Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".

Tom Bishop posted this in the "Suggestions & Concerns" forum where it should not be debated.

I think that there should be a forum where the RE get together and try to figure out the nonsense in their model.

Rather than relying on a video by Jeranism, it would be better to read the article referred to, so here is the link: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems by Bjørn Ekeberg

Firstly even the question of a Heliocentric Solar System vs a Geocentric Solar System or even a Geocentric Universe is almost irrelevant to the question of the shape of the earth.
There is virtually no way without modern instruments or good astronomical telescopes that an observer could know whether the earth rotates and orbits the sun or not.

And up until the early 20th century few astronomers gave any thought to the Universe extending past the stars then visible.
Andromeda was just considered a spiral nebula but Edwin Hubble in 1923, using the new 100" telescope, was the first to see it as another Galaxy outside the Milky Way.

1923: Other galaxies exist
In the early 1900s, astronomers were debating the makeup of spiral nebulae — cloudy, spiral-shaped objects found throughout the night sky. Were they gas clouds located within our Milky Way galaxy, or were they vast groups of stars located far beyond our galaxy?

In 1919, American astronomer Edwin Hubble tackled the question. His keen astronomical knowledge was combined with a powerful tool – the Hooker telescope with its 100-inch mirror, on top of Mount Wilson in California. Hubble used the telescope’s resolution and light-gathering power to take a series of photographs of the great nebula in Andromeda. For the first time, the images revealed faint stars in the nebula.

Until as late as 1923 Cosmology involved only the relative nearby stars.
So I would rather call Cosmology involving anything outside our easily visibly range "Modern Cosmology".

But even the basic theory of the Heliocentric Solar System need involve nothing outside the solar system except that observations of even nearby stars provides solid evidence that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice-versa.

So I fail to see why we need defend anything outside the Solar System as part of the Globe model.
There is at least one member here, cikljamas, and quite a number outside, including Robert Sungenis, who are Geocentrists (or neo-Geocentrists) and are very opposed to the idea of a Flat Earth.

So, in my opinion, Tom Bishop's claim "that there should be a forum where the RE get together and try to figure out the nonsense in their model" is quite unnecessary.

While Modern Cosmology might by interesting it is still in quite a state of flux but is totally irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth question.

What do others think?

There is a forum for this-

Peer reviewed research published in professional scientific journals.

Edit:  Oh you mean a forum here?

There could be one for a bunch of us to discuss interesting things with our limited understanding of cosmology and astrophysics.  But I’m pretty sure we’re all amateurs, so it’s not going to prove anything either way.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 26, 2019, 06:13:59 PM

What do others think?

I think you should lighten up before you give yourself a stroke.

it doesn't bother me. But I was simply trying to point out that so many flat earthers, especially on YouTube, claim that "round earthers" must support all the findings of modern Cosmology. And that is totally false.

The Globe stands alone and does not depend on anything else.
The Heliocentric Solar System does not need the support of modern Cosmology as Jeranism and by extension Tom Bishop are trying to imply.

Ah, just looking out for you, buddy.   

I may have said this in another thread, but I really don't understand why flat earthers present videos by jeranism.

Jeranism is the same dude that was getting clapped in a debate with Red's Rhetoric.



"I do not have a model that works"

LOL

While Modern Cosmology might by interesting it is still in quite a state of flux but is totally irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth question.

It is as relevant to RET as discussions of stellar and similarly celestial phenomenon are to FET.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 26, 2019, 06:13:59 PM

While Modern Cosmology might by interesting it is still in quite a state of flux but is totally irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth question.

It is as relevant to RET as discussions of stellar and similarly celestial phenomenon are to FET.

I agree.  But FE hypotheses should be able to account for the readily observable, such as the relative positions of nearby stars, just as the heliocentric model does (without needing to go into the big bang and other aspects of modern cosmology).

I’ve not seen anyone asking flat earthers to explain much more depth than things like “how do we see stars going round 2 celestial poles?”

Quote from: Jane on May 27, 2019, 02:23:03 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 26, 2019, 06:13:59 PM

While Modern Cosmology might by interesting it is still in quite a state of flux but is totally irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth question.

It is as relevant to RET as discussions of stellar and similarly celestial phenomenon are to FET.

I agree.  But FE hypotheses should be able to account for the readily observable, such as the relative positions of nearby stars, just as the heliocentric model does (without needing to go into the big bang and other aspects of modern cosmology).

I’ve not seen anyone asking flat earthers to explain much more depth than things like “how do we see stars going round 2 celestial poles?”

Discussions tend to very quickly become topics like "How did the flat Earth form?" slash "How did that system originate?"

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc., are all based on earthly experiments and interpretations.

Those laws do not work in the giant universe you propose. You definitely have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what your laws say and what the universe shows.

By saying "I don't have to explain that" you just abandoned your physical laws of the universe with a 40 minute video. Lol.

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc., are all based on earthly experiments and interpretations.

Those laws do not work in the giant universe you propose. You definitely have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what your laws say and what the universe shows.

By saying "I don't have to explain that" you just abandoned your physical laws of the universe with a 40 minute video. Lol.

We're working on it. The Universe is kind of a big deal. Unlocking the mysteries of the Universe is going to take some more effort. In other words, reconciling any contradictions and discrepancies between laws/theories and the vast Universe is always in the mix. And always will be.

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc. are working quite well locally, you know, from a solar system perspective. Which is a pretty big deal unto itself.

As to the 40 minute video, I'm about 3/4 through. Jeran spending the majority of the time reading, word-for-word, a Scientific American article titled "Cosmology Has Some Big Problems" in the publications Blog section called 'Observation' (Read 'Opinion'). I actually don't disagree with anything in the opinion piece, but I don't need Jeran's audiobook narration. Tedious and pointless.

As well, he goes on to quote Hubble out of context by mixing sentences from various paragraphs in a Hubble book into one quote and leaving some key sentences out and then goes on to declare, "What is obvious is the hate for God in the previous quotes and the horror of having to be the center of creation."

Again, Jeran's interpretations on poorly researched, out of context quote cherry picking is decidedly disingenuous, needless, and just chewing the scenery for his devotees. Not at all insightful or illuminating.

The long and short of it, as we move further out away from the globe beyond our little milky way and try to determine cause and effect for phenomena in the greater Universe, theories will solidify or change, new ones will emerge and so on.

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc., are all based on earthly experiments and interpretations.

Those laws do not work in the giant universe you propose. You definitely have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what your laws say and what the universe shows.

I did not propose any "laws do not work in the giant universe I propose" so please cease this straw-man type of debating.
I do not "have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what my laws say and what the universe shows" because they are not "my laws".

Read what the paper says:

In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at the extreme scales of the cosmos.

Note the "extreme scales of the cosmos" and by that he is referring to billions of light-years distant!

According to modern Cosmology, gravitationally bound galaxies (groups) are not "being pulled apart" by the assumed expansion of the Universe.

Our Local Group includes our galaxy  (the Milky Way),  Andromeda and many others and is about 10,000,000 light years across.
So I'm not going to bother my head about things that might be happening more than 5,000,000 light years away.

And as if that is not enough, the Andromeda galaxy appears to be approaching the Milky Way not receding.
If the universe is expanding, why are we on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy?

Just look at the distances before galaxies are consistently moving away from ours (a parsec is about 3.6 light years):

Our "local Group" is the little cluster of points at the bottom left - some are receding and some are approaching.

By saying "I don't have to explain that" you just abandoned your physical laws of the universe with a 40 minute video. Lol.

Laugh all you like, but you'd be advised to get your own house in order, get a model that works without numerous hypotheses (guesses) and a map that has no edges.
Yes, "a map that has no edges" because otherwise up to millions would have fallen off years ago - unless you dream up more hypotheses. 

But no, I didn't abandoned any physical laws relevant to the Heliocentric Solar System or even within our own Galaxy.
Nothing presented in any ways discredits even General Relativity.
All it does is to question hypotheses about how things behave many millions of light years away and so reveals that there are things that are not yet known.

But no one, let alone modern scientists questions that though some near the end of the 19th century did claim that man had learned all there  was to be known . Little did they know!

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc., are all based on earthly experiments and interpretations.

Those laws do not work in the giant universe you propose. You definitely have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what your laws say and what the universe shows.

By saying "I don't have to explain that" you just abandoned your physical laws of the universe with a 40 minute video. Lol.

Ok tom
Just because the quatum and cosmic math is still theoretical means we can throw out the ball?

You cant even properly explain the very predictable eclispe or why stars go different ways in different hemispehres.

Come on now tomB.

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc., are all based on earthly experiments and interpretations.

Those laws do not work in the giant universe you propose. You definitely have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what your laws say and what the universe shows.

By saying "I don't have to explain that" you just abandoned your physical laws of the universe with a 40 minute video. Lol.

