PDA

View Full Version : Marty Leeds: We Need to Talk About Flat Earth



WantDisclosure
2nd October 2017, 15:13
Marty Leeds is a serious individual who has been willing to talk about questions raised in the flat earth movement. To do so does not mean that a person believes the earth is flat. It means that there are good, scientific questions in the movement that need addressing. In my opinion, the flat earth movement will eventually lead to needed modifications in the existing model and "established science."

9xJKmKj3Vtk

Emil El Zapato
2nd October 2017, 16:09
that's really funny...

Seems reasonable but here's my thought. And bear in mind that I'm making this up as i go...

Curvature is a function of triangulation. So the higher one goes the greater the line of sight but the viewpoint is lacking triangulation. If Marty Leeds was fifty miles up in the air and his eyes were sixty miles apart I suspect he would recognize curvature. Just as astronuts on the ISS would need eye separation of 25,000 miles to appreciate 3-dimensional curvature. He seems like a very smart guy, I think he's yanking our chain.

NAP

WantDisclosure
2nd October 2017, 18:02
. . . I think he's yanking our chain.
I doubt that, judging by his other work.

Michael Tellinger has also spoken about flat earth. He had to stop, however, due to the ridicule he was subjected to.

Emil El Zapato
2nd October 2017, 18:28
Have fun with this one, It may or may not apply:

Curvature Approximation For Triangulated Surfaces

Abstract
Given a set of points and normals on a surface and a triangulation associated with them a simple scheme for approximating the principal curvatures at these points is developed. The approximation is based on the fact that a surface can locally be represented as the graph of a bivariate function. Quadratic polynomials are used for this local approximation. The principal curvatures at a point on the graph of such a quadratic polynomial is used as the approximation of the principal curvatures at an original surface point.

1. Introduction:

Methods for exactly calculating and approximating curvatures are important in geometric modeling for two reasons. In order to judge the quality of a surface one commonly computes curvatures for points on the surface, renders the surface's curvature as a texture map onto the surface and can thereby detect regions with undesired curvature behavior, such as surface regions locally changing from an elliptic to a hyperbolic shape. On the other hand, surface schemes are being developed requiring higher order geometric information as input, e.g., normal vectors and normal curvatures.

Definitions and theorems from classical differential geometry are reviewed as far as they are needed for the discussion. In classical differential geometry a surface is understood as a mapping from R2 to R3, x(u) = (x(u, v), y(u, v), z(u, v))T. (1)

The standard formulae are then used to derive techniques for approximating normal curvatures when a two-dimensional triangulation of a finite point set with associated outward unit normal vectors is given in three-dimensional space. Consequently, curvature estimates can be incorporated into existing surface generating schemes allowing curvature input. The quality of the curvature approximation is tested for triangulated surfaces obtained from a known parametric surface of the form x(u) = (u, v,f(u, v)T.

WantDisclosure
2nd October 2017, 19:32
Curvature Approximation For Triangulated Surfaces

Abstract
Given a set of points and normals on a surface and a triangulation associated with them a simple scheme for approximating the principal curvatures at these points is developed. The approximation is based on the fact that a surface can locally be represented as the graph of a bivariate function. Quadratic polynomials are used for this local approximation. The principal curvatures at a point on the graph of such a quadratic polynomial is used as the approximation of the principal curvatures at an original surface point.

1. Introduction:

Methods for exactly calculating and approximating curvatures are important in geometric modeling for two reasons. In order to judge the quality of a surface one commonly computes curvatures for points on the surface, renders the surface's curvature as a texture map onto the surface and can thereby detect regions with undesired curvature behavior, such as surface regions locally changing from an elliptic to a hyperbolic shape. On the other hand, surface schemes are being developed requiring higher order geometric information as input, e.g., normal vectors and normal curvatures.

Definitions and theorems from classical differential geometry are reviewed as far as they are needed for the discussion. In classical differential geometry a surface is understood as a mapping from R2 to R3, x(u) = (x(u, v), y(u, v), z(u, v))T. (1)

The standard formulae are then used to derive techniques for approximating normal curvatures when a two-dimensional triangulation of a finite point set with associated outward unit normal vectors is given in three-dimensional space. Consequently, curvature estimates can be incorporated into existing surface generating schemes allowing curvature input. The quality of the curvature approximation is tested for triangulated surfaces obtained from a known parametric surface of the form x(u) = (u, v,f(u, v)T.
Are you the author?

Emil El Zapato
2nd October 2017, 19:39
oh, he** no. If I was that smart, I would be a mathematician and I hate mathematicians...they s*ck! :)

Aragorn
2nd October 2017, 19:44
oh, he** no. If I was that smart, I would be a mathematician and I hate mathematicians...they s*ck! :)

You hate Dumpster Diver? :p :ttr:

Emil El Zapato
2nd October 2017, 20:03
Dumpster Diver is a mathematician...omigod! That explains a lot. :chrs:

No, I don't hate him but give it some time... :)

WantDisclosure
3rd October 2017, 11:02
oh, he** no.
Is your source a paper by B. Hamann of Mississippi State University?

Emil El Zapato
3rd October 2017, 13:07
yes, that's it, Keep Trying

WantDisclosure
3rd October 2017, 13:19
yes, that's it, Keep Trying

Did you randomly pick it, or does it have some significance for you?

Emil El Zapato
3rd October 2017, 13:25
it seemed to delve further into the topic and it was the 'best' source I could find. Do you have a connection?

NAP

WantDisclosure
3rd October 2017, 14:18
Do you have a connection?
No.

