[News]

News: The Flat Earth Society's new website has launched and the Society is officially accepting new members for the first time since 2001!

[Pete]

Tom,

I cannot believe you are still confused about Theoretical Physics.  The clue's in the name, dumbo.  There's no pretense.

I don't care. "Theoretical" does not give it a free pass. Chemistry, Psychology, and all other parts of our sciences have us start by building off of a hypothesis.

Feel free to propose a reasonable alternative anytime now.... 

I'd be fascinated to hear how you'll have science work without formulating a hypothesis. Do you even know what a hypothesis is?

Look up the Scientific Method Chart. They even have children do it.

Yeah... and its worked for several centuries now in the field of medicine. If the scientific method is so flawed, why does it work so well?

The science teacher doesn't care if you're wrong. He just cares whether you're following the "Scientific" Method or not.

If you understood how the Scientific Method worked, you'd realize how utterly stupid and contradictory that statement is. The Scientific method is all about making sure your hypothesis is consistent with the the observations, and all empirical knowledge.

I put "Scientific" method in quotes because there is nothing at all scientific about our science staring off on a fantasy.

Correction. You put scientific inside quotes because you wanted to make an ad hominem

Before you dare call anyone "anti-science" again, look in the mirror.

*looks in the mirror*

Tom Bishop is anti-science. That's painfully obvious to anyone who has taken junior high science.

[Tom Bishop]

Feel free to propose a reasonable alternative anytime now....  

Try reading the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe!

Yeah... and its worked for several centuries now in the field of medicine. If the scientific method is so flawed, why does it work so well?

Uh, they don't put hypothesis first when mixing new medicines.

When they want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

They do the same with the "Folding at Home" project. It tests each and every possibility methodically to find a suitable result.

There aren't any hypothesis' when it comes to medicine. When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after. That's how you find the truth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham knew this very well.

Modern Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science which Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham even helped to establish his very own self.

[Tom Bishop]

If you understood how the Scientific Method worked, you'd realize how utterly stupid and contradictory that statement is. The Scientific method is all about making sure your hypothesis is consistent with the the observations, and all empirical knowledge.

The Scientific Method is about making up a hypothesis and then building off of that. Any child knows that you get marked down a grade if you put your experiment before your hypothesis.

The steps have us use our imagination as a pretense rather than the reality of our physical world!

[Moon squirter]

Tom,

I cannot believe you are still confused about Theoretical Physics.  The clue's in the name, dumbo.  There's no pretense.

I don't care. "Theoretical" does not give it a free pass. Chemistry, Psychology, and all other parts of our sciences have us start by building off of a hypothesis.

Look up the Scientific Method Chart. They even have children do it.

The science teacher doesn't care if you're wrong. He just cares whether you're following the "Scientific" Method or not. I put "Scientific" method in quotes because there is nothing at all scientific about our science staring off on a fantasy.

If you neglect to make a hypothesis and build off of it on your science report, you get knocked a mark and a big red "Where is the hypothesis???" across the front of your paper. A punch in the face from the education system itself.

Before you dare call anyone "anti-science" again, look in the mirror.

You've never actually got it, have you Tom?  It's not the hypothesis, it's the testing, analysis and peer review that's important.  A hypothesis is only an idea that has not been scrutinised and verified;  It can be absolutely anything you like.  It just needs to stand up.

Tellingly, Rowbothem's incomplete work has not been revised and expanded upon by anyone for 100 years.  Rowbothem did not understand geometry, trigonometry or refraction.  His pathetic pamphlet actually fails at the hypothesis stage (yes, he did set out to prove the world was flat), because the ideas are incomplete and flawed, with no mathematical model.

[Moon squirter]

The Scientific Method is about making up a hypothesis and then building off of that, testing, validating and confirming (or rejecting) it. Any child knows that you get marked down a grade if you put your experiment before your hypothesis, which is in logically correct as you need to be testing an idea in order to "experiment" in the first place.

