An interesting question about Samuel Birley Rowbotham?

But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.

But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.

I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?

Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.

I disagree.  If you believe that mass warps space-time, then the finite/infinite question is highly relevant.

Most problems in the RE model are also present in the the FE model. The RE model may not have an explanation for why distant galaxies are accelerating way from us, but then again the FE model doesn't have an explanation as to why the dimmer galaxy-like lights in the sky are red-shifted a bit more than you would expect.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 10, 2008, 12:53:09 PM

Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.

I disagree.  If you believe that mass warps space-time, then the finite/infinite question is highly relevant.

If you say so.

Quote from: markjo on December 10, 2008, 01:02:36 PM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 10, 2008, 12:53:09 PM

Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.

I disagree.  If you believe that mass warps space-time, then the finite/infinite question is highly relevant.

If you say so.

I'm glad that you agree.

Quote from: NEEMAN on December 10, 2008, 12:53:39 PM

But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.

I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?

RE physics, when extrapolated, require things like DE/DM and the CC to function. Not only that, but some people believe in them, some don't, and they are used and withdrawn every time something doesn't fit, which suggests inherent flaws in the model.

Quote from: markjo on December 10, 2008, 01:00:42 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on December 10, 2008, 12:53:39 PM

But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.

I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?

RE physics, when extrapolated, require things like DE/DM and the CC to function. Not only that, but some people believe in them, some don't, and they are used and withdrawn every time something doesn't fit, which suggests inherent flaws in the model.

So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself.  Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.

Quote from: NEEMAN on December 10, 2008, 01:16:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 10, 2008, 01:00:42 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on December 10, 2008, 12:53:39 PM

But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.

I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?

RE physics, when extrapolated, require things like DE/DM and the CC to function. Not only that, but some people believe in them, some don't, and they are used and withdrawn every time something doesn't fit, which suggests inherent flaws in the model.

So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself.  Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.

FET

• What keeps the sun and moon in orbit?
• Why do the stars rotate as a solid disk?
• How do the stars shine?
• Does gravity exist?
• How did the universe form?
• What causes sunsets?
• What are pulsars, supernovae, nebulae, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts?

I take it we can agree on most of these as well then?

I'm glad that you agree.

So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself.  Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.

I'm sorry, but is this a common debate tactic amongst round earthers?

- How is the 'cosmological constant' explained? How is it derived? And officially, once and for all, is there a cosmological constant or not? This has actually see-sawed a couple of times in the last century, which is pretty incredible given the implications- certainly not a 'detail'.

The cosmological constant was an early theory that bears a lot of similarity to the modern idea of "dark energy". It is an unknown in RET, as in FET.

- What is the mechanism for 'gravity'? Note that I am deliberatley leaving out the gravity/gravitations semantics for ease of use; you're a regular so I'm sure you know the score. You'll probably want to respond that in FET, the mechanism for the DEA/UA has yet to be explained either. The difference of course is that in FET that mechanism is only responsible for gravitation on earth; in RET it is the basis for every single observable phenomona, and hence fo far greater importance.

I've already included that: I said "Does GR fully explain gravity?". Again, this is also a problem in FET: What is the mechanism for the UA?

- DE/DM. Again, far more  tha a detail; without it, a RE universe stops working.

True. However, there are several plausible candidate theories for what DE/DM actually is. Similarly, gravity has several plausible mechanisms. By comparison, most of the questions I posed for FET don't even have a plausible hypothesis.

The Lamabada-CDM model is simply one proposed form of CDM. And 'plausible' is an entirely subjective and totally unscientific term.

The Lamabada-CDM model is simply one proposed form of CDM. And 'plausible' is an entirely subjective and totally unscientific term.

I was using the word "plausible" to distinguish proper scientific hypotheses, e.g. the lambda-CDM model, from outlandish unworkable theories, e.g. the perspective explanation of sunsets, that clearly make no scientific sense whatsoever.

Any CC is deeply unscientific. They are nothing more than mathematical sleight of hand. Got a problem with a theory? Invent a force that acts in incredible ways to explain that problem, with no proof other than that the problem exists.

Any CC is deeply unscientific. They are nothing more than mathematical sleight of hand. Got a problem with a theory? Invent a force that acts in incredible ways to explain that problem, with no proof other than that the problem exists.

