GEODESY

Quote from: John Davis on June 08, 2016, 02:25:39 PM

I don't need to paint it like a closed state of mind because it is. I'm not the one doing the painting, Kuhn is.  More accurately, the reality of the situation makes it a closed state of mind.  How can deep specialization grow, for example, without a certain degree of closed mindedness?

For examples i have a physicist supervisor and a chemist co worker, and we discuss a lot.

Like I said, no one is saying there isn't a place for 'normal science.'

Quote from: rabinoz on June 08, 2016, 07:37:44 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 08, 2016, 06:05:21 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 08, 2016, 01:49:02 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 07, 2016, 04:52:22 PM

I'm attempting to build from my own base premises. This fits my view of what science should be as a true love for science really means looking for the answers that are 'crazy enough'

Presumably this means ignoring observation and experimentation?

Of course not. Though, historically that's exactly what rock and roll science does. Copernicus' famous one tide ( a fact he would HAVE to know ) and Einstein's "the theory is correct" comes to mind.

I think you are a bit hard on scientists (or whatever you want to call them) of the middle ages.
Claiming that two tides a day was "a fact he would HAVE to know", why would he have to know that?

You are a very quick one to judge these people of what YOU think they should have known!

Just be a little cognisant of the fact that they simply did not have that data we have. We have tide information from all over the world and I have been in Derby, WA with tides swings of 8 to 12 m, then just a few hindered km south near Carnarvon with tides swings of 0.5 m.  Galileo, Copernicus and the rest did not have this information.

For a start I can't find much on Copernicus and tides, but I can find plenty on Galileo.

Do you have a reference on "Copernicus' famous one tide"?

Quote

While writing the book, Galileo referred to it as his Dialogue on the Tides, and when the manuscript went to the Inquisition for approval, the title was Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea. He was ordered to remove all mention of tides from the title and to change the preface because granting approval to such a title would look like approval of his theory of the tides using the motion of the Earth as proof.

Gailieo lived in Italy and did much of his work at Padua, away from the sea. The Mediterranean has very small and uneven tides. I don't where Galileo might have got his tide information, but Genoa has very uneven tides, some places in the world really do have only ONE tide per day, such as Pensacola, Florida.

Tides at Genoa, Italy

Tide Times at Pensacola, Florida

So what about a bit of fair treatment for these people who were probably every bit as capable and honest scientists as you, but did have the benefit of another 400 years or so of data, accumulated with instruments they could not even dream of, and many of which many flat earther's claim are fake!

Its a fact that I can show that has been known since Antiquity. Even when nonsense was excepted as fact, this was a so common an observance that anybody living near water would and have easily talked about. The reference for the claim though is from On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Are you really trying to claim that society did not know that there were two tides a day?! Let alone an expert of the field that changed the way we thought about everything we know about the universe? He knew his theory was elegant, even if it wasn't perfect.

Bollocks to call this. It is folly.

Are you sure you want to continue? I am not quick to judge them though, others have already judged this and I am but standing on their shoulders. We may continue if you wish...

Galileo was ordered to remove all mentions of many things. Because his work was patently false. He had no basis to use his experiments as they outstretched his knowledge of optics and often physics - as can be shown by the publishing date and record of his knowledge of Optics.  Or his ridiculous drawings of the moon! Not only this but it was against common knowledge physics  (look at his second Dialogue on the Tower of Pisa). As the rulers of Truth and the caregivers of a Society, and as judged by a group of his peers - experts in Astronomy and science as well as Church doctrine including Tycho Brahe the greatest astronomer to have graced our earth. His - Galileo's - work was seen as patently false and as such a danger to the community. The church had no issue changing its mind for science - and it still doesn't.  Whether it be the big bang or whether at the time the earth was flat. Either way, they were glad to yield as they knew the wisdom of Christ was beyond literalistic interpretation. And they understood - you tell parables when people have eyes that cannot see.

This is why Einstein said Galileo's work is aimed more at comprehension than at facts. Because he was trying to evoke a shift in thought that outstripped the empirical evidence. Again as I've said before much like any revolution.  And like Einstein did himself. To show this one can just look at when Einstein said that once the mathematicians got a hold of relativity, he could no longer say he understood it!

And yet he (Galileo) ignored the law, and all the better for us. And so we must to - ignore the law. And proudly proclaim - The Earth Is Flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 08, 2016, 07:37:44 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 08, 2016, 06:05:21 AM

Of course not. Though, historically that's exactly what rock and roll science does. Copernicus' famous one tide ( a fact he would HAVE to know ) and Einstein's "the theory is correct" comes to mind.

I think you are a bit hard on scientists (or whatever you want to call them) of the middle ages.
Claiming that two tides a day was "a fact he would HAVE to know", why would he have to know that?

You are a very quick one to judge these people of what YOU think they should have known!

Just be a little cognisant of the fact that they simply did not have that data we have. We have tide information from all over the world and I have been in Derby, WA with tides swings of 8 to 12 m, then just a few hindered km south near Carnarvon with tides swings of 0.5 m.  Galileo, Copernicus and the rest did not have this information.

For a start I can't find much on Copernicus and tides, but I can find plenty on Galileo.

Do you have a reference on "Copernicus' famous one tide"?

Quote

While writing the book, Galileo referred to it as his Dialogue on the Tides, and when the manuscript went to the Inquisition for approval, the title was Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea. He was ordered to remove all mention of tides from the title and to change the preface because granting approval to such a title would look like approval of his theory of the tides using the motion of the Earth as proof.

Gailieo lived in Italy and did much of his work at Padua, away from the sea. The Mediterranean has very small and uneven tides. I don't where Galileo might have got his tide information, but Genoa has very uneven tides, some places in the world really do have only ONE tide per day, such as Pensacola, Florida.

Tides at Genoa, Italy

Tide Times at Pensacola, Florida

So what about a bit of fair treatment for these people who were probably every bit as capable and honest scientists as you, but did have the benefit of another 400 years or so of data, accumulated with instruments they could not even dream of, and many of which many flat earther's claim are fake!

Its a fact that I can show that has been known since Antiquity. Even when nonsense was excepted as fact, this was a so common an observance that anybody living near water would and have easily talked about. The reference for the claim though is from On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Are you really trying to claim that society did not know that there were two tides a day?! Let alone an expert of the field that changed the way we thought about everything we know about the universe? He knew his theory was elegant, even if it wasn't perfect.

Bollocks to call this. It is folly.

Are you sure you want to continue? I am not quick to judge them though, others have already judged this and I am but standing on their shoulders. We may continue if you wish...

Galileo was ordered to remove all mentions of many things. Because his work was patently false. He had no basis to use his experiments as they outstretched his knowledge of optics and often physics - as can be shown by the publishing date and record of his knowledge of Optics.  Or his ridiculous drawings of the moon! Not only this but it was against common knowledge physics  (look at his second Dialogue on the Tower of Pisa). As the rulers of Truth and the caregivers of a Society, and as judged by a group of his peers - experts in Astronomy and science as well as Church doctrine including Tycho Brahe the greatest astronomer to have graced our earth. His - Galileo's - work was seen as patently false and as such a danger to the community. The church had no issue changing its mind for science - and it still doesn't.  Whether it be the big bang or whether at the time the earth was flat. Either way, they were glad to yield as they knew the wisdom of Christ was beyond literalistic interpretation. And they understood - you tell parables when people have eyes that cannot see.

This is why Einstein said Galileo's work is aimed more at comprehension than at facts. Because he was trying to evoke a shift in thought that outstripped the empirical evidence. Again as I've said before much like any revolution.  And like Einstein did himself. To show this one can just look at when Einstein said that once the mathematicians got a hold of relativity, he could no longer say he understood it!

And yet he (Galileo) ignored the law, and all the better for us. And so we must to - ignore the law. And proudly proclaim - The Earth Is Flat.

The Baltic Sea is itself too small to have its own significant tides, and it has too narrow an opening to the North Sea to be influenced by the North Atlantic tides. The total tidal effect is only a few centimetres. Tidal waves from Kattegat through the Sound contribute a few centimetres of tide in the Southern Baltic.

No rejoinder, Mr. Davis? 

Love, Dr. Belle.

PS:  I'm all for vigorous scientific debate.  I do it almost every day.  But claims must be backed up by hypothesis-driven, experimentally-verified data.  Sometimes findings are proven less than accurate in the light of newer findings.  That's how you advance knowledge, as carefully as you can and a little bit at a time.  You convince those who disagree with hard, experimental evidence.  Not by saying everyone's who disagrees with you is a liar and no one's qualified to talk about subjects they've dedicated their lives to studying.

Electromagnetic Accelerator

Recently a proposal for electromagnetic acceleration has surfaced:

Since there has been such a long wait for a conclusive equation describing EA theory, here is an approximate formula for large-scale bending. To find this, I took the limit of a much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, it is not valid for short-range experiments such as the one proposed by Sentient Pizza, but it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.

Definition of terms:

x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray, where y is increasing in the direction of fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential, and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.

c - the speed of light in a vacuum.

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Mr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

The equation itself is:



Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero)

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 07:08:47 AM

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

I'd still like to know what qualifies someone to talk about matters of science.  If someone like me, with 15 years of laboratory research and a Ph.D isn't under my belt, then who?

Love,

Ian

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 07:08:47 AM

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

Even though I am not sure what Feyerabend meant was that any nut with his "theory" is justified, Feyerabend's ideas on the subject are a bit... I don't want to say crazy, but... Uh... Whatever. The problem is that he extrapolates and uses reductio ad absurdum too much, and most of what he says is very abstract and doesn't really help. His philosophy essentially revolves around not giving a fuck about logic, even though he pretends to use logic to reach those conclusions, and if one follows his tenets, he gets nowhere useful. Denying the possibility of knowledge in general gets you nowhere useful, and is actually against what Kuhn said. Philosophical skepticism to that extent is useless and a bit ridiculous. So yeah, he is a problem. Anything doesn't go, unless you want to run around in circles.

Quote from: ibelle42 on June 09, 2016, 07:28:01 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 07:08:47 AM

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

I'd still like to know what qualifies someone to talk about matters of science.  If someone like me, with 15 years of laboratory research and a Ph.D isn't under my belt, then who?

Love,

Ian

I'm certainly not qualified to talk about it either,  so my statement was a bit unfair.

That said, someone with a working knowledge in Philosophy of Science or History of Science would be better fitted. You are in the trenches of science, and as such it would be very hard for you to see the complete picture or be able to give an honest account. You are going to have your own views by necessity of your position. I shouldn't have shut you down like that. As a scientist though, why would you want to introduce this bias?

Another point I should bring up is that I'm not discussing the kind of science you perform (which is necessary and good.) I'm discussing the outwards reaching science, not the specialized and inwards moving science.

All this said, I'm a bit skeptical - you have no idea how many supposed 'PhDs', 'Astronauts', 'Pilots' and 'Aerospace engineers' we get here that turn up to be some guy in a basement. I even had the other day someone claiming to be working on her PhD in Astrophysics tell me surface integrals are 'fake math.' I've got a quite a few friends that are practicing scientists in various fields. Most won't even give the flat earth idea so much as a breath, and the same seems to be true of most academics we contacted for my radio spot on the BBC that ultimately would not argue against it. While a few professors and what not have contacted me over the years, and have discussed it with me privately, for the most part they are confident in what they know and have a point of view that will not change - even when they admit my arguments are valid. Their goal is to convert me to their view like an evangelist might.

And why would they give this crackpot idea time, effort, or open mindedness? They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. It could quite literally drive them insane to agree with me due to how heavily entrenched their worldview is. To function as well they have to work off their already existing web of knowledge and stand on the shoulders of giants. Few I've met have ever taken the time to consider their entire belief structure from the base premises they are derived from. Just some thoughts on it.

From what I remember of my undergrad science and math classes they are indeed rote and often had very little to do with the history or the method behind the discoveries and instead focused on the theories themselves. Never was it mentioned how we discovered calculus, for example, except perhaps in the margin between chapters of a math text which was afaik never actually covered in any course material.

To me it seems like the average student spends the vast majority of his career learning the facts that came out of history and often times the rest is passed over.  Seldom are the situations discussed let alone the philosophical basis for them. After all, if they covered this material properly they would be getting a philosophy or history degree, not one in whichever scientific field that they are working in. By nature it has to be this way otherwise most would not be able to gain the specialization required to make a small dent towards deductive knowledge if they spent their time learning each bit of the history and philosophy behind their knowledge.

Quote from: ibelle42 on June 09, 2016, 07:28:01 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 07:08:47 AM

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

I'd still like to know what qualifies someone to talk about matters of science.  If someone like me, with 15 years of laboratory research and a Ph.D isn't under my belt, then who?

Love,

Ian

I'm certainly not qualified to talk about it either,  so my statement was a bit unfair.

That said, someone with a working knowledge in Philosophy of Science or History of Science would be better fitted. You are in the trenches of science, and as such it would be very hard for you to see the complete picture or be able to give an honest account. You are going to have your own views by necessity of your position. I shouldn't have shut you down like that. As a scientist though, why would you want to introduce this bias?

Another point I should bring up is that I'm not discussing the kind of science you perform (which is necessary and good.) I'm discussing the outwards reaching science, not the specialized and inwards moving science.