Fix for you, Tom

[Tom Bishop]

You've never actually got it, have you Tom?  It's not the hypothesis, it's the testing, analysis and peer review that's important.  A hypothesis is only an idea that has not been scrutinised and verified;  It can be absolutely anything you like.  It just needs to stand up.

Tellingly, Rowbothem's incomplete work has not been revised and expanded upon by anyone for 100 years.  Rowbothem did not understand geometry, trigonometry or refraction.  His pathetic pamphlet actually fails at the hypothesis stage (yes, he did set out to prove the world was flat), because the ideas are incomplete and flawed, with no mathematical model.

Wrong. With Rowbotham's work he jumps directly to experimentation and provides conclusions, after.  

With Hawking & Co. the philosophy is to put the hypothesis first and then simply build another hypothesis!! Never once is an experiment conducted.

Here are the respective scientific models of these two men --

Rowbotham:

Experiment -> Experiment -> Experiment -> Conclusion

Hawking:

Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis

As you can see, there is a slight difference.

[Its a Sphere]

That is what you do when you run up against a problem. You do not go off and make up a rapid series of unprovable hypothesis' and build them one on top of another in rapid succession like we know who.

As in UA, bendy light, upwards accelerating earth, 32 mi diameter sun.

[Its a Sphere]

Though looking at the text, nothing seems to indicate that Robo was going in with pre-conceived notions.  There is nothing that he is trying to disprove.

The first chapter on the earth doesn't start off trying to disporve anything:

IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle

And he seems to be completely unbiased and not looking for any specific outcome (He even YELLS ONE OF HIS STATEMENTS.  The only thing that would have made that one better is if it ended with !!!!!1) :

Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.

these causes, or conditions, or motion in the earth, do not exist.

On making the most exact experiments, however, no such effect is observed; and, therefore, the conclusion is in every sense unavoidable, that THE EARTH HAS NO MOTION OF ROTATION

these causes, or conditions, or motion in the earth, do not exist.

p195
Were it not that this work is avowedly astronomical and philosophical, it could easily be shown here that far above the sun, moon, and stars, and beyond the region of electric, magnetic, and other active subtleties, there is a fountain, an infinite conservatory of realities, as much more subtle than electric and magnetic entities, as these are than, the solid elements of the earth; and from which man receives all that makes him better than a demon, and enables and helps him to a god-like existence, whilst below the concrete

p. 196

world of earth and water, a region of fiery decomposition and destruction exists, and whence originate realities--subtleties more subtle than gaseous and electric elements, and which pollute and ruin the great bulk of humanity.

Uh, what?

[Moon squirter]

You've never actually got it, have you Tom?  It's not the hypothesis, it's the testing, analysis and peer review that's important.  A hypothesis is only an idea that has not been scrutinised and verified;  It can be absolutely anything you like.  It just needs to stand up.

Tellingly, Rowbothem's incomplete work has not been revised and expanded upon by anyone for 100 years.  Rowbothem did not understand geometry, trigonometry or refraction.  His pathetic pamphlet actually fails at the hypothesis stage (yes, he did set out to prove the world was flat), because the ideas are incomplete and flawed, with no mathematical model.

Wrong. With Rowbotham's work he jumps directly to experimentation and provides conclusions, after.  

With Hawking & Co. the philosophy is to put the hypothesis first and then simply build another hypothesis!! Never once is an experiment conducted.

Here are the respective scientific models of these two men --

Rowbotham:

Experiment -> Experiment -> Experiment -> Conclusion

Hawking:

Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis

As you can see, there is a slight difference.

It's all T-H-E-O-R-E-T-I-C-A-L, remember.   You're quite welcome to submit a paper of your own which blasts Hawking's "house of cards" into oblivion, but I guess you're just being polite to the guy in the wheelchair!

In Earth not a Globe experiment 1, Rowbothem sets out to detect a curve in the surface of the earth.   This is clearly hypothesising that the earth is flat, because he has set up a falsifiable experiment to detect a curvature (which does not take refraction into account BTW).  You see, it is quite difficult to conduct a meaningful experiment without testing an idea.  Otherwise it's an observation.

