Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?

Flat Earthers obviously think, they can 'declare' the laws of physics not applying, while ignoring that those same laws make ALL the technology and biology around them working in the first place.
From quantum physics, which is the basis for many stellar phenomena, to microscopic and macroscopic physics, which is the basis for computers, cars, planes and so much more.


Engineering all those things is based on those exact laws of physics. They are the basis for everything happening on Earth, around Earth, the solar system and beyond.

A Flat Earth people throw those laws out of the window.


Yet, you use those pieces of technology on a daily basis.

Not just that …
Nanoscopic, microscopic and macroscopic physics are also the basis for how the human body works.
Physics is the basis for chemistry, which is the basis for biochemistry and physiology.


Deny gravity?
Fine. That means, your heart would not work, because the vascular system ONLY works on the basis of the laws of gravity.


Why do I know all of this stuff?
When I attended medical school, one of my professors used to say: 'If you want to fully understand the human body, which is represented on the macroscopic and microscopic level, you should also know about all the 'magnification levels' below and above: quantum physics, quantum chemistry, geophysics and astrophysics'.
So I took extra classes in quantum chemistry, geophysics and astrophysics. Including over a year in labs, in the field and in various experimental projects.


These absurd claims by Flat Earthers simply require to deny all laws of physics and would render EVERYTHING on Earth, in the stellar system and the universe not functioning.



Hence my question:

Who here, amongst the Flat Earth people, has any actual scientific background?

Why did you make a new acct to post this, GeraldF?

Uh yeah, all of us here actually went through high school and took the required courses in earth science, biology, physics, and chemistry.

The thing is, most of us rejected the popular opinion.

Flat Earth is not an absence of science but an alt science.

Deny gravity?
Fine. That means, your heart would not work, because the vascular system ONLY works on the basis of the laws of gravity.

Actually, blood cells pumping from the heart works on systems of liquid and gas diffusion. If it really worked based on gravity, once blood pumps to your feet, it is stuck there. But no, blood pressure even pumps against gravity, transferring blood to where it is needed most. You would get no blood to your brain (which is perhaps what is happening here) because the brain is above the heart.

I can laugh at gravity, because I know there are other things that do the same job.

Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

For example, except for a niche class of astrophysics researchers, few PhDs barely know what the Three Body Problem even is. When students do find and show an interest in it, they are often discouraged from looking into it as a thesis topic and are told that it is an impossible problem that will hurt their career to be associated with or to try to contribute to. They are also told the same when they show an interest in problems with Relativity.

They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

interesting....

so i'm sure you've totaly never ignored simple direct questions before which refute the flat earth?

Deny gravity?
Fine. That means, your heart would not work, because the vascular system ONLY works on the basis of the laws of gravity.

I call BS.
The vascular system works regardless of orientation, and in free fall.
It does not appear to depend on gravity at all.

There are some aspects related to gravity, such as having enough pressure to get to your head and not pooling in your feet, but without gravity your vascular system would still work.

Flat Earth is not an absence of science but an alt science.

You mean an alternative to science, where typically you start with the conclusion that Earth is flat, and look for anything you can misrepresent to pretend it is true?

As opposed to science, which starts with the evidence, and makes conclusions based upon that.

I can laugh at gravity, because I know there are other things that do the same job.

Yet you can't provide any.
You can provide things which do a job which some people might falsely attribute to gravity, but not gravity itself.
You still have no explanations for why things fall and instead just appeal to a magical variation of buoyancy which makes no sense

Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

You mean they don't teach about people lying pretending there are problems when there aren't?
They certainly teach about limitations of models, at least if they are decent schools.

few PhDs barely know what the Three Body Problem even is. When students do find and show an interest in it, they are often discouraged from looking into it as a thesis topic and are told that it is an impossible problem that will hurt their career to be associated with or to try to contribute to.

Not so much hurt their career to be associated with it, but it will do absolutely nothing to further their career.
The three body problem is a solved problem, in the sense that there is no general analytical solution. And this isn't just for astrophysics.
The question would be what are they hoping to achieve? They certainly aren't going to find a general analytical solution. They might find a specific example but that isn't particularly noteworthy.

They are also told the same when they show an interest in problems with Relativity.

