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

  • 269 Replies
  • 30191 Views
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Do you not realise that all that does is make REers look like cowards?
There is absolutely nothing to fear here, stop acting like there is.
Oh, if I were them, I'd be very afraid.

So good then we re (us and jane) fianlly all in agreement.
Johnd and tomB using magical dark matter and dismissal of all things science is unwarranted.
Hurray concensus.

Sorry i spammed the unmentionable because the first post i saw was from you.
Wasnt sure what you were ref to.
Still dont know.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
When have I discounted science? Science is valued tradition, equal to its benefit for man as religion or the humanities are.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
And yes, it is necessary to have a complete knowledge of a field to determine any particular fact in that knowledge. That one happens to be provable mathematically. It also happens to be impossible.

You know. If you value logic.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
And yes, it is necessary to have a complete knowledge of a field to determine any particular fact in that knowledge. That one happens to be provable mathematically. It also happens to be impossible.

You know. If you value logic.
But does one need to understand everything about modern Cosmology before determining the shape of the earth?
Are they in the same fields?

Or does one need to understand everything about modern Cosmology before determining what happens in the confines of our solar system?
Again are they in the same fields?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Unfortunately, yes. And even then its questionable. In my not-so-humble opinion.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Actually no - I am wrong - everything about everything to make any definite statement. That's why we have traditions of knowledge. Without complete knowledge of a system, which is impossible perhaps shown by Godel, then we have no basis to put any firm fact on any ground and are left to axioms of faith and convenience. Or inconvenience as it might be.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
That is after all the beauty of mathematics - and why it can "prove things"; it's because it chooses its axioms of faith at the get go.

As people in a real world with real problems, we don't have that luxury - that privilege of perfect axioms - and we must work with what we got.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 06:00:01 PM by John Davis »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Unfortunately, yes. And even then its questionable. In my not-so-humble opinion.
So you would class yourself as a philosophical skeptic?

But we certainly seem be able to do many things as though we had this knowledge.
Aircraft and spacecraft are designed and built based on these "assumed laws" and they work as predicted.
Computers and communications equipment are designed and constructed based on "assumed quantum theory" (which seems ridiculous even to quantum physicists) and this equipment works as predicted.

Funny that!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
You come to the flat earth society, and ask if I'm a skeptic?

Do you even know where you are, with all your formatting and pomp? We, as man, have worked equipment under awful assumptions for well... - pretty much the entirety of existence.

Why yes, you can hammer a screw into two boards of wood and they will stay together. It might be better to use a screwdriver in this instance. Others reach for an art.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Even the mystics could predict that when crows flew, death was a foot.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
We, as man, have worked equipment under awful assumptions for well... - pretty much the entirety of existence.
Yet you use devices based on Quantum Theory, so ridulous that Einstein refused the accept it, to compute and communicate and navigate you car using devices using satellites and relying on Einstein's GR for their accuracy.

Quote from: John Davis
Why yes, you can hammer a screw into two boards of wood and they will stay together. It might be better to use a screwdriver in this instance. Others reach for an art.
I've heard that hammer has been called an American screwdriver. At least it does the job quickly.

And yes, it is necessary to have a complete knowledge of a field to determine any particular fact in that knowledge. That one happens to be provable mathematically. It also happens to be impossible.

You know. If you value logic.

Here

Here is where you discount science.


Yes. it is. That's exactly why it should be acknowledged, you can take the radical step of pointing that out and explaining it, rather than covering it up as though it's something to be ashamed of. You realise pretty much every point you just made is evidence I've been using for way too long don't you?
Sure, it's probably not going to lead to a massive rethink of how we see the world, but frankly what is? The evidence for RET is staggering from every angle. Why the special pleading in this one case? You are taking basically the only unknowns in existence, the only things that even hypothetically could cause a paradigm shift, and removing them from debate.

Do you not realise that all that does is make REers look like cowards?
There is absolutely nothing to fear here, stop acting like there is.

I AM pointing that out and explaining it. 

I watched Jeranisms video and said why I think it misrepresents the article.

The thread title is Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model"., a position which John Davis also appears to support. I do not agree with this for reasons stated earlier.

Not sure why you think I’m trying to covering anything up or remove it from debate, when I’m actually here debating it?

Saying that potential changes to the standard model IMO won’t make any practical difference to the heliocentric model is not the same as saying the standard model shouldn’t be discussed.

I even said in the second post of this thread, I would welcome a section of the forum to discuss such things, despite the fact there’s nothing a bunch of amateurs on a flat earth forum can do to “sort out” cosmology (that’s up to scientists in the field).

