The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: FEScientist on September 02, 2015, 05:40:52 AM
-
Hello!
My name's Claire, I believe the world is flat, and my concern is on working out how. RE science has had many centuries to determine a model, and explain away observations. I doubt I can manage the same level of depth in the limited time that I have, but I hope to be able to at least make a start.
If I'm wrong, we'll find out together. I hope you will be willing to at least discuss with respect, however. You may not believe that the world is flat, but I hope you may be able to objectively analyze which theories work, and which fail.
-
Hello!
My name's Claire, I believe the world is flat, and my concern is on working out how. RE science has had many centuries to determine a model, and explain away observations.
Hi Claire, welcome to the site. Just out of curiosity, what observations do you feel are being "explained away" by RE science?
-
Remember: in order for you to be a scientist you must do science and all science involves use of the scientific method which requires making predictions and doing experiments. If you do this it will be the first science in favor of flat Earth ever and it will convert many to the flat Earth cause including myself.
Remember that science is not about proving yourself right, it's about becoming right.
-
Hi Claire, welcome to the site. Just out of curiosity, what observations do you feel are being "explained away" by RE science?
Hi Markjo, thank you for the welcome.
'Explained away' may have been too much of an inflammatory term. My point was merely that Round Earth scientists have had a great deal more time with which to work, and much more time to take observations and run experiments and answer any questions posed. Whether or not they're relying on an accurate basis aside, this puts any competing theory at a distinct disadvantage.
I will get onto pointing out what I find to be specific problems with aspects of scientific theory in due course: I don't think this thread is the place.
Remember: in order for you to be a scientist you must do science and all science involves use of the scientific method which requires making predictions and doing experiments.
Thank you for the reminder. I am aware of that, though it should be acknowledged that a matter like the shape of the Earth is somewhat of a special case. Experiments are never a first step in science: as you say, it is to compose a hypothesis which attempts to explain already known facts. This is my initial goal, and talk of experiments will be highly premature. First an accurate model must be hypthesized: then examined to determine where it is at odds with RET.
Then the real challenge arises. Round Earth Theory is treated as a default, so if an alternative theory offers a better or more satisfying answer (such as if it is able to explain why mass bends spacetime in a way that directly implies the Earth is flat), logically that should make the alternative more tenable, but in practise it won't because if theories explain equal amounts, you treat the standard as preferrable, even if it is needlessly complex. However, two theories explaining equal amounts is unlikely.
It may be possible to find some niche experiment that has yet to have been performed in any way, but to both find and perform such an experiment is going to be a challenge. This is one of the disadvantages I mentioned, of timescale. Round Earth Theory is treated as a default, and has answers for most questions that people think to ask.
Realistically, what should be needed is for an alternative model to answer all those questions to an equal or better standard. A new experiment would certainly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is a very tall order, irrespective of which model is true.
Remember that science is not about proving yourself right, it's about becoming right.
Likewise. Thank you.
-
I am a round earther but as long as you are being scientific about it you have my full cooperation. Consider me a peer in the peer review process and I can help you come up with round Earth hypothesises.
-
Hi Claire, welcome to the site. Just out of curiosity, what observations do you feel are being "explained away" by RE science?
Hi Markjo, thank you for the welcome.
'Explained away' may have been too much of an inflammatory term. My point was merely that Round Earth scientists have had a great deal more time with which to work, and much more time to take observations and run experiments and answer any questions posed. Whether or not they're relying on an accurate basis aside, this puts any competing theory at a distinct disadvantage.
Just remember that the earth was though to be flat long before it was thought to be round. Then again, that's also when the earth was thought to be very small.
Without trying to get into too much of debate here, just keep in mind that if you want to show that FET is a better theory than RET, then you need to show that FET explains observations better than RET does. I would suggest starting with basic "look out your window" type observations at first. Things like the rising and setting of the sun, moon and other celestial bodies.
Good luck with your research.
-
Just remember that the earth was though to be flat long before it was thought to be round. Then again, that's also when the earth was thought to be very small.
True, but that was also before technology and research were accessible.
The problem is, science is based on what comes before. All there needed to be was one error then, and everything would fall apart.
Without trying to get into too much of debate here, just keep in mind that if you want to show that FET is a better theory than RET, then you need to show that FET explains observations better than RET does. I would suggest starting with basic "look out your window" type observations at first. Things like the rising and setting of the sun, moon and other celestial bodies.
Good luck with your research.
Thank you.
Basic observations are, however, a tricky start. Often they are caused by consequences of more major aspects.
The first thing I want to determine is what keeps us on the Earth's surface. I favor the idea of air pressure, though I may be wrong. That mechanism may be more widely applicable.
-
I believe the world is flat.
Then you must have an explanation of how stars appear to rotate around two points in the night sky whilst maintaining constant angular separation. Because if you don't, then it's observational evidence against flatness.
So please do post your explanation here, won't you?
And while we're at it, explain sunsets.
-
I believe the world is flat.
Then you must have an explanation of how stars appear to rotate around two points in the night sky whilst maintaining constant angular separation. Because if you don't, then it's observational evidence against flatness.
So please do post your explanation here, won't you?
And while we're at it, explain sunsets.
Neither of those are questions to ask before anything else. My model is not yet complete and I won't pretend otherwise.
My current goals are to determine the most likely way by which we stay on the world's surface, and to come up with a working map. With a map, I can trace out the movements of stars: which may show a clearer answer. There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are. If there is any significance of them with respect to, for example, the Coriolis effect or jet streams, then there may prove to be a simple answer. The point is, such questions can't be answered until I have more knowledge.
As for sunsets, what is the Sun? That too must be arrived at. It seems likely to be a mere property of light, however. (Light does not seem entirely well-defined or understood, I'm made a thread on the topic in SaAS).
You do not have observational evidence against flatness: you have evidence against several specific models. I do not yet have a model, so there is as of yet no way for it to be contradicted; there is also, certainly, no way for me to argue for a Flat Earth, only against a round one.
When I have a working map and have arrived at functioning mechanisms, then I will be more than happy to answer your questions. I require a framework first, however.
(For a progress report: I favor the dome model, but that is certainly very tenuous).
-
Just remember that the earth was though to be flat long before it was thought to be round. Then again, that's also when the earth was thought to be very small.
True, but that was also before technology and research were accessible.
The problem is, science is based on what comes before. All there needed to be was one error then, and everything would fall apart.
That's true, self-consistency is very important to a theory. As you build on prior discoveries and/or assumptions, there is a certain amount of self-checking happens and sometimes seemingly trivial inconsistencies can cause major headaches down the line.
-
As you build on prior discoveries and/or assumptions, there is a certain amount of self-checking happens and sometimes seemingly trivial inconsistencies can cause major headaches down the line.
That does depend. Self-checking can take place: or sometimes people simply don't question the foundations of what they work on, assuming their results are flawed or posing a new explanation. Dark matter is a cliche example: maybe it does exist, maybe it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial basis for its existence was a refusal to question a formula on gravity.
The problem is that scientists are typically human: no one wants to be the first to come forth and announce that they've all been wasting their time. The prospect is terrifying. Maybe the community would welcome and applaud them: or maybe they'd be laughed out on principle. One option might be more likely than the other, but humans get scared. it's what we do. There's no way to know what results or discoveries weren't made public.
Or a problem is found, and brushed aside: no one realized the significance.
Science isn't perfect, unfortunately.
-
Dark energy was mathematically predicted by Einstean before it was experimentally measured and dark matter can be located and mapped out using it's gravity. They are not just explanations to fill holes.
-
I believe the world is flat.
Then you must have an explanation of how stars appear to rotate around two points in the night sky whilst maintaining constant angular separation. Because if you don't, then it's observational evidence against flatness.
So please do post your explanation here, won't you?
And while we're at it, explain sunsets.
BTW .Things like the horizon and the distance to the horizon, too.
-
Dark energy was mathematically predicted by Einstean before it was experimentally measured and dark matter can be located and mapped out using it's gravity. They are not just explanations to fill holes.
Possibly true, but I did specify 'initially'.
BTW .Things like the horizon and the distance to the horizon, too.
I haven't seen too convincing a point on the horizon, often arguments made with it stem from not taking into account geographical features. Even so, my response is the same: those questions are not the first things to ask. When I have more of a model, then it will be possible to answer your questions. At this point, such things are premature.
-
As you build on prior discoveries and/or assumptions, there is a certain amount of self-checking happens and sometimes seemingly trivial inconsistencies can cause major headaches down the line.
That does depend. Self-checking can take place: or sometimes people simply don't question the foundations of what they work on, assuming their results are flawed or posing a new explanation. Dark matter is a cliche example: maybe it does exist, maybe it doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the initial basis for its existence was a refusal to question a formula on gravity.
The problem is that scientists are typically human: no one wants to be the first to come forth and announce that they've all been wasting their time. The prospect is terrifying. Maybe the community would welcome and applaud them: or maybe they'd be laughed out on principle.
On the contrary, there are a good number of young and hungry scientists out there who would love nothing more than to turn the current scientific establishment on its ear. Imagine the fame and glory to be had by being the one to definitively prove Einstein or Newton wrong. However, you are correct in that well entrenched paradigms can be hard to shift, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Even if new theories do prove to be better than the old, they still should be subjected to intense scrutiny. Perhaps that why even today scientists are still thinking up new ways to put Einstein's theories to the test.