Rowbothem does hypothesise, but he's too stupid to realise.

[Eddy Baby]

Stop using Rowbotham as an example,anyway; all of his experiments are easily falsifiable.

[EireEngineer]

What a gross misunderstanding of Hawking's statement. You truly have no concept of how the process of science works and have obviously never done any experimentation yourself.  

Hawking didn't do any experimentation on the universe from his wheelchair when coming up with his "metric expansion of space-time" hypothesis to explain why the stars look like they're accelerating away from each other. We all know that.

Another nod and a wink.

No one was asserting that he was, directly at least, performing any experiments himself, though he was capable of doing the theoretical equivalent: Math. Others have done the observations for him certainly, but that in no way lessens the quality of his concepts. Pretty sad that you have to resort to making fun of a guy for being in a wheel chair though.
What I was referring to in my last post was the obvious fact that you, Tom Bishop, have never done any experimentation or observation yourself, ever.  If you had, you would then understand the nature of the scientific process. I did, however, notice your dodge about technology though. I suppose you think that your god cooked up the transistor on the eighth day, the internal combustion engine on the ninth, and the microwave oven on the tenth?  Every device, every bit of technology has a lineage tracing back to the scientists who, through experimentation and observation, garnered the knowledge required to make them function.  To assert that it is all bs is tremendously myopic at best, and childish at worst.

[Crustinator]

I bet you 20 bucks stephen hawking considers it a hindrance.

I'll take that bet.

[EireEngineer]

You've never actually got it, have you Tom?  It's not the hypothesis, it's the testing, analysis and peer review that's important.  A hypothesis is only an idea that has not been scrutinised and verified;  It can be absolutely anything you like.  It just needs to stand up.

Tellingly, Rowbothem's incomplete work has not been revised and expanded upon by anyone for 100 years.  Rowbothem did not understand geometry, trigonometry or refraction.  His pathetic pamphlet actually fails at the hypothesis stage (yes, he did set out to prove the world was flat), because the ideas are incomplete and flawed, with no mathematical model.

Wrong. With Rowbotham's work he jumps directly to experimentation and provides conclusions, after.  

With Hawking & Co. the philosophy is to put the hypothesis first and then simply build another hypothesis!! Never once is an experiment conducted.

Here are the respective scientific models of these two men --

Rowbotham:

Experiment -> Experiment -> Experiment -> Conclusion

Hawking:

Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis

As you can see, there is a slight difference.

Specifically what "experiments" did he perform, and were they duplicated by others?

[Raist]

I bet you 20 bucks stephen hawking considers it a hindrance.

I'll take that bet.

The fact that he can't write on a blackboard is one huge one. Meaning he is forced to communicate "verbally" to an assistant what to write on the board, or is forced to do everything in his head. The fact that he lacks the ability to speak compounds these things.

[Pete]

*Waits for Tom to realize that performing an experiment before forming a hypothesis to test is about as stupid as trying to do math without defining any variables.

[Its a Sphere]

Feel free to propose a reasonable alternative anytime now....  

Try reading the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe!

Yeah... and its worked for several centuries now in the field of medicine. If the scientific method is so flawed, why does it work so well?

Uh, they don't put hypothesis first when mixing new medicines.

When they want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

They do the same with the "Folding at Home" project. It tests each and every possibility methodically to find a suitable result.

There aren't any hypothesis' when it comes to medicine. When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after. That's how you fund the truth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham knew this very well.

Modern Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science which Samuel Birley Rowbotham actually even helped to establish his very self.

Right, because when a new bacterial infection has become prevalent they would in no way try drugs that had worked in the past or were effective against the same family of pathogen.  They would just as likely feed the patient a steak sandwich and Lay's potato chips, or play Shoots and Ladders as they would to start with the hypothesis that since a previous class of drug worked against a similar infection it would work in this case in hopes of curing the infection.