You mean just what FET did when it invented the UA? Or the "rotational gravitational force" on a pendulum? Or the "whirling cornucopia" that keeps the stars rotating? Or the EA? Or the dark energy field?

The only difference is that RE theorists are making progress toward finding out what the CC is.

If by progress you mean inventing ever more elaborate names for it, then from an artistic standpoint, I suppose it is progress 9though the whole 'dark = unknown' symbolism is a bit crude).

If by progress you mean inventing ever more elaborate names for it, then from an artistic standpoint, I suppose it is progress 9though the whole 'dark = unknown' symbolism is a bit crude).

I don't mean that at all. We've figured out a lot of the properites of DE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Nature_of_dark_energy
We also have a lot of candidate particles for DM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter#Dark_matter_composition

And is there evidence for any of this? Because to me, it looks suspiciously like character development.

Quote from: markjo on December 10, 2008, 01:14:50 PM

I'm glad that you agree.

Quote from: markjo on December 10, 2008, 01:19:22 PM

So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself.  Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.

I'm sorry, but is this a common debate tactic amongst round earthers?

It seems to work for Tom Bishop.

As usual, this discussion devolved into a war of explanations. It is the predictive power of the theories what makes them scientifically sound, not the length of the list of unknowns.

While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.

The rest of the world can be Zetetics, "look through my window" kind of guys that cannot combine vision with intellect, conspiracists or any other kind of human beings. But scientists start with the scientific method.

While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.

The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.

Quote

While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.

The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.

The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas based on a model where celestial objects are fixed to spheres centered around Earth. This model explains acceptably the apparent positions of stars and galaxies, and not not very well the positions of planets and comets. They totally failed with timezones.

The FE bunch try to explain celestial phenomenas based on a model where celestial objects are on a plane. And this model predicts just about nothing. Timezones is almost the only thing that the model predicts, even though it makes only a partial prediction of them.

Prediction power is what makes FE hypothesis such a joke.

I already told you that the ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies. The Ancient Egyptians had a flat earth cosmology and they could predict eclipses and transits decades and even centuries in the future.

Quote

While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.

The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.

Very few "Ancients" use a flat Earth model, most had a round Earth model (because there is so much evidence for it) and the observations did quite fit with a Flat Earth Model.

learn2history Tom.

the observations did quite fit with a Flat Earth Model.

I know they did. What's your point?

Quote

While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.

The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.

But what can you predict with your cosmology?  Last I knew, most of the current FE models are not the same as the ancient FE models.

Quote

the observations did quite fit with a Flat Earth Model.

I know they did. What's your point?

Sorry, late night again (I'm having a bad night here).

I meant to write: "Didn't" (I also think the batteries in my keyboard are going flat)

I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.

I already told you that the ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies. The Ancient Egyptians had a flat earth cosmology and they could predict eclipses and transits decades and even centuries in the future.

You are saying it just fine: "under their flat earth cosmologies". That cosmology is not the same as the one that Rowbotham and his followers propose. The "ancients" could safely ignore the fact that midday does not come at the same time in every part of the world and did not have sextants to navigate long distances, so the apparent shape of the dome of stars was irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Now things are different: Nobody, not even Rowbotham, ignores the fact that midday comes at different times for different places on Earth, and that means he had to change from a spherical dome of stars to a flat dome. And with this change he corrected the timezones but demolished almost everything else from every other cosmology known to man.

Even the Mayas and Aztecs saw in the sky an apparent sphere with the stars on it, and made precise measurements to that effect. Only Rowbotham and his followers defined their "cosmology" and conveniently forgot to make measurements to corroborate it. They predicteda whole lot of things.

Now, Please, Tom Bishop, give us a model that includes a flat sheet of stars and approximates what humanity has verified for more than 2 millenia. Even a drawing from any ancient civilization that shows a flat roof of stars will do.

But what can you predict with your cosmology?  Last I knew, most of the current FE models are not the same as the ancient FE models.

FET can predict all the same celestial phenomenas as the ancients. On predicting the Lunar Eclipse, for example, Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides a series of equations which will determine the time, duration, and magnitude of the next Lunar Eclipse. See his Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe.