If FE was accepted

Would it be some particular model, or would it be just that the earth was not round?

Would some school districts use the phew map, while others use the polar projection and other a toroid? Would each school board look at many youtube videos and decide for their school district?

Or would FE achieve consensus and all use the exact same model? If that was going to happen, why not come up with the one true model now? RE did it, why can't FE.

In any case, if I am on the school board, FE would have to agree before I put it in the schools. I would think FEs would agree, if FE is ever to be anything but more threads on FES, it has to present a particular case. I have asked more than once, and the only thing all FEs agree on is that the earth is not round.

How will FE achieve agreement? To me, it seems the most foundational thing to be done for the future of FE. Or maybe you like things just the way they are?

Well, Phew has got somekind of acknowledgement. It's not the case when I introduced it for the first time and the following months.
Perhaps due to bad, or uncomplete presentation. Only a few people supported Phew, all were Flatearthers.

Lately... some Roundearthers (we all initially came from RET, right?) have given positive feedbacks, e.g. :

Quote from: Danang on March 16, 2019, 10:02:38 PM

FlatOrange... the sun's speed is at peak on summer solstice on northern hemiplane. The more north the higher sun speed will be, the more south the lower sun speed will be. The sun speed is variable depending on the radius from south pole. The more distance from south pole, the higher speed of the sun will be. Visa versa.

Proof? The umbra of 2017's America solar eclipse. The umbra speed on America is higher than the equator's sun speed.

This would be some concrete evidence for Flat Earth.

To me it's all about between drama vs non-drama, between serious vs joking.
Phew is obvious, but afterwards anyone can choose to accept it or to continue joking around.

Of course Phew is not perfect yet. But it's on the track.

Would it be some particular model, or would it be just that the earth was not round?

Would some school districts use the phew map, while others use the polar projection and other a toroid? Would each school board look at many youtube videos and decide for their school district?

Or would FE achieve consensus and all use the exact same model? If that was going to happen, why not come up with the one true model now? RE did it, why can't FE.

In any case, if I am on the school board, FE would have to agree before I put it in the schools. I would think FEs would agree, if FE is ever to be anything but more threads on FES, it has to present a particular case. I have asked more than once, and the only thing all FEs agree on is that the earth is not round.

How will FE achieve agreement? To me, it seems the most foundational thing to be done for the future of FE. Or maybe you like things just the way they are?

Agreement will come with time, just like with any other field. Sometimes, it never comes. The majority of useful academy is disagreeing with others views - otherwise why state or write anything at all?

Agreement will come with time, just like with any other field. Sometimes, it never comes. The majority of useful academy is disagreeing with others views - otherwise why state or write anything at all?

So it's like Brexit then, where everyone can have their own contradictory ideas about what it means?

But what if you had to actually come to a general agreement about some of it?

Of course Phew is not perfect yet. But it's on the track.

Danang, when constructing a world map, it isn't sufficient to only construct accurate positives of the land masses. It's equally important to construct accurate negative space around the land masses, being the water - the oceans, seas, etc.

This is called cartography.

Would you want to live in a town or city where the law is, all town maps and apps must be at least 80 percent wrong? If not, why do so with the world? It's impractical. Distances is important in calculating fuel required for trips, for one, and accuracy regarding direction.

Danang, is it your argument, the world has not been correctly mapped and you can do a better job?

Quote from: John Davis on March 19, 2019, 04:32:38 PM

Agreement will come with time, just like with any other field. Sometimes, it never comes. The majority of useful academy is disagreeing with others views - otherwise why state or write anything at all?

So it's like Brexit then, where everyone can have their own contradictory ideas about what it means?

But what if you had to actually come to a general agreement about some of it?

I disagree that general agreement would necessarily be a good thing.

What if though? Any particular view would be chosen not by a mindful hand but an invisible one. It would be subject to the whims of popularity, circumstance, and convenience. Eventually this view would be built up long enough through ad hocs supported later by research until enough unsolvable problems bubble up. Then, this view would be rejected by a new culture and view after the previous one's proponents have died. This will then repeat.

Quote from: Danang on March 19, 2019, 03:39:06 PM

Of course Phew is not perfect yet. But it's on the track.

Danang, when constructing a world map, it isn't sufficient to only construct accurate positives of the land masses. It's equally important to construct accurate negative space around the land masses, being the water - the oceans, seas, etc.

This is called cartography.

Would you want to live in a town or city where the law is, all town maps and apps must be at least 80 percent wrong? If not, why do so with the world? It's impractical. Distances is important in calculating fuel required for trips, for one, and accuracy regarding direction.

Danang, is it your argument, the world has not been correctly mapped and you can do a better job?

As I said before, Phew is not perfect yet. But survey says, no other options but Phew FE.

If we're agree conventional FE is wrong, then I'd say globe is wrong as well.

Let's go to, say, Warsaw. At Equinox the noon sun is not at 12.00 and day length is not 12 hours. Why is it??

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/poland/warsaw

I disagree that general agreement would necessarily be a good thing.

What if though? Any particular view would be chosen not by a mindful hand but an invisible one. It would be subject to the whims of popularity, circumstance, and convenience. Eventually this view would be built up long enough through ad hocs supported later by research until enough unsolvable problems bubble up. Then, this view would be rejected by a new culture and view after the previous one's proponents have died. This will then repeat.

In my opinion, this idea of applying post-modernism to things like science is a world view in itself.  Perhaps this trend will be replaced by a new wave of rationalism?

Personally, I’m really not a fan of the idea that everyone’s view of reality is equally valid. 

I don’t see how we’re supposed to handle the challenges ahead of us, such as climate change and providing for a growing world population with dwindling resources without coming to agreement on how things work in the first place.

I see you neglected to include evidence in how we would agree on a particular world view. 

Interesting part about “unsolvable problems”.  Is that what you think has happened with the heliocentric model?

Would it be some particular model, or would it be just that the earth was not round?

Would some school districts use the phew map, while others use the polar projection and other a toroid? Would each school board look at many youtube videos and decide for their school district?

Or would FE achieve consensus and all use the exact same model? If that was going to happen, why not come up with the one true model now? RE did it, why can't FE.

In any case, if I am on the school board, FE would have to agree before I put it in the schools. I would think FEs would agree, if FE is ever to be anything but more threads on FES, it has to present a particular case. I have asked more than once, and the only thing all FEs agree on is that the earth is not round.

How will FE achieve agreement? To me, it seems the most foundational thing to be done for the future of FE. Or maybe you like things just the way they are?

of course flat earthers would love to have FE to be taught in schools. More people to con into buying there merchandise but if schools accepted FE at least from the usual crowd like Mark sargeant and that they would also have to throw every science book in the bin because they have a severe lack of any scientific understanding and would basically mean civilisation would have to be put on hold until the FE movement died out

Well, Phew has got somekind of acknowledgement. It's not the case when I introduced it for the first time and the following months.
Perhaps due to bad, or uncomplete presentation. Only a few people supported Phew, all were Flatearthers.

Lately... some Roundearthers (we all initially came from RET, right?) have given positive feedbacks, e.g. :

Quote from: FlatOrange on March 18, 2019, 11:20:42 AM

Quote from: Danang on March 16, 2019, 10:02:38 PM

FlatOrange... the sun's speed is at peak on summer solstice on northern hemiplane. The more north the higher sun speed will be, the more south the lower sun speed will be. The sun speed is variable depending on the radius from south pole. The more distance from south pole, the higher speed of the sun will be. Visa versa.

Proof? The umbra of 2017's America solar eclipse. The umbra speed on America is higher than the equator's sun speed.

This would be some concrete evidence for Flat Earth.

To me it's all about between drama vs non-drama, between serious vs joking.
Phew is obvious, but afterwards anyone can choose to accept it or to continue joking around.

My comment was interpreted differently than I intended. Key word is "would". As in, demonstrate proof that the sun changes speed and it would be concrete evidence for flat earth.

Never in the history of observing the sky has anyone noticed the sun changing speed.

Edit: added emphasis

Quote from: John Davis on March 20, 2019, 05:17:47 PM

I disagree that general agreement would necessarily be a good thing.

What if though? Any particular view would be chosen not by a mindful hand but an invisible one. It would be subject to the whims of popularity, circumstance, and convenience. Eventually this view would be built up long enough through ad hocs supported later by research until enough unsolvable problems bubble up. Then, this view would be rejected by a new culture and view after the previous one's proponents have died. This will then repeat.

In my opinion, this idea of applying post-modernism to things like science is a world view in itself.  Perhaps this trend will be replaced by a new wave of rationalism?

Personally, I’m really not a fan of the idea that everyone’s view of reality is equally valid. 

I don’t see how we’re supposed to handle the challenges ahead of us, such as climate change and providing for a growing world population with dwindling resources without coming to agreement on how things work in the first place.

I see you neglected to include evidence in how we would agree on a particular world view. 

Interesting part about “unsolvable problems”.  Is that what you think has happened with the heliocentric model?

You raise an interesting point; I don't think the intent of the post-modernists that interpreted Kuhn to say scientific truth is a social construct is to say any view of reality is equally valid. It does point out though that there are competing views and methodologies that serve man better or equally and they should be considered. I believe it also strongly suggests that these centers of power should be open to all and not restricted to one tradition or world-view. It should be just as reasonable to gather government grants to prove the earth is flat rather than to show it is round, and in doing the opposite we are actually hurting the scientific view as well as competing views as well as the idea of an open society.

Some of these problems you mention are not scientific ones; one could argue that the argument centering around climate change is not a scientific one - we can say well enough that "global" warming is happening. Its a human question around whether we want to diverge resources to handle it and if such diversion would compromise other values we hold. However, given the priveledged place science holds in our society and its access to power, this argument is instead not had and we have to play in sciences ball park and present arguments against it in that tradition.

I feel a similar argument is happening around abortion; its not about when science says a fetus is alive - its a human issue that is far more complex than this. Society has simply moved the argument to this venue as it disproportionately holds power.

My evidence towards my view presented earlier is really just the evidence that is used to support Kuhn and Feyerabend.

I do believe, and it is the text book example in fact, that this is what happened with the heliocentric model. If you look into the history, at the time it was accepted it could not explain the universe nearly as well as the dominant view of the time - especially along empirical lines. Most of Galileo's arguments were rhetorical tricks, inaccurate, or relied on some other non-scientific basis. His scientific basis also failed to be supported by knowledge of optics of the time. Ironically, the work stemming from Copernicus at the time had to make use of more epicycles to explained already noted empirical data than the epicycle model. It also predicted an incorrect number of tides a day, which should have put it out of the running right away.

The view was largely taken upon due to social reasons more than it being suited to the task. Of course, this is how it must be in the large majority of paradigm shifts like it as the new view has not had anytime to gather empirical basis and then must rely almost solely on ad hoc hypotheses and later 'puzzle solving' to attempt to build to the accuracy of the previous paradigm.

Our view is as legitimate as the heliocentric model was when it was gaining support in comparison to the round earth model corollary of the time of the Ptolemaic model. This doesn't say much, but it is of interest to note.

Quote from: Danang on March 19, 2019, 03:32:57 PM

Well, Phew has got somekind of acknowledgement. It's not the case when I introduced it for the first time and the following months.
Perhaps due to bad, or uncomplete presentation. Only a few people supported Phew, all were Flatearthers.

Lately... some Roundearthers (we all initially came from RET, right?) have given positive feedbacks, e.g. :

Quote from: FlatOrange on March 18, 2019, 11:20:42 AM

Quote from: Danang on March 16, 2019, 10:02:38 PM

FlatOrange... the sun's speed is at peak on summer solstice on northern hemiplane. The more north the higher sun speed will be, the more south the lower sun speed will be. The sun speed is variable depending on the radius from south pole. The more distance from south pole, the higher speed of the sun will be. Visa versa.

Proof? The umbra of 2017's America solar eclipse. The umbra speed on America is higher than the equator's sun speed.

This would be some concrete evidence for Flat Earth.

To me it's all about between drama vs non-drama, between serious vs joking.
Phew is obvious, but afterwards anyone can choose to accept it or to continue joking around.

My comment was interpreted differently than I intended. Key word is "would". As in, demonstrate proof that the sun changes speed and it would be concrete evidence for flat earth.

Never in the history of observing the sky has anyone noticed the sun changing speed.

Edit: added emphasis

This is incorrect. Many times has this been observed. One is present in the bible when the sun stopped speeds. I believe Rowbotham provides some accounts in Earth: Not A Globe.  More reasonable perhaps to a round earther, Charles Fort has documented many times the sun has changed speed or directions - one that comes to mind he cites from Nature happened in Lyons NY if memory serves (I don't have my books at my work desk for perhaps obvious reasons.)

Quote from: FlatOrange on March 21, 2019, 11:07:04 AM

Quote from: Danang on March 19, 2019, 03:32:57 PM

Well, Phew has got somekind of acknowledgement. It's not the case when I introduced it for the first time and the following months.
Perhaps due to bad, or uncomplete presentation. Only a few people supported Phew, all were Flatearthers.

Lately... some Roundearthers (we all initially came from RET, right?) have given positive feedbacks, e.g. :

Quote from: FlatOrange on March 18, 2019, 11:20:42 AM

Quote from: Danang on March 16, 2019, 10:02:38 PM

FlatOrange... the sun's speed is at peak on summer solstice on northern hemiplane. The more north the higher sun speed will be, the more south the lower sun speed will be. The sun speed is variable depending on the radius from south pole. The more distance from south pole, the higher speed of the sun will be. Visa versa.

Proof? The umbra of 2017's America solar eclipse. The umbra speed on America is higher than the equator's sun speed.

This would be some concrete evidence for Flat Earth.

To me it's all about between drama vs non-drama, between serious vs joking.
Phew is obvious, but afterwards anyone can choose to accept it or to continue joking around.

My comment was interpreted differently than I intended. Key word is "would". As in, demonstrate proof that the sun changes speed and it would be concrete evidence for flat earth.

Never in the history of observing the sky has anyone noticed the sun changing speed.

Edit: added emphasis

This is incorrect. Many times has this been observed. One is present in the bible when the sun stopped speeds. I believe Rowbotham provides some accounts in Earth: Not A Globe.  More reasonable perhaps to a round earther, Charles Fort has documented many times the sun has changed speed or directions - one that comes to mind he cites from Nature happened in Lyons NY if memory serves (I don't have my books at my work desk for perhaps obvious reasons.)

Document it with math. The summer Australian sun should travel faster than the UK summer sun. It changes speed year-round so how should one verify that?

John Davis,

Does applying post-modernist thought to F=MA and the periodic chart make any sense at all? If there is something profound there, why don't you write it up in unassaible logic and submit?

Meanwhile, can you explain how a sextant and equatorial mount work?

No, I thought not.

John Davis,

Does applying post-modernist thought to F=MA and the periodic chart make any sense at all? If there is something profound there, why don't you write it up in unassaible logic and submit?

I'd rather see the unassailable logic that says F=MA. Oh right. Its induction, and it need not be assailed as it has no basis.

Meanwhile, can you explain how a sextant and equatorial mount work?

No, I thought not.

I already have.

Let's go to, say, Warsaw. At Equinox the noon sun is not at 12.00 and day length is not 12 hours. Why is it??

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/poland/warsaw

Hmmm. Let's see.

First, the equinox in 2019 falls on March 20, not March 21. You've highlighted the wrong day.

Second, the page you link to has a link titled "Why is the day and night not exactly 12 hours on Equinox?"

I guess inattentiveness is your strong suit.

Quote from: Danang on March 21, 2019, 01:13:27 AM

Let's go to, say, Warsaw. At Equinox the noon sun is not at 12.00 and day length is not 12 hours. Why is it??

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/poland/warsaw

Hmmm. Let's see.

First, the equinox in 2019 falls on March 20, not March 21. You've highlighted the wrong day.

Second, the page you link to has a link titled "Why is the day and night not exactly 12 hours on Equinox?"

I guess inattentiveness is your strong suit.

its ok, flat earthers generally leave things out that prove them wrong even though its right there for anyone to find.

Quote from: jimster on March 21, 2019, 01:01:17 PM

John Davis,

Does applying post-modernist thought to F=MA and the periodic chart make any sense at all? If there is something profound there, why don't you write it up in unassaible logic and submit?

I'd rather see the unassailable logic that says F=MA. Oh right. Its induction, and it need not be assailed as it has no basis.

I hope that you realise that "F=MA" was not developed by "unassailable logic" but is one of "Newton's Three Laws of Motion":

Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Newton's three laws of motion may be stated as follows:

• Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
  
  
• Force equals mass times acceleration [ f(t) = m a(t) ].
  
  
• For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.

Quote from: John Davis on March 21, 2019, 01:26:16 PM

Quote from: jimster on March 21, 2019, 01:01:17 PM

John Davis,

Does applying post-modernist thought to F=MA and the periodic chart make any sense at all? If there is something profound there, why don't you write it up in unassaible logic and submit?

I'd rather see the unassailable logic that says F=MA. Oh right. Its induction, and it need not be assailed as it has no basis.

I hope that you realise that "F=MA" was not developed by "unassailable logic" but is one of "Newton's Three Laws of Motion":

Quote

Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Newton's three laws of motion may be stated as follows:

• Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
  
  
• Force equals mass times acceleration [ f(t) = m a(t) ].
  
  
• For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Yes, that was the point. One of these days we'll stop agreeing with each other .

Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.

Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.

Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.

So it’s also a hypothesis that you will die one day?

Yes, that was the point. One of these days we'll stop agreeing with each other .

Quote

Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.

Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.

Not quite. "Someone^[1]" has described these as:

• Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: "It's bright outside."
  
  
• Law: A statement, based on repeated experimental observations, that describes some phenomenon of nature. A description of that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
  
  
• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: "It's bright outside because the sun is probably out."
  
  
• Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So a scientific fact might be that unsupported objects fall towards the earth.
Or even that the sun appears to rise from behind the horizon. That does not state how or why it appears to rise from behind the horizon.

A scientific law is a statement, often expressed mathematically, the describes or predicts some natural phenomena.
Usually, these laws are based on extensive experimental work to determine the relations between the variables involved.
Typical examples of such laws are:

• Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation,
• Coloumb's Law relating the forces between electric charges.
• The gas laws: Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, Gay-Lussac's Law and Avogadro's Law.

None of those laws describe why the relationship exists simply that the relationship has been observed and measured often enough to expect it to continiue.
But all of these laws have ranges of applicability where they start to become inaccurate.

On the other hand, a Scientific Theory seeks to give reasons for these natural phenomena -  to answer the "Why is it so?".
But even here there is often a limit to how deep any theory can because as yet scientist does not know "everything" and they probably never will.
Typical examples might be Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory. Two "nice theories" that just "happen" to be in conflict.
So close to a Nobel Prizes awaits anyone who can disprove either Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory.

What is most likely to happen is that a quantised version of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity will eventuate.

But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist.

[1] The "Someone" was Patrick Allan in The Difference Between A Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, And Law In Science. another "nobody".

Quote from: Sunset on March 19, 2019, 09:37:44 PM

Quote from: Danang on March 19, 2019, 03:39:06 PM

Of course Phew is not perfect yet. But it's on the track.

Danang, when constructing a world map, it isn't sufficient to only construct accurate positives of the land masses. It's equally important to construct accurate negative space around the land masses, being the water - the oceans, seas, etc.

This is called cartography.

Would you want to live in a town or city where the law is, all town maps and apps must be at least 80 percent wrong? If not, why do so with the world? It's impractical. Distances is important in calculating fuel required for trips, for one, and accuracy regarding direction.

Danang, is it your argument, the world has not been correctly mapped and you can do a better job?

As I said before, Phew is not perfect yet. But survey says, no other options but Phew FE.

If we're agree conventional FE is wrong, then I'd say globe is wrong as well.

Let's go to, say, Warsaw. At Equinox the noon sun is not at 12.00 and day length is not 12 hours. Why is it??

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/poland/warsaw

Danang, i'm not sure why you propose globe earth is wrong? Looking at that chart for Warsaw, it did have 12 hours and 5 minutes of daylight on the 18th of March this year. Equinox is supposed to be around the 20th of March each year. On the 21st day of March this year, noon was at 11:42am, which is 18 minutes off 12:00pm.

You need to bear into account, the heliocentric model is that the Earth doesn't complete a full rotation of the sun exactly 365 days every year. That's why we have a leap year every 4 years where we gain a day. Earth's rotation around the sun is not a perfect circle, it's elliptical. I'm sure these factors explain some of the time discrepancy in Warsaw you note, but I could be wrong.

An easier explanation is simply time zones. The time zone in Warsaw is a large distance across the longitude meridian. Within that meridian line is differences in the times of sunrise, midday, and sunset.

Danang, im no scientist, but science has an explanation for almost everything. What is the flat earth explanation?

Quote from: John Davis on March 21, 2019, 06:20:34 PM

Yes, that was the point. One of these days we'll stop agreeing with each other .

Quote

Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.

Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.

Not quite. "Someone^[1]" has described these as:

• Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: "It's bright outside."
  
  
• Law: A statement, based on repeated experimental observations, that describes some phenomenon of nature. A description of that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
  
  
• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: "It's bright outside because the sun is probably out."
  
  
• Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So a scientific fact might be that unsupported objects fall towards the earth.
Or even that the sun appears to rise from behind the horizon. That does not state how or why it appears to rise from behind the horizon.

A scientific law is a statement, often expressed mathematically, the describes or predicts some natural phenomena.
Usually, these laws are based on extensive experimental work to determine the relations between the variables involved.
Typical examples of such laws are:

• Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation,
• Coloumb's Law relating the forces between electric charges.
• The gas laws: Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, Gay-Lussac's Law and Avogadro's Law.

None of those laws describe why the relationship exists simply that the relationship has been observed and measured often enough to expect it to continiue.
But all of these laws have ranges of applicability where they start to become inaccurate.

On the other hand, a Scientific Theory seeks to give reasons for these natural phenomena -  to answer the "Why is it so?".
But even here there is often a limit to how deep any theory can because as yet scientist does not know "everything" and they probably never will.
Typical examples might be Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory. Two "nice theories" that just "happen" to be in conflict.
So close to a Nobel Prizes awaits anyone who can disprove either Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory.

What is most likely to happen is that a quantised version of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity will eventuate.

But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist.

[1] The "Someone" was Patrick Allan in The Difference Between A Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, And Law In Science. another "nobody".

Yes, Rab. We all went to high school and learned that incorrect and silly view of things. And guess what; "But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist." neither is he, so you are in good company.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 21, 2019, 07:37:57 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 21, 2019, 06:20:34 PM

Yes, that was the point. One of these days we'll stop agreeing with each other .

Quote

Now tell us what is the difference between a fact, a hypothesis, a theory, and a law in Science.

Facts don't exist in science. It is but a hypothesis that the sun might rise tomorrow.

Theory and law are fashion.

Not quite. But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist.

The "Someone" was Patrick Allan in The Difference Between A Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, And Law In Science. another "nobody".

Yes, Rab. We all went to high school and learned that incorrect and silly view of things. And guess what; "But, what would I know? I'm no physicist, cosmologist or even a scientist." neither is he, so you are in good company.

I may not be a scientist but I've probably every bit as much background, both academic and practical physics as you and you are certainly not any physicist or cosmologist.

But what I find so funny is that you ridicule Patrick Allan and myself because I said that we aren't scientists, physicists or cosmologists.
I've just been watching a review of Mark Sargent's video Flat Earth Clues 14 - The Coat of Credibility - Mark Sargent.
Mark Sargent's theme right through that flat earthers are not to trust these scientists .

We, poor Flat Earth Deniers can't win .

So, what about showing your evidence that this, "silly view of things" I presented really is really incorrect.

• Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: "It's bright outside."
  
  
• Law: A statement, based on repeated experimental observations, that describes some phenomenon of nature. A description of that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
  
  
• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: "It's bright outside because the sun is probably out."
  
  
• Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

So a scientific fact might be that unsupported objects fall towards the earth.
Or even that the sun appears to rise from behind the horizon. That does not state how or why it appears to rise from behind the horizon.

A scientific law is a statement, often expressed mathematically, the describes or predicts some natural phenomena.
Usually, these laws are based on extensive experimental work to determine the relations between the variables involved.
Typical examples of such laws are:

• Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation,
• Coloumb's Law relating the forces between electric charges.
• The gas laws: Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, Gay-Lussac's Law and Avogadro's Law.

None of those laws describe why the relationship exists simply that the relationship has been observed and measured often enough to expect it to continiue.
But all of these laws have ranges of applicability where they start to become inaccurate.

On the other hand, a Scientific Theory seeks to give reasons for these natural phenomena -  to answer the "Why is it so?".
Typical examples might be Einstein's Theory of General Relativity or the Quantum Theory. Two "nice theories" that just "happen" to be in conflict.

Those "facts", "laws" and "theories" I presented were just examples and I made no claim about them.
So even if you presented any evidence to the contrary you have done nothing to show that my post was "that incorrect and silly view of things".

So enough ridicule. It's time to present evidence for whatever you are claiming.

Rabinoz, John Davis is just trying to get a bite out of you.

This is a person who said, "Facts don't exist in science". The internet, smartphones, even computers, don't factually exist, according to John. Heck, sunlight, our atmosphere, humanity, even the very earth we walk on - don't factually exist. You don't actually, exist Rabinoz. All just hypothesis, no facts anywhere.

Cool your jets and check out the rocket jets at the NASA exhibit at the Brisbane museum sometime soon, if you haven't already.... it's loaded with extremely cool NASA technology, and factual evidence of humanity's adventures on the moon...

Facts don't exist in science.

Here's a bit on it, from a scientist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/

Re: IF FE was accepted
All the navigators or aviators in the earth would have to discard their present  RE maps and charts and navigate or fly using FE maps and charts .

Here's a bit on it, from a scientist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/

Irrelevant to the examples of facts that I presented. It looks as though you really have nothing to offer.

Bye.