be accurate AND precise.  You would know this if you are a scientist.   :2funny:

3.  Was there any confusion with the usage of "round?"  It seems pretty obvious that it was in comparison to a flat Earth....which in this incorrect theory, is not perfectly flat either; however, we know what it means.     

4.  You're not helpful when you present misinformation

All of this is supposed to be a fun exercise in basic science.  You are making it into a You vs. Somebody thing. 

What is velocity?  Do scientists want to be precise, accurate, or both?  What did 17th century scholars think of a flat Earth?  If your facts are wrong, what makes you think your analysis is correct?

Don't quit your day job.   :2funny:

The proper lexicon is precise for precision.  Accuracy isn't always repeatable.  You would know this if you are a scientist because science is about reproducible something that is repeatable.

Anyways, I was hoping to be helpful but looks like this is all a scheme to make talking science a chore.  Don't quit your day job.



Like this post: 0

bulbasaur

  • Guest
Re: Prove It! The Earth is Round
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2014, 07:15:30 PM »
1.  As always, credentials don't prove a point. 

2.  You wrote, "Thus, the derative (rate of change) of speed is velocity."  How do your credentials prove that this is true?   :2funny:

3.  Here is a little picture about precision and accuracy. 



4.  Who is going off topic?  Hey, you are talking about yourself again.  You're making this about YOU vs. Somebody....AG AIN. 

Tell you what, I'll concede if you can explain, how velocity is the derivative of speed.   :2funny:

B, I do science for one of the top pharma/biotech in the world as the department head.  In the past I've done science and engineer at top oncology device and top cardiovascular .  I'm in charge of two sites in the field of genomics without a PhD...the only top management in our business area without a PhD.  In the past, I've done oncology, cardiovascular, polymer science, and various light technology.  You want to compare resume?  Don't talk down about what I know if you don't have the resume or the pedigree to back it up.

In the end, you are STILL WRONG...Precis ion is more important because it's reproducible and repeatable.  It's the proper lexicon to use when talking science, it's what scientist use when talking about experiment.  Accuracy is governed by resolution, measurement error and your confidence interval and your beta risk.  You would know this if you actually do science.

I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time correcting you people about basic DoE and MSA.

Feel free to think you are so right and smart and take your topic off topic.





Like this post: 0

bulbasaur

  • Guest
Re: Prove It! The Earth is Round
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2014, 07:42:00 PM »
1.  Credentials don't prove a point.  What if I had better credentials than you?  Would I no longer need to prove my points?  Of course, I would still need to prove my points regardless of my credentials.  Even Einstein doesn't get pass on providing proof for his points. 

2.  You wrote, "Thus, the derative (rate of change) of speed is velocity." Is this true?  Yes or No?   :2funny:

3.  How did you misread the diagram?  Precision is not greater than accuracy; they are both important.  Look at C in the diagram.  It has high precision and little accuracy.  It's clear that there is a systematic error.  I feel bad for your employer. 

4.  Have I ever said I was smart?  Have I ever listed my credentials as proof of an argument?  Do I go around telling people how awesome I am?  Guess who does that?  This person...

"I do science for one of the top pharma/biotech in the world as the department head.  In the past I've done science and engineer at top oncology device and top cardiovascular .  I'm in charge of two sites in the field of genomics without a PhD...the only top management in our business area without a PhD.  In the past, I've done oncology, cardiovascular, polymer science, and various light technology.  You want to compare resume?  Don't talk down about what I know if you don't have the resume or the pedigree to back it up." 

1) Spoken like some poser.  You have credentials because you EARN it with experience, knowledge, and talent.  I earned mine.  Where is yours?  If you don't have it, you don't qualify and stop faking.

2) Scalar vs. Vector.

3) You just proved my point.  That diagram shows that precision > accuracy.  Notice how tightly precision is?  That tightness is called referred to as reproducibilit y and repeatability and that is what science is about.  If you are accurate but all over the place, you can't demonstrate statistical significant and nobody cares if you have no statistical significance.  1-off are JUNK.  With precision, you can reduce measurement error with resolution and woola you are there, assuming the technology exists to reduce measurement error.  Dude, I teach this.  Why are you going to debate me on which is more proper?  Stick to social work OK.

4) off topic because you keep bringing on semantics that are irrelevant because you constantly are trying to prove to the community you are somehow smart and educated but you dont have the credibility so what's the POINT?




Like this post: 0

 

Advertisements