Double standards

  • 322 Replies
  • 20210 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #180 on: December 12, 2019, 10:52:01 AM »
There are other "anomalies" in separate phenomena which suggest that we are at the center as well:

Indefinite Universe:

  “ For instance, if the universe were finite and had a centre, and if the Milky Way were not near that centre, then the total brightness of all the rest of the matter in the universe should be slightly greater on one side of the earth than the other. But the night sky beyond the Milky Way is not noticeably brighter in one direction than the other; therefore astronomers are forced to conclude that the universe extends indefinitely far in all directions. The only other possibility is that the earth is the centre of everything – one planet serving as a focal point for thousands and millions of galaxies and millions of millions of other probable planets. This alternative is so preposterous that cosmologists have ruled it out from the beginning. In fact, they have made it a fundamental tenet of their creed that the Milky Way’s position in the universe is not peculiar or untypical in any way. From this idea they derive a basic axiom known as the cosmological principle: namely, that the universe must be the same on average everywhere and in all directions. ” — ‘Space, Time and the Universe,’ The Universe, Time-Life Books, 1962, p.170.

Axis of Evil:

“ That is, we live in one universe, so we’re a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we’re lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number’s smaller than you’d predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun . Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. ” — A Talk With Lawrence M. Kraus, Edge Magazine, July 5, 2006

It is interesting that nature should be so crafty, always trying to convince us that we are the focus of the universe. We are so lucky to have a team of great minds and science men willing to interpret the truth of nature for us.

Can you think of a reason why the earth sits in the middle of the CMB.

Take a deep breath and think about it.

If only the famous theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Kraus thought of that. I am sure that you outsmarted him and solved the issue.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Double standards
« Reply #181 on: December 12, 2019, 10:56:41 AM »
The "Axis of Evil" observation is indeed a strange conundrum.
Of course, it can only be observed by telescopes in space orbiting a round earth, so I'm not sure if you really want to bring up the topic.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Double standards
« Reply #182 on: December 12, 2019, 11:10:31 AM »
There are other "anomalies" in separate phenomena which suggest that we are at the center as well:

Indefinite Universe:

  “ For instance, if the universe were finite and had a centre, and if the Milky Way were not near that centre, then the total brightness of all the rest of the matter in the universe should be slightly greater on one side of the earth than the other. But the night sky beyond the Milky Way is not noticeably brighter in one direction than the other; therefore astronomers are forced to conclude that the universe extends indefinitely far in all directions. The only other possibility is that the earth is the centre of everything – one planet serving as a focal point for thousands and millions of galaxies and millions of millions of other probable planets. This alternative is so preposterous that cosmologists have ruled it out from the beginning. In fact, they have made it a fundamental tenet of their creed that the Milky Way’s position in the universe is not peculiar or untypical in any way. From this idea they derive a basic axiom known as the cosmological principle: namely, that the universe must be the same on average everywhere and in all directions. ” — ‘Space, Time and the Universe,’ The Universe, Time-Life Books, 1962, p.170.

Axis of Evil:

“ That is, we live in one universe, so we’re a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we’re lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number’s smaller than you’d predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun . Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. ” — A Talk With Lawrence M. Kraus, Edge Magazine, July 5, 2006

It is interesting that nature should be so crafty, always trying to convince us that we are the focus of the universe. We are so lucky to have a team of great minds and science men willing to interpret the truth of nature for us.

Can you think of a reason why the earth sits in the middle of the CMB.

Take a deep breath and think about it.

If only the famous theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Kraus thought of that. I am sure that you outsmarted him and solved the issue.

No but doing quite a good job on you.

Regarding Krause you are getting a bit mixed up again regarding topics.

Again, not a trick question but can you think why the CMB might have earth at the centre?

As a great man one said " You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Double standards
« Reply #183 on: December 12, 2019, 11:45:21 AM »
Ha, no. The context is the same and states the same thing.
Bolding a part of the quote to ignore the rest doesn't help your case.

Observations which contradict the model

Which observations contradict the model?
Do you mean observations which an arrogant fool might interpret one way which in no way contradict the model?

