1

The Lounge / "Null Hypothesis" webpage and FE reference

« on: May 22, 2016, 10:57:30 AM »

Just stumbled upon this today while touching up on statistics. I saw a term I didn't recognize, "null hypothesis", and followed the link.
http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-the-null-hypothesis/

Turns out that. . .
1. The concept itself is highly relevant to FE discussion. According to the concept of the null(-ifiable) hypothesis, if something is wrong it can be disproved; if an idea is to be replaced, it must be disproved. This itself is debated often by FEers (who must (dis)prove what).
2. The article's author used the Flat Earth Society as an example of failure to adequately establish one's ideas.

Just thought I'd post it here.

2

Flat Earth Debate / The Sun and Moon cannot be orbiting in flat planes above a flat earth.

« on: May 04, 2016, 08:49:50 PM »

The conclusions drawn in the Flat Earth Theory (according to the empirical Wiki) about the moon are inconsistent with each other and with observable fact.

Moon produces its own light? -Implausible.
If the moon produced its own light, it could not have a dark half or phases. Since we know that the moon has both a dark spot and phases, clearly the moon cannot produce its own light.
(This isn't necessarily what all Flat Earth Theorists believe, but it's important to put this here for those that do, as it's part of the issues below.)

Sun has a spotlight effect? -Implausible.
If so, we should not be able to see the moon. If the sun only shines (more or less) straight down, it could not illuminate the moon at all, because this would require the sun to shine laterally and break the day/night mechanic.

Sun and Moon orbit in wobbling skewed planes to create the phases of the moon? -Implausible. 
(This ignores the spotlight effect of the sun, even though it is a part of FET.)
It would still be impossible to make all phases of the moon visible from the North Pole. If the sun and moon are directly above a planar earth and the moon is illuminated from the side, then some part of the moon would always be visibly illuminated when viewed from the North Pole. It lies between the sun and the moon, and because the illuminated side of the moon is illuminated because it's facing the sun, it would also by basic geometry be facing the North Pole at least in part, so a new moon is impossible. This will be true for all points between the North Pole and the circular path directly beneath the moon, no matter how much skew there is between their orbits, unless the sun and moon are both perfectly in line with one's point of view.

Likewise, no matter where you go on a flat earth beyond the moon, the surface of the moon facing you will not all be illuminated,  because some of it is simply on the opposite side of the moon from the sun and we view it from below. Thus some parts of the moon cannot reflect any light from the sun because none reaches it, so some slim crescent of the moon facing Earth appears black at all times, preventing a full moon.

So, in effect, for there to be a perfect full moon at any point on the earth the moon and sun would have to be arranged with the moon directly above the sun and both directly over that point. For there to be a perfect new moon, there would essentially have to be a solar eclipse, this time moon directly below the sun directly over that point. Since we know that all phases of the moon are visible from all points on earth and FET does not venture to claim that the sun and moon tumble end-over-end and are omnipresent at all points view, this is clearly an important hole in FET. The phases of the moon are a pretty fundamental phenomenon. (Not necessarily saying the phases of the moon all look the same; I know they're visibly different in the different hemispheres and such, and vary by latitude.)

Here's a very rough idea of what I'm getting at for proof of concept.
http://i.imgur.com/lEW8dMZ.png?1
Simply put, it's geometrically impossible for the FET sun/moon model to produce all the phases of the moon at all points on the earth.
The sun and moon are also spherical, of course, and this doesn't even begin to take into consideration the resulting angles of reflection. If I get around to using the actual figures of a flat earth map I'll figure out those and determine how much of the moon would actually be visible at the two times when the sun and moon's height difference is at its maximum, during winter and summer, and from the North Pole and the edge of the Ice Wall. I'll most definitely not be doing that now as I need to go to sleep.


Now, the heliocentric model provides a very clear and simple explanation that's pretty similar to FET's: Whichever side of the moon is facing the distant sun is illuminated, and the revolution of the moon around the Earth (as opposed to the motion of the moon and sun at similar altitudes above the earth) restricts how much of this illuminated region is actually visible from Earth in particular. The difference that makes FET's explanation implausible is that the moon and sun are opposite each other across the North Pole, preventing the manifestation of all the phases. The "gears of the heavens" don't mesh, because they don't exist.