A crude diagram of new bendy light model

Sorry, I asked first why you assume no technology available at all. And I can't propose to you the rockets which carry for example things and people to the Moon, because I know the answer from you - it's impossible.

Well, the idea that sustained spaceflight has not been achieved is a tenet of Flat Earth theory. So that technology cannot apply to this discussion.

You are creating a smokescreen by talking about "technology" but expecting an answer that is amenable to "Zetetics".

He was the one who claimed we had the technology. I was simply asking him to clarify his position.

Do you take take an antibiotic when your doctor tells you to do so, even though you will never completely know if the healing (or lack thereof) will be produced by the antibiotic? Or will you be consistent and not use antibiotics because you do not have sensory evidence of their effectiveness? Do you believe that computers are made of transistors that you cannot see, that work through forces at a distance (just like gravitation) and mechanisms stranger than science fiction (like all of quantum physics)?

Irrelevant.

Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on July 15, 2009, 01:35:40 AM

So basically you are telling us all to become Christians, so we can pull the "God did it all" line, and not have to worry about anything ever again. Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one; however, it shouldn't come into play in science since we deduct all hypotheses and theories from observed phenomena and experimental data.

Occam's famous razor should only be applied when you have two competing theories which both explain a given phenomenon equally well.

If you have such a case then it is philosophically desirable to select the simplest theory.

I do not think that Occam's razor means that we have to abandon the scientific method.

3 Tesla is right.  Occam's Razor does not require that once we have arrived at a theory that seems to work that we stop questioning and testing it for viability.  Sound science requires that we continually subject  current theories to new situations and tests that could potentially falsify them, and then re-confirming, modifying or replacing them as warranted by the new evidence thus gathered, and adding complexity only as needed to satisfactorily account for what we observe or to make things work properly.  There is nothing inherently lazy or illogical about this process.  The "God Hypothesis" (Christian or otherwise) actually fails Occam's Razor in many respects because it is not, by itself, sufficient to explain every thing we observe, and not very helpful in explaining how things work or how to make them work.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that simply saying "God did it" or "God says so" is the epitome of intellectual laziness, but that is far from a correct or reasonable application of Occam's Razor, and is as far removed from science as anything can possibly be!

Quote from: trig on July 15, 2009, 05:52:35 AM

You are creating a smokescreen by talking about "technology" but expecting an answer that is amenable to "Zetetics".

He was the one who claimed we had the technology. I was simply asking him to clarify his position.

Quote from: trig on July 15, 2009, 05:52:35 AM

Do you take take an antibiotic when your doctor tells you to do so, even though you will never completely know if the healing (or lack thereof) will be produced by the antibiotic? Or will you be consistent and not use antibiotics because you do not have sensory evidence of their effectiveness? Do you believe that computers are made of transistors that you cannot see, that work through forces at a distance (just like gravitation) and mechanisms stranger than science fiction (like all of quantum physics)?

Irrelevant.

This is relevant since it shows whether Zetetics are a strong, parallel path to knowledge or just an elegant way to say all of science and technology is good except for this one question about the shape of Earth.

There is no non-earth-shape-related science and RET as separate things. There is modern science. If there is Zetetic science and technology, it must be useful for something more than looking out of your window and crying.

The "God Hypothesis" (Christian or otherwise) actually fails Occam's Razor in many respects because it is not, by itself, sufficient to explain every thing we observe, and not very helpful in explaining how things work or how to make them work.

Personally, I think that in Occam's day his 'razor' was probably designed to lead you to a god though, he was a 14th century Franciscan monk after all. Science was probably all too difficult and the simplest answer was 'god' did it. Ironic that it's now used against 'god' I think.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 11:33:38 AM

The "God Hypothesis" (Christian or otherwise) actually fails Occam's Razor in many respects because it is not, by itself, sufficient to explain every thing we observe, and not very helpful in explaining how things work or how to make them work.

Personally, I think that in Occam's day his 'razor' was probably designed to lead you to a god though, he was a 14th century Franciscan monk after all. Science was probably all too difficult and the simplest answer was 'god' did it. Ironic that it's now used against 'god' I think.

I agree with you that it is ironic that honest and rigorous application of Occam's Razor wound up actually hurting the very hypothesis he was thereby trying to defend!

Quote from: Squat on July 15, 2009, 11:45:59 AM

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 11:33:38 AM

The "God Hypothesis" (Christian or otherwise) actually fails Occam's Razor in many respects because it is not, by itself, sufficient to explain every thing we observe, and not very helpful in explaining how things work or how to make them work.

