Rejection of science

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Quote from: rabinoz

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The success of voyager one and Voyager Two, is evidence that the three body problem has been solved.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2019, 01:06:29 PM

Quote from: wise on December 23, 2019, 12:19:46 PM

Quote from: Ozymandias74 on December 23, 2019, 11:03:38 AM

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science. Those are not so different other than tarot. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

we are true science believers, and we reject the so-called explanations that popular science claims actually non-scientific. it's not science, it's not much difference between what you define and believing in God or believing in Zeus. So you don't believe in God, then you reject science, because religion is a science. can we accept this logic?

science cannot declare itself scientific!

someone cannot prove anything by saying that a branch of science claims something! scientific evidence should be objective, reproducible and understandable by all. It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes. we have not to obey that nonsence.

LOL

Lots and lots of things are measured.  That flat earthers can’t properly explain even the most basic of those measurements, like where the sun is in the sky for a given time and location is no one’s problem but yours.

And you don’t need NASA telescopes.  Buy your own telescope, or even just record careful naked eye observations.  Either way, have you considered actually putting some effort into working this stuff out instead of just wailing that the rest of the world is wrong?

Imao!

Sure we did. You are slave of your prejudices do not aware of how we work, neither you observed what you defend.





we still continue to test globetard (globe-tarot) theories and still could not verified them. How many times you did this?

What you demonstrate by this is your lack of knowledge regarding camera optics, cameras in general and a total lack of any common sense. Do you imagine pointing a camera such as the Nikon P1000 handheld with its equivalent 3000mm f8 lens at a star several light years away and will yield anything other than a shaky blurry distorted image? The normal rule for shooting at 3000mm handheld, if you are stupid enough to even attempt it, would be a min shutter speed of 1/6000! Which at night would give a totally black image. Why do you think all astronomical telescopes are mounted on sturdy tripods? The fact that the video you post was shot at night at a focal length of 3000mm at f8 I imagine the ISO would have to have been at its max 6400.
The P 1000 is no more than a novelty camera that has very poor performance in less than perfect condition. By posting your silly video you only demonstrate another area you know nothing about, which is pretty typical of flat earth types, opinions based on ignorance.

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Quote from: rabinoz

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

My another sneering irrelevant comment from Mr Bishop.That’s rich coming from a man who is unable or unwilling to calculate the distance to the moon. Let be real here you know nothing about astronomy other than the little you have cherry picked from conventional science, given there is no such thing as flat earth astronomy.
How about you list some of the flat earth astronomy resources you draw on, can’t find any? I wonder why?

No. Quote me what I asked for. You are just linking from the results of random Google searches.

"We show that the d-G3BP yields the correct solutions to the G3BP for two special cases: the equilateral triangle and collinear configurations. For the triangular solution, we use the fact that the solution to the three-body case is a superposition of the solutions to the three two-body cases, and we show that the three bodies maintain the same relative distances at all times. To obtain the collinear solution, we assume a specific permutation of the three bodies arranged along a straight rotating line, and we show that the d-G3BP maintains the same distance ratio between two bodies as in the G3BP. "

This is a SPECIAL solution for an exotic situation. Bodies arranged along a straight rotating line with and which maintain the same distance from each other all times. Bodies likely with all the same mass.

Give me a quote for what was asked, not links.

You are just a troll, with very little grasp of the rubbish you continually post.

Numerous links in the posts above showing the current position on the 'n' body problem.

Why should anyone take the time to format sections you wont read, or begin to understand.

Tom does it ever occur to you that you cannot and shouldn't judge everything in astronomy from just this 3 body problem that you are  SO obsessed with! I know lots and lots of amateur astronomers around the world. All of them have had lifetime passions for astronomy but not one of them cares a jot about the 3 body problem. They see the Moon orbiting the Earth and the other planets orbiting the Sun month on month, year on year without really worrying about whether they are obeying a 3 body problem or not.

They just enjoy doing science and observing the stars, planets, and galaxies we see.   What is wrong with that?  You can get too analytical with things.  Sometimes it is enough just to appreciate what is there.

Astronomy as a science will never change and those who appreciate it fully and love it as it should be do not really care at all whether it is compatible with your flat Earth beliefs or not.

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

I am still waiting for this from anyone who thinks that RE has a working model.

Since you are doing it Tom I might as well follow your example and repeating myself as well. There is a lot more to astronomy than just creating a working model of the Earth, Moon, Sun system.  We have what we have, it is what it is.  You don't need to know how a car engine works to drive a car properly.

So the best thing globalists do is to claim that flat earthers deny science by giving the name science to hollow claims that lack some sophistication and no scientific basis. so far we have not seen anything other than that. When will you globalists grow up? lol

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

I am still waiting for this from anyone who thinks that RE has a working model.

We have one model works quite well to a 99.99997 accuracy

Do you have a single FE hypothesis, that isnt based on RE?

Tom and a few others on here besides him seem to take the view that anything astronomy cannot explain or 'prove' is a sign of weakness.  Of course it isn't.  And I would put it back to the flat Earthers that there a lot more that FE cannot explain.  I believe it was Tom himself that admitted that 'little is known about the celestial bodies'.   

Well that may or may not be the case but there seems to be a lot more that is known about the 'celestial bodies' on the RE side.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

I am still waiting for this from anyone who thinks that RE has a working model.

You live in a fantasy world. In reality, everything we know about the universe has come through conventional science, a science you reject. You, on the other hand, have a belief system based on NO-science. Whenever you are asked a straight forward question about your No-science flat earth science you run a mile as you never have an answer.
I still wait to hear about your methodology for calculating the distance to the moon something thousands of amateur scientists have managed, but you or the rest of the flat earth movement apparently have not. You constantly try to pick holes in conventional science but where does your knowledge base come from to offer you the slightest bit of legitimacy to do this? Everyone on this forum knows that you are a flat earth fraud with not an answer to his name. Tell me, Mr. Bishop, as a man who likes asking questions how far is it to the moon from the earth? ( please show any workings)

Flat Earthers say they encourage 'free thinking'. The meaning behind that seems to be that it is up to the individual to make observations and then make interpretations and reach their own conclusions without influence by others.

That means you can ask a flat Earther a direct question about any aspect of FE theory and they will say it is not for them to provide an answer.  Built into that is the classic evasion or get out clause which means they don't have to explain anything to justify their belief. You could equally read that as an excuse not to answer a question directly because they simply don't know.

So that means whenever you read any of the claims about the Suns or Moons distance or size according FE theory, it is not a claim based on any real method or real evidence but simply a claim based on belief and therefore meaningless. What is the belief based on?   When you find out be sure to let me know!

If you use "globe" instead of "flat" in your ritings, the meaning of your sentences do not change. This is simply the way you manipulate the terms.

Personally, i don't reject science. However throughout my years i have taken note of a large number of unmentioned (in the mainstream) phenomenon that in my mind paint a different picture of the world.

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki

And we are all still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which says such systems cannot be explained or cannot exist.

Lacking such a source, all you have is a baseless claim which can be ignored.

Again, lacking a simple, elegant, general solution doesn't mean such systems are inexplicable or can't exist.

If bodies in space don't interact in the understood way then they would know that, since they need to calculate correct interactions with multiple gravitating bodies.

Which likely indicates they do.
All we have to go against that are baseless claims of a massive conspiracy and other baseless claims against reality.

You seem to be suggesting that gravity is wrong, but otherwise operates as a perfect Newtonian simulation of gravity, in which NASA solves n-body body problems to navigate around the solar system perfectly.

No, in which NASA calculates the trajectory based upon the known laws of physics. That is not solving the n-body problem.
You do not need to solve the n-body problem to calculate such trajectories.
You can use numerical methods were you start with a set of initial positions and then calculate how it all moves step by step.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore it because it shows you have no case.

I am still waiting for this from anyone who thinks that RE has a working model.

And we are all still waiting for you to show that a system of 3 bodies can't exist, just because there isn't a nice elegant solution for it.

The success of voyager one and Voyager Two, is evidence that the three body problem has been solved.

No, it is evidence that the 3-body problem is not a problem against being able to calculate positions or such systems existing.

So the best thing globalists do is to claim that flat earthers deny science by giving the name science to hollow claims that lack some sophistication and no scientific basis. so far we have not seen anything other than that. When will you globalists grow up? lol

It is pretty easy to not see things when you just ignore what is presented.

I gave a very clear example of what you can do to show that astronomy is science, and you just ignored it.
So what we actually see is that the best thing FEers can do is to claim that real science isn't actually real science, with nothing more than hollow, baseless claims and blatant misrepresentation of facts.

When will you FEers grow up?

Why are not more answers easily available on this phenomenon. Do you believe we, as a ppeople could not figure this out? i suspect it involves scientific principles not revealed by our science. Not too mention all of the megalithic stucture built with impossible huge stones all over the world. Are these histories being obscurred? perhps the time has not come for us to understand more.

Because the main evidence of how such structures were built are the structures themselves.
We can speculate about how they did it, but we cannot know for sure.
History is not science.

If I see coffee sitting in a cup, I don't know how that coffee was made. Was it made by a barista, by a coffee machine like that in someone's home, by a capsule machine, what? Does that mean we have no idea about coffee? No, it just means there are multiple options and we don't have the required evidence to determine which method was used.
Likewise we have several ideas of how these ancient structures could have been made, plenty of which has been tested on some scale. But we don't have enough evidence to determine which method was used.