I don’t think Rab is saying these things shouldn’t be discussed either, seeing as he started the thread in the first place, including the words “what do others think?”.


This statement

Actually no - I am wrong - everything about everything to make any definite statement. That's why we have traditions of knowledge. Without complete knowledge of a system, which is impossible perhaps shown by Godel, then we have no basis to put any firm fact on any ground and are left to axioms of faith and convenience. Or inconvenience as it might be.

seems to contradict this one:

That is after all the beauty of mathematics - and why it can "prove things"; it's because it chooses its axioms of faith at the get go.

As people in a real world with real problems, we don't have that luxury - that privilege of perfect axioms - and we must work with what we got.

Science isn’t mathematics (although it uses maths).  It is evidence based, and relies on testing hypotheses.  We can only verify what can actually be tested.

The exception is theoretical physics, which is a highly speculative field.  But that’s fine as long as everyone understands that’s what it is.  In reality theoretical physicists doesn’t work in a vacuum, and are still looking at possible ways to test their hypotheses.

Would like to add that medical science is high % guesswork.
We shiuld throw out all hospitals because we havent cured cancer?

....., is cosmologists are encouraged to not put earth in the centre of whatever universe model they are putting together. Jeran's argument is Earth could just as likely be at the universe centre, as is obviously the case with whatever flat earth model he pushes.

But, Jeran missed the point. In the Renaissance age, mankind liked to place itself in the centre of the universe. In day to day life, we each place ourselves in the centre of the universe. It's human nature to place ourselves in the centre, and cosmologists are encouraged to resist that urge, in the interest of science.
Wow, just wow.... how can so many misconceptions fit in one single post ?

During the renaissance mankind gradually moved from an overwhelming focus on a vertical 'god/religion' based society , towards a more 'horizontal' society that also embraced arts, science and poetry.

In arts we witness new exciting ways of painting, architecture,  tonality in music etc.
Of course the same happened in cosmology.
'Who could come up with the most unigue and enlightening hypothesis about the total universe to make an impression uppon the whole scientific community without it's equal'

It's bizare it is still called SCIENCE, because the cosmology of those days had far more in common with a form of art/intellectual expression THAN the science/scientific method.
Instead of paint and a canvas, cosmologists of those early days used flawed observations from earth with extremely basic measuring tools,  but it was truly an art form when they put together their final musings in a fascinating 'study'.

Biggest problem is, we consider most of them to be true ... instead of enjoying an ancient form of cosmic joggling with numbers and hypothesis.
Bottom line, the renaissance was an exciting time for developement after being 'caged' by religion for ages.
In such an exciting timeframe with endless new possibilities , painting, poetry, architecture, music spread in all directions.... not one direction was 'right' all of them were in their unique way.

Sad thing is the mental gymnastics ( a true form of art i'd say) of the early cosmologist became the newly found religion from the centuries that followed.
I think Keppler, Copernicus, Brahé, Galilei etc. would be extremely puzzled if they'd found out their artistic musings about the universe are taken dead serious in 2019.

So good to see you found time to give us all a history lesson, and attempt to "correct" my "so many misconceptions." I'll correct one sentence only, by adding the word, "prior."

Prior to the Renaissance age, mankind liked to place Earth in the centre of the universe. In the Renaissance age, mankind was still putting things in the centre of the universe, now being the sun at the centre of our solar system. It was a movement away from religious doctrine.

Modern cosmology is not an art form or collection of  "artistic musings". (Nice typically flat misconception dutchy).

It's an extension of the scientific field of observable astronomy and physics in an ATTEMPT to understand the origin and evolution of the universe. The early cosmologist shared the same ideals as modern cosmologists, even if their methods were extremely crude.

There is still obviously a human urge to place ourselves, which has expanded to include our solar system, and our galaxy, in the centre of the universe. Cosmologists are encouraged to resist that urge.

I'll stand by what I said. In our daily lives, we each are the centre of our own universe or the universe, at any given time. We can't escape that fact. Our own human bodies are each a mini universe on the micro level which share a patterning with the macro level.

Jeran can untie the knot in his knickers, in the realization that in the infinite expanse of space, there can either be no centre, or the centre can be wherever you'd like it to be. For Jeran, the centre already appears to be his YouTube channel.




*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
I don’t think Rab is saying these things shouldn’t be discussed either, seeing as he started the thread in the first place, including the words “what do others think?”.
I cannot express to you how little I care about Jeranism. I was responding to points made by Rab in his posts, objecting that my posts didn't achieve something totally different wastes your time and mine.
Rab is literally arguing for the exclusion of some topics from the RE/FE debate, rather than responding to them as and when they come up. He's hardly been subtle about it.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

I don’t think Rab is saying these things shouldn’t be discussed either, seeing as he started the thread in the first place, including the words “what do others think?”.
I cannot express to you how little I care about Jeranism.