-
My point was merely that Round Earth scientists have had a great deal more time with which to work, and much more time to take observations and run experiments and answer any questions posed.
The Greeks, being unbiased, had lots of time to explain away many different models.
The modern Europeans, being biased towards whatever they interpreted the Bible to say, had centuries to work on a flat earth model.
Copernicus had no more time than the thousands of people against him.
Kepler had no more time than all the other Europeans.
Richard Proctor had no more time than Samuel Rowbotham.
What have the flat-earthers been doing with all the time they've always had??'?
-
Out of curiosity, why is it you believe the Earth is flat? Given that you aren't basing your beliefs on a pre-existing model, I assume it stems from personal observations conflicting with what science tells us? I'm only asking because you haven't explained the basis for your beliefs, which most people tend to do right off the bat.
I applaud you for seeking to create your own model - that's skepticism at its sharpest and finest. Though it does implore an almost incredible distrust in all of society, similar societal stragglers like Galileo ended up changing the world. That being said, we live in an age now where skepticism is encouraged, and where our beliefs are founded on strong scientific theories. If you believe none of those to be true, then I'm sure you'll still agree that the supposed "ruse" that is the Round Earth is exponentially more reinforced and intellectual in its design (not to mention entirely coherent) than Church-enforced Dark Age thought, and so in order to come up with a more convincing theory, you may have to work an exponential amount harder than our own pioneers. ;)
-
What have the flat-earthers been doing with all the time they've always had??'?
Context: one hundred years, thousands of years ago, offers far less opportunity for scientific development than a hundred years closer to the present. Technology, publishing, record-keeping... We've lost most of our records from that long ago; for all we know there was a perfect FE model, it just got burned with Alexandria, or wiped away with the majority of records.
In addition, the scientific method in a meaningful form is a comparatively recent invention. The idea of a round Earth is also ancient, but it was still thousands of years before gravity was formalized.
Out of curiosity, why is it you believe the Earth is flat? Given that you aren't basing your beliefs on a pre-existing model, I assume it stems from personal observations conflicting with what science tells us? I'm only asking because you haven't explained the basis for your beliefs, which most people tend to do right off the bat.
Bits and pieces. I'm going to make posts now and again about the apparent flaws I've found: there's no point trying to debate them all right in my introductory thread.
The primary reason is that I know science is not perfectly accurate. Every scientist admits that: I just want to ensure early mistakes weren't made. That would taint everything that comes since.
-
There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are.
Yes there is. It's called geometry. There's only one solution that works.
-
There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are.
Yes there is. It's called geometry. There's only one solution that works.
Unprovable. Just because only one solution is known does not mean only one solution exists.
For example, if there is an as yet unknown law governing light (not saying this is the case: this is a hypothetical demonstration) it would certainly be possible for the starlight we see to behave oddly: and perhaps different to the stars themselves.
Science doesn't deal in such absolutes as you seem to be using.
-
There's no reason they wouldn't be able to rotate around multiple points, it just depends what those points are.
Yes there is. It's called geometry. There's only one solution that works.
Unprovable. Just because only one solution is known does not mean only one solution exists.
For example, if there is an as yet unknown law governing light (not saying this is the case: this is a hypothetical demonstration) it would certainly be possible for the starlight we see to behave oddly: and perhaps different to the stars themselves.
Science doesn't deal in such absolutes as you seem to be using.
Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and it's a field where it is possible to produce an absolute proof without a falsifying experiment. In fact, it's the possibly the only field in all of human knowledge where that can truthfully be said.
If light obeys the laws we believe it to obey, then it's mathematically provable that stars cannot rotate around multiple points on a single plane and still maintain fixed distances from each other. Trying to claim they can is like trying to prove that 7 is 6. They are - by definition - not the same.
If, however, light obeys laws that enable it to simulate this appearance, then half the stuff we currently do using electromagnetic radiation (lasers, radar, being able to see that things are where we think they are) would not actually work. Therefore, the possibility that light merely simulates the appearance of what we see due to odd physics has already been disproved by the millions of daily usages of it which work as expected, and so we're given surety that our mathematical model is reliable. Experimental science cannot 100% prove - but it can disprove very very easily.
Don't try and out-science me, fancy pants. The League of Scientific Gentlemen has dealt with worse than you in its time.
-
Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and it's a field where it is possible to produce an absolute proof without a falsifying experiment. In fact, it's the possibly the only field in all of human knowledge where that can truthfully be said.
Pure mathematics certainly can make proofs easier, but it is not always the case that absolute proof is easily found or used.
Have you heard of the four colour theorem? It's an interesting statement; that any planar graph (such as regions on a map) can be coloured with no more then four colours, such that any two regions with any part of a line in common are two different shades. It was believed that Kempe had proven it for years, and commonly stated as fact. However, a fundamental error was exposed a while later: Kempe's proof didn't cover one particular case, even though people believed it had.
Even maths is subject to the foibles of human error. The theorem was only proven a matter of decades ago, via computer and brute force, and multiple people still questioned it as a proof as no one could actually read through the pages and pages of print-out.
For a proof to hold, you must cover every eventuality. I have yet to see any evidence that you have done this.
If light obeys the laws we believe it to obey, then it's mathematically provable that stars cannot rotate around multiple points on a single plane and still maintain fixed distances from each other. Trying to claim they can is like trying to prove that 7 is 6. They are - by definition - not the same.
If, however, light obeys laws that enable it to simulate this appearance, then half the stuff we currently do using electromagnetic radiation (lasers, radar, being able to see that things are where we think they are) would not actually work.
Untrue. Newton and Hawking and quantum theory: particles don't behave exactly as Newton predicted, but Newton is still perfectly useful. A theory can be flawed when applied to a particular circumstance, or if particular assumptions are made. this does not mean what we already know about said theory is wrong.
-
If you are really a scientist questioning the very fundamentals then why come here? If light works are expected fet is disproved in a few minutes.
If you are stating that you dont believe that the fundamentals are correct, then you need to start finding proof that invalidates existing proofs.
You are going at it Cart before the horse. By saying that the world is flat first and then searching for theories that need to be disproven is not science.
all you need to prove the world is round is Euclidean geometry, which is very simple. So you will have to disprove either euclidean geometry or that straight lines exist before you can start proving that the world is flat.
P.S. Have you published or been part of published work?
-
Geometry is a branch of mathematics, and it's a field where it is possible to produce an absolute proof without a falsifying experiment. In fact, it's the possibly the only field in all of human knowledge where that can truthfully be said.
Pure mathematics certainly can make proofs easier, but it is not always the case that absolute proof is easily found or used.
Have you heard of the four colour theorem? It's an interesting statement; that any planar graph (such as regions on a map) can be coloured with no more then four colours, such that any two regions with any part of a line in common are two different shades. It was believed that Kempe had proven it for years, and commonly stated as fact. However, a fundamental error was exposed a while later: Kempe's proof didn't cover one particular case, even though people believed it had.
Even maths is subject to the foibles of human error. The theorem was only proven a matter of decades ago, via computer and brute force, and multiple people still questioned it as a proof as no one could actually read through the pages and pages of print-out.
For a proof to hold, you must cover every eventuality. I have yet to see any evidence that you have done this.
If light obeys the laws we believe it to obey, then it's mathematically provable that stars cannot rotate around multiple points on a single plane and still maintain fixed distances from each other. Trying to claim they can is like trying to prove that 7 is 6. They are - by definition - not the same.
If, however, light obeys laws that enable it to simulate this appearance, then half the stuff we currently do using electromagnetic radiation (lasers, radar, being able to see that things are where we think they are) would not actually work.
Untrue. Newton and Hawking and quantum theory: particles don't behave exactly as Newton predicted, but Newton is still perfectly useful. A theory can be flawed when applied to a particular circumstance, or if particular assumptions are made. this does not mean what we already know about said theory is wrong.
To address your first point: it does not follow that because one mathematical proof was found to be incorrect, that all others are suspect. In the example you cite, what was mistaken for a mathematical proof, was not one.
Let me make it even simpler for you... rotation around two separate centres on the same plane in different directionsrequires any two points on the rotating objects to vary in distance from each other. If that does not happen, the objects are not both on the same plane and rotating in opposite directions. It's like saying that while I drive my car to the next town over, I therefore cannot also be sitting in it on my driveway. For any condition to be, other conditions have to not be.
To address your second point: The ability to use radar and laser ranging at huge distances proves that on those scales EM radiation behaves exactly as conventionally expected. If it behaves like that, it cannot also behave "not like that" which is the only way your alternative idea would work. Same principle as above.
Your babble about quantum theory is just meaningless noise and provides no contradiction. You can't just yell "Einstein! Hawking! Quantum!" and assume that trumps the argument.
-
If you are really a scientist questioning the very fundamentals then why come here? If light works are expected fet is disproved in a few minutes.
If you are stating that you dont believe that the fundamentals are correct, then you need to start finding proof that invalidates existing proofs.
Where else would you suggest I go to study FE?
You are going at it Cart before the horse. By saying that the world is flat first and then searching for theories that need to be disproven is not science.
