View Poll Results: On Good Friday:

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am a Christian and will be abstaining from meat.

    1 14.29%
  • I am a Christian and will NOT be abstaining from meat.

    0 0%
  • I am a NOT a Christian and will be abstaining from meat.

    0 0%
  • I am NOT a Christian and will be NOT abstaining from meat.

    6 85.71%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 96

Thread: Good Friday

  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Your confusing roughness and eccentricity again. Please come back when you have understood the problems with your argument the first time around.
    Not at all. The deviation from sphericity due to roughness is about 0.1%, and that due to eccentricity about 0.3%. So quit whinging about Bede's estimation of the sphericity of the earth, which is still a good approximation for most purposes today, and was certainly excellent when no one knew about the equatorial bulge.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  2. #62
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Not at all. The deviation from sphericity due to roughness is about 0.1%, and that due to eccentricity about 0.3%. So quit whinging about Bede's estimation of the sphericity of the earth, which is still a good approximation for most purposes today, and was certainly excellent when no one knew about the equatorial bulge.
    I had stopped talking about this when I showed your inconsistency the first time. For some reason you saw fit the revisit the scene of you last loss.

    BTW 0.3% is not "at most one part in a thousand" so you have repeated your mistake from last time and BTW "perfect" doesn't even allow for one part in a thousand. That you want to keep flogging this dead horse is beyond surprising.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #63
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    I had stopped talking about this when I showed your inconsistency the first time. For some reason you saw fit the revisit the scene of you last loss.

    BTW 0.3% is not "at most one part in a thousand" so you have repeated your mistake from last time and BTW "perfect" doesn't even allow for one part in a thousand. That you want to keep flogging this dead horse is beyond surprising.
    Again, the one part in a thousand was due to the difference between mountains and ocean bottoms, and 0.3% was the deviation due to oblateness. You mixed up the things that you accused me of confusing.

    There are degrees of perfection as there are degrees of accuracy. Your fellow atheopath Isaac Asimov pointed out in The Relativity of Wrong:

    when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #64
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Again, the one part in a thousand was due to the difference between mountains and ocean bottoms, and 0.3% was the deviation due to oblateness. You mixed up the things that you accused me of confusing.
    Check again I didn't confuse them but pointed out that you did and your earlier claim (post #59) was that the deviation from perfection was one part in a thousand. You then changed to using percentages perhaps to gloss over the inaccuracy of your earlier claim. As pointed out to you the first time around the eccentricity of the approximate spheroid is the bigger issue and the surface roughness is doubtless something Bede was aware of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    There are degrees of perfection as there are degrees of accuracy.
    That is neither the dictionary or mathematical definition of perfection. Accuracy is "the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard". Whereas perfect means "having all of the required or desirable elements, qualities or characteristics as good as it is possible to be".

    Now Bede clearly knew what a sphere was as he describes on in the passage the surface generated by all the points some distance from a fixed centre. However the eccentricity means the earth is not such an object. (Interestingly the bulge is a good reason to conclude that the earth spins on axis and is not stationary and most people in the 8th century thought).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #65
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    What I said was:

    Bede of course knew that there were mountains and valleys and deep oceans, so knew that it wasn't technically a geometrically perfect sphere. But those small deviations were minute, so the deviation from perfection was at most one part in a thousand.

    See, this was about the deviations that were knowable at the time. The deviation due to oblateness is greater, about 0.3%, but that wasn't known to Bede or to anyone else at his time.

    Yes, Newton predicted oblateness from the earth's rotation.

    Your hyper-literal understanding of "perfect" is beside the point. Bede and his readers understood it differently, so he could call the earth a perfect sphere even with the deviations he was aware of.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #66
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    What I said was:

    Bede of course knew that there were mountains and valleys and deep oceans, so knew that it wasn't technically a geometrically perfect sphere. But those small deviations were minute, so the deviation from perfection was at most one part in a thousand.

    See, this was about the deviations that were knowable at the time. The deviation due to oblateness is greater, about 0.3%, but that wasn't known to Bede or to anyone else at his time.
    The point is Bede had no reason to think the ball was a perfect sphere other than his incorrect beliefs that it was of divine origin and immoveably located at the centre of the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Your hyper-literal understanding of "perfect" is beside the point. Bede and his readers understood it differently, so he could call the earth a perfect sphere even with the deviations he was aware of.
    It isn't "hyper-literal" it is the dictionary definition. I didn;t cite but both quoted sections from post #64 are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