Because "problems with relativity" are promoted by pseudoscientists spouting BS, and dishonest people like you.
No one has been able to show an actual problem with it.
So what is more likely, that they go down the path of these pseudoscientists and get discredited for spouting crap; that they make a negligible contribution by showing it is crap; or they magically find something countless people have been trying to find and failing?

Quote

They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

interesting....

so i'm sure you've totaly never ignored simple direct questions before which refute the flat earth?

Not really. I have addressed all of it, and you know where to find it. In my view it is my challenges which are being ignored or unsatisfactorily responded to. I wrote an entire encyclopedia about Flat Earth, known as the TFES.org Wiki. I usually always link and direct you guys there when queried, and I rarely get any coherent rebuttal in response. There is no source which decisively debunks those topics. And it will be difficult to, since the pages largely cite mainstream science discoveries which debunk RE. In the coming years it will be realized that it stands as the reigning champion which has defeated the globe.

circles and triangles debunk the flat earth.
hurray.


the articles you cite as your proofs already accept the round earth.
hurray.


photographic evidence of star trails debunk the flat earht.
hurray!

my view challenges which are being ignored or unsatisfactorily responded to.

so maybe "mainstream not teaching about the problems of the model" is because for the same reason you've waved away any round refutations.

you not accepting the response is different from refuting a response.

you have never refuted a response.

And amazing, your flawed accusations require little addressing from mainstream science, because they are flawed

Not really. I have addressed all of it

No, you haven't.
You typically link to your site of crap and flee the discussion.
There is still plenty left for FEers to answer, because their model simply doesn't work.

I wrote an entire encyclopedia about Flat Earth, known as the TFES.org Wiki.

No, you wrote a heavily biased opinion piece with lots of dishonestly cherry picked quotes.
That is not an encyclopedia.

I usually always link and direct you guys there when queried, and I rarely get any coherent rebuttal in response.

No, you get coherent rebuttals, and either ignore them entirely or just go something along the lines of "hey look this scientist (Who I think says entirely wrong things because they think Earth is round and I think that is wrong) said this so you must be wrong and I don't need to do anything to defend my position".

There is no source which decisively debunks those topics.

There is no single source.
But plenty of sources debunk that nonsense.

And it will be difficult to, since the pages largely cite mainstream science discoveries which debunk RE.

You mean it dishonestly cherry picks quotes to pretend the RE is debunked, without actually debunking the RE in any way.

It can't even provide a coherent model of the FE and stick to it. Instead it jumps around between wildly different models to pretend to have evidence that contradicts the RE while a different FE model then directly contradicts that; and different models to push the problems around to pretend they aren't problems for the FE.

The closest you get to a model that works (which still doesn't work) is nature itself conspiring to make a flat Earth produce the results expected for a RE, which would necessarily mean that the claimed disproof of a RE don't work as that directly contradicts that model, and without the evidence required for that nature conspiring, you would have the RE model working just fine.

e.g. you have bendy light to try to explain things like why the sun appears to set and why objects disappear from the bottom up, only to elsewhere claim that there is no deviation from straight, such as in the Bedford level experiment.
You even provide 2 contradictory attempts at explaining why the sun sets.

For the most part you stick to the north pole centred model.
But then when that has problems you switch to a bipolar model.

The RE works just fine without continually switching models.
And when we do switch to different models, they are just different levels of accuracy. e.g. Earth being an oblate spheroid, vs simplify that to make it a perfect sphere.

In the coming years it will be realized that it stands as the reigning champion which has defeated the globe.

Only in your dreams.

Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

Goal of the curriculum is to teach what we know, not what we don't know. That can people figure out after they know what we know. Problem with fe is that they have no science. They can't do predictions. They can't measure. They can't calculate. Zilch for everything.

so maybe "mainstream not teaching about the problems of the model" is because for the same reason you've waved away any round refutations.

It's not a big mystery. The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you. The purpose of science is to explain the world and to explain the universe, and if they can't do that then they will hide their failures.

This is academia doing this, indirectly deceiving its learners, and your attempted comparison to what you think I do or don't do is rather weak. If we can't trust academia to give us a full picture then we don't know how strong the argument is for things like evolution, and a hundred other subjects.

No, you wrote a heavily biased opinion piece with lots of dishonestly cherry picked quotes.