All this said, I'm a bit skeptical - you have no idea how many supposed 'PhDs', 'Astronauts', 'Pilots' and 'Aerospace engineers' we get here that turn up to be some guy in a basement. I even had the other day someone claiming to be working on her PhD in Astrophysics tell me surface integrals are 'fake math.' I've got a quite a few friends that are practicing scientists in various fields. Most won't even give the flat earth idea so much as a breath, and the same seems to be true of most academics we contacted for my radio spot on the BBC that ultimately would not argue against it. While a few professors and what not have contacted me over the years, and have discussed it with me privately, for the most part they are confident in what they know and have a point of view that will not change - even when they admit my arguments are valid. Their goal is to convert me to their view like an evangelist might.

And why would they give this crackpot idea time, effort, or open mindedness? They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. It could quite literally drive them insane to agree with me due to how heavily entrenched their worldview is. To function as well they have to work off their already existing web of knowledge and stand on the shoulders of giants. Few I've met have ever taken the time to consider their entire belief structure from the base premises they are derived from. Just some thoughts on it.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 09, 2016, 07:25:08 AM

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 07:08:47 AM

Actually I'm more of a Feyerabend guy myself. After all, anything goes.

Even though I am not sure what Feyerabend meant was that any nut with his "theory" is justified, Feyerabend's ideas on the subject are a bit... I don't want to say crazy, but... Uh... Whatever. The problem is that he extrapolates and uses reductio ad absurdum too much, and most of what he says is very abstract and doesn't really help. His philosophy essentially revolves around not giving a fuck about logic, even though he pretends to use logic to reach those conclusions, and if one follows his tenets, he gets nowhere useful. Denying the possibility of knowledge in general gets you nowhere useful, and is actually against what Kuhn said. Philosophical skepticism to that extent is useless and a bit ridiculous. So yeah, he is a problem. Anything doesn't go, unless you want to run around in circles.

He does support his argument through quite a few historical examples. How do you account for these examples being successful if they are indeed against method? Several very notable examples, at that - let alone the work done to show similar examples by those who followed him. If anything doesn't go, then surely these examples of science ignoring method would not be functional or as wildly successful as they are.

Going further, if we ignore the Kuhn cycle and look at Popper we see falsifiability is really only valid if ad hoc hypotheses are not allowed to the extent which they are in use today. What is the difference between Dark Matter and Russel's Teapot or Leprechauns that alter rotational velocities of certain galaxies? Not only historically do we see us work against method but also today right now.


Let's look at what some of those in the trenches - those who practiced -  say about method instead of those who talk of it from the outside in philosophy of science.

Carl Sagan “Anyone who witnesses the advance of science first-hand sees an intensely personal undertaking, A few saintly personalities stand out admist a roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, backbiting, suppression of dissent, and absurd conceits. In some fields, highly productive fields, such behavior is almost the norm”

Lindegren: method “is permeated with opinions which pass for valid scientific inductions and with contradictions which are disregarded because it is too painful to face the prospect of the revisions of the theory which would be required to reconcile the contradictory observations with the dominant theory.”

Medawar When asked about method, the scientist “ will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty eyed; solemn because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." and that methods “are simply the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up and the public sees us.  The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.” If Medawar doesn't think the working scientist has any idea of method, what hope do you have of understanding method?



And what of the experts of the past? Those Giants?

As Richard Westfall, noted biographer of Newton says parts of newtons work the principia are “nothing short of deliberate fraud” and “no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so effectively as the master mathematician himself”

Einstein faked the gyromagnetic ratio. When experiment disproved it he stubbornly ignored it.

Copernicus ignored that his theory was directly against known knowledge.

Galileo had no empirical basis in Optics for use of his telescope and many of his 'moon drawings' can be debunked by simply looking to the sky. This is ignoring the issues with several of his dialogues which he must have been aware of.


And what about studies about scientists working today? Who we surely should trust as they are responsible for handing down knowledge to society. The promise of empiricism during enlightenment was a movement away from a specialized class handing down dogma like the role the Church played.

Well looking at Brian Martinson's survey and Normal Misbehavior (2006) by Raymond De Vries we see this trust really isn't well founded.

But surely this gets weeded out in peer review right? That's how science works. Wrong. Just check out John Bohannon's "Who's Afraid of Peer Review" or the thousands of SciGen submitted papers to peer reviewed journals that have yet to be redacted.


The working scientist we see - from the horses mouth - are folks happy with academic misconduct and using their opinions as fact as well as "contradictions which are disregarded because it is too painful to face the prospect of the revisions of the theory" while they bounce around in their " roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, backbiting, suppression of dissent, and absurd conceits" with no real fear of falsification because, after all, who is afraid of peer review?

Ok, that was a big text. Hold on.

"He does support his argument through quite a few historical examples."