Untrue. Science cannot be performed unless a hypothesis is chosen: my hypothesis is that the Earth is flat, and so I seek to test this by determining what would be true if this were the case, and determining how I might experiment. The zetetic method would not require a hypothesis, but that is very limited in application; unless you know what you're testing, how can you reach any meaningful conclusion?
If the world is flat, then A, B and C.
A, B and C could be laws that cannot hold, or that are mistaken, or observations that would be made. One needs to know what these are in order to test it: in order to arrive at a hypothesis to verify or flasify, I must see what would follow from a flat Earth. I'm not sure what part of this you are claiming is unscientific.
all you need to prove the world is round is Euclidean geometry, which is very simple. So you will have to disprove either euclidean geometry or that straight lines exist before you can start proving that the world is flat.
Would you care to share how? Bold claims mean nothing without explanation.
P.S. Have you published or been part of published work?
Not yet, though I have studied with several academics, and discussed (purely as a hypothetical) with them.
it does not follow that because one mathematical proof was found to be incorrect, that all others are suspect.
This was not what I said. I said simply that mathematical proofs are not inherently accurate, just because they are held to be so: this directly contradicted your claim, and so was all I needed to do. Something mistaken for a mathematical proof, proves that just because something is believed to be a proof, does not mean it is. You cannot claim exception for the results you would like to defend: they may well be accurate, but that should not be assumed.
Let me make it even simpler for you... rotation around two separate centres on the same plane in different directionsrequires any two points on the rotating objects to vary in distance from each other. If that does not happen, the objects are not both on the same plane and rotating in opposite directions.
The centres may not be on the same plane: and of course we enter into the difference between the objects themselves, and the observations of said objects. The same problem as ever. In addition, your psoed question still remains ill-defined without a FE map to refer to.
To address your second point: The ability to use radar and laser ranging at huge distances proves that on those scales EM radiation behaves exactly as conventionally expected.
On those specific scales, in that specific context. Experiments are not universal: they are limited by the area and means accessible to the scientists. I am not sure how those experiments would claim to show this, however: if a laser has been used over a long distance to show that light always moves in a straight line, this either covers what is still a tiny distance on the relevant scales, or failed to take into account the curvature of the Earth (and even so there is no firm gauge on how much was dispersed simply by interference, and how much was drawn away). The fact is, you are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have.
You can't just yell "Einstein! Hawking! Quantum!" and assume that trumps the argument.
This is why I offered an explanation: a theory can be accurate sometimes, and inaccurate others. You cannot simply assume the rules you hold to are universal when there has been no testing on the relevant level or scales.
You seem to get quite irate at discussion here, judging by your tone and phrasing. You might want to consider taking a break; I'm not sure why you would come somewhere which apparently only annoys you. I am here to discuss, not get into arguments.
-
mathematical proofs are not inherently accurate, just because they are held to be so.
Actually, they can be. The pole rotation idea can be proven by a proof by contraposition. Perhaps you should look it up. Just like a triangle cannot be a square, a circle cannot be a rectangle, objects moving relative to each other (stars in every multiple axis of rotation model for FE) cannot not be moving relative to each other (stars in round & toroidal earth scenarios).
To address your second point: The ability to use radar and laser ranging at huge distances proves that on those scales EM radiation behaves exactly as conventionally expected.
On those specific scales, in that specific context. Experiments are not universal: they are limited by the area and means accessible to the scientists. I am not sure how those experiments would claim to show this, however: if a laser has been used over a long distance to show that light always moves in a straight line, this either covers what is still a tiny distance on the relevant scales, or failed to take into account the curvature of the Earth (and even so there is no firm gauge on how much was dispersed simply by interference, and how much was drawn away). The fact is, you are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have.
So what you're saying is that after testing literally hundreds of thousands of ways to use electromagnetic radiation, in distances ranging from light years to nanometres, we still might find a scenario involving a distance between these two extremes, in which light behaves completely differently in our daily observations, yet we have somehow been unable to detect this. Technically, we can't disprove that idea - the same way as we can't disprove Russell's Teapot. Perhaps you should look that up too. There is a line between theoretically possible and actually possible. Read about the uncertainty principle and then read about the Infinite Improbability Drive to learn where that line is.
You can't just yell "Einstein! Hawking! Quantum!" and assume that trumps the argument.
This is why I offered an explanation: a theory can be accurate sometimes, and inaccurate others. You cannot simply assume the rules you hold to are universal when there has been no testing on the relevant level or scales.
No testing? Don't make me laugh. Our everyday uses of EM radiation test it extremely thoroughly.
You seem to get quite irate at discussion here, judging by your tone and phrasing. You might want to consider taking a break; I'm not sure why you would come somewhere which apparently only annoys you. I am here to discuss, not get into arguments.
Now you're sounding like your own alt. Perhaps you should take a break, or just stick to one character.
-
You are going at it Cart before the horse. By saying that the world is flat first and then searching for theories that need to be disproven is not science.
Untrue. Science cannot be performed unless a hypothesis is chosen: my hypothesis is that the Earth is flat, and so I seek to test this by determining what would be true if this were the case, and determining how I might experiment. The zetetic method would not require a hypothesis, but that is very limited in application; unless you know what you're testing, how can you reach any meaningful conclusion?
If the world is flat, then A, B and C.
A, B and C could be laws that cannot hold, or that are mistaken, or observations that would be made. One needs to know what these are in order to test it: in order to arrive at a hypothesis to verify or flasify, I must see what would follow from a flat Earth. I'm not sure what part of this you are claiming is unscientific.
Perhaps, but calling a belief a hypothesis doesn't make it any more or less true.
Also, if "A, B and C" refers to that post in Flat Earth Debate, where you listed off various pieces of knowledge about the universe, none of them have anything to do with the shape of the earth. They could all be true or not regardless of whether the earth was round, flat, or shaped like a teddy bear.
-
all you need to prove the world is round is Euclidean geometry, which is very simple. So you will have to disprove either euclidean geometry or that straight lines exist before you can start proving that the world is flat.
Would you care to share how? Bold claims mean nothing without explanation.
If you have not been able to figure this out then I am not sure you really are qualified to tackle the question of a round earth. High school geometry is all that is required.
To debunk the round earth you need to debunk all of known physics and math, start with light.
-
Actually, they can be. The pole rotation idea can be proven by a proof by contraposition. Perhaps you should look it up. Just like a triangle cannot be a square, a circle cannot be a rectangle, objects moving relative to each other (stars in every multiple axis of rotation model for FE) cannot not be moving relative to each other (stars in round & toroidal earth scenarios).
I am aware of the means of proof. the means are not what I am questioning; your implications are what I am questioning. Yes, circumpolar star movements may be explained by a RE. Yes, it is trickier to explain them on the classical plane FE. It does not follow that it is impossible to explain them on a FE, if you reject any possible alteration or refinement to existing laws.
So what you're saying is that after testing literally hundreds of thousands of ways to use electromagnetic radiation, in distances ranging from light years to nanometres, we still might find a scenario involving a distance between these two extremes, in which light behaves completely differently in our daily observations, yet we have somehow been unable to detect this.
I would be very interested in hearing what use of electromagnetic radiation spanning light years you believe is a daily observation. The fact is, on those scales, much of what we go on is the assumption that light behaves as it does. Further the majority of things on those scales are precisely the things I'm questioning: starlight and sunlight which would imply a RE if light behaved according to the ununified RE model.
You cannot repeatedly appeal to uses or experiments and then fail to give any examples of them.
Perhaps you should look that up too.
I am aware of all you refer to. Please stop with the insulting tone in lieu of justification. If you are not willing to discuss, do not discuss.
No testing? Don't make me laugh. Our everyday uses of EM radiation test it extremely thoroughly.
"on the relevant level or scales."
Now you're sounding like your own alt. Perhaps you should take a break, or just stick to one character.
I have been accused of this before. Whose alt do you believe I am?
People speak differently. I try to keep my temper sometimes, but when I am faced with self-righteous insults, clear irritation, with a lack of any justification or explanation, it can be very hard.
You have made many claims,a nd you insult my knowledge despite the fact I am fully aware of what you refer to. You offer no justification of any of your crucial claims, and offer nothing
except unjustified rejection of my claims. I am here to discuss. Discussion requires back-and-forth, not mere repitition of the same things.
Perhaps, but calling a belief a hypothesis doesn't make it any more or less true.
Certainly. Truth is determined by experiment, and experiment cannot be arrived at before a hypothesis however.
Also, if "A, B and C" refers to that post in Flat Earth Debate, where you listed off various pieces of knowledge about the universe, none of them have anything to do with the shape of the earth. They could all be true or not regardless of whether the earth was round, flat, or shaped like a teddy bear.
I was speaking generally. the post I believe you're referring to, however, were simple examples of how the RE model is incomplete: perhaps permanently so. It is only a reason to seek out an alternative.
Many of those facts did relate to the shape of the Earth, if indirectly. For example, if the world is flat, the Solar system as you know it would be very different: Eratosthenes would have proven the Sun is much closer to the Earth's surface, for one. The implications are not direct, but there are certainly some.
If you have not been able to figure this out then I am not sure you really are qualified to tackle the question of a round earth. High school geometry is all that is required.