Like all flat earthers you come out with meaningless empty statements like the one above that have no basis in reality and the workings of the real world. Perhaps the physical laws on planet Bishop are different, but here on planet Earth.....
 
Children in school can prove Newton’s laws in basic physics classes, while the concept of Doppler shift can be heard standing on any street corner every time a vehicle with a siren passes. Every sat nav in smartphone, car, aircraft or ship gives the users position based on calculations that take GR into account.

We don't really need a special RE forum, we've got the rest of the internet. There's better minds than ours providing all the information required.

"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works, let alone our small part of it, and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works, let alone our small part of it, and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

First of all, nobody has ever "claimed to understand how the entire universe works."  And "We are working on it" is a standard answer from any FEB regarding any theory they have or a simple map.  It is claimed by FEB that the FE is the obvious truth, then why is any consistent model/theory non-existent?  You can't even reconcile how an eclipse works.  All you have in conjecture, and then throw straw man arguments. 

General Relativity, Special Relativity, Newton's laws, Doppler, etc., are all based on earthly experiments and interpretations.

Those laws do not work in the giant universe you propose.

Perhaps not, but they do work quite nicely within our solar system.

You definitely have to reconcile the contradictions and discrepancies between what your laws say and what the universe shows.

By saying "I don't have to explain that" you just abandoned your physical laws of the universe with a 40 minute video. Lol.

Even if our current understanding of the workings of the rest of the universe if completely wrong, that doesn't affect the shape of the earth or our ability to explore the solar system like we have been doing for over 50 years.

"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works, let alone our small part of it, and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Sure it does cut the mustard because no one is claiming to understand how the whole Universe works. Where did you get that idea? As for our small part of it, current theories seem to be handling the situation, always room for improvement though.

And where's this, "...use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge," coming from? Who is saying you don't have a right to pursue your knowledge? Just because you don't get invited to some "parties" and are not respected in the 'scientific' community, and are largely viewed as conspiratorial overachievers? Sounds more like a personal problem. Pursue away.
Geez, so needlessly melodramatic.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

Spite? Get a map and quit whining.

"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works,

Who "claims to understand how the entire universe works"? Not I! But Cosmologists or Physicist would not make that claim that either.
Even Einstein wrote, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know” and Oscar Wilde, “I am not young enough to know everything”.

let alone our small part of it,

Who claims even that? But "mainstream science" (whatever that is) does have a reasonably good understanding of "our small part of it".
And that "good understanding" allows it to make far more precise predictions of how things will behave that any of the numerous Flat Earth "models" and hypotheses floating around.

• Gravity: take your pick of:
  • Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall,
  • Universal Acceleration,
  • Denpressure, density and buoyancy,
  • or as in someone's "Infinite Flat Earth" theory where Newtonian gravitation is used without ever mentioning Newton,
   
  But none of those "theories" has any real explanatory of accurate predictive power.
  
  
• Sunrise, sunset appearance and direction: again take you pick of:
  • Perspective,
  • Extreme upside refraction or
  • The "Electromagnetic Accelerator" see Electromagnetic Acceleration
  But, once again, none of those "theories" has any real explanatory of accurate predictive power.

and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Let's rephrase that as "use the knowledge that Flat Earthers claim is false to say that Flat Earthers don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge."
Nobody claims that "Flat Earthers don't have a right to pursue their view and knowledge" but where has any Flat Earther in this society performed anything in the real pursuit of knowledge.
It all seems to boil down to claiming, without foundation, that current "knowledge" is false and substituting hypotheses "supported" by nothing more than more hypotheses.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

Really?
Where is any "falsification that already exists for" for the current Heliocentric Solar System?
I deny that any of modern Cosmology has the slightest relevance to local questions such as the shape and local motions of the earth.

If it's all "one big myth" and the earth is really flat here are two very simple things that your flat earth "model" must do:
1) Show us a map of your flat earth with no edges (because the real earth has been circumnavigated in almost any direction) and with reasonably accurate distances).
2) Explain sunrise and sunset appearance and directions throughout the year.

I may have said this in another thread, but I really don't understand why flat earthers present videos by jeranism.

Jeranism is the same dude that was getting clapped in a debate with Red's Rhetoric.



"I do not have a model that works"

That was painful to listen to. Maximum secondhand embarrassment.

Is Jeranism considered a smart FE’er?

Quote from: Greg's Frog on May 27, 2019, 11:18:23 AM

I may have said this in another thread, but I really don't understand why flat earthers present videos by jeranism.