There are other "anomalies" in separate phenomena which suggest that we are at the center as well:

Indefinite Universe:

  “ For instance, if the universe were finite and had a centre
Yes, IF!
Notice that part?
It is based upon an assumption, an assumption with absolutely no basis.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40127
Re: Double standards
« Reply #184 on: December 12, 2019, 01:19:40 PM »
Not only do we appear to be the center of the universe, but the galaxies which are supposedly millions of light years apart from each other move in synchronous patterns with each other.
This sounds like another one of your famous "RE can't explain every last detail about something, so it's all bunk" lectures.  Meanwhile FET can't even give us a definitive standard of straightness over long distances.  Double standards indeed.

Yes, we can be sure that it is just another weird anomaly in science that makes it seem like the ancient cosmoligies were correct.
Yeah, the ancients were right about there not being any such things as galaxies. ::)  At least they were right about the earth being round.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #185 on: December 12, 2019, 02:03:58 PM »
Can you think of a reason why the earth sits in the middle of the CMB.

Take a deep breath and think about it.

If only the famous theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Kraus thought of that. I am sure that you outsmarted him and solved the issue.
Don't you think it possible that "the earth sits in the middle of the CMB" because all the CMBR data can only be observed from near the EARTH?

But before making any more claims based on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation you might give a thought to where the data came from.
Please note that it is all totally incompatible with your flat Earth Cosmology.
Also, note that the data did not come from the surface of the Earth and hence is irrelevant to any discussion of the motion of the Earth.

The earliest was from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, launched into a 900 km altitude orbit in 1989 with details in:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center, Cosmic Background Explorer

And then later data came from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
The WMAP orbits the L2 point if the Sun-Earth system as described in:
Quote
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: WMAP Facts
L2 orbit is a First
WMAP is the first mission to use an L2 orbit as its permanent observing station. L2 is a semi-stable region of gravity that is about four times further than the Moon, following the Earth around the Sun.

Click on the image for a larger version.

      Mission Length
WMAP is currently scheduled to observe for nine years at L2. At this point, all systems continue to function very well.

Click on the image for a larger version.


Each WMAP observation of the full sky requires a six month period. WMAP orbits L2 in an oval pattern every six months, and requires occasional station keeping maneuvers (usually about every three months) to remain in position.

Click on the image for a larger version.


None of this would be remotely possible on your "Cosmology" based on a flat Earth and the planets and stars being "pretty small" and no more than 1000 miles above the Earth (Rowbotham) or as described in:
Quote from: TFES Wiki
Stars
The stars are luminous elements which move above the surface of the Earth in a layer above the Sun, Moon and planets. The stars revolve above the Earth at the rate of the Sidereal Day, which is defined as the time between two consecutive transits of the First Point of Aries, which is about one rotation every 23.93 hours, or 4 minutes shorter than the Solar Day. The stars range in observable sizes, the largest being one-tenth the diameter of the visible disk of the Moon.

To me, your basing these claims on the observations made from NASA satellites while claiming that all such data must be "fabricated" is hypocrisy in the extreme!

By the way, the above is an example of an "astronomical experiment". Solar System astronomy predicted that an L2 point with certain properties should exist and the WMAP was successfully deployed there where it performed as predicted.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #186 on: December 12, 2019, 02:24:10 PM »
Not only do we appear to be the center of the universe, but the galaxies which are supposedly millions of light years apart from each other move in synchronous patterns with each other.
This sounds like another one of your famous "RE can't explain every last detail about something, so it's all bunk" lectures.  Meanwhile FET can't even give us a definitive standard of straightness over long distances.  Double standards indeed.

Yes, we can be sure that it is just another weird anomaly in science that makes it seem like the ancient cosmoligies were correct.
Why is any of that an anomaly?

"The galaxies which are supposedly millions of light-years apart from each other move in synchronous patterns with each other" because those galaxies are gravitationally bound in groups.

So it is not "another weird anomaly in science" - try again! Our "Local Group has a diameter of about 10 million light-years":
Quote from: EarthSky Astronomy Essentials
What is the Local Group?
How many galaxies are now known to lie within our Local Group of galaxies? How does our Milky Way rank, size-wise? And what about the vast superclusters beyond?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Milky Way galaxy is one of more than 54 galaxies known as the Local Group. The three largest members of the group are our Milky Way (second-biggest), the Andromeda galaxy (biggest) and the Triangulum Galaxy. The other galaxies in the Local Group are dwarf galaxies, and they’re mostly clustered around the three larger galaxies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Local Group has a diameter of about 10 million light-years.

Many "weird anomalies in science" are weird only to someone unwilling to delve into the explanation.

But, Tom, why this obsession about things millions of light-years away?
Your problems are very close at hand. You don't even have a single workable layout for you flat Earth!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #187 on: December 12, 2019, 02:43:22 PM »
Now you guys are claiming that the answers are simple, and that you personally solved the biggest problems of astronomy in an online forum post, which the astronomers and physicists missed. Funny!

Cosmology is based on 'if we don't assume this then the earth is the center of the universe.' A hilarious farce.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Double standards
« Reply #188 on: December 12, 2019, 03:05:59 PM »
Now you guys are claiming that the answers are simple, and that you personally solved the biggest problems of astronomy in an online forum post, which the astronomers and physicists missed. Funny!

Cosmology is based on 'if we don't assume this then the earth is the center of the universe.' A hilarious farce.

*citation needed
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #189 on: December 12, 2019, 03:23:15 PM »
“ Dark Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of 10120. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis…to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle…. Whatever our theoretical predilections, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence.”

So what would it mean if…the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe….If the Copernican Principle fails, all that goes [with] that goes out the window too….Cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier. ” —Marcus Chown, "Is the Earth at the Heart of a Giant Cosmic Void?," New Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32‐35.

Pretty clear to me. If the Copernican Principle fails then Cosmology is 'back at the drawing board'.

“ People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. ” —George F. R. Ellis, Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Another admission that it's based on philosophy.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 03:30:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #190 on: December 12, 2019, 03:31:15 PM »
“ Dark Energy is problematic.”
Who cares? "dark matter" and "dark energy" have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth or the Solar System.

Tom, get down to Earth and start discussing the things that matter when it comes to the shape of the Earth and "Dark Energy" is quite irrelevant.

But if you are going to dispute dark energy please explain:
Quote
Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #191 on: December 12, 2019, 03:35:08 PM »
Now you guys are claiming that the answers are simple,
Who ever said that? All I said was that your claims were baseless.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
and that you personally solved the biggest problems of astronomy in an online forum post, which the astronomers and physicists missed. Funny!

Cosmology is based on 'if we don't assume this then the earth is the center of the universe.' A hilarious farce.
It might be better to say, "Cosmology is based on our having no evidence that 'the earth is the center of the universe.' "

But all the evidence you have posted has been from satellites which are impossible on your flat-Earth.
      The COBE satellite was in Earth orbit and so not Earth-based at all.
      The WMAP was in an orbit better describe as Sun-based and so is totally irrelevant to the shape or rotation of the Earth but would be impossible if the Earth did not orbit the Sun.

All you seem to be doing is providing more evidence that the Earth is a sphere that orbits the Sun.

And I fail to see what observations tens of millions of light-years away have to do with the shape and motion of the Earth.

On those down to earth questions who cares about modern Cosmology?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #192 on: December 12, 2019, 03:56:45 PM »
Weak arguments, rabinoz. The CMB data has to be real with whatever kind of telescope is collecting the data. CMB data is also collectible through land based radio telescopes.

The subject is astronomy is a pseudoscience, and the discussion has devolved to little disagreement with that statement and "I don't want to talk about this anymore!"

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Double standards
« Reply #193 on: December 12, 2019, 04:09:49 PM »
Weak arguments, rabinoz. The CMB data has to be real with whatever kind of telescope is collecting the data. CMB data is also collectible through land based radio telescopes.

The subject is astronomy is a pseudoscience, and the discussion has devolved to little disagreement with that statement and "I don't want to talk about this anymore!"

You switch topics at will, throw in a dodgy quote or two, from astronomy and try and claim astronomy as pseudo science.

Your position is based on a nonsensical argument,  where else would the centre of the CMB be, its measured from the Earth or earth orbit, it maps out all of the faint glow of the universe as visible from our location.

That's what the Hawking quote is about. Hubble said this CMB shows this, so if you dont think about it you could come up with this wrong answer.

Which you did.