So you claim. You have repeated the claim, you have not done as I asked and provided the explanation.
I can think of multiple attempted ways to disprove a FE, but none are universal; there is always a model of a FE where the argument does not stand. This is why I asked for the specific argument Neil believed was so devastating.
To debunk the round earth you need to debunk all of known physics and math, start with light.
There is a difference between debunking and refinement. I seek only to refine; a simple addition to the behavior of the fundamental forces (theoretically justified through unification) explains the Sun, daylight at the poles, and possibly the stars, as well as the Allais effect, without contradicting any existing knowledge or observations. Pure maths does not need any alteration; the application is the question. There is only a contradiction if you assume we know everything about everything: no one claims that, so it is wholly possible there is something we are not taking into account.
Science is not about debunking: it is about adding to knowledge.
-
There is a difference between debunking and refinement. I seek only to refine; a simple addition to the behavior of the fundamental forces (theoretically justified through unification) explains the Sun, daylight at the poles, and possibly the stars, as well as the Allais effect, without contradicting any existing knowledge or observations. Pure maths does not need any alteration; the application is the question. There is only a contradiction if you assume we know everything about everything: no one claims that, so it is wholly possible there is something we are not taking into account.
Science is not about debunking: it is about adding to knowledge.
Dont get me wrong, I am all for questioning "common knowledge" and current science, FET does not however question science, it turns its back to it altogether.
If what you want to do is refine the known properties of light, then great, that is one thing.
Going on to say that light may be slightly different, therefore the world could be flat is not doing science. You have to fundamentally change everything to make a flat world work.
I believe you said that you are trying to make a FE map. Just getting a FE map to fit known observations would be a massive accomplishment. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way you could make a FE map work. If you finish your map, I would love to have a look.
I wish you luck
-
Dont get me wrong, I am all for questioning "common knowledge" and current science, FET does not however question science, it turns its back to it altogether.
Many do seem to behave that way. i am endeavouring to do this differently.
If what you want to do is refine the known properties of light, then great, that is one thing.
Going on to say that light may be slightly different, therefore the world could be flat is not doing science. You have to fundamentally change everything to make a flat world work.
If I begin with the assumption that the world is flat, it follows that some things must be different. This is logic: and not necessarily a major change. After all, what we have works fine under the assumption that the world is round; once that assumption is lost, it may end up logical that some laws are not exactly as the RE model supposes.
There do need to be a number of fundamental changes, but this will only feel strange if you assume that the world is round. Do not do this, and look at the 'changes' on their own merits, rather than their departure from RE, and then we'll be able to have a fair and honest conversation. Changes from RE is only a bad thing if you assume the world is round.
The world being flat is my starting point, not my conclusion. I am developing a hypothesis, so that we can honestly test FE. Clearly, if the world is a disc, light can't behave exactly as we suspect. Are these alterations in behavior logical? Justified? We'll see.
-
Okay. I understand what you are attempting and still think it is futile.
You will still have to match known observations to the FE model though and do so without ignoring all of the facts.
Basic geometric issues with a FE map are large, and could be an impossible one to solve. This is a far more complicated puzzle than the four colour therom you discussed earlier, known positions have to stay relative to each other.
You can start a thread asking for all the Observations that should be made on a FE world that do not correspond to reality. It will give you a good start on where the FE problem lies.
Good luck
-
Basic geometric issues with a FE map are large, and could be an impossible one to solve. This is a far more complicated puzzle than the four colour therom you discussed earlier, known positions have to stay relative to each other.
It would depend. There are, notably, shockingly few flights in the Southern Hemisphere/plane, so it may be easier than you believe. We'll see.
You can start a thread asking for all the Observations that should be made on a FE world that do not correspond to reality. It will give you a good start on where the FE problem lies.
When I have a map, and the mechanisms for the obvious issues (gravity, sunlight...) arrived at, then I will. I think it will be a far better test if I can see whether my model can answer objections I had not thought of without refinement.
-
Also, if "A, B and C" refers to that post in Flat Earth Debate, where you listed off various pieces of knowledge about the universe, none of them have anything to do with the shape of the earth. They could all be true or not regardless of whether the earth was round, flat, or shaped like a teddy bear.
I was speaking generally. the post I believe you're referring to, however, were simple examples of how the RE model is incomplete: perhaps permanently so. It is only a reason to seek out an alternative.
Many of those facts did relate to the shape of the Earth, if indirectly. For example, if the world is flat, the Solar system as you know it would be very different: Eratosthenes would have proven the Sun is much closer to the Earth's surface, for one. The implications are not direct, but there are certainly some.
You mean, because something is incorrect? Not knowing everything about everything is not really a reason to start over from scratch. We always don't know everything about everything. Incompleteness in at least one area is permanent by definition.
Also, the idea that the earth is round is not really incomplete. It's not complicated enough to be incomplete.
The things that you listed have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. You didn't mention this greek person. You mentioned things like the birth of the universe, which really has nothing to do with the shape of 1 individual planet.
But I guess Eratosthenes's math would change if the earth was flat.
-
It would depend. There are, notably, shockingly few flights in the Southern Hemisphere/plane, so it may be easier than you believe. We'll see.
There are shockingly many flights in the Southern Hemisphere, just not as many as in the North.
But I can shed some light on a few, from one of my early posts
Okay. Although I know you are in no way interested in answering any questions and will most probably respond in another question as your last few posts have shown. I am going to draw these out here.
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff18/MaNaeSWolf/flat%20eart%20dist.png)
This map is the most used flat earth map proposal, so I am using it as the source of the flat earth model map.
Points on map are
A - Johannesburg
B- Sau Paulo
C- Dubai
D- Hong Kong
E- Sydney
flights from A-B, A-C, A-D I have personally flown
Flights from A-E have been flown by close family members
All the flight times can be verified as
A-B Sau Paulo - Johannesburg; 8h 35min
A-C Johannesburg to Dubai; 8h15*
A-D Johannesburg to Hong Kong; 12h 55min*
A-E Sydney to Johannesburg; 14h 15min
* due to not having the fligh information available that myself/family member flew information was gathered from http://www.skyscanner.net/ (http://www.skyscanner.net/)
Now the round earth distances from the points in italics and adjusted distances from the flat earth model Bold
A-B Sau Paulo - Johannesburg; 7442km ; 16774km
A-C Johannesburg to Dubai; 6405km ; 6405km
A-D Johannesburg to Hong Kong; 10713km ; 24147km
A-E Sydney to Johannesburg; 11062km ; 24933km
Disclosure - distances calibrated from the Johannesburg to Dubai, if another distance of calibration is preferred please let me know
To summaries
Flat earth model suggests that
1 - A-B of 16774km takes approximately (only 20min more) the same flight time as A-C of 6405km
2 - Flight A-E is done mostly over land
3 - Flight A-D is done mostly over land
4 - Flight A-B is done about 50% over land
5 - Flight A-B taking 8h;35 min over a distance of 16 774km travels on average 1973km/h, that is 1.6x the speed of sound
So the obvious question, how does this work in a flat earth model?
-
You mean, because something is incorrect? Not knowing everything about everything is not really a reason to start over from scratch.
No. It is still a reason to examine alternatives; this is all I am doing. It should only be scientific to do so. I am rather peturbed by the sheer amount of bile on this forum directed at anyone who even considers testing the FE hypothesis.
The things that you listed have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. You didn't mention this greek person. You mentioned things like the birth of the universe, which really has nothing to do with the shape of 1 individual planet.
I didn't mention him, because I was going into more detail in this post. I am getting quite tired of needing to repeat this.
The things I have listed do not directly tie in to the shape of the Earth. They would still be very different if the world was flat. the Solar System would not be the same, the moon would not be the same: this is the point. Flaws in the RE model relating to the moon or Solar system or Sun would not translate to the FE model because the two would offer very different explanations.
But I can shed some light on a few, from one of my early posts
That map is not one I hold to be accurate. I find it very unlikely that the equator is a perfect circle at half the radius of the disc. Alternatives may prove likely: and flight times depend on more than just distance.
-
Hello Clair and welcome. perturbation seems to be the weapon of choice for the indoctrinated and no post with promise or potential is usually allowed off the starting block, don't let the copy and and paste brigade grind you down. there are a few prolific RE posters who will challenge every point you try make but don't loose sight that this is your forum not theirs. if they were genuinely interested they'd do their own research not try to discredit yours. good luck.
-
Hello!
My name's Claire,
LOL!!!
F**k off, troll.
-
The things I have listed do not directly tie in to the shape of the Earth. They would still be very different if the world was flat. the Solar System would not be the same, the moon would not be the same: this is the point. Flaws in the RE model relating to the moon or Solar system or Sun would not translate to the FE model because the two would offer very different explanations.
More generally, If a measurement of an astronomical object in the Solar System depended on parallax, or the combination of two measurements from great distances apart, the earth being flat would be as to apply a graph transformation to the data. The sizes of local objects would become smaller or larger, closer or farther away.
So you're saying that the flaw of current knowledge is these distances?
Also, the observed movements of the planets and sun would still be the same if the earth were flat. It would not seem that the earth being flat would change the kinds of curves traced by moving objects in the Solar System.