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.

It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?

Personally, i don't reject science. However throughout my years i have taken note of a large number of unmentioned (in the mainstream) phenomenon that in my mind paint a different picture of the world.

No one doubts that there are many things unknown and especially about the distant past and inaccessible location but why is that any reason to question that the Earth is a Globe?

What unanswered questions remain that have anything to do with the shape of the Earth.

And if you don't reject science why reject photos like these:

EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth NASA Video Collection

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION’S 20 YEARS OF TRANSFORMATION

BEEFING UP THE ISS – JUNE 19, 2007
Backdropped by the blackness of space and Earth’s horizon, the International Space Station moves away from the Space Shuttle Atlantis. Earlier the STS-117 and Expedition 15 crews concluded about eight days of cooperative work onboard the shuttle and station. Atlantis and crew delivered the second and third starboard truss segments and another pair of solar arrays to the space station. Astronaut Lee Archambault, STS-117 pilot, was at the controls for the departure and fly-around, which gave Atlantis’ crew a look at the station’s new expanded configuration.

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star?

So then Tom, according to your logic something can only be possible if the Internet says it is possible. Yes?   Ignore everything in the real world.  Just rely on the Internet instead.

Quote

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star?

So then Tom, according to your logic something can only be possible if the Internet says it is possible. Yes?   Ignore everything in the real world.  Just rely on the Internet instead.

It would certainly help RET if physicists and mathematicians said that its basic planetary system of a star with a planet and a moon could exist.

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.

It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?

You are about 80 years out of date chap.

You provided links your self that contained integration solutions,  you need to understand the problem to recognise the work that has been done in this area, and continues, to drive down the tiny error factor.

Leave FE to people who actually believe the world is flat.

It would certainly help RET if physicists and mathematicians said that its basic planetary system of a star with a planet and a moon could exist.

And it would certainly help you if you would just look out of the window over the course of a month and watch the Moon moving through the sky against the background stars and see its phase changing as it orbits around the Earth.  See... it works!  A moon can and does orbit a planet!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2019, 01:03:12 PM

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.

It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?

You are about 80 years out of date chap.

You provided links your self that contained integration solutions,  you need to understand the problem to recognise the work that has been done in this area, and continues, to drive down the tiny error factor.

Leave FE to people who actually believe the world is flat.

It was asked that you demonstrate that your own opinion is true on the matter through an authorative quote about the three body problem from mainstream, which you have failed to do.

You should debate by assuming that your own opinion is trash. If all you can give us is trash, then it will be discarded as trash.

I thought zeteticism or whatever you call it was all about seeing is believing.  If that is right you then why are you demanding mathematical proofs about something you can observe with your own eyes just by watching the sky!?!   The ancients figured it out pretty well (wandering stars and all that) so why can't Tom Bishop figure it out as well just by using his own eyes to watch the motions of the planets in the sky in the 21st century?

I've been doing for a few years now (well 40 years actually) and it works for me. Common sense really.

Quote from: mak3m on December 24, 2019, 01:26:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 24, 2019, 01:03:12 PM

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.

It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?

You are about 80 years out of date chap.

You provided links your self that contained integration solutions,  you need to understand the problem to recognise the work that has been done in this area, and continues, to drive down the tiny error factor.

Leave FE to people who actually believe the world is flat.

It was asked that you demonstrate that your own opinion is true on the matter through an authorative quote about the three body problem from mainstream, which you have failed to do.

You should debate by assuming that your own opinion is trash. If all you can give us is trash, then it will be discarded as trash.

Scroll up

You are an obvious troll, as you have been around so long I expected better. You find, supposed, ambiguity and post away with little or no understanding.

For example in this thread FE proof put forward by yourself and your wiki is earth is flat because you have a quote from 1920's that proposes that the orbits of the heliocentric model are slightly different from the generally accepted model. A position that was abandoned after 1930 by the author.

My debate is trash lol you need to look up the definition of debate and stop running from questions.

It was asked that you demonstrate that your own opinion is true on the matter through an authorative quote about the three body problem from mainstream, which you have failed to do.

Why are you totally obsessed with the "three-body problem"? It is completely irrelevant to the Solar system.
The case in the paper you keep going back to analyses cases that bare no relation to the planets and moons of the Solar System.

As I've said before, even Isaac Newton found that the considering only the Moon-Earth-Sun system did not give exact results for the Moon's precession.

It was not until the gravitational effects of Jupiter were included that results matched to within the measuring accuracy.

Now forget your silly three-body problem. Maybe there is no closed analytic solution but so what?

What is more important is the stability of the real Solar System and that can only be investigated numerically as in this paper:

Is the solar system stable? by Scott Tremaine, University of Toronto and Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results and implications
The Table summarizes some numerical investigations of the long-term evolution of the solar system. Many follow only the outer five planets (Jupiter to Pluto) since:
(i) the masses of inner planets are so small that the outer planets form an independent dynamical system;
(ii) the large masses of the outer planets suggest that interesting effects are more likely in this region;
(iii) the orbital periods of the outer planets are longer so it is easier to follow the system for a given time.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The maximum timespan over which such calculations may be relevant is 4.5 Gyr backward (the age of the solar system) and 7.7 Gyr forward ( the time until the Sun swallows Mercury and loses a significant portion of its mass; Sackmann et ale 1993). Although
calculations based on secular theory now extend for up to 25 Gyr, the longest N-body integration is only 100 Myr, or 2% of the age of the solar system. Thus the conclusions described below must be treated cautiously. The first important result is that all the planets are still there: none has been ejected, fallen into the Sun, or collided with another planet, and the overall configuration of the planetary system remains quite similar.

Nevertheless, the behaviour of the planets is not boring. Sussman and Wisdom (1988) discovered that the trajectory of Pluto is chaotic: small changes grow exponentially, with an e-folding time (Liapunov time) of 20 Myr. Despite this chaotic behaviour, Pluto's semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination appeared to vary fairly regularly over the 845 Myr integration. This apparent regularity is impressive, since small disturbances were amplified 10¹⁸ by a factor of exp(⁸⁴⁵/20) ~ over the integration, and suggests that the trajectory is restricted - at least for the timespan of the integration - to a narrow chaotic zone in phase space.

That dates back to 1994 and there are far faster computers available now.

But look at the time-scales! Scott Tremaine is talking about time-scales of Myr and Gyr!

So we cannot prove that the Solar System is stable and it presumably is not over such long periods but who cares?

Now Tom, please change the record! You three-body problem is evidence of nothing of importance and has worn thin!

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Quote from: rabinoz

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Spectroscopy


Since you showered the internet for the 3 body problem. Can you point to where one physicist said the earth was flat since no one can solve the 3 body problem?

Hey Flattards! This is what you look like!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Hey Flattards! This is what you look like!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Erm thanks that really helped

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.

It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?

Why for once don't you tell everyone what YOU believe in along with all the supporting evidence? I think everyone is fed up hearing about the things in science you don't like.

Quote from: Solarwind on December 24, 2019, 01:13:47 PM

Quote

Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star?

So then Tom, according to your logic something can only be possible if the Internet says it is possible. Yes?   Ignore everything in the real world.  Just rely on the Internet instead.

It would certainly help RET if physicists and mathematicians said that its basic planetary system of a star with a planet and a moon could exist.

So your claim is that all the world’s physicists and astronomers who unanimously agree with the heliocentric model also say that such a system is impossible?  And also that nobody else has noticed such an enormous (one might say astronomical) contraction? 

Just throwing this out there, but isn’t it more likely that you have misunderstood what they are saying?  Have you considered this possibility?

I’ll try once again (as a layperson) to explain-

It doesn’t matter that there is no  nice simple elegant solution for a general case 3 body problem.  Lots of things in real world science and engineering don’t have nice elegant mathematical solutions, but that doesn’t mean they can’t exist.  It doesn’t even mean they can’t be modeled, they just require different techniques.

For example, the equations for fluid flow can’t be solved directly for anything but the most basic cases, such as laminar flow through a straight pipe.  But you wouldn’t say that water or air can’t flow around complex shapes would you?  Or maybe you would?  Few things I read here surprise me anymore.

We can also model fluid flow around complex shapes, by breaking the fluid region into lots of little pieces and iteratively solving relations between adjoining elements again and again until we converge on a stable solution.  This is basically how CFD software works.

Orbital modeling isn’t quite the same, but it uses a similar principle of breaking the problem down into pieces that can be easily solved.  So we start by modeling each orbit as a 2 body problem, then calculating the perturbation of that orbit by other objects.  This process is repeated iteratively for all the relevant orbits affecting each other.  ie. If object A affects the orbits of objects B and C, the resulting changes to B and C affect the orbit of object A.  So the more times you cycle through, the better the result. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_modeling

It’s the kind of tedious repetitive calculation that would drive mathematicians nuts trying to do by hand, but computers are ideally suited for. It’s no wonder mathematicians and astronomers tried for so long to find more elegant solutions.  These days, it just doesn’t matter so much.  It would be nice, but we can manage without.

This type of modeling is never absolutely perfect, but that’s life.  It’s good enough for practical applications such as navigating space flight. And it beats the crap out of any flat earth “model”, none of which can tell me which direction to look to see a sunset for any given location and date.

Incidentally, the simulations run by the likes of JPL model waaaayyyy more than 3 bodies.