Do you have any evidence which you can rely on that doesnt completely invalidate an FE model, any independent citations that shows astronomy as a pseudo science.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40127
Re: Double standards
« Reply #194 on: December 12, 2019, 04:25:10 PM »
The subject is astronomy is a pseudoscience, and the discussion has devolved to little disagreement with that statement and "I don't want to talk about this anymore!"
No Tom, the subject is the double standards that FE'ers, like you, regularly employ.  Your assertion that RE astronomy is pseudoscience while having no reasonable FE explanations for even the simplest celestial observations is just one example.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #195 on: December 12, 2019, 05:27:44 PM »
The subject is astronomy is a pseudoscience, and the discussion has devolved to little disagreement with that statement and "I don't want to talk about this anymore!"
No Tom, the subject is the double standards that FE'ers, like you, regularly employ.  Your assertion that RE astronomy is pseudoscience while having no reasonable FE explanations for even the simplest celestial observations is just one example.

FE does have explanations. You are wrong about that. And all astronomy is pseudoscience by definition, not just RE astronomy. Pseudoscience is defined anything which is not or unable to be tested through the Scientific Method.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #196 on: December 12, 2019, 05:58:01 PM »
Weak arguments, rabinoz. The CMB data has to be real with whatever kind of telescope is collecting the data. CMB data is also collectible through land based radio telescopes.
So what?
"Land based radio telescopes" can see at the most half the sky and the largest with fixed dishes have quite limited steering ranges.
All Earthbound telescopes rely on the rotation of the Earth to enable them to see the rest of the sky.
I don't know how you imagine that fitting in with your flat stationary Earth.

But I get back to asking again just why are you obsessed with modern Cosmology?
It has virtually no impact on the Solar System and that has hardly changed since Newton's time, other than by further discoveries and more accurate measurements.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The subject is astronomy is a pseudoscience, and the discussion has devolved to little disagreement with that statement and "I don't want to talk about this anymore!"
I have yet to see any evidence that the oldest of the sciences, astronomy, is pseudoscience.

You first define a very narrow definition of the "Scientific Method" and then claim that since there can be no experiments in astronomy.

That's nothing more than the classic straw-man argument - leave that to Jeranism (Jeran Campanella) he's the professional at straw-manning.

Quote from: The Khan Academy
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  • Make an observation.
  • Ask a question.
  • Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
  • Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  • Test the prediction.
  • Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Quote from: Chris Impey, TEACH Astronomy
Chapter 1: How Science Works: The Scientific Method
Since the time of the ancient Greeks, people who study the natural world have developed a system for establishing knowledge, called the scientific method. The scientific method requires, as a minimum, the following: terminology that is precisely defined, measurements that are quantitative and repeatable, and assertions that are backed up by evidence.

There are several essential steps in the scientific method. The first step is gathering evidence, usually in the form of observations or data. The evidence might be physical, such as rocks brought back from the Moon, or it might be readings from instruments, such as measures of light focused by a telescope. Statements made with no evidence to support them are called speculation; they might be true or they might not. Without supporting evidence, there is no way to prove or disprove them. In some scientific fields like chemistry, physics, and biology, evidence often comes from experiments in a laboratory. In astronomy, where many objects are very remote, most of the evidence comes in the form of light and other types of electromagnetic radiation.
 
The second essential step in the scientific method is analysis of the data, which usually involves a process of pattern recognition. For example, astronomers might analyze the nightly positions of a planet in the sky and recognize regularity in the motion, or they might find a similarity in the chemical composition of stars in different parts of our galaxy. A complication in the search for patterns in data is the fact that data are never perfect; observations are always finite in number and they have errors or uncertainties attached. The idea of searching for patterns in nature is at the heart of science. Discoveries start with a playful and curious mind at work.

The third step is the development of an explanation for the results of the analysis. Such an explanation is called a hypothesis. Often it is called a "working hypothesis" to emphasize that it is only a tentative proposal. An essential aspect of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be testable. That is, there must be some further observation or experiment that is capable of affirming or disproving the hypothesis. Scientists propose different hypotheses. The wrong ones are weeded out by such experiments. There is always more than one possible explanation for any set of data, which is one of the reasons scientists argue so much! The last element of the scientific method is therefore the critical evaluation of hypotheses through testing.

Often, an idea that starts out as one researcher's working hypothesis survives many tests and becomes widely accepted. A hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly and successfully is usually called a theory, indicating that it is stronger than a mere working hypothesis. The term theory is usually preserved for a hypothesis that covers a wide range of phenomena. For example, you might hypothesize that people who watch a lot of television are overweight. You might have evidence to support your hypothesis, but this insight will never have the weight of a theory. Why? Because many people who watch a lot of television are not overweight and there are many reasons that a person might be overweight. A theory should be broad in scope and application. An example of a modern robust theory is Einstein's theory of relativity.
 