    It is hypocritical to praise Bede for over-stating the perfection of the geometry of the earth for mystical reasons while at the same time deriding Bruno for doing essentially the same thing.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #67
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The point is Bede had no reason to think the ball was a perfect sphere other than his incorrect beliefs that it was of divine origin and immoveably located at the centre of the universe.
    The perfection (with a deviation of 0.1% as far as he or anyone else at the time thought, or 0.3% as discovered a millennium later) was argued from the earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse. Aristotle and Ptolemy believed in a spherical earth immoveably located at the centre of the universe for non-biblical reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    It isn't "hyper-literal" it is the dictionary definition.
    What did it mean in Bede's Latin? Clearly, given that he allowed for the imperfections of mountains and valleys, not total hyper-literal perfection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    It is hypocritical to praise Bede for over-stating the perfection of the geometry of the earth for mystical reasons while at the same time deriding Bruno for doing essentially the same thing.
    Where is your evidence that Bede's reasons were mystical? Is it OK that he correctly explained the tides, unlike Galileo?
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #68
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    The perfection (with a deviation of 0.1% as far as he or anyone else at the time thought, or 0.3% as discovered a millennium later) was argued from the earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse. Aristotle and Ptolemy believed in a spherical earth immoveably located at the centre of the universe for non-biblical reasons.
    You seem unaware that Bede addressed the issue of roughness in the original (see below). The only issue I have with him is the eccentricity which goes against his description of a perfect sphere provided by the divine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    What did it mean in Bede's Latin? Clearly, given that he allowed for the imperfections of mountains and valleys, not total hyper-literal perfection.
    He addresses the issue of mountains in the original. He did not address the issue of eccentricity because (as you point out he didn't know about it). But instead claimed the perfect sphere (discounting roughness) which it clearly is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Where is your evidence that Bede's reasons were mystical? Is it OK that he correctly explained the tides, unlike Galileo?
    Since you are keen on the Latin here is the relevant paragraph (ex Caput XXXII) from De Temporum Ratione (with mystical/theological reasoning bolded by me)

    Quote Originally Posted by "Beda Venerabilis
    Causa autem inaequalitatis eorundem dierum terrae rotunditas est; neque enim frustra et in scripturae divinae et in communium literarum paginis orbis terrae vocatur. Est enim re vera orbis idem in medio totius mundi positus, non in latitudinis solum giro quasi instar scuti rotundus sed instar potius pilae undique versum aequali rotunditate persimilis; neque autem in tantae mole magnitudinis, quamvis enormem montium valliumque distantiam quantum in pila ludicra unum digitum tantum addere vel demere crediderim. Talis ergo schematis terra mortalibus ad inhabitandam data, solis circuitus semper in hoc mundo lucentis certa ratione constitutionis Dei, alibi diem exhibet, alibi noctem relinquit. Et quia, sicut Ecclesiastes ait, Oritur sol, et occidit, et in locum suum revertitur, ibique renascens gyrat per meridiem, et flectitur ad Aquilonem, necesse est circumiens Orientalibus quibusque prius quam Occidentalibus sub eadem linea positis mane, meridiem, vesperam adducat, eiusdem tamen longitudinis dies utrisque toto anno, sicut et noctes, faciat, item necesse est omnibus sub Aquilonis et Austri plage contra invicem et eadem linea positis, per totum annum vertentis circuitum, uno eodemque temporis puncto
    He mentions holy scripture, God and preachers in his description of the roundness of the earth (so as to explain why daylight hours vary by season and locale).
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #69
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You seem unaware that Bede addressed the issue of roughness in the original (see below). The only issue I have with him is the eccentricity which goes against his description of a perfect sphere provided by the divine.
    Still on about the 0.3% deviation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Since you are keen on the Latin here is the relevant paragraph (ex Caput XXXII) from De Temporum Ratione (with mystical/theological reasoning bolded by me)
    So were is the evidence that Bede meant perfection in a 21st-century mathematical sense. as opposed to something which can have degrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    He mentions holy scripture, God and preachers in his description of the roundness of the earth (so as to explain why daylight hours vary by season and locale).
    So much for your ilk that claims that Scripture, God, and preachers (actually the one preacher who authored the book of Ecclesiastes) harms science. By apparently relying on these, Bede deduced the shape of the earth to within 0.3% accuracy.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #70
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Still on about the 0.3% deviation?
    Still trying to argue that an oblate spheroid in a perfect sphere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    So were is the evidence that Bede meant perfection in a 21st-century mathematical sense. as opposed to something which can have degrees.
    The word perfect was in the translation into English that you provided in post #1 of this thread. It's a bit late to be whining about your translator now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    So much for your ilk that claims that Scripture, God, and preachers (actually the one preacher who authored the book of Ecclesiastes) harms science. By apparently relying on these, Bede deduced the shape of the earth to within 0.3% accuracy.
    Not at all and characterising the difference as 0.3% inaccurate is misleading. He got the shape completely wrong which leads to difference of 1 part in 300 in the difference between the equatorial and polar radii.