I know, you said earlier.  What does that have to do with my last reply?

Quote
I was responding to points made by Rab in his posts, objecting that my posts didn't achieve something totally different wastes your time and mine.

The hilarity continues.

You were accusing me of not wanted to debate the subject, despite the fact I am here debating it.  Also apparently trying to cover things up and being a coward (ontop of other baseless accusations you’ve thrown my way on this thread).

I think you’ll find it’s YOU reading things into my posts that I never said.

Can’t wait to see what angle you come up with next.

Quote
Rab is literally arguing for the exclusion of some topics from the RE/FE debate, rather than responding to them as and when they come up. He's hardly been subtle about it.

I can’t speak for Rab, but the fact remains that he started this thread which gives us a chance to debate it.  If you fancy a break from the  “bad RE arguments” thing.

You mentioned earlier that this topic has been going for years before I arrived, hence wanting to widen the debate beyond what was in the article/video.  Anything relevant from all these conversations you want to mention?

Rab is literally NOT aruging that.
We are saying, as the article points out, great liberties were taken in the math trying to calculate blackholes quasars stars novas amd planets.
That said, and the actual point, does it require indepth knowledge of all working interstellar mechanics before we can determine the difference between a ball vs a plate?

We can try again since this has in short order turned into a classic jane finger pointing.

You jane say yes.
We say no.

Debatable points - star trails, horizon, eclipses, the moon and all nearby large bodies are balls and all are determined by observable measurable facts that only fit a giant ball model.
Theorizng the reason and cause of such a formation, true yes, can be debatable and needs not fall into this particular discussion.
Theorizing on black matter dark energy is an attempt to average out the expected mass of a galaxy we can barely see with a telescope and has no bearing on the ball we live in.

Your go.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
This statement

Actually no - I am wrong - everything about everything to make any definite statement. That's why we have traditions of knowledge. Without complete knowledge of a system, which is impossible perhaps shown by Godel, then we have no basis to put any firm fact on any ground and are left to axioms of faith and convenience. Or inconvenience as it might be.

seems to contradict this one:

That is after all the beauty of mathematics - and why it can "prove things"; it's because it chooses its axioms of faith at the get go.

As people in a real world with real problems, we don't have that luxury - that privilege of perfect axioms - and we must work with what we got.

Science isn’t mathematics (although it uses maths).  It is evidence based, and relies on testing hypotheses.  We can only verify what can actually be tested.

The exception is theoretical physics, which is a highly speculative field.  But that’s fine as long as everyone understands that’s what it is.  In reality theoretical physicists doesn’t work in a vacuum, and are still looking at possible ways to test their hypotheses.
Science can use mathematics (it does not have to), and yes they are distinct.  My statements do not contradict.

Mathematics can't prove that its self consistent in a meaningful way and thus can't say anything about anything definitively - this is aside from other arguments about how it is not able to talk about the real world as I happen to side towards nominalism; however given a small enough set of axioms you can prove things given those axioms in that context alone.


Science can use mathematics (it does not have to), and yes they are distinct.  My statements do not contradict.

Mathematics can't prove that its self consistent in a meaningful way and thus can't say anything about anything definitively - this is aside from other arguments about how it is not able to talk about the real world as I happen to side towards nominalism; however given a small enough set of axioms you can prove things given those axioms in that context alone.

OK, I see what you mean. 

Yes, it’s true that maths doesn’t rely on external proofs.  Mathematical proofs are internal, but they work because there’s no other answer that can work.

The ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle can only be p...

Oh, wait.  Bad example  ;)

You get the idea, anyway.

I guess that’s why you were asked if you a Philosophical Sceptic (a bit different from Scientific Sceptic).  Which as I understand it is based on the idea that really knowing anything is impossible.

 

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
It depends on the strain of skepticism, but yes I'm far more on that side than any other.

Do I think that knowing anything is impossible? It would depend very heavily on what you mean by "knowledge." However, I will say I tend towards the post-modern interpretation of realism and thus agree with most of the assertions of historicism and reject positivism.

Full disclosure:  If I get too far into this, I’ll be bluffing my way through.  I don’t usually go into it much.