They would still be very different if the world was flat.
However, to be clear, the other things mentioned originally, such as the birth of the universe and the higgs boson, would not change if the earth were flat or some other shape. Just trying to be clear.
-
You having fun talking to yourself, psycho?
-
More generally, If a measurement of an astronomical object in the Solar System depended on parallax, or the combination of two measurements from great distances apart, the earth being flat would be as to apply a graph transformation to the data. The sizes of local objects would become smaller or larger, closer or farther away.
So you're saying that the flaw of current knowledge is these distances?
Essentially. Eratosthenes is the classic example: he used the facts shadow vary in angle with distance to deduce, with the assumption the Sun was very distant, the curvature of the Earth. However, if the Earth is assumed to be flat, this would merely imply the Sun was far closer.
Also, the observed movements of the planets and sun would still be the same if the earth were flat. It would not seem that the earth being flat would change the kinds of curves traced by moving objects in the Solar System.
Not completely. After all, the paths in the FE model have all planets always the same direction away from the Earth. The change in the Sun's definition and position would shift everything. Certainly, this is ultimately just applying a transformation, but the observed movements would be very different in effect.
They would still be very different if the world was flat.
However, to be clear, the other things mentioned originally, such as the birth of the universe and the higgs boson, would not change if the earth were flat or some other shape. Just trying to be clear.
The birth of the universe may well vary: multiple physical laws may be altered to allow for the FE model. The fundamental forces are more unified in my current (tenuous) hypothesis, which could well translate to somewhat different traits for masses, for refractive objects... Things which would not necessarily seem, at first glance, connected to the shape of the Earth.
These are refinements, not replacements. However, scientific principles are often widely applicable. An alteration made to the RE model, to allow for the FE model, is unlikely to be exclusively relevant to the shape of the Earth.
-
More generally, If a measurement of an astronomical object in the Solar System depended on parallax, or the combination of two measurements from great distances apart, the earth being flat would be as to apply a graph transformation to the data. The sizes of local objects would become smaller or larger, closer or farther away.
So you're saying that the flaw of current knowledge is these distances?
Essentially. Eratosthenes is the classic example: he used the facts shadow vary in angle with distance to deduce, with the assumption the Sun was very distant, the curvature of the Earth. However, if the Earth is assumed to be flat, this would merely imply the Sun was far closer.
So it's not that you know the distances to be wrong, it's that you think the earth is flat and Erat. didn't calculate it that way. Now, I know what forum i'm on, but how is that a flaw?
Also, the observed movements of the planets and sun would still be the same if the earth were flat. It would not seem that the earth being flat would change the kinds of curves traced by moving objects in the Solar System.
Not completely. After all, the paths in the FE model have all planets always the same direction away from the Earth. The change in the Sun's definition and position would shift everything. Certainly, this is ultimately just applying a transformation, but the observed movements would be very different in effect.
What I mean was in part that, as far as I know, the movements from an outside perspective would still be elliptical curves. They wouldn't suddenly becomes rectangles or trapezoids or logarithmic curves.
The birth of the universe may well vary: multiple physical laws may be altered to allow for the FE model. The fundamental forces are more unified in my current (tenuous) hypothesis, which could well translate to somewhat different traits for masses, for refractive objects... Things which would not necessarily seem, at first glance, connected to the shape of the Earth.
These are refinements, not replacements. However, scientific principles are often widely applicable. An alteration made to the RE model, to allow for the FE model, is unlikely to be exclusively relevant to the shape of the Earth.
Right....well many things may be, but that doesn't mean they are. So i'm just telling you, that if I know anything about the two things I mentioned, the birth of the universe and the higgs boson, they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. The behavior of particles doesn't depend on the observations of astronomical objects.
-
So it's not that you know the distances to be wrong, it's that you think the earth is flat and Erat. didn't calculate it that way. Now, I know what forum i'm on, but how is that a flaw?
It's not a flaw in the experiment, it's an example of how the shape of the Earth has a knock-on effect to the rest of the Solar System, and the bodies therein.
Right....well many things may be, but that doesn't mean they are. So i'm just telling you, that if I know anything about the two things I mentioned, the birth of the universe and the higgs boson, they have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. The behavior of particles doesn't depend on the observations of astronomical objects.
I will need to reiterate the same point. There is no direct link, but that doesn't mean that any gaps or incomplete theories and hypotheses in the RE model wouldn't be easier to answer in the FE model.
For example, if the world is flat, our theories on cosmology, and the behavior of light, will vary. Our theories on gravity will probably also need refinement. It follows that there could be errors in cosmology, spectroscopy, quantum theory: which in turn relate to the fundamental forces, mass, radiation... It's not a certain thing, but what needs to be acknowledged is that the RE model is, if the world is flat, based on science which makes certain assumptions.
Evidence of those assumptions being untrue can be found by showing problems with the results of the science. It does not imply that the Earth is flat, but it does imply the probability. If A, then B: if not B, then not A. Showing B is the case wouldn't show A is true, but it would show A is possible.
-
So it's not that you know the distances to be wrong, it's that you think the earth is flat and Erat. didn't calculate it that way. Now, I know what forum i'm on, but how is that a flaw?
It's not a flaw in the experiment, it's an example of how the shape of the Earth has a knock-on effect to the rest of the Solar System, and the bodies therein.
Right...so what's the flaw you keep talking about, then?
I will need to reiterate the same point. There is no direct link, but that doesn't mean that any gaps or incomplete theories and hypotheses in the RE model wouldn't be easier to answer in the FE model.
For example, if the world is flat, our theories on cosmology, and the behavior of light, will vary. Our theories on gravity will probably also need refinement. It follows that there could be errors in cosmology, spectroscopy, quantum theory: which in turn relate to the fundamental forces, mass, radiation... It's not a certain thing, but what needs to be acknowledged is that the RE model is, if the world is flat, based on science which makes certain assumptions.
Anything is possible. It's possible all problems with knowledge would be solved by thinking that the earth is shaped like a teddy bear. Possible doesn't mean true, or more likely.
The fundamental forces have nothing to do with extraterrestial bodies. They might relate in some vague way to cosmology, but they're all tested on the earth. I'm not familiar with spectroscopy. Quantum mechanics is all tested on earth.
For the record, the only thing that would change relating to extraterrestial bodies is when the calculation involved incorporating two different measurements from miles apart and the distance is sufficient that the shape of the earth is involved. Depending on how often calculations are made only by this method and not otherwise, some things might have to be changed.
Evidence of those assumptions being untrue can be found by showing problems with the results of the science. It does not imply that the Earth is flat, but it does imply the probability. If A, then B: if not B, then not A. Showing B is the case wouldn't show A is true, but it would show A is possible.
Anything is possible, that doesn't change.
What science? And what problems? Something being incomplete isn't an error. An error when comparing predictions of theory to data implies that something in all of the knowledge used is wrong. Which, in the case of modern sciences, is quite a lot of things.
If there was a difference between the predictions of ideas related to the birth of the universe and what was observed, this would mean that any number of the millions of different ideas which have been tested to various degrees throughout the ages is wrong, to some extent. It would not mean that a particular 1 of the millions was wrong and the rest were right.
In any case, I don't recall you pointing out any errors.
-
Right...so what's the flaw you keep talking about, then?
I don't know what you're talking about.
The only flaws I've mentioned are applying observations which would rely upon a RE, to a FE model. I don't think I ever said Eratosphenes was flawed.
Anything is possible. It's possible all problems with knowledge would be solved by thinking that the earth is shaped like a teddy bear. Possible doesn't mean true, or more likely.
No: it means worth examining. That's what science is; examining the possibilities.
The fundamental forces have nothing to do with extraterrestial bodies. They might relate in some vague way to cosmology, but they're all tested on the earth. I'm not familiar with spectroscopy. Quantum mechanics is all tested on earth.
Again, not every chain of implication is direct. The vast majority of science is built on the backs of other areas of science: there has only to be a flaw or oversight in some old topic, and eveyrthing since then may itself be damaged.
Further, 'all tested on the Earth' demonstrates much of the problem: the Earth is not a universal setting. Observations often vary depending on location: measure gravity down a valley, up a mountain, at a pole, at the equator... Some property of the Earth might well interfere with those measurements: the properties of a flat or round Earth would be different.
Again, this is speculation, certainly. The point is only as I've said.
What science? And what problems? Something being incomplete isn't an error. An error when comparing predictions of theory to data implies that something in all of the knowledge used is wrong. Which, in the case of modern sciences, is quite a lot of things.
No, but I am not saying A implies B, I'm saying that B would imply A, and A is the case, so B is possible.
Incompleteness could have two sources. A flawed basis, or mere lack of knowledge. It is only scientific to examine the former option.
If there was a difference between the predictions of ideas related to the birth of the universe and what was observed, this would mean that any number of the millions of different ideas which have been tested to various degrees throughout the ages is wrong, to some extent. It would not mean that a particular 1 of the millions was wrong and the rest were right.
Exactly: a knock-on effect. If something we knew changed, just one thing, that would follow all theories resulting from that, and leading up to that, should be re-examined.
In any case, I don't recall you pointing out any errors.