The scientific method can never guarantee truth, but it can be used to draw conclusions with a much higher degree of reliability than other systems of knowledge. Stronger evidence yields more reliable conclusions. This statement is not an idle boast, but a conclusion based on a long history of scientific advances. The scientific method is more reliable in part because of the pains taken to gather evidence.
Since interplanetary space exploration, however, the astronomy of the Solar System has become one that does include experiments to verify what you might call hypotheses.

As early as 1959, the Luna   Soviet Union OKB-1 Impactor, Luna 2 made an intended crash landing on the moon.
And since then various nations have sent many probes to the Moon and the other planets. Some simply flew by the planet, some orbited the plane and a number have made soft landings to gather data from the surface of a few planets including Venus (only the USSR) and Mars.

You, of course, will deny all of this for no other reason than you have to or it destroys your flat Earth hypothesis.


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #197 on: December 12, 2019, 06:08:17 PM »
Following the Scientific Method, what experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to verify the theory of the metric expansion of space?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #198 on: December 12, 2019, 06:13:36 PM »
FE does have explanations. You are wrong about that.
Really? All I've seen are baseless hypotheses with no supporting evidence - and that sounds very like the realm of pseudoscience to me.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
And all astronomy is pseudoscience by definition, not just RE astronomy. Pseudoscience is defined anything which is not or unable to be tested through the Scientific Method.
No, "all astronomy is" is not "pseudoscience by definition". You choose one narrow definition of the Scientific Method that you think fits your narrative.
But the real definition of the Scientific Method includes the observational sciences as well.

Q: What is the oldest science?
Quote
Discussion of the Field of Astronomy
A: Astronomy is the oldest science, with the first observations of the heavens conducted by our early human ancestors. Historical records of astronomical measurements date back as far as Mesopotamia nearly 5000 years ago, with later observations made by the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, and Greeks. Humans seek to explain their world with (internal) models; one of the earliest is that the affairs of humans and the world are controlled by the positions of the stars and planets. Although astrology is now regarded as a psuedoscience, it was the original motivation for the mapping of the stars and the assignment of constellations.
Although others disagree:
Quote from: de Pasquale A.
Pharmacognosy: the oldest modern science.
Abstract
The use of drugs goes back to time immemorial, ever since primitive man resorted to the world around him to derive remedies which could alleviate pain and cure illnesses. The knowledge of drugs has developed together with the evolution of scientific and social progress. After a rapid historical review on the use of medicinal drugs in the diverse civilizations and on the origin and introduction of the term Pharmacognosy, the acquisitions of modern experimental Pharmacognosy in different countries of the world, and its contribution to therapy are briefly discussed.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #199 on: December 12, 2019, 06:19:12 PM »
Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #200 on: December 12, 2019, 06:30:35 PM »
Following the Scientific Method, what experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to verify the theory of the metric expansion of space?
It's irrelevant not the least because direct experiments are not necessary to conform to the accepted wider definition of the Scientific Method.

But I ask again and I'll keep asking until you give a reasoned reply who cares about modern Cosmology?
That has nothing to do with either the shape and rotation of the Earth.

For that matter the shape and rotation of the Earth were never a matter that "modern Science" bothered about.

You keep raising perceived problems in modern Cosmology just to divert attention away from the pathetic state of "the modern flat Earth hypothesis".


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #201 on: December 12, 2019, 06:35:27 PM »
Following the Scientific Method, what experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to verify the theory of the metric expansion of space?
It's irrelevant not the least because direct experiments are not necessary to conform to the accepted wider definition of the Scientific Method.

Really? The definitions you gave us involve experimentation.

Show us these definitions of the Scientific Method which say that experimentation is not necessary.

Quote
But I ask again and I'll keep asking until you give a reasoned reply who cares about modern Cosmology?
That has nothing to do with either the shape and rotation of the Earth.

For that matter the shape and rotation of the Earth were never a matter that "modern Science" bothered about.

You keep raising perceived problems in modern Cosmology just to divert attention away from the pathetic state of "the modern flat Earth hypothesis".

The subject was astronomy as a pseudoscience. You are the one trying to divert attention away from what we were talking about. Lets see you start a thread and stay on topic throughout it's entire extent.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 06:38:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #202 on: December 12, 2019, 06:39:25 PM »
Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)
Well, you've lost already because this thread is on "Double standards" and not modern Cosmology or Astronomy, bye!

I did mention astronomy first but only in "Zetetic Astronomy".
I might be wrong but you seem to be the first to directly raise Astronomy as in:
All astronomy is pseudocience by definition. It says so right on the tfes.org website.

We can tell it like it is. However, some like to pretend that observation and interpretation is "real science". Amusing, but wrong.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #203 on: December 12, 2019, 06:42:20 PM »
Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)
Well, you've lost already because this thread is on "Double standards" and not modern Cosmology or Astronomy, bye!

Incorrect. Pointing out that the standards you expect us to discuss is based on unjustified axioms and pseudoscience is quite on topic. I've stayed on that topic this entire thread, while you constantly jump from one what-aboutism to the next.

Chickening out already?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 06:44:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40127
Re: Double standards
« Reply #204 on: December 12, 2019, 06:44:55 PM »
The subject is astronomy is a pseudoscience, and the discussion has devolved to little disagreement with that statement and "I don't want to talk about this anymore!"
No Tom, the subject is the double standards that FE'ers, like you, regularly employ.  Your assertion that RE astronomy is pseudoscience while having no reasonable FE explanations for even the simplest celestial observations is just one example.

FE does have explanations. You are wrong about that.
Right, but none of those explanations are reasonable explanations, which I specifically mentioned.  None of those "explanations" are able to withstand even the most casual of scrutiny.

And all astronomy is pseudoscience by definition, not just RE astronomy. Pseudoscience is defined anything which is not or unable to be tested through the Scientific Method.
Would you care to cite a credible source for that definition or a credible source that says that no part of astronomy can be tested through the scientific method.  And by "credible source" I mean not your wiki.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17558
Re: Double standards
« Reply #205 on: December 12, 2019, 06:47:12 PM »
The wiki contains primarily third party sources and references which we did not write at all. The arguments are there. Read it and address it.

You have neither demonstrated or shown that the arguments are false or that they fail to explain.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 06:52:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #206 on: December 12, 2019, 07:03:11 PM »
Following the Scientific Method, what experiments did Stephen Hawking perform to verify the theory of the metric expansion of space?
It's irrelevant not the least because direct experiments are not necessary to conform to the accepted wider definition of the Scientific Method.

Really? The definitions you gave us involve experimentation.
Where?
Quote from: The Khan Academy
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  • Make an observation.
  • Ask a question.
  • Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
  • Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
  • Test the prediction.
  • Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Quote from: Chris Impey, TEACH Astronomy
Chapter 1: How Science Works: The Scientific Method
Since the time of the ancient Greeks, people who study the natural world have developed a system for establishing knowledge, called the scientific method. The scientific method requires, as a minimum, the following: terminology that is precisely defined, measurements that are quantitative and repeatable, and assertions that are backed up by evidence.

There are several essential steps in the scientific method. The first step is gathering evidence, usually in the form of observations or data. The evidence might be physical, such as rocks brought back from the Moon, or it might be readings from instruments, such as measures of light focused by a telescope. Statements made with no evidence to support them are called speculation; they might be true or they might not. Without supporting evidence, there is no way to prove or disprove them. In some scientific fields like chemistry, physics, and biology, evidence often comes from experiments in a laboratory. In astronomy, where many objects are very remote, most of the evidence comes in the form of light and other types of electromagnetic radiation.
 
The second essential step in the scientific method is analysis of the data, which usually involves a process of pattern recognition. For example, astronomers might analyze the nightly positions of a planet in the sky and recognize regularity in the motion, or they might find a similarity in the chemical composition of stars in different parts of our galaxy. A complication in the search for patterns in data is the fact that data are never perfect; observations are always finite in number and they have errors or uncertainties attached. The idea of searching for patterns in nature is at the heart of science. Discoveries start with a playful and curious mind at work.