If the evidence for a subject is cherry picked, then it should be easy for you to provide the overwhelming evidence of the opposite.

Yet your arguments are mainly all basically various reasons for why you don't need to provide sources or evidence. Do we really need to listen to you argue that for the thousandth time? Arguing about why you don't need to argue is very uninteresting. By having nothing that directly challenges it you lose the discussion every time.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2024, 01:00:50 PM

Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

Goal of the curriculum is to teach what we know, not what we don't know. That can people figure out after they know what we know. Problem with fe is that they have no science. They can't do predictions. They can't measure. They can't calculate. Zilch for everything.

Not being taught about the problems with the Round Earth model means that you received a poor education. It's not something to be proud of or justify. Really, you should exercise a lot more humility knowing that your model can't keep a planet and a moon in orbit around a star.

 The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you.

Eye roll.  The heliocentric reality is more accurate than the flat earth delusion. 
 
In engineering, what errors are caused by the heliocentric model.  And where are they ignored? 

 You might watch this video.  More demonstrable proof the earth is spherical. And addresses the angle of the north state vs position in the Northern Hemisphere and why.  Where an Equatorial Mount would be useless on a flat earth. 

Equatorial Mounts WOULDN'T WORK on a Flat Earth

It's not a big mystery.

Then why is slant range a thing?

However, this would only be valid if the earth were a flat disk. In addition, however, the earth’s radius also has an effect, as shown in figure 3. Thus, the actual topographic distance concerning the slant distance measured by the radar depends on:
the measured slant range,
the actual height of the aim, and
the earth radius, which is valid for the location of the radar unit.



https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html

Seems the heliocentric reality cuts out lots of errors inherent to FE.

Like, FE would get you lost at sea.  Such as why a dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere is accurate at predicting the night sky. 

Quote from: Themightykabool

so maybe "mainstream not teaching about the problems of the model" is because for the same reason you've waved away any round refutations.

It's not a big mystery. The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you. The purpose of science is to explain the world and to explain the universe, and if they can't do that then they will hide their failures.

This is academia doing this, indirectly deceiving its learners, and your attempted comparison to what you think I do or don't do is rather weak. If we can't trust academia to give us a full picture then we don't know how strong the argument is for things like evolution, and a hundred other subjects.

mmm yes
an elaborate lie about how circles and triangles work.
spectacular theory there.

Not being taught about the problems with the Round Earth model means that you received a poor education. It's not something to be proud of or justify. Really, you should exercise a lot more humility knowing that your model can't keep a planet and a moon in orbit around a star.

These are not problems, these are things people don't know yet. But there are quite a lot of things we already know and that we teach. Fe side has nothing to teach so maybe you should show some humility when you have zero knowledge about FE, no science and can't teach anything. And it seems you are very proud of that fact that there is nothing. How come?

Also RE model explains why planet and moon orbit the star and it does'nt have to keep them there. You also don't seem to have anough education to know what about the 3 body problem is. And in same time you have no explanation or knowledge what the moon or sun is or what keeps the up and moving in FE ... let's say speculations because that side doesn't have anything. Even model. Kind of weird that you are proud of knowing nothing and then bitch aobut people who know a lot but not absolutely everything.

It's not a big mystery. The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you.

The question is who is lying?
Those that have a coherent model which works to describe reality, who aren't focusing on the "problems" because they aren't problems; or those so desperate to reject reality they invent problems which don't exist?

If the evidence for a subject is cherry picked, then it should be easy for you to provide the overwhelming evidence of the opposite.

You don't provide evidence.
You provide cherry picked quote and blatant misrepresentations.
I provide evidence and clear explanations that show you are wrong, and you flee.

Yet your arguments are mainly all basically various reasons for why you don't need to provide sources or evidence.

No, that is what you do.
You act like providing a link to your compilation of BS is enough and nothing more is needed.
You act like because someone who has a PhD says something it must be true and anyone who says otherwise is wrong; while ignoring that so many of them say Earth is round.

By having nothing that directly challenges it you lose the discussion every time.

Good things I provide plenty of things which directly challenge your BS.

You don't think I've considered these questions? These are all old things we went over years ago.

> Heliocentrism is accurate!

This is incorrect, and another thing they are not teaching you. The predictive models are full of epicycles.

See this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

In short, there is no real model. They put in cheats to make things fit prediction, the same cheats which Ptolemy used two thousand years ago.

> FE is inaccurate!

TBD. The Flat Earth EA celestial model appears to explain more astronomical events than the Round Earth celestial model.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

> Muh Slant Range Radar Calculations https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Slant%20Range.en.html

That page discredits itself on the validity of the slant range calculation:

In practice, however, the propagation of electromagnetic waves is also subject to refraction, i.e. the transmitted beam of the radar is not a rectilinear side of this triangle, but this side is additionally also curved depending on

the transmitted wavelength,
the barometric pressure,
the air temperature and
the atmospheric humidity.

There are other variable to take into account which affects the scenario significantly, so it's impossible to know if this slant range calculation is helpful or not. Often at high altitudes we can see hundreds of miles further than should be possible on a RE.

So why at high altitudes can you see farther on the flat earth model?

> FE is inaccurate!

TBD. The Flat Earth EA celestial model appears to explain more astronomical events than the Round Earth celestial model.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Where is the experimental evidence for EA?  How about the peer reviewed scholarly articles?   Where is a usable formula for EA?  How does EA not directly contradict the “it looks flat” argument?

Where is the experimental evidence for EA?  How about the peer reviewed scholarly articles?   Where is a usable formula for EA?  How does EA not directly contradict the “it looks flat” argument?

Go to your planetarium.

Flat surface - Celestial sphere

> Heliocentrism is accurate!
This is incorrect, and another thing they are not teaching you. The predictive models are full of epicycles.

Notice how you aren't saying it is inaccurate?
The proper HC model doesn't just have simple ellipses. Instead it considers the effects of the other planets as well.

> FE is inaccurate!
TBD.

Not to be determined.
We have maps of Earth which cannot match a flat surface.

The only way you can pretend the FE model works is to literally have nature itself conspire to make it look like Earth is round.
You can't even pick a coherent model.

You basically just say EA as a catch all for all the problems, without any explanation of how. You don't even have a formula that works.

Often at high altitudes we can see hundreds of miles further than should be possible on a RE.

You mean than we should if Earth had no atmosphere.
This would also match your fantasy with EA, where the light is bending up, preventing you from seeing.

Go to your planetarium.

Where it shows what is expected for a round Earth for someone at the centre?

You don't think I've considered these questions? These are all old things we went over years ago.

And you still have exactly zero progress and you still have zero knowledge about FE. Every time there are questions what there is known about FE you start bitching about RE. Stop. Educate others and provide actual knowledge about FE, Measurements, calculations, predictions, method how things work and how people can test it or reproduce on smaller scale. Every time these things are asked topic is derailed to somehing else.

You can't tell Tom Bishop what to do!

You can't tell Tom Bishop what to do!

Sure, but I can tell what he can't do or doesn't know.

TBD. The Flat Earth EA celestial model appears to explain more astronomical events than the Round Earth celestial model.

Then why does a simple dial star atlas of the southern hemisphere’s night sky actually predict the night sky from Africa, South America, and Africa. 


What’s the FE equivalent.



You posted this….

 The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you.

I asked this….
 
In engineering, what errors are caused by the heliocentric model.  And where are they ignored? 

well, we can be fairly sure that Tom Bishop is NOT one.
Funny thing: he doesn't even realize that almost everything he says betrays him.
But there's something WORSE. He MAKES UP things. He FABRICATES things, out of thin air.
As in

few PhDs barely know what the Three Body Problem even is. When students do find and show an interest in it, they are often discouraged from looking into it as a thesis topic and are told that it is an impossible problem that will hurt their career to be associated with or to try to contribute to. They are also told the same when they show an interest in problems with Relativity.

(one wonders: how can he think he won't be proven wrong by someone who knows more than him? - which means a LOT of people)
Special Relativity is physicists' bread and butter.
And lots of people work in General Relativity (I, for one, graduated with a thesis in GR)

as for the Three Bodies Problem (which everyone knows about), maybe (actually, I don't know) it has been proven it has no analytical solution. As it has been proven that there's no general algebraic solution to an equation of 5th (or higher) degree. But give me a 5th degree equation and I will merrily and quickly solve it, by numerical methods, even on my pocket calculator.
In the same way, NOBODY is able to solve the quantum mechanical equations for the 26 electrons of the iron atom (and probably never will). So we use approximate methods to predict the spectroscopy of the iron atom and, as these predictions agree fairly well with observations, the theory IS confirmed. According to Tom, the iron atom should collapse, or fly apart. But the iron atom doesn't care a straw about what Tom thinks and merrily keeps its stability.
Yes, for SOME 3-bodies systems and for CERTAIN initial conditions (especially when the masses are comparable) you see, in simulations, that one body ends up being expelled. So what? For other initial conditions you see the system settling in a stable configuration. This is so much truer if, in a multi-body system, one body (the Sun) has a much bigger mass than others. The problem HAS been tackled, in the classical perturbation theory, and the conclusion is that the Solar System should be stable. And YES, maybe we don't have the ABSOLUTE certainty that perturbations from Jupiter and Saturn will not end up throwing Mars off its orbit in some billions of years. But if Tom wants to debunk the “helio model” it's up to HIM to prove that this MUST happen on a time scale of at most some hundreds millions of years. Good luck.

It's not a big mystery. The reason the problems are not taught is simply because they are lying to you. The purpose of science is to explain the world and to explain the universe, and if they can't do that then they will hide their failures.

the problems ARE taught. In many cases, at Ph. D. level. But if Tom had studied “Lectures on Physics” by Feynman (a text from the '60s, aimed at sophomores) he would have seen the author ending his exposition of the classical theory of electromagnetism with an excursus about open problems (and NO, this does NOT condemn the theory. It just simply shows its limits on an ultramicroscopic scale)


Just one thing more:

 your model can't keep a planet and a moon in orbit around a star.

this is FE logic at its best. That is, worst.
a) SOME 3-bodies systems are unstable
b) Sun, Earth and Moon make a 3-bodies system
c) THEN, the Sun, Earth and Moon system MUST be unstable

Any more words needed?

(and now, if Tom Bishop comes up again with his Three Bodies Problem without first discussing this reply, EITHER he has not read it OR he's in total bad faith)

it is "unstable"
the moon is moving away from us an inch at a time each year.

hurray



or was it unstable because the formulas used for calculations aren't perfect?
compunding error doesn't exist in tomB's world.
it's all or nothing.
be perfect or "TBD".

TBD. The Flat Earth EA celestial model appears to explain more astronomical events than the Round Earth celestial model.

I recall taking astronomy at university. The professor was so intense on describing Earth shape that I thought "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Upon further research, it became apparent that Earth shape had not yet been established with certainty. It was obvious RET had too many inconsistencies and deviations from reality.
 
Round Earth believers, to this day, become uncomfortable when FET is shown to have more provable outcomes.
 
If you look around yourself and take interest in Earth shape, you are destined to discover the truth.

(and now, if Tom Bishop comes up again with his Three Bodies Problem without first discussing this reply, EITHER he has not read it OR he's in total bad faith)

I've been here for more years than I care to admit and I don't think that I've ever seen a good faith argument from any FE'er.

Round Earth believers, to this day, become uncomfortable when FET is shown to have more provable outcomes.

Case in point.  I still haven't figured out to which FET "provable outcomes" gotham is referring.

or was it unstable because the formulas used for calculations aren't perfect?

It is "unstable" because it isn't an analytical solution.
i.e. you can't just get a simple equation, plug in a time some millions of years into the future and see where everything is.
Instead, you need to approximate it numerically with errors increasing the further forward in time you go.

It was obvious RET had too many inconsistencies and deviations from reality.

For something allegedly so obvious, FEers seem entirely incapable of providing any and instead resort to outright lying about the model or reality or both.
One would think that if this was so obvious, that FEers would use actual inconsistencies and deviations from reality instead of outright lies.

Round Earth believers, to this day, become uncomfortable when FET is shown to have more provable outcomes.

So in REers are uncomfortable in your fantasies?

Because FE is yet to demonstrate any more provable outcomes.
I am yet to here of a single thing FE does better than RE, other than having simpler math, which can just be done as an approximation for the RE. Because that simple math, when it gets to a point of difference, doesn't work for reality.

If you look around yourself and take interest in Earth shape, you are destined to discover the truth.

That Earth is round?