No. 'Error' is highly subjective: there are always going to be possible explanations. Besides, this is my introductory thread. I'm introducing who I am, what I'm here for, my motives, and how I think: not getting into detailed discourse on various intricacies.
-
...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64381.msg1717885#msg1717885 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64381.msg1717885#msg1717885)
-
I'm not sure why you posted in the other thread. I'll respond here to keep on topic in each.
You keep saying there are flaws in the RE
No, I don't: I say there are gaps, which mean the explanations are by necessity currently flawed.
Actually, the possibility itself doesn't mean anything. Almost anything is possible. There are infinite possibilities.
Yes, and science is about applying Occam's Razor and testing those that remain.
as far as specifically quantum mechanics and the fundamental forces, none of these are tested in ways which depend on the shape of the earth.
So you assume. This is only true if you assume the current model is completely accurate: it may not be.
For example, if the world is flat, light would behave differently. Photons are clearly related to quantum mechanics: perhaps there is an undefined law there. This is unlikely to be true, it is only a simple illustration.
You cannot simply make a blanket claim that two topics are unrelated. Almost all of science is intimately connected.
Incompleteness could refer to a lot of things, I suppose. What specifically are you referring to?
A lack of an answer, or an open assumption in what answers there are.
No scientist claims the universe is fully understood. This is not a bad thing, it's what we'd expect in any case, but it is only honest to examine alternative possibilities.
However, it's more likely to be
Likeliness does not constitute fact.
You have asked me many questions, I feel I should be able to ask one in response:
What is wrong with determining a hypothesis in order to test whether or not the world is flat?
-
FEscientist, have you ever had the feeling that you're just pissing into the wind?
-
You keep saying there are flaws in the RE
No, I don't: I say there are gaps, which mean the explanations are by necessity currently flawed.
Is that the only way in which you think the idea that the earth is round flawed? Because that's not so much a flaw as something that will be true of everything forever. There's always something unknown about something.
Actually, the possibility itself doesn't mean anything. Almost anything is possible. There are infinite possibilities.
Yes, and science is about applying Occam's Razor and testing those that remain.
Yes...well it's just that you seemed to be implying that an idea being possible meant something, but it doesn't.
So you assume. This is only true if you assume the current model is completely accurate: it may not be.
For example, if the world is flat, light would behave differently. Photons are clearly related to quantum mechanics: perhaps there is an undefined law there. This is unlikely to be true, it is only a simple illustration.
You cannot simply make a blanket claim that two topics are unrelated. Almost all of science is intimately connected.
As far as I know, quantum mechanics nor the field that is dedicated to the fundamental forces has never had any tests done which are dependent on incorporating two observations of the stars from such huge distances apart that the shape of the earth must be part of the calculation. Relativity has to do with light, however, and with astronomical observations. It may be that some of the tests done in Relativity depend on the shape of the earth.
Incompleteness could refer to a lot of things, I suppose. What specifically are you referring to?
A lack of an answer, or an open assumption in what answers there are.
No scientist claims the universe is fully understood. This is not a bad thing, it's what we'd expect in any case, but it is only honest to examine alternative possibilities.
Right, that makes it clearer.
Well, a lack of an answer or incompleteness could be, or not, a situation where there is a discrepancy between predictions and data, which implies an error in some idea that is being used, or on which the ones being used depend.
Likeliness does not constitute fact.
No, it's likeliness. But verified data which might be explained by a new idea but which is not currently would be preferrable.
You have asked me many questions, I feel I should be able to ask one in response:
What is wrong with determining a hypothesis in order to test whether or not the world is flat?
Nothing comes to mind. Although I've not actually mentioned this.
-
Is that the only way in which you think the idea that the earth is round flawed? Because that's not so much a flaw as something that will be true of everything forever. There's always something unknown about something.
'Flawed' is a loaded term to use in this case. As you say, it's going to be true about everything, and every possible model. All it means is that it should be worth considering alternatives.
As far as I know, quantum mechanics nor the field that is dedicated to the fundamental forces has never had any tests done which are dependent on incorporating two observations of the stars from such huge distances apart that the shape of the earth must be part of the calculation.
Eratosphenes isn't what I'm talking about, that's easily explained by altering the distance to the Sun. I'm talking about the ship-over-horizon phenomenon, and the day length on the outer section of the disc: light, quantum objects, behave differently. This could well be implied by a FE, so quantum theory would be altered as a consequence.
Again, direct implications are not the only form of implication. You've already said relativity may be altered by the shape of the Earth, despite the lack of a direct connection. The changes are consequences of other things that must change (which may themselves be further consequences).
Nothing comes to mind. Although I've not actually mentioned this.
You've been very anti- the idea of developing a FE model to test. We've been debating it for a while.
-
FEScientist, it makes more sense for the readers if you let us know whom you are quoting. All you have to do is either click the quote button, or insert a name after the quote, such as quote=FEScientist, instead of just quote within the first brackets.
-
'Flawed' is a loaded term to use in this case. As you say, it's going to be true about everything, and every possible model.
Yes, and apparently in order to correct the RE having this possibility of being incomplete, you're considering replacing it with another idea that has the exact same possibility.
Eratosphenes isn't what I'm talking about, that's easily explained by altering the distance to the Sun. I'm talking about the ship-over-horizon phenomenon, and the day length on the outer section of the disc: light, quantum objects, behave differently. This could well be implied by a FE, so quantum theory would be altered as a consequence.
Again, direct implications are not the only form of implication. You've already said relativity may be altered by the shape of the Earth, despite the lack of a direct connection. The changes are consequences of other things that must change (which may themselves be further consequences).
Relativity has a lot to do with astronomical observations. These kinds of observations may later be incorporated together with others made long distances away, such that the shape of the earth will be part of the calculations. Similar to what Eras. did in some ways.
In general quantum mechanics is to do with very small things. As far as i'm aware, quantum mechanics does not apply to distances several miles apart, nor to the observations of a detector as insensitive as the human eye (ships seen on the horizon). Quantum mechanics, as far as I know, predicts no change in an observation that on the human scale that would be detectable to the human eye. It is about the behavior of the very small, and interactions over very small distances.
And if it was tested over that distance, they wouldn't necessarily incorporate the shape of the earth into the calculations.
So the reason why you're considering the earth being flat is that you think that's a better way to explain why ships on the horizon appear to be under the ocean?
-
FEScientist, it makes more sense for the readers if you let us know whom you are quoting. All you have to do is either click the quote button, or insert a name after the quote, such as quote=FEScientist, instead of just quote within the first brackets.
Thanks for letting me know the text-system. With how slow this site and my internet are, I picked up the habit of manually quoting for when I'm responding to several people.
Yes, and apparently in order to correct the RE having this possibility of being incomplete, you're considering replacing it with another idea that has the exact same possibility.
Yes. Every model has the same incompleteness. All this means is that alternatives should be explored. This is only scientific.
In general quantum mechanics is to do with very small things. As far as i'm aware, quantum mechanics does not apply to distances several miles apart, nor to the observations of a detector as insensitive as the human eye (ships seen on the horizon). Quantum mechanics, as far as I know, predicts no change in an observation that on the human scale that would be detectable to the human eye. It is about the behavior of the very small, and interactions over very small distances.
No, but certain assumptions are inherent in the RE model, which apply to quantum mechanics. These aren't observations, they're preconceptions which depend on other aspects of RE. For example, the behavior of photons.
So the reason why you're considering the earth being flat is that you think that's a better way to explain why ships on the horizon appear to be under the ocean?
No. The reason I'm considering the Earth being flat is that it is simply scientific to see if competing theories do a better job of explaining the world. An alternative way of explaining the ship-horizon observation is a necessary consequence of that. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was a motivation from.
-
Yes, and apparently in order to correct the RE having this possibility of being incomplete, you're considering replacing it with another idea that has the exact same possibility.
Yes. Every model has the same incompleteness. All this means is that alternatives should be explored. This is only scientific.
If every idea has the same incompleteness, then in replacing the RE with FE, nothing will be changed in that regard.
No, but certain assumptions are inherent in the RE model, which apply to quantum mechanics. These aren't observations, they're preconceptions which depend on other aspects of RE. For example, the behavior of photons.
There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?
-
If every idea has the same incompleteness, then in replacing the RE with FE, nothing will be changed in that regard.
Why the 'same' incompleteness? The FE model may be capable of answering more.
There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?
Yes, by consequence. If you see a ship go over the horizon, do you assume it is sinking, that it is vanishing behind curvature, or that light is affected by a force you don't usually take into account?
-
If its of any interest, when i see a ship disappearing bottom first over the "horizon" i assume its because perspective makes the distant ship look so small that even the small waves between the ship and my eyes look about the same size as the bottom of the ship.
I've posted this video before but it never gets old
-
If its of any interest, when i see a ship disappearing bottom first over the "horizon" i assume its because perspective makes the distant ship look so small that even the small waves between the ship and my eyes look about the same size as the bottom of the ship.
I've posted this video before but it never gets old
Assuming the model where light travels in straight lines, that wouldn't quite work. If none of the waves were as high as the ship (if they are that high, you've got trouble), then there is a straight line of sight from you to the ship, without the waves getting in the way. While what is visible would get smaller and smaller, that would be more vanishing to a point than 'sinking'.