Personally, I think that in Occam's day his 'razor' was probably designed to lead you to a god though, he was a 14th century Franciscan monk after all. Science was probably all too difficult and the simplest answer was 'god' did it. Ironic that it's now used against 'god' I think.

I agree with you that it is ironic that honest and rigorous application of Occam's Razor wound up actually hurting the very hypothesis he was thereby trying to defend!

It would appear that old William is well-respected as an early natural philosopher (proto-physicist):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam

This is relevant since it shows whether Zetetics are a strong, parallel path to knowledge or just an elegant way to say all of science and technology is good except for this one question about the shape of Earth.

There is no non-earth-shape-related science and RET as separate things. There is modern science. If there is Zetetic science and technology, it must be useful for something more than looking out of your window and crying.

We are discussing Euclid's bendy light model, not the integrity of Zetetic scientists. Please stop derailing the thread.

More on this model (which I think is cool and aesthetically pleasing):

Obviously the Pole Stars work for all lattitudes which is a good starting point.

Stars next to the Pole Stars will also probably "orbit" in the correct, circular way around the Pole Stars (not much head-ache visualising that).

I also suspect (head-ache alert!) that all of the stars at mid lattitudes will also "orbit" the way that we actually see them - in other words The Celestial Equator is probably going to look right (a straight line).

Whilst there is no real South "Pole", there will be a "Southern Circle/Tropic" on which you would always measure your position as 90 degrees south (by star or Sun) so that could be where Scott and Amundsen went (etc.).

I suppose the only problem might be that you cannot travel east or west away fron a real South Pole (wherever you walk it would be North) ...

But you could walk east or west along your proposed "Southern Circle/Tropic" without travelling north.

I guess that would be an experiment someone would need to do (and I know that Amundsen sent small groups of men a few km beyong The Pole when he got there so as to circle The Pole).

This is a fun thread - let's debate it some more!

Edit: this is probably the most intelligent Flat Earth argument I've come across so far!

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 11:52:36 AM

Quote from: Squat on July 15, 2009, 11:45:59 AM

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 11:33:38 AM

The "God Hypothesis" (Christian or otherwise) actually fails Occam's Razor in many respects because it is not, by itself, sufficient to explain every thing we observe, and not very helpful in explaining how things work or how to make them work.

Personally, I think that in Occam's day his 'razor' was probably designed to lead you to a god though, he was a 14th century Franciscan monk after all. Science was probably all too difficult and the simplest answer was 'god' did it. Ironic that it's now used against 'god' I think.

I agree with you that it is ironic that honest and rigorous application of Occam's Razor wound up actually hurting the very hypothesis he was thereby trying to defend!

It would appear that old William is well-respected as an early natural philosopher (proto-physicist):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam

Thank you pointing that out and setting us straight about "Old William."  I didn't realize or had forgotten that he  actually got in trouble with The Church for his liberal views, and that he was not necessarily dogmatically defending the "God Hypothesis."  I do think, however, that he expected or at least hoped that that hypothesis would pass his test.

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Not, I would think, if it reproduces The Heavens as we see them.

I think that the Flat Earth Star Sphere Bendy Light Model (FESSBL) and the Round Earth Spherical Shell of Stars Straight Light Model (RESSSSLM) would produce the same night sky appearance.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 01:01:37 PM

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Not, I would think, if it reproduces The Heavens as we see them.

I think that the Flat Earth Star Sphere Bendy Light Model (FESSBL) and the Round Earth Spherical Shell of Stars Straight Light Model (RESSSSLM) would produce the same night sky appearance.

I can see that both models would might produce the same night sky appearance and celestial navigation computations based on that appearance might be the same in either case, but it appears obvious to me that (especially in the southern hemisphere) if FET were correct, the actual distances between locations would differ greatly from what celestial navigational computations would lead one to believe, assuming a round earth.  Since it has long been known that actual distances in (again, especially the southern hemisphere) agree with what RET would lead one to expect, I would have to conclude that Euclid's "Bendy Light Hypothesis" is falsified.

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Only if the Earth is round.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 01:01:37 PM

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Only if the Earth is round.

That is obviously what I meant!  Since it is known that celestial navigation computations based on RET do not yield wildly erroneous results, the only reasonable conclusion is RET!