Jeranism is the same dude that was getting clapped in a debate with Red's Rhetoric.



"I do not have a model that works"

That was painful to listen to. Maximum secondhand embarrassment.

Is Jeranism considered a smart FE’er?

I don't know if "Jeranism is considered a smart FE’er" but Jeranism (Jeran Campanella) is very important in the "YouTube" Flat-Earth "Community".
And especially on the GLOBEBUSTERS YouTube channel he is considered very important.

But Jeranism and Bob Knodel took a beating over there part in the Behind the Curve Netflix video - this bit:
Jeran's contribution "That's interesting, interesting. . . . ":

FLAT EARTH -documentary Beyond the Curve fragment: Jeranism proves the globe..; "That's interesting" by
The Plane Truth

And Bob Knodel's "contribution ":

Flat earther accidently proves earth’s rotation with $ 20k gyro. That’s kind of a problem, right? by Flos Krimskrams

And the Awake Souls reaction:

Behind The Curve (now on Netflix) Star Bob Knodel of Globebusters EXPOSED by Awake Souls

Awake Souls
Bob Knodel of the Globebusters starred in the mocumentary "Behind the Curve" and says in the mocumentary that he measured 15 degrees of rotation per hour and in a staged "hot mic" situation says that if news of this got out, it would be really bad for flat earth. Bob is a sellout and a promoter of the FAKE FLAT EARTH AE map/model promoting SHILLS. He has been exposed for lying about being a commercial pilot, and having an engineering "degree".

Not happy, Bob !

Saying that Jeran "proved the Globe" and Bob Knodel "proved the earth rotates" is going far but they each provided good evidence.

What a bunch of fools.

What a bunch of fools.

good question

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Quote from: rvlvr on May 30, 2019, 05:52:51 AM

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Up until now RE has had better answers, but that can, of course, change.

Quote from: rvlvr on May 30, 2019, 05:52:51 AM

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...

Quote from: John Davis on May 30, 2019, 09:51:59 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on May 30, 2019, 05:52:51 AM

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...

As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Quote from: justaguy on May 30, 2019, 11:26:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 30, 2019, 09:51:59 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on May 30, 2019, 05:52:51 AM

What a bunch of fools.

Indeed, round earthers have a lot to answer for.

Ok John, exactly what do you need from round earthers that they already haven't given you with substantial proof which you deny to show the shape of the earth?  It actually appears the flat earthers have a lot more to answer, as nothing they claim can actually fit into reality without making up conspiracy and new types of physics...

As Bishop suggests, they number far more than what can be answered in a forum post. They require a whole sub-forum.

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Ok, I am sure somebody that can explain this issue much better than I will respond.  But how about you do the same with simple one.  How come there is no accurate Flat Earth Map that reflects anything close to reality? 

"We are working on it" doesn't really cut the mustard when you claim to understand how the entire universe works, let alone our small part of it, and then use that false knowledge to say we don't have a right to pursue our view and knowledge.

Is this all one big myth we are supposed to believe in, out of spite towards common sense and the falsification that already exists for your model?

“We are working on it” sounds like a pretty good premise of how science works in general.

I believe it’s YOU that constantly demands we provide a unified theory of quantum gravity, on the grounds that unless we fully understand everything, we can’t know anything.

And yet you have no problem citing relativity (incorrectly) when you think it suits your argument, so your hypocrisy is noted.

Rab’s interpretation of the article is correct.  Newton’s laws work for almost everything observed on Earth and in the Solar system.  Einstein’s work for the rest, and for nearby stars. This has all been experimentally verified.

The ONLY thing the Scientific American article is saying is that some assumptions made MAY not be universally valid, and so should be revisited when trying to observe the far universe.  Even that doesn’t mean such assumptions are necessary wrong.  There might be other explanations.

There’s obviously lots left to discover.  What’s the problem with that exactly?

However, let's start with an easy one. The distances to see many natural objects are shown to be incorrect when putting round earth theory next to actual observations. Many of these are noted in Earth Not A Globe and other literature, and many have been brought up here. How are these to be explained?

Which one(s)? Since you can't seem to name any specific examples and instead substitute references that are too vague to be addressed, I'm going to call your bluff and say there are no natural objects on earth whose distances apart cannot be explained using the geoid (when necessary... otherwise, ellipsoid, or sphere, depending on how far apart they are and the degree of accuracy needed) and atmosphere. If you think you do know of any, why don't you start with one, and state where and how much you think the discrepancy is? Otherwise, there is nothing to explain.