[Tom Bishop]

*Waits for Tom to realize that performing an experiment before forming a hypothesis to test is about as stupid as trying to do math without defining any variables.

In Earth not a Globe experiment 1, Rowbothem sets out to detect a curve in the surface of the earth.   This is clearly hypothesising that the earth is flat, because he has set up a falsifiable experiment to detect a curvature (which does not take refraction into account BTW).  You see, it is quite difficult to conduct a meaningful experiment without testing an idea.  Otherwise it's an observation.

Rowbothem does hypothesise, but he's too stupid to realise.

No, Rowbotham does not hypothesize!

You don't even know what a hypothesis is!

- A hypothesis is an assumption. It is not simply an idea. It is not a question. It is an assumption.

- The Scientific Method asks us to take the hypothesis as fact before proceeding any further. Aka, make an assumption.

You are supposed to Ask a question -> Make a hypothesis (assumption) -> And build off of that.

Simply asking a question (what shape is the earth? is the earth flat? is the earth round?) is not a hypothesis. Those happen to be inquiries. To inquire is something which must precede all else.

A hypothesis is an assumption. It is not an idea. It is not a question. It is a deliberate assumption.

http://misterguch.brinkster.net/scientificmethod.html

See the Scientific Method sample at the bottom of the page.

The hypothesis is that the car will start. After the hypothesis is made it must be accepted as fact before proceeding further. The hypothesis is an assumption.

Rowbotham tells us that in order to reach a sufficient conclusion, we must first inquire and then proceed directly to the experimentation stage, leaving no rock unturned or bush unmolested, to reach the ultimate truths of our universe.

[Tom Bishop]

Not to mention that Hawking does not even manage to follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method requires an experiment.

Astronomers deny the need for experimentation on the universe entirely.

Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis -> Hypothesis

Assumption -> Assumption -> Assumption -> Assumption

It's one assumption built upon the next, mumbled off in rapid succession!

[Moon squirter]

The hypothesis is that the car will start. After the hypothesis is made it must be accepted as fact before proceeding further. The hypothesis is an assumption.

You still don't get it, dumbo.   When a hypotheses is accepted, it is no-longer a hypothesis.  The "accepted as fact" bit is the biggest and most fiendishly difficult part of the scientific method.   Even when it is accepted, it is still open to refinement or compete rejection if a new discovery is made.  The Zetetic method does not permit this flexibility.  Hence, "the world looks flat from ground level, therefore it's flat and that's that".

It don't matter if the hypotheses is based on a fairy tail, its getting accepted is the important bit.

Actually, you could say that hypothosising encourages "free thinking", which I know your a fan of.  

Rowbotham tells us that in order to reach a sufficient conclusion, we must first inquire and then proceed directly to the experimentation stage, leaving no rock unturned or bush unmolested, to reach the ultimate truths of our universe.

Big mistake.  You don't know what you don't know; New evidence is always being discovered.  It's an impossible goal and makes Zetatics a flawed methodology.  

Bigger mistake, (with religious overtones).  The astronomical and microscopic size of the universe makes this impossible.  You (and your Zetetic friends) cannot accept that we will never know, so you have turned to the Zetetic religion of "ultimate truth".

Rowbothem is testing that the world may be flat (his hypothosis).  Otherwise, why would he begin experimentation in the firth place?  

TOMB Edit:

Astronomers deny the need for experimentation on the universe entirely.

They use observation and analysis instead.  Exactly they same as FEers do, except you reach outlandish theories like bendy light and celestial gears.   Personally I'd trust astronomers.

[Crustinator]

The fact that he can't write on a blackboard is one huge one. Meaning he is forced to communicate "verbally" to an assistant what to write on the board, or is forced to do everything in his head. The fact that he lacks the ability to speak compounds these things.

That's nice.

I was lucky to have chosen to work in theoretical physics, because that was one of the few areas in which my condition would not be a serious handicap.

...

I have had motor neurone disease for practically all my adult life. Yet it has not prevented me from having a very attractive family, and being successful in my work.

How would you like to pay?