That is obviously what I meant!  Since it is known that celestial navigation computations based on RET do not yield wildly erroneous results, the only reasonable conclusion is RET!

But you have provided no evidence to support this point.

Quote from: Robosteve on July 15, 2009, 02:52:59 PM

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 01:01:37 PM

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Only if the Earth is round.

That is obviously what I meant!  Since it is known that celestial navigation computations based on RET do not yield wildly erroneous results, the only reasonable conclusion is RET!

Rational U.S. Viking, please recall which forum you're in. This is D&D, and that means strictly no off-topic posting. This topic is for the discussion of Euclid's new theory. If you want to make tangential points, then start a new thread and do so.

Rational U.S. Viking, please recall which forum you're in. This is D&D, and that means strictly no off-topic posting. This topic is for the discussion of Euclid's new theory. If you want to make tangential points, then start a new thread and do so.

I would say he is on topic. He is claiming that because RE navigation works, Euclid's new bendy model would result in erroneous navigation. However, his error is not providing any evidence to support his point that RE navigation does work.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 03:04:43 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on July 15, 2009, 02:52:59 PM

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 01:01:37 PM

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Only if the Earth is round.

That is obviously what I meant!  Since it is known that celestial navigation computations based on RET do not yield wildly erroneous results, the only reasonable conclusion is RET!

Rational U.S. Viking, please recall which forum you're in. This is D&D, and that means strictly no off-topic posting. This topic is for the discussion of Euclid's new theory. If you want to make tangential points, then start a new thread and do so.

Stars and navigation have been closely linked for centuries, so I think it's not too "off topic" to link them.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 15, 2009, 03:15:07 PM

Rational U.S. Viking, please recall which forum you're in. This is D&D, and that means strictly no off-topic posting. This topic is for the discussion of Euclid's new theory. If you want to make tangential points, then start a new thread and do so.

I would say he is on topic. He is claiming that because RE navigation works, Euclid's new bendy model would result in erroneous navigation. However, his error is not providing any evidence to support his point that RE navigation does work.

I understand that, but he's now trying to say 'doesn't work, ergo RET!', which is off-topic- I don't want this derailed into an FET vs RET thread, so I'm nipping it in the bud. If there are problems with the theory, he's free to bring them up, so long as that's all he's doing.

Quote from: Rational U.S. Viking on July 15, 2009, 01:01:37 PM

But, wouldn't this scheme, when one attempts to use it for celestial navigation, still yield wildly erroneous results?

Not, I would think, if it reproduces The Heavens as we see them.

I think that the Flat Earth Star Sphere Bendy Light Model (FESSBL) and the Round Earth Spherical Shell of Stars Straight Light Model (RESSSSLM) would produce the same night sky appearance.

You are too kind with the failings of this new hypothesis. Lets assume that somehow the light gets to be twisted in the exact way as to simulate a round Earth. You still have to invent a mechanism that magically makes the dispersion of the light constant for each path.

Otherwise you will have the images of the stars, planets, etc. in the right place but with the wrong brightness. There is a theorem in Topology that says the mapping of the placements is possible for all points on Earth but one. But simple trigonometry shows that the dispersion problem is unsolvable.

You are too kind with the failings of this new hypothesis.

I like to be kind.

:-)

Lets assume that somehow the light gets to be twisted in the exact way as to simulate a round Earth.

Yes - let's believe in the magic!

:-)

You still have to invent a mechanism that magically makes the dispersion of the light constant for each path.

Otherwise you will have the images of the stars, planets, etc. in the right place but with the wrong brightness.

Round Earth, stars very far away, straight light =
Any given star effectively same distance from all observers =
Any given star same brightness for all observers.

Flat Earth, stars nearby, bendy light =
Any given star effectively different distances from different observers =
Any given star different brightness for different observers.

Is that a fair summary?

(And if so, yes - it is a problem.)

Edit - two possible problems so far:

Whilst there is no real South "Pole", there will be a "Southern Circle/Tropic" on which you would always measure your position as 90 degrees south (by star or Sun) so that could be where Scott and Amundsen went (etc.).

I suppose the only problem might be that you cannot travel east or west away fron a real South Pole (wherever you walk it would be North) ...

But you could walk east or west along your proposed "Southern Circle/Tropic" without travelling north.

I guess that would be an experiment someone would need to do

Whilst there is no real South "Pole", there will be a "Southern Circle/Tropic" on which you would always measure your position as 90 degrees south (by star or Sun) so that could be where Scott and Amundsen went (etc.).