Not really. Most of these examples are either misinterpretations of what happened (Einstein), showing an application of the method that is not rigorous but still an application of the method (Galileo), and what's left is mostly unrelated incidents. Besides, who says that if a different method obtained the right result, it means that the usual method WOULDN'T obtain it?

"What is the difference between Dark Matter and Russel's Teapot or Leprechauns that alter rotational velocities of certain galaxies?"

I'm not sure what Russell's teapot has to do with this, so I'm just going to ignore it for now. You see, dark matter holding galaxies together is still more or less a hypothesis and not really a theory, but here's how it came to be: observational data showed that there was something holding galaxies together that was unaccounted for. Ok, no idea what that could be. Maybe it could be matter that can not be seen, or leprechauns. Do we know matter that can not be seen but can interact gravitationally? Actually, yes. Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically, but they still interact gravitationally, so we know that kind of matter exists. Can't say the same for leprechauns. Well, we're already going better than leprechauns here, don't you think? Scientists have also detected gravitational lensing coming from these areas, so that's another reason why it's probably matter and not leprechauns. There is a difference. It's still sort of ad hoc, but that's only because it's not a true theory yet. That's an important distinction to be made. If that distinction didn't exist, then maybe your points would have some validity.

"but also today right now."


I am not sure if what you are misinterpreting is the method or how it is applied. Making a wild guess (or a hypothesis) and then checking if it is true is perfectly in line with the method.

"Carl Sagan:"

I don't see what this has to do with the method.

"Lindegren:"


Who's Lindegren?

"If Medawar doesn't think the working scientist has any idea of method, what hope do you have of understanding method?"

Is that an appeal to authority?

"As Richard Westfall, noted biographer of Newton says parts of newtons work the principia are “nothing short of deliberate fraud” and “no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so effectively as the master mathematician himself”"


First of all, I can't be sure about that unless I see a proof. Assuming it's true, as I have said time and time again, 1) Where the fudging happened was in most cases in where independent proofs of theories were supposed to be to make them sound more rock solid than they were back then, not in reaching the conclusions presented, and 2) Scientists back then weren't as rigorous, and these practices were common.

"Copernicus ignored that his theory was directly against known knowledge."


Ditto the above. Also, citation needed.

"Einstein faked the gyromagnetic ratio. When experiment disproved it he stubbornly ignored it."


Citation needed.

"Well looking at Brian Martinson's survey and Normal Misbehavior (2006) by Raymond De Vries we see this trust really isn't well founded."


I do not understand what you are referring to.

"the thousands of SciGen submitted papers to peer reviewed journals that have yet to be redacted."


Uh... Probably because nobody even paid them attention?

"The working scientist we see - from the horses mouth - are folks happy with academic misconduct and using their opinions as fact as well as "contradictions which are disregarded because it is too painful to face the prospect of the revisions of the theory" while they bounce around in their " roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, backbiting, suppression of dissent, and absurd conceits" with no real fear of falsification because, after all, who is afraid of peer review?"


Yay!!! Generalizations!!! Cherry picking!!! Yay!!!

"Never was it mentioned how we discovered calculus,"


Probably because it was a calculus class and not a science history class? Also, calculus wasn't really "discovered", but that's irrelevant and nitpicking. I just wanted to point it out.

"let alone the philosophical basis for them."

Why do you think that should be discussed?

Anyway, I don't get your point. There has been academic misconduct in the past, so the earth is flat? What?

Also, let's just stop this philosophical debate. Besides, philosophy, just like psychology, contains a lot of mumbo jumbo, and I don't think it really fits here.

Geodesy as well as a host of other issues can be explained by a non-euclidean flat earth.

Geodesy as well as a host of other issues can be explained by a non-euclidean flat earth.

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 11:29:24 AM

Geodesy as well as a host of other issues can be explained by a non-euclidean flat earth.

You keep waving your hands around furiously whilst saying this, but it's essentially meaningless.

Your version of the flat earth seems to be one that is for all intents and purposes a globe, yet is flat.

It just seems like a cheap debating tactic  - any evidence of a globe can just be waved off with "yeah, but it's  non-euclidean, brah" and that's it.

Quote from: John Davis on June 09, 2016, 11:29:24 AM

Geodesy as well as a host of other issues can be explained by a non-euclidean flat earth.

Can it?  Please demonstrate.

IF its fair game for round earth science to bend space and time itself, why is it all of a sudden ridiculous when a flat earther does it? Psh.

The complaint seems to have been that this model fits all evidence, measurements and findings.

IF its fair game for round earth science to bend space and time itself, why is it all of a sudden ridiculous when a flat earther does it? Psh.