Combined with everything implied by a FE about the Sun, a better conclusion seems to be that light is affected by a force not taken into account in the RE model.
-
There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?
Yes, by consequence. If you see a ship go over the horizon, do you assume it is sinking, that it is vanishing behind curvature, or that light is affected by a force you don't usually take into account?
An assumption isn't there being an alternate explanation. And if it that's how it was to be defined, then all explanations of everything will always be assumptions, because there are always infinite alternate explanations.
If every idea has the same incompleteness, then in replacing the RE with FE, nothing will be changed in that regard.
Why the 'same' incompleteness? The FE model may be capable of answering more.
If incompleteness is defined as an assumption or a lack of an answer, as you said, what you described as the assumption isn't one, and, without specifics on what exactly is needed for the shape of the earth to answer (round or otherwise), all ideas fail to answer something, and so the idea that the earth is flat and that it is round (and all the other different shapes which number in the infinite) are the same in this regard, as well as all other infinitely possible ideas about everything.
-
There's an assumption in the idea that the earth is round?
Yes, by consequence. If you see a ship go over the horizon, do you assume it is sinking, that it is vanishing behind curvature, or that light is affected by a force you don't usually take into account?
An assumption isn't there being an alternate explanation. And if it that's how it was to be defined, then all explanations of everything will always be assumptions, because there are always infinite alternate explanations.
Yes and no. I'd argue the fact there is an alternate explanation directly implies you are assuming said alternative does not hold. That seems to be the definition of an assumption.
Likelihood is always going to be a key factor, though.
If incompleteness is defined as an assumption or a lack of an answer, as you said, what you described as the assumption isn't one, and, without specifics on what exactly is needed for the shape of the earth to answer (round or otherwise), all ideas fail to answer something, and so the idea that the earth is flat and that it is round (and all the other different shapes which number in the infinite) are the same in this regard, as well as all other infinitely possible ideas about everything.
Incompleteness is a lack of an answer to certain questions. if there is an alternative theory which has no more assumptions inherent, answers all the same questions, and then answers at least one other question, it seems to me that theory would clearly be preferrable, even if it is itself incomplete.
-
Yes and no. I'd argue the fact there is an alternate explanation directly implies you are assuming said alternative does not hold. That seems to be the definition of an assumption.
Likelihood is always going to be a key factor, though.
If assumption is defined as there being alternate explanations, then all explanations of everything are and will always be assumptions, because there are infinite alternate explanations to everything. All ideas are the same in this way.
Incompleteness is a lack of an answer to certain questions. if there is an alternative theory which has no more assumptions inherent, answers all the same questions, and then answers at least one other question, it seems to me that theory would clearly be preferrable, even if it is itself incomplete.
There is no alternative theory to any theory that has no less or more assumptions, if you defined assumption in that way that you described.
If a theory explains more data than another, with the same or better accuracy, and is as or more concise, and has less or the same assumptions, which is to say, an idea which the theory depends upon but which is not tested, then it is better, yes.
-
If assumption is defined as there being alternate explanations, then all explanations of everything are and will always be assumptions, because there are infinite alternate explanations to everything. All ideas are the same in this way.
There is no alternative theory to any theory that has no less or more assumptions, if you defined assumption in that way that you described.
If a theory explains more data than another, with the same or better accuracy, and is as or more concise, and has less or the same assumptions, which is to say, an idea which the theory depends upon but which is not tested, then it is better, yes.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. It seems fair to point out that an assumption defined as "an idea which the theory depends upon but which is not tested," is not so different than "an idea with an alternative explanation," so long as we acknowledge said explanation is also a possible one (which I believed was obvious, but may as well clarify). In this case, the idea upon which the theory depends is that the evidence that points to the currently accepted theory is complete and whole, and that there won't be evidence which refutes it and implies a separate theory (which explains the same observations: has the same evidence) found later.
Ok, that was wordy. if A is the current theory, B is a competing hypothesis which explains all the same things as A and has not been contradicted by any observation, the idea you refer to is that B is untrue.
It should also be pointed out that there are different classes of assumption. Assuming that a certain piece of evidence is not found is not as grand an assumption as assuming a worldwide conspiracy, for example. Once this is acknowledged, it's very possible to compare models by how many assumptions they contain: they won't be 'all the same'.
-
In this case, the idea upon which the theory depends is that the evidence that points to the currently accepted theory is complete and whole, and that there won't be evidence which refutes it and implies a separate theory (which explains the same observations: has the same evidence) found later.
In a sense. But this is also true of absolutely everything, so it doesn't really matter. All ideas are the same in this way.
It should also be pointed out that there are different classes of assumption. Assuming that a certain piece of evidence is not found is not as grand an assumption as assuming a worldwide conspiracy, for example. Once this is acknowledged, it's very possible to compare models by how many assumptions they contain: they won't be 'all the same'.
With regards to alternative explanations existing, they are all the same. There are are infinite alternate explanations to all ideas, who themselves number in the infinite.
It's possible to compare theories by how many assumptions they have, but funnily enough, all of the examples you've given are not ways in which they can be because they are true of everything.
-
It's possible to compare theories by how many assumptions they have, but funnily enough, all of the examples you've given are not ways in which they can be because they are true of everything.
I'm not sure what examples you're talking about. I don't yet have a complete FE model so I cannot give something by which to compare with the RE model, so it would be nearly impossible to compare assumptions.
The assumption that specific questions will always remain unanswered no matter the model is quite a grand one, however. Even if all of them can't be answered by an FE model, some may be.
-
I'm not sure what examples you're talking about.
These:
In this case, the idea upon which the theory depends is that the evidence that points to the currently accepted theory is complete and whole, and that there won't be evidence which refutes it and implies a separate theory (which explains the same observations: has the same evidence) found later.
Yes and no. I'd argue the fact there is an alternate explanation directly implies you are assuming said alternative does not hold. That seems to be the definition of an assumption.
If assumption is defined as there being alternate explanations, then all explanations of everything are and will always be assumptions, because there are infinite alternate explanations to everything. All ideas are the same in this way.
...are the examples of assumptions that you gave while talking about comparisons.
There are actually assumptions in some theories, past or present, which are not in others, it's just odd that the examples you gave are ones which are contained in everything.
The assumption that specific questions will always remain unanswered no matter the model is quite a grand one, however.
What?
-
There are actually assumptions in some theories, past or present, which are not in others, it's just odd that the examples you gave are ones which are contained in everything.
True, they're only meant to be reasons it's valid to consider an alternative.
The assumption that specific questions will always remain unanswered no matter the model is quite a grand one, however.
What?
There are questions unanswered by the RE model. The idea was simply that answers to those models might be present in the subtly altered physics and universe made necessary by a FE.
-
There are actually assumptions in some theories, past or present, which are not in others, it's just odd that the examples you gave are ones which are contained in everything.
True, they're only meant to be reasons it's valid to consider an alternative.
Right, well, the conditions you described are the same for all possibilities.
There are questions unanswered by the RE model. The idea was simply that answers to those models might be present in the subtly altered physics and universe made necessary by a FE.
What questions?
-
What questions?
Details of dark matter, fundamental forces, unifying quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, ultimate cause... No scientist pretends science is complete.
If an FE model can answer just one of those, in addition to having proven mechanisms for justifiably explaining observations, that would seem to make it preferrable.
-
What questions?
Details of dark matter, fundamental forces, unifying quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, ultimate cause... No scientist pretends science is complete.
If an FE model can answer just one of those, in addition to having proven mechanisms for justifiably explaining observations, that would seem to make it preferrable.
Right, well, we'd like to know those things, but why is this a problem with the idea that the earth is round? Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain or predict the orbit of Venus.This doesn't mean that descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or incomplete. They're not intended to explain the orbit of Venus, just how magnets work.
-
What questions?
Details of dark matter, fundamental forces, unifying quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics,
And what have they got to do with the fundamental shape of the planet? That the world is round is a fact, not a model.
-
Right, well, we'd like to know those things, but why is this a problem with the idea that the earth is round? Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain or predict the orbit of Venus.This doesn't mean that descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or incomplete. They're not intended to explain the orbit of Venus, just how magnets work.
And what have they got to do with the fundamental shape of the planet? That the world is round is a fact, not a model.
We've been to this exact spot before. It's a knock-on effect: an FE model is going to do more than just change the shape of the world from the RE model. Laws would need to be different because RE laws would not explain a FE: there's the movement of light, the formation of the world... There are some things which would observably not be true on a RE, but would be on a FE (example: 'bendy light' or some force that alters the path of light).
It is well within the realms of possibility that the new direction required for a FE would lead to more accessible answers to certain quetsions. No, I can't say this for certain as the model does not yet exist, but the point is the possibility is what makes an alternative worth considering.
-
We've been to this exact spot before. It's a knock-on effect: an FE model is going to do more than just change the shape of the world from the RE model. Laws would need to be different because RE laws would not explain a FE: there's the movement of light, the formation of the world... There are some things which would observably not be true on a RE, but would be on a FE (example: 'bendy light' or some force that alters the path of light).
It is well within the realms of possibility that the new direction required for a FE would lead to more accessible answers to certain quetsions. No, I can't say this for certain as the model does not yet exist, but the point is the possibility is what makes an alternative worth considering.