    To demonstrate your fallacy - would it have been better if he said a right-circular cylinder of radius 3678 km and height of 2x3657 ? Then he would have gotten those two dimensions correct and by your logic been accurate to within 0.001%. Much better? No, Bede's magical thinking caused him to claim a perfect sphere which is simply wrong. End of story. Please feel free to continue to flog this dead horse for as long as you like.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #71
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Still trying to argue that an oblate spheroid in a perfect sphere?
    No, obviously, as anyone with any sense would realize, that the earth's oblateness is only 0.3% deviation from perfection, so stop whinging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The word perfect was in the translation into English that you provided in post #1 of this thread. It's a bit late to be whining about your translator now.
    You are the one dogmatically claiming that there are no degrees of perfection when anyone uses the term now, let alone in Bede's day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Not at all and characterising the difference as 0.3% inaccurate is misleading. He got the shape completely wrong which leads to difference of 1 part in 300 in the difference between the equatorial and polar radii.
    Completely wrong? No, just 0.3% wrong. You're now committing the same fallacy that your fellow atheopath Asimov lambasted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    To demonstrate your fallacy - would it have been better if he said a right-circular cylinder of radius 3678 km and height of 2x3657 ? Then he would have gotten those two dimensions correct and by your logic been accurate to within 0.001%. Much better? No, Bede's magical thinking caused him to claim a perfect sphere which is simply wrong. End of story. Please feel free to continue to flog this dead horse for as long as you like.
    You're the one flogging a mere 0.3% error that no one else would pick up for about a millennium.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #72
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    No, obviously, as anyone with any sense would realize, that the earth's oblateness is only 0.3% deviation from perfection, so stop whinging.
    As already pointed out the 0.3% is only in one direction (polar). Bede was wrong in every direction except one because the earth is not a sphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You are the one dogmatically claiming that there are no degrees of perfection when anyone uses the term now, let alone in Bede's day.
    You have failed to provide even a shred of support for this insane assertion. Perfect means without flaw it is an absolute term not a relative one. You can talk about degrees of accuracy until the cows come home but accuracy does not equal perfection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Completely wrong? No, just 0.3% wrong. You're now committing the same fallacy that your fellow atheopath Asimov lambasted.
    Again 0.3% is just a measure of the inaccuracy of Bede's claim in one direction. My reductio ad absurdum seems to have escaped you so perhaps you should read my previous post with your brain switched on this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You're the one flogging a mere 0.3% error that no one else would pick up for about a millennium.
    The point it it is not 0.3% wrong - it is entirely the wrong shape. Bede describes a sphere as an ideal object that is the same distance in every direction from a centre (that is how Bede describes it in the "original" Latin). If we say that he has the equatorial distance correct then fine (though we really can't give him any credit here since he doesn't give a physical value) but he is wrong in every other direction. This the 5 degree latitude, the 10 degree latitude and indeed every latitude other than the equator is NOT the same distance from the centre as the equator. So he has the shape completely wrong.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #73
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    As already pointed out the 0.3% is only in one direction (polar). Bede was wrong in every direction except one because the earth is not a sphere.
    What are you rabbiting on about now? You're out of touch with reality. 0.3% is in the oblateness, which is the largest deviation from geometrically perfect sphericity. I.e., as an approximation to within 0.3%, the earth is a perfect sphere. A cylinder doesn't even come close to the real shape, while sphere definitely does.

    If Bede got the shape "completely wrong", then so have most people in history and even in the present day when they call the earth a "sphere".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You have failed to provide even a shred of support for this insane assertion. Perfect means without flaw it is an absolute term not a relative one. You can talk about degrees of accuracy until the cows come home but accuracy does not equal perfection.
    You can talk about degrees of perfection too, as well as strict and loose definitions. One dictionary definition of perfect is accurate. The classical concept was of completeness.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #74
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    What are you rabbiting on about now? You're out of touch with reality. 0.3% is in the oblateness, which is the largest deviation from geometrically perfect sphericity. I.e., as an approximation to within 0.3%, the earth is a perfect sphere. A cylinder doesn't even come close to the real shape, while sphere definitely does.
    Just pointing out that it is a question of shape and not of oblateness. Bede's claim of a perfect sphere equale in dimension in every direction is just wrong. It isn;t 99.7% right since it is not the same in every direction it is different for every latitude. He got the azimuthal symmetry correct but due to his magical thinking asserted a polar symmetry which is not physical. So on a measure of symmetry you could say was was 50% correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    If Bede got the shape "completely wrong", then so have most people in history and even in the present day when they call the earth a "sphere".
    Since it is not a sphere, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You can talk about degrees of perfection too, as well as strict and loose definitions. One dictionary definition of perfect is accurate. The classical concept was of completeness.
    Completeness is also an absolute term. You seem to be digging yourself a hole.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #75
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,365
    You're just being silly, holding Bede to one 21st-century definition of a word like ‘perfect’, or ‘complete’, and decreeing that neither term admits to degrees.

    In reality of course, an oblate spheroid with very low eccentricity approximates a sphere. Similarly, an ellipse with very low eccentricity approximates a circle. By your ‘reasoning’, a low-eccentricity ellipse approximates a rectangle with a base = major axis and height = minor axis. So in most cases, I see no need to correct anyone who claims that the earth is spherical.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 15-12-2007, 11:47 PM
  2. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
    By Garrett in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-07-2006, 10:39 PM
  3. Richard J vs b1_ - Some tips for you Richard.
    By b1_ in forum Correspondence Matches
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-09-2005, 11:42 PM
  4. Good Friday Poll
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-04-2005, 12:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •