Zetetic methods

As I understand it, the concept of zeteticism is based around relying on ones own senses to gather evidence. Since the Sun and Moon appear to us to be the same size in the sky, does that mean then that those who follow such zetetic methods would therefore say that the Sun and Moon are actually the same size purely because of that?

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.

Does all this mean then that zeteticism does not take any account of distance since you cannot always determine distance from observation alone?

Zetetic Method:
"A system of scientific inquiry that bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is not be proved or disproved."

For example:
We don't assume the distance of Sun and Moon and then confirm or disprove, we measure it directly.

Like this:


In the exact moment of half-moon we have triangle Sun-Moon-Earth like this and from the angle φ we see how much farther is Sun than Moon.
If the angle φ is, say, 89 degrees, then L/S = cos φ = 0.017452, which means S is 57.3 times greater than L.

(In reality φ is approx. 89.8531 degrees and S is 390 times greater than L.)

So how does this tie in with the quotes taken from two pages from the FE Wiki then?

The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

So using the zetetic method you have just described, this disproves both of these quoted figures for the distances and sizes of the Sun and Moon.  I thought FE theory was all based around the zetetic method.  Seeing is believing.

In other words one can directly observe when the Moon appears at exactly first or last quarter phase and then measure the angular separation between the Sun and Moon on the sky at those times. From there you can deduce mathematically  that the distance S is not the same as the distance L as the Wiki states, thereby demonstrating through direct observation that the Wiki claims are wrong.

If the Sun and Moon are not the same distance away then quite obviously the observation of them appearing the same size on the sky tells us that they are not physically the same size.

Zetetic Method:
"A system of scientific inquiry that bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is not be proved or disproved."

For example:
We don't assume the distance of Sun and Moon and then confirm or disprove, we measure it directly.

Like this:


In the exact moment of half-moon we have triangle Sun-Moon-Earth like this and from the angle φ we see how much farther is Sun than Moon.
If the angle φ is, say, 89 degrees, then L/S = cos φ = 0.017452, which means S is 57.3 times greater than L.

(In reality φ is approx. 89.8531 degrees and S is 390 times greater than L.)

Unfortunately, this assumes there is a right angle triangle like that for the sun, moon and Earth.
You would first need to use the Zetetic method to establish that is the case.

The one I prefer is observations of a sunset, clearly showing the sun is going below you, meaning it can't just be above you and far away.

Why would you need to assume a triangle?  Whenever the Moon is at first or last quarter (and hence we see half of the Moons disk illuminated) you can see that the Moons elongation from the Sun on the sky is very close to 90 degrees. 

At this time of year for example from where I am the Sun sets at a point very close to SW. At the same time the Moon is more or less crossing the SE meridian point (az=135 degrees) on the horizon. Likewise close to the equinox, either March or September when the Sun sets due west, the first quarter Moon is transiting the south meridian at sunset.   

That is something I noticed when I was a teenager just learning about astronomy before I even read about it. Stands to reason really doesn't it when you think of the Moon orbiting the Earth.

The current heliocentric model covers everything we observe in the sky very nicely. However if you want to insist that the Sun and Moon both move in circles above a flat Earth then you tend to run into problems.   That is unless you'd prefer to try and invent some new laws of physics for which there is absolutely no evidence to support.

Science is about explaining things most simply and most logically based on real observations.  The heliocentric model does this until someone can up with something that works even better.

Why would you need to assume a triangle?  Whenever the Moon is at first or last quarter (and hence we see half of the Moons disk illuminated) you can see that the Moons elongation from the Sun on the sky is very close to 90 degrees.

It is the other angle that is the right angle that needs to be assumed/worked out first.
The angle at the moon.
This is from the fact that the moon is illuminated by the sun, so a half moon means the moon is facing 90 degrees away from Earth.
But that is based upon our knowledge and model of how the universe works; which is forbidden in the zetetic method.

Stands to reason really doesn't it when you think of the Moon orbiting the Earth.

Yes, but if instead you decide to start from scratch and follow the zetetic method, and probably incorrectly think the sun and moon both just circle above us, that is not so simple.

Science is about

And this thread is about the zetetic method.

But that is based upon our knowledge and model of how the universe works; which is forbidden in the zetetic method.

It's funny how anything that science has worked out through often relatively simple means (with or without modern technology) and which places any doubt on the validity of flat Earth belief seems to be forbidden by zetetic methods. One could almost interpret that as a form of cherry picking.

With the help of a friend who is a radio amateur I can transmit a radio signal at the Moon and receive a reflected signal less than 2.5 seconds later.  Knowing the speed of radio waves* I can use that simple experiment to work out the distance of the Moon.  Combine that with the knowledge that when the Moon is at 1st quarter the angle between the Sun/Moon/Earth is 90 degrees I can then determine from simple trig the distance between the Earth and the Sun. *the speed of electromagnetic waves (of which radio waves are one example) is one of those fundamental known constants in physics so before anyone starts on about it I am not going to get into a debate about how I have proved to myself the speed of radio waves. That is a level of pedantic that I am not willing to go to.

Although the likes of Aristarchus couldn't calculate distances accurate to modern standards, at least he and other ancient Greek philosophers like him could figure out that the Moon is much, much nearer than the Sun.

Combine that with the knowledge that when the Moon is at 1st quarter the angle between the Sun/Moon/Earth is 90 degrees

This is the issue, where is this knowledge coming from?

Although the likes of Aristarchus couldn't calculate distances accurate to modern standards, at least he and other ancient Greek philosophers like him could figure out that the Moon is much, much nearer than the Sun.

They could also figure out Earth is round.

This is the issue, where is this knowledge coming from?

You could quite easily model something like this. Using a lamp and a couple of balls in the same way that you can demonstrate how the Moons phases work.

Or even just one ball. A PC projector at one end of a room, you as the 'Earth in the centre of the room and then get someone to hold up a football and place it so it shows a half phase to the observer.  Then simply measure the angle between the projector, football and observer.  Doesn't need to be done to protractor accuracy but it should be apparent that the projector > football > observer angle is a right angle.

Quote from: Macarios on December 18, 2021, 05:25:01 AM

Zetetic Method:
"A system of scientific inquiry that bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is not be proved or disproved."

For example:
We don't assume the distance of Sun and Moon and then confirm or disprove, we measure it directly.

Like this:


In the exact moment of half-moon we have triangle Sun-Moon-Earth like this and from the angle φ we see how much farther is Sun than Moon.
If the angle φ is, say, 89 degrees, then L/S = cos φ = 0.017452, which means S is 57.3 times greater than L.

(In reality φ is approx. 89.8531 degrees and S is 390 times greater than L.)

Unfortunately, this assumes there is a right angle triangle like that for the sun, moon and Earth.
You would first need to use the Zetetic method to establish that is the case.

The one I prefer is observations of a sunset, clearly showing the sun is going below you, meaning it can't just be above you and far away.

Assumes?
It doesn't assume anything, we SEE the right angle at the Moon point.
From the observer's point of view it is clear that the Sun illuminates the Moon directly from aside.
Simply compare the bright and the dark part.
Use your own senses for that.

Quote

This is the issue, where is this knowledge coming from?

You could quite easily model something like this.

Which means it is no longer zeteticism.

It doesn't assume anything, we SEE the right angle at the Moon point.

That would require going to the moon to measure that angle.
Far beyond the reach of the zetetics.

From the observer's point of view it is clear that the Sun illuminates the Moon directly from aside.

That is a model.
While it makes sense, that model is not allowed as part of the zetetic method.
Unless you actually go to the moon to measure the angle, that triangle has an unknown angle for the zetetic method.

That is a model.
While it makes sense, that model is not allowed as part of the zetetic method.
Unless you actually go to the moon to measure the angle, that triangle has an unknown angle for the zetetic method.

So basically those who follow the 'zetetic' method are choosing to tie one hand behind their back in effect and limit themselves to what they can learn by not allowing themselves to learn anything through investigation or research beyond what their senses directly can tell them.  If it ain't directly in front of you and staring at you then ignore it.

I guess so.

Quote from: TomThumb on December 20, 2021, 04:14:50 AM

Quote

This is the issue, where is this knowledge coming from?

You could quite easily model something like this.

Which means it is no longer zeteticism.

Quote from: Macarios on December 21, 2021, 01:09:19 AM

It doesn't assume anything, we SEE the right angle at the Moon point.

That would require going to the moon to measure that angle.
Far beyond the reach of the zetetics.

Quote from: Macarios on December 21, 2021, 01:09:19 AM

From the observer's point of view it is clear that the Sun illuminates the Moon directly from aside.

That is a model.
While it makes sense, that model is not allowed as part of the zetetic method.
Unless you actually go to the moon to measure the angle, that triangle has an unknown angle for the zetetic method.

REAL Moon and REAL Sun right where you can see them directly.
Where do you see "model" in that?
Just look at them...

Quote

That is a model.
While it makes sense, that model is not allowed as part of the zetetic method.
Unless you actually go to the moon to measure the angle, that triangle has an unknown angle for the zetetic method.

So basically those who follow the 'zetetic' method are choosing to tie one hand behind their back in effect and limit themselves to what they can learn by not allowing themselves to learn anything through investigation or research beyond what their senses directly can tell them.  If it ain't directly in front of you and staring at you then ignore it.

Relying on ones senses is not a good idea. We only have five and they are all open to error and misinterpreatation. It reality its is a cop out that gives them permission to discount science and proper research methods.

The Zetetic fudge is open to all sorts of self delusion. It's all about seeing what you want to see. Very different from conducting an experiment where a system remote from ones own prejudices produces the data.

The Zetetic methods allows one to freely make things up to suit what ever beliefs one has. Thats why flat earthers like sticking to it. Doing a relatively simple experiment like bouncing radio waves off the moon is not for them as in one fell swoop may of their beliefs would go out the window. Much easier to look at the moon and make up your own explanations up to suit your beliefs without the tedious need to produce data that backs up what you believe.

Quote

That is a model.
While it makes sense, that model is not allowed as part of the zetetic method.
Unless you actually go to the moon to measure the angle, that triangle has an unknown angle for the zetetic method.

So basically those who follow the 'zetetic' method are choosing to tie one hand behind their back in effect and limit themselves to what they can learn by not allowing themselves to learn anything through investigation or research beyond what their senses directly can tell them.  If it ain't directly in front of you and staring at you then ignore it.

Pretty much.

REAL Moon and REAL Sun right where you can see them directly.
Where do you see "model" in that?
Just look at them...

You can't see the right angle directly.

The model is having the phases of the moon caused by the sun illuminating the moon with the illuminated portion facing the sun.

An interesting part of FE 'theory' for me is the way flat Earthers attempt to explain lunar eclipses. They have to resort to talking about a 'shadow object' which apparently is a satellite of the Sun (for example the Earth) but which is just so conveniently located that no one has ever seen it. Make of that what you will.

They seem to take the conventional explanation (i.e. it is the shadow of the Earth that causes the lunar eclipse) but denying that it is actually the Earth. Effectively deconstructing (completely unnecessarily) the conventional explanation in order to keep their beliefs alive.

I guess it is just a coincidence to them that lunar eclipses only ever happen at full Moon when the Sun is directly opposite the Moon in the sky.  Exactly where the shadow of the Earth might be expected to be.

The model is having the phases of the moon caused by the sun illuminating the moon with the illuminated portion facing the sun.

Is the illuminated portion facing somewhere else?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 24, 2021, 04:09:40 AM

The model is having the phases of the moon caused by the sun illuminating the moon with the illuminated portion facing the sun.

Is the illuminated portion facing somewhere else?

With our comprehensive model of the solar system, we know where it is pointing. But that model isn't allowed under the Zetetic methods.
With the Zetetic method, in order to determine where that illuminated portion is facing you will need to go to the moon and measure it.

Under the Zetetic method, it isn't clear if the moon is merely reflecting light from somewhere else (and if so where that is), or if it is a (periodic) light source.

An interesting part of FE 'theory' for me is the way flat Earthers attempt to explain lunar eclipses. They have to resort to talking about a 'shadow object' which apparently is a satellite of the Sun (for example the Earth) but which is just so conveniently located that no one has ever seen it. Make of that what you will.

They seem to take the conventional explanation (i.e. it is the shadow of the Earth that causes the lunar eclipse) but denying that it is actually the Earth. Effectively deconstructing (completely unnecessarily) the conventional explanation in order to keep their beliefs alive.

I guess it is just a coincidence to them that lunar eclipses only ever happen at full Moon when the Sun is directly opposite the Moon in the sky.  Exactly where the shadow of the Earth might be expected to be.

Do flat earthers have anything that could actually be called a theory?
I don’t actually think so, what they have amounts to no more than half baked notions.

If we take a theory to be:- A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses

Where has any flat earth notion used the scientific method or even any actual facts? I challenge you to name one.

Let’s remember their whole belief system hinges on there being a giant world wide ultra complex conspiracy involving tens of millions of people and hundreds of  organisations all over the world.

Take that away and they have nothing.

We have in the past discussed the whole notion of the flat earth laying claim to having scientific models.

I would suggest as the flat earth movement use nothing that could be described as science to concoct their notions they have neither theories or models.

Their zetetic way of thinking is an affront to real science. If the flat earth movement were to use the scientific method there would be no flat earth movement.