A slight problem with this is that Scott and Amundsen set out from different points on the Antarctic coastline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TerraNova2.png

So if they both headed off due south towards a point on your "Southern Circle/Tropic" they would have arrived at widely different locations.

But we know that Scott arrived at exactly the same point as Amundsen because he (disheateningly) discovered a Norwegian flag waiting for him.

This evidence would suggest that The South Geographical Pole is a real, unique point and not a "Southern Circle/Tropic" that your model predicts.

Edit: this is evidence of my (the first) problem above.

To put it another way (back to maps):

Your new bendy light / star sphere model needs the map shown below on the right, where 90 degrees south is a circle ...

Whereas the Scott/Amundsen evidence need the map show below left, where 90 degrees south is a single point.

(And they can't both be right, I fear.)

(And they can't both be right, I fear.)

The issue being that ...

If The Earth truly is a sphere ...

The whilst any given Flat Earth (mis)representation will be able to explain correctly some observed phenomena ...

No single Flat Earth (mis)representation will be able to explain correctly all observed phenomena.

Round Earth, stars very far away, straight light =
Any given star effectively same distance from all observers =
Any given star same brightness for all observers.

Flat Earth, stars nearby, bendy light =
Any given star effectively different distances from different observers =
Any given star different brightness for different observers.

Is that a fair summary?

(And if so, yes - it is a problem.)

Yes, this is one of the problems. And not the only one, since the hypothesis needs light to bend in such dramatic ways in all three dimensions, and in exactly the same proportion for all detectable colors from infrared to ultraviolet, without any visible distortion.

Light has to bend more than 40 degrees in each of the three spatial dimensions, inside and outside the atmosphere. We cannot be in a "dark energy free zone" or "aether free zone" here, inside the "atmoplane", because the illusion of a round Earth includes all celestial objects right down to the horizon, even where the observer sees the horizon under the horizontal plane.

In my country we have a saying: "it is like having a dozen monkeys sit down for a photo". I think this hypothesis is more like making a million monkeys sit down for a photo, all by yourself.

the hypothesis needs light to bend in such dramatic ways in all three dimensions, and in exactly the same proportion for all detectable colors from infrared to ultraviolet, without any visible distortion.

Chromatic abberation?

Problem number three!

Quote from: trig on July 16, 2009, 07:05:08 AM

the hypothesis needs light to bend in such dramatic ways in all three dimensions, and in exactly the same proportion for all detectable colors from infrared to ultraviolet, without any visible distortion.

Chromatic abberation?

Problem number three!

It could be negligible, depends on the properties of the medium.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 16, 2009, 07:13:36 AM

Quote from: trig on July 16, 2009, 07:05:08 AM

the hypothesis needs light to bend in such dramatic ways in all three dimensions, and in exactly the same proportion for all detectable colors from infrared to ultraviolet, without any visible distortion.

Chromatic abberation?

Problem number three!

It could be negligible, depends on the properties of the medium.

Indeed, and we can only begin to investigate this when someone comes up with a detailed mechanism for why the light bends.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 16, 2009, 07:13:36 AM

Quote from: trig on July 16, 2009, 07:05:08 AM

the hypothesis needs light to bend in such dramatic ways in all three dimensions, and in exactly the same proportion for all detectable colors from infrared to ultraviolet, without any visible distortion.

Chromatic abberation?

Problem number three!

It could be negligible, depends on the properties of the medium.

The problem is, the medium is air and vacuum, which have well known optical properties, and they are totally unsuitable for your theory (this has been shown over and over). Refraction is not suitable for this trick. You do not need a medium with the right properties, you need a mystical force that bends light more than a black hole, but that nobody can detect.

By the way, no medium has the same refraction index for all frequencies from infrared to ultraviolet. Not even from red to violet. And you are expecting almost perfectly constant refraction through 90 degree bends? In 400 years of optics the lens designers have tried and failed to refract light a single degree with a single lens without chromatic aberration. They have to use multiple lenses to make any acceptable image.

By the way, no medium has the same refraction index for all frequencies from infrared to ultraviolet. Not even from red to violet. And you are expecting almost perfectly constant refraction through 90 degree bends?

If you look at the diagram again you will see that the light from Sigma Octanis bends through 270 degrees on its way to The Equator:

Edit -maybe not a full 270 degrees, but at least 180 degrees for sure.