I’m an engineer, so I just roll with what seems to work.  I tend to find when I do the calculations things work out much better than if I just hazard a guess.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
You were accusing me of not wanted to debate the subject, despite the fact I am here debating it.
Uh. What are you talking about? I pointed out my posts were about what Rab said, not what jeranism said, what is your problem with that and how the actual Thork did you turn it into anything in your post?

Rab is literally NOT aruging that.
Uh, yes, he is. You realise your post consisted of providing the evidence for why arguments based on such things would be poor ones?  Ok, sure, you completely skipped out giving anything on the last step especially given potential threads back have been already discussed, but you literally just debated it. What more evidence do you need that cutting it out from discussion is stupid?!
This is a bloody ridiculous hill to die on. FEers deal with REers throwing out rubbish like 'UA would mean breaking the speed of light all the time!' and you can't deal with needing to deal with a few bad arguments now and again?
if they are bad, show that they are bad as and when they turn up rather than assuming no connection would be drawn and no comparison made.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Uh... see 3rd part of my post instead of redherring to ua and other things.
This is about re not knowing everything.
Ill even help feed you a question to start your response

Debatable points - star trails, horizon, eclipses, the moon and all nearby large bodies are balls and all are determined by observable measurable facts that only fit a giant ball model.
Theorizng the reason and cause of such a formation, true yes, can be debatable and needs not fall into this particular discussion.
Theorizing on black matter dark energy is an attempt to average out the expected mass of a galaxy we can barely see with a telescope and has no bearing on the ball we live in.

Your go - show how in your pov why knowledge of all interstellar math is required to determine if the object we live on is a ball or a plate.

You were accusing me of not wanted to debate the subject, despite the fact I am here debating it.
Uh. What are you talking about? I pointed out my posts were about what Rab said, not what jeranism said, what is your problem with that and how the actual Thork did you turn it into anything in your post?

Erm, because of this:


Why the special pleading in this one case? You are taking basically the only unknowns in existence, the only things that even hypothetically could cause a paradigm shift, and removing them from debate.

Do you not realise that all that does is make REers look like cowards?
There is absolutely nothing to fear here, stop acting like there is.

And why are you still talking about Jeranism?  I dropped any expectation of you watching that ages ago.  The post you are replying to was about you mistrepresenting my position.

And since you’re saying exactly the same thing about Rab, let’s just say I’m not taking your word for it.  Let’s ask him:

Hey, Rab!

Are you happy to defend your position or are you trying to stifle all debate on the subject?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
You were accusing me of not wanted to debate the subject, despite the fact I am here debating it.
Uh. What are you talking about? I pointed out my posts were about what Rab said, not what jeranism said, what is your problem with that and how the actual Thork did you turn it into anything in your post?

Erm, because of this:


Why the special pleading in this one case? You are taking basically the only unknowns in existence, the only things that even hypothetically could cause a paradigm shift, and removing them from debate.

Do you not realise that all that does is make REers look like cowards?
There is absolutely nothing to fear here, stop acting like there is.

And why are you still talking about Jeranism?  I dropped any expectation of you watching that ages ago.  The post you are replying to was about you mistrepresenting my position.

And since you’re saying exactly the same thing about Rab, let’s just say I’m not taking your word for it.  Let’s ask him:

Hey, Rab!

Are you happy to defend your position or are you trying to stifle all debate on the subject?
I'm not trying to stifle debate. The essentials of my OP were:
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.
Cosmology Has Some BIG Problems! Scientific American Article by Bjørn Ekeberg Phd by jeranism[/color]
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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.

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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What do others think?
First, let me stress that I did not base anything on the video by Jeran Campanella but on the paper he referred to.
Nothing in that casts any doubt on the solar system. Here's on quote from it:
Quote
Historically, Newton's physical laws made up a theoretical framework that worked for our own solar system with remarkable precision. Both Uranus and Neptune, for example, were discovered through predictions based on Newton's model. But as the scales grew larger, its validity proved limited. Einstein's general relativity framework provided an extended and more precise reach beyond the furthest reaches of our own galaxy.

Sure FE supporters can debate anything else that they like.
I see no reason, however, to defend things like dark energy or dark matter in a debate about the shape of the earth or even the heliocentric solar system.

In my opinion they are interesting topics but quite unrelated any debate about the shape of the earth or the solar system.

If anyone wants to use dark energy or the expansion of the Universe in support of some Flat Earth hypothesis let them justify the relevance.


If anyone wants to use dark energy or the expansion of the Universe in support of some Flat Earth hypothesis let them justify the relevance.

Bingo!

I’d also be well up for that conversation.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot

If anyone wants to use dark energy . . .


If it were called "mystery math" would you be cheerleading it's parade?