Anything's possible, but you keep saying there are flaws and gaps in the idea that the earth is round. And that it's incomplete. Which apparently refers to either assumptions or questions not answered. But why is there a problem with the idea that the earth is round that it doesn't explain everything? Every idea doesn't explain something, and probably never will. Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain why leaves are green. This doesn't mean descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or have problems. They're not intended to explain why leaves are green, just how magnets work.
-
Anything's possible, but you keep saying there are flaws and gaps in the idea that the earth is round. And that it's incomplete. Which apparently refers to either assumptions or questions not answered. But why is there a problem with the idea that the earth is round that it doesn't explain everything? Every idea doesn't explain something, and probably never will. Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain why leaves are green. This doesn't mean descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or have problems. They're not intended to explain why leaves are green, just how magnets work.
There's no inherent problem. I've said this before. These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model, so it is only honest and scientific to examine an alternative.
Why the opposition to simply testing the FE model?
-
These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model
Gaps in the idea or the 'model' that the earth is round? They might, but they don't. I've never heard of any. I have heard of, and you have mentioned, e.g. gaps in relativity and cosmology. Specifically the phenomenon referred to as 'dark matter,' which more precisely refers to, afaik, that galaxy cluster's movements, some of them have orbital speeds which are in excess of that predicted by cosmology and relativity. Which is then also a gap in knowledge in general.
-
These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model
Gaps in the idea or the 'model' that the earth is round? They might, but they don't. I've never heard of any. I have heard of, and you have mentioned, e.g. gaps in relativity and cosmology. Specifically the phenomenon referred to as 'dark matter,' which more precisely refers to, afaik, that galaxy cluster's movements, some of them have orbital speeds which are in excess of that predicted by cosmology and relativity. Which is then also a gap in knowledge in general.
We've discussed knock-on effects before. I am quite tired of repeating myself.
-
We've discussed knock-on effects before. I am quite tired of repeating myself.
As far as I remember, you actually defined gap as a question not answered or an assumption. If so, and taking into account that as I explained, questions unanswered by a description which the description makes no claims or statements about are irrelevant, such as how description of magnetic force don't talk of or answer any questions about why leaves are green, then there is not, as far as I know, any gaps in the idea that the earth is round.
There is a gap in relativity and cosmology as I explained, for it makes predictions about the movements of galaxy clusters which are also off for such large objects as those, as far as I understand. This discrepancy is given the nickname "dark matter."
-
Your line of thinking is correct. The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things, and it is correct to try and find an answer to it.
-
Your line of thinking is correct. The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things, and it is correct to try and find an answer to it.
I don't know if this is in reply to the original post of the thread or the recent posts, but I'm only talking about the other things she's said which are wrong or meaningless; I thought that it would be good to point them out.
-
The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things.
Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.
-
The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things.
Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.
The double slit experiment, off the top of my head, unless it's been "explained". I created this account out of sheer boredom and to troll this 'wacky' idea of a flat earth, but after looking into it, it's obviously not convincing evidence that Earth is flat, but does raise many questions. It's nice to wonder again, makes me feel young.
Oh, and don't bother "explaining" how photons on a quantum level work. I'm finished believing IN things such as science or God. I'd rather see for myself and believe things for myself. As for the unknown, I enjoy wondering.
Really, don't bother replying. This is my second time on this forum. I'm far to busy with friends and family. I have them to entertain, other than myself (unlike some obvious trolls or shills). We know you're not as ignorant as you pretend. My question is how is this entertaining for you? What keeps you on the flat earth society forum? Okay, go ahead and reply, but I might not be back for some time.
-
You are retatded.
-
Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.
The double slit experiment, off the top of my head, unless it's been "explained". I created this account out of sheer boredom and to troll this 'wacky' idea of a flat earth, but after looking into it, it's obviously not convincing evidence that Earth is flat, but does raise many questions. It's nice to wonder again, makes me feel young.
Oh, and don't bother "explaining" how photons on a quantum level work. I'm finished believing IN things such as science or God. I'd rather see for myself and believe things for myself. As for the unknown, I enjoy wondering.
Really, don't bother replying. This is my second time on this forum. I'm far to busy with friends and family. I have them to entertain, other than myself (unlike some obvious trolls or shills). We know you're not as ignorant as you pretend. My question is how is this entertaining for you? What keeps you on the flat earth society forum? Okay, go ahead and reply, but I might not be back for some time.
I've been saying a lot of contrary things to FEScientist for the past few weeks, so this gives me an opportunity to say something commending:
FEScientist has a greater grasp of what questions are unanswered than you. No, the double slit experiment isn't unexplained.
All of the things FEScientist mentioned are, however. In particular, the one i'm most familiar with is the discrepancy referred to as 'dark matter.' When considering the movement of large objects or large groupings of objects, in this case, clusters of galaxies, are considered and their orbital speed is calculated and compared to predictions, there is a discrepancy.
-
Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.
The double slit experiment, off the top of my head, unless it's been "explained". I created this account out of sheer boredom and to troll this 'wacky' idea of a flat earth, but after looking into it, it's obviously not convincing evidence that Earth is flat, but does raise many questions. It's nice to wonder again, makes me feel young.
Oh, and don't bother "explaining" how photons on a quantum level work. I'm finished believing IN things such as science or God. I'd rather see for myself and believe things for myself. As for the unknown, I enjoy wondering.
Really, don't bother replying. This is my second time on this forum. I'm far to busy with friends and family. I have them to entertain, other than myself (unlike some obvious trolls or shills). We know you're not as ignorant as you pretend. My question is how is this entertaining for you? What keeps you on the flat earth society forum? Okay, go ahead and reply, but I might not be back for some time.
I've been saying a lot of contrary things to FEScientist for the past few weeks, so this gives me an opportunity to say something commending:
FEScientist has a greater grasp of what questions are unanswered than you. No, the double slit experiment isn't unexplained.
All of the things FEScientist mentioned are, however. In particular, the one i'm most familiar with is the discrepancy referred to as 'dark matter.' When considering the movement of large objects or large groupings of objects, in this case, clusters of galaxies, are considered and their orbital speed is calculated and compared to predictions, there is a discrepancy.
SisyphusTheElder asked someone to pease cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation. I simply, without citing, gave an example off the TOP of my head, seemingly unrelated to the subject, although relevant. If using the phrase "off the top of my head" was why I was accused of being a retard, to clarify, it was a figure of speech, but I will quote my accuser and question him. Anyway, you are clueless to what unanswered questions that I'm aware of. You are clueless to even who I am, let alone how much I may or may not know and understand. I could very well hold the knowledge and understanding of that knowledge that, if given to you, could open your mind to an entirely new insight leading to the understanding of information beyond comprehension of a mind without that information. Allow me to ask, who are you to tell me who I am or what I may or may not know?
I have created one topic in this forum titled "I Have A Secret" to simply observe how many curious minds in this forum view the topic. Within the topic is seemingly nonsense along with my email. We cannot be too careful to what we think we know. A mind with even a picolitre of assumption is a mind unworthy of understanding of true knowledge. A mind with a foundation based on only clues (like an unfinished puzzle) is, indeed, an unstable mind, for the foundation should come first. That's the kind of mind meant to be blown. Do you get it? Probably not. Have a nice day or so, I won't be back for only God knows when but I will be back. Patients is a lost art. To wait is not to be impatient.
Here's a bit of advice for you and anyone who comes across this. "Simply be, wait, and see what you become." That phrase will not be understood until three things are not only known but understood. What does it mean to be? What does it mean to wait? What does it mean to see? You may think you know, but I will bet you have no idea where I am coming from.
Oh, and my joke of the day, dark doesn't matter!
Hey, you caught something, (laughing out loud) to bad it was the joke.
[Edit] Dinosaur Neil asked someone to pease cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.
I apologize, SisyphusTheElder, for that mistake.
Imagine the devistation of the smallest human error in history on mankind, collectively. With that in mind, ask yourself how perfect we are? What have been the consequences of mistakes after how ever many thousands of years of collected data and research? How many and how massive have mistakes been? Even more curious, why are we emotional beings? Why the excitement?
You are retatded.
...and what are you basing this judgement from? I understand that we all lack knowledge and understanding. Compared to the unknown, we know practically nothing. Even more elaborate, by only being able to base reality (the only observable and measurable experience we have) on our limited senses, by only being able to think, do we know anything for sure? If you're judging my knowledge on the thought I posted, ask yourself how ignorant you are. I'm MAN enough to admit that I'm a moron compared to the understanding of all things in and out of reality. If, to you, I'm a retard compared to you, that might possibly, to me, be the understatement of the year.
-
Sokarul is so retarted, that he can't even speel it, .
-
Pardon my manors, FEScientist and your viewers, for they are apparently limited. I made the mistake of contradicting myself. It appears that within the thought of my replies, I have became completely irrelevant to your subject. Nor have I had the common decency to even introduce myself. My name is Eric, I am new to this forum as well.
In the past, I have ridiculed others for making this very mistake as rather I was interested in the topic at hand, I found my mind swimming through a thought of a different subject. Perhaps I should be more considerate and self-disciplined. After all, admitting ones self to be wrong is what makes them right, right?