The third step is the development of an explanation for the results of the analysis. Such an explanation is called a hypothesis. Often it is called a "working hypothesis" to emphasize that it is only a tentative proposal. An essential aspect of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be testable. That is, there must be some further observation or experiment that is capable of affirming or disproving the hypothesis. Scientists propose different hypotheses. The wrong ones are weeded out by such experiments. There is always more than one possible explanation for any set of data, which is one of the reasons scientists argue so much! The last element of the scientific method is therefore the critical evaluation of hypotheses through testing.

Often, an idea that starts out as one researcher's working hypothesis survives many tests and becomes widely accepted. A hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly and successfully is usually called a theory, indicating that it is stronger than a mere working hypothesis. The term theory is usually preserved for a hypothesis that covers a wide range of phenomena. For example, you might hypothesize that people who watch a lot of television are overweight. You might have evidence to support your hypothesis, but this insight will never have the weight of a theory. Why? Because many people who watch a lot of television are not overweight and there are many reasons that a person might be overweight. A theory should be broad in scope and application. An example of a modern robust theory is Einstein's theory of relativity.
 
The scientific method can never guarantee truth, but it can be used to draw conclusions with a much higher degree of reliability than other systems of knowledge. Stronger evidence yields more reliable conclusions. This statement is not an idle boast, but a conclusion based on a long history of scientific advances. The scientific method is more reliable in part because of the pains taken to gather evidence.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Show us these definitions of the Scientific Method which say that experimentation is not necessary.
I did! Read them again an show where experimentation is mentioned or implied!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
But I ask again and I'll keep asking until you give a reasoned reply who cares about modern Cosmology?
That has nothing to do with either the shape and rotation of the Earth.

For that matter the shape and rotation of the Earth were never a matter that "modern Science" bothered about.

You keep raising perceived problems in modern Cosmology just to divert attention away from the pathetic state of "the modern flat Earth hypothesis".

The subject was astronomy as a pseudoscience. You are the one trying to divert attention away from what we were talking about. Lets see you start a thread and stay on topic throughout it's entire extent.
No, you seemed to be the one that tried to change the topic from "Double standards" to "astronomy as a pseudoscience".
Read the OP again at: Double standards « on: November 05, 2019, 01:50:05 AM »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40127
Re: Double standards
« Reply #207 on: December 12, 2019, 07:04:41 PM »
You have neither demonstrated or shown that the arguments are false or that they fail to explain.
It isn't my job to prove your arguments are false.  It's your burden to support those arguments have merit.  You have not met that burden.

Interestingly, a quick search for examples of pseudoscience within the field of astronomy brought up this reference:
Modern flat Earth beliefs propose that the earth is a flat, disc-shaped planet that accelerates upward, producing the illusion of gravity. Proposers of a flat Earth, such as the Flat Earth Society, do not accept compelling evidence, such as photos of planet Earth from space.

Also, since FES rejects the scientific method, you're literally saying that FET is pseudoscience.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 07:13:41 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Double standards
« Reply #208 on: December 12, 2019, 07:05:52 PM »
Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)
Well, you've lost already because this thread is on "Double standards" and not modern Cosmology or Astronomy, bye!

Incorrect. Pointing out that the standards you expect us to discuss is based on unjustified axioms and pseudoscience is quite on topic. I've stayed on that topic this entire thread, while you constantly jump from one what-aboutism to the next.

Chickening out already?
Get real! You seemed to try turn the whole topic into "astronomy is pseudoscience" after I simply mentioned "astronomical" in this post:
Except that astronomical and terrestrial refraction has been observed, measured and modeled since that very competent astronomer Tycho Brahe realised how much error it was causing.
The topic and the OP never mention astronomy! Look:
Sun vs rocket




Interwsting.
Why is it that the rocket go "down" but using the same atmoplanar physics, the sun approaches horizon due to "perspective" and then disappears bottom up due to "haze" and "reverse refraction".

Why isnt it that the rocket is simply flying farther away due to the same sun phenomena?
But then you go from claiming that "astronomy is pseudoscience" (and it isn't) onto modern Cosmology.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Double standards
« Reply #209 on: December 12, 2019, 07:30:06 PM »
I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'd just like to reiterate what I said before.  Fellow round earthers, don't jump the gun about the strange CMB observations if you aren't familiar with them.  They legitimately are anomalous.  Google something like "cosmology axis of evil" to read all about it.  But don't dismiss the strangeness just because it's paraded around by a guy who doesn't even understand how the observations were made.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.