I'm just a very curious person who tries to understand things I really don't have the aptitude for.

I survive by asking questions repeatedly of those who seem to have that aptitude.

Emil El Zapato
3rd October 2017, 14:37
I understand,

Between you and I, what is discussed in that 'white paper' is pretty hi-falutin'. That's why I suggested it may or may not apply. It doesn't directly address, in so many words, what Leeds was alluding.

NAP

Dumpster Diver
3rd October 2017, 21:17
Dumpster Diver is a mathematician...omigod! That explains a lot. :chrs:

No, I don't hate him but give it some time... :)

Dude. Ever heard of Sacred Geometry? It's MATH!

deal wit it.

Dumpster Diver
3rd October 2017, 21:24
I doubt that, judging by his other work.

Michael Tellinger has also spoken about flat earth. He had to stop, however, due to the ridicule he was subjected to.

Tellinger should be smarter than this, he is just not thinking about the problem.

As I've said before, you can personally observe the curvature of the Earth by going to the seashore and watching ships as they "drop down into the sea" while venturing further out. Get a telescope or binoculars and see for yourself. This one fact kills off Flat Earth.

Another: Go to a high peak near a flat area (like Pike's Peak in CO) on a very clear day. If you had a flat earth, you could see for hundreds if not a thousand miles if the air is clear.

enjoy being
4th October 2017, 00:10
I missed all the recent-ish diatribe on flat earth rebirth. I am not sure what went down and haven't tried to find out.
Another little tar baby to get stuck on, as far as I can see, from the blatant monstrosity it is. I mean come on, flat earth.

But this surely was seen as preposterous back when the first flat earth 'movement' arose. It is to me, all quite obviously chinese whispery bullsh1t at best, and the notion of its return puts it into the realms of parody.

Even using the term, re-purposing it perhaps, is still not going to help the cause. The words Flat Earth are already heavily associated and triggerable words, why attempt to use them and be upset about the "irrational" responses?

Which is why it is a tarbaby for people to punch at and get stuck on. If not on purpose, then those doing it gotta be very very unaware. Which may well then fit in with having a genuine belief in the world being one huge phonebook.

Aragorn
4th October 2017, 01:10
It is to me, all quite obviously chinese whispery bullsh1t at best, and the notion of its return puts it into the realms of parody.

The Flat Earth meme originates from — and is still based upon — Christian fundamentalist beliefs. If you get into a debate with a Flat-Earther, then inevitably it'll come down to the literal word of the Book of Genesis, no matter how the discussion evolves, because that's the only argumentation their belief is based upon. All of their other argumentation is circumstantial and based upon misinterpretations and paranoia.

They can skirt around those arguments for a while to keep you busy, but then in the end, after you've debunked those arguments, then it's always the literal word of the Bible that it's eventually going to come down to. ;)


:tea:

Lord Sidious
4th October 2017, 09:45
I love flat earth believers.
But only when we're on the range live firing and I have a .50 cal and they are about 2,000m away..................

WantDisclosure
4th October 2017, 10:16
The Flat Earth meme originates from — and is still based upon — Christian fundamentalist beliefs. If you get into a debate with a Flat-Earther, then inevitably it'll come down to the literal word of the Book of Genesis, no matter how the discussion evolves, because that's the only argumentation their belief is based upon. All of their other argumentation is circumstantial and based upon misinterpretations and paranoia.

They can skirt around those arguments for a while to keep you busy, but then in the end, after you've debunked those arguments, then it's always the literal word of the Bible that it's eventually going to come down to.

That is true of some or maybe the majority of the arguments.

But not all.

It is interesting to me that there are thoughtful people out there that started out dismissing the movement out of hand, but someone they knew and respected urged them to open their mind, and they did, and found that there are issues that do need better answers. I also love the independent thinking and resourcefulness of people who are examining questions for themselves.

The Marty Leeds video I posted on another thread is thoughtful:

eNVvRxQWb6g

Note: I found out by emailing Marty Leeds that he did make a mistake in that video; he quoted Nikola Tesla in error, as in Tesla didn't say the quote at all.

WantDisclosure
4th October 2017, 12:50
I also love the independent thinking and resourcefulness of people who are examining questions for themselves.

I like the comment this YouTuber makes on his "About" page:


You can make The Math work on anything
if you believe that particular ''anything'' is reality.
And if you ignore or miss anything no matter
how insignificant it is and then you do The Math
and you make it work, it will still be wrong.

Dr. Zack

YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/MrZtotheO/about?disable_polymer=1)

I enjoyed listening to this guy:


Published on Sep 23, 2017

Dear Trolls,

It took us a lot of time and work to make this video. So please, if you think that this was staged or faked or anything like that, don't bother to comment on this video, because your comment will be deleted and you will be blocked. You can just ignore us and everyone will be happy.

We just demonstrated how we can convert a Flat Land to a Globe Land using the same Math that the most famous Mathematicians used by just ''Ignoring Refraction'' or making it useless.

If you think that the Atmosphere is what science tells us, then you're going to have to prove that.

And when I say the atmosphere, I don't mean water, or gases, or vapor, or glass, or lenses... what I mean is the Atmosphere itself. And I don't mean those NASA's pictures that are obviously fake. You can't tell me how the atmosphere bends the light if you have no experiment to back up your claims. If you got assumptions based on Math only (The Math you see when you Google things), then we got assumptions based on Math and Experiments.

We do Experiments ourselves, we don't just wait for others to do them for us.

They don't do any experiments anyway.

bol8vZ7pcu8