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

  • 55 Replies
  • 2257 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18011
Debating me on this subject with honesty would involve reading my materials and directly addressing them. In the case of the "numerical solutions" for the Three Body Problem, they are cheats which do not simulate the reality of the situation and use a series of disconnected two-body problems and similar methods.

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

We've discussed all of this over the last 17 years. On this website and the other one there have been hundreds of conversations. Discussing these old topics is a bore now, and I mainly do so in the form of charitable education. We've consumed the available knowledge on these topics and have digested it. At this point, without additional science funding on the specific topics, nothing new will be brought to the table.

How does going higher result in seeing farther?


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43019
We've consumed the available knowledge on these topics and have digested it.  At this point, without additional science funding on the specific topics, nothing new will be brought to the table.
Does this mean that you're willing to participate in The Final Experiment expedition to Antarctica?
https://www.the-final-experiment.com/
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.

Debating me on this subject with honesty would involve reading my materials and directly addressing them.

Or ignore the BS for attention.  And just understand why a simple dial star atlas of the night sky for the southern hemisphere is accurate for South America, Africa, and Australia.   

Which shows your materials create false arguments based on pushing lies. 

?

zork

  • 3338
We've consumed the available knowledge on these topics and have digested it. At this point, without additional science funding on the specific topics, nothing new will be brought to the table.
There is nothing new brought in table ever. FE side has no science or physics or math, no measurements, no equations/calculations/predictions. And it's established again and again that you have no knowledge about flat earth. All you can do is complain about things RE side doesn't know ignoring all the thing they know. Like with three-body problem. There are solutions. And regardless the solution existing or not we not knowing about them doesn't make solar systrem to fall apart like you are inclined to think. According to that if earth is flat then it all should collapse because you know nothing about these things.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

JackBlack

  • 23384
Debating me on this subject with honesty would involve reading my materials and directly addressing them. In the case of the "numerical solutions" for the Three Body Problem, they are cheats which do not simulate the reality of the situation and use a series of disconnected two-body problems and similar methods.
Debating you would require you to actually formulate a coherent opinion and trying to stick to it rather than changing half way through.

The three body problem does NOT say that the system is inherently unstable and would destroy itself or can't exist like you wish to imply.
All it means is that there is no simply analytical solution.
Numerical methods are methods which calculate stepwise.
They add up the contribution from multiple bodies, and see the effect it has.
This is not a cheat.
It simply isn't an analytical solution.

The "cheat" is where you take that and pretend it means the system can't exist or would destroy itself.

Discussing these old topics is a bore now
Because you continually get your crap called out?

I mainly do so in the form of charitable education.
No you don't.
You do it in the form of dishonest manipulation of facts to pretend the RE can't work.

Debating me on this subject with honesty would involve reading my materials and directly addressing them. In the case of the "numerical solutions" for the Three Body Problem, they are cheats which do not simulate the reality of the situation and use a series of disconnected two-body problems and similar methods.

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

We've discussed all of this over the last 17 years. On this website and the other one there have been hundreds of conversations. Discussing these old topics is a bore now, and I mainly do so in the form of charitable education. We've consumed the available knowledge on these topics and have digested it. At this point, without additional science funding on the specific topics, nothing new will be brought to the table.

If only you could explain how the three body problem is relevant to the shape of the Earth?

Or are you arguing that because there is no mathematical solution yet, for the three body problem, the Earth body cannot be a planet affected by the body of the moon and the body of the sun and the bodies of other planets in our solar system? So therefore, until the three body problem is answered, Earth cannot be accepted to be a planet?

I don't see what the big issue is? Planetary mass and gravitational exertion has been worked out. It seems to me, the big problem is working out the cause of orbiting.

Is this your grand argument, Tom? That because a solution to the three body problem has not yet been found, Earth is flat? 

(Even though the three body problem must also exist with a flat earth model which has an overhead circling sun and moon above a flat earth?)

INCREDIBLE

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

disputeone

  • 25610
  • Or should I?
The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.

Have you watched the thousand year blood war? It's better than I was expecting. I just thought it couldn't touch the original but it's honestly pretty good.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns. 

The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.

I hadn't realised one could get an advanced degree in stacking faeces! In that case you are right! The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is much much higher than that of the general.population!

*

disputeone

  • 25610
  • Or should I?
You can get a PhD in breakdancing, although apparently it doesn't mean you can actually do it.

"Call me Doctor, I studied very hard for the title."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/raygun-slammed-as-audacious-as-others-come-to-her-defence/104215942

It seems to me, the big problem is working out the cause of orbiting.

Invisible bands.
https://biblehub.com/job/38-31.htm

Im serious, I don't know why it's not considered.
It's how we make working models.
It solves all the problems, even the problem of moons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery

We're just not as skilled as God, so our models are more clunky, which isn't surprising considering we can't even make a single blade of grass.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2024, 12:08:05 AM by disputeone »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns. 

The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.

And maybe one day, putting together all your combined genius, you’ll have worked out where the Sun hides at night?

The rest of the world awaits this breakthrough with bated breath.

*

JackBlack

  • 23384
The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.
Citation needed.
And what constitutes an "advanced degree"?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.

Have you watched the thousand year blood war? It's better than I was expecting. I just thought it couldn't touch the original but it's honestly pretty good.
It is excellent. Great animation, love that they actually expanded on the royal guard.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.
Citation needed.
And what constitutes an "advanced degree"?
[Ichimaru Gin, 2024]
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

JackBlack

  • 23384
The percentage of flat earthers with advanced degrees is higher than that of the general population.
Citation needed.
And what constitutes an "advanced degree"?
[Ichimaru Gin, 2024]
So just a baseless claim then, with nothing to back it up.

You can get a PhD in breakdancing, although apparently it doesn't mean you can actually do it.

"Call me Doctor, I studied very hard for the title."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-12/raygun-slammed-as-audacious-as-others-come-to-her-defence/104215942

It seems to me, the big problem is working out the cause of orbiting.

Invisible bands.
https://biblehub.com/job/38-31.htm

Im serious, I don't know why it's not considered.
It's how we make working models.
It solves all the problems, even the problem of moons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery

We're just not as skilled as God, so our models are more clunky, which isn't surprising considering we can't even make a single blade of grass.

Raygun is very hot when she's not on the dancefloor.

We can't make a chicken egg in a laboratory either.

Invisible bands  huh?

*

disputeone

  • 25610
  • Or should I?
We can't make a chicken egg in a laboratory either.

Exactly, and obviously.
A chickens egg is far more complex than a blade of grass.

If you don't like the word bands you can use "chains" "bonds" "cords" or even "influences". At least my model can explain orbits.

We even have working models

Which are very clunky but what do you expect when we can't make a blade of grass, much less a chickens egg.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns. 

Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2024, 03:17:09 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.

Ha Ha, imagine that.  FE topics not being part of the Science curriculum, not even for Astronomy students. Who knows -- maybe it's taught in Psych. courses. Not sure, because I never took any of those but I think they might get into delusions and conspiracies there -- that's probably a better fit than in the science curriculum.

*

Aera23

  • 120
  • Real age 20 (in 2024), profile age is funny tho
Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2024, 05:59:02 PM »
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.
Also, for mathematicians, even the Collatz conjecture is discouraged from being looked into. Like 3x+1 isn't very hard math even (though the logic behind Collatz becomes more complex and can take up a lot of time)
~~~^.^~~~
I am bulmabriefs144, Smasher of Testicles.  You see? Titles are ridiculous.

Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2024, 05:02:15 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.

No. For instance, "dark matter", "dark energy", and alternatives to explain unexpected rotation rates of galaxies and acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe are very active and well-known topics of research in physics and astronomy today. Like the earlier issue of the hitherto unexplained precession of Mercury's orbit that was solved when the relativistic nature of gravity was discovered, these "problems with the model" could lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe.

What "problems with the model" do you think are given short shrift in geosciences that could be better explained by earth being flat instead of spheroidal?

For example, except for a niche class of astrophysics researchers, few PhDs barely know what the Three Body Problem even is.

No, again. Solving two-body orbits is a staple of undergraduate classical mechanics courses. The difficulties of the three-body problem were introduced at the same time when I was an undergrad (decades ago), with the claim by my professor that anyone who could find a complete solution to the three-body problem would become famous. More recently, whether it's impossible or not, the search for a complete solution is less urgent because the availability of inexpensive computing power has made accurate numerical solutions to the N-body problem much more practical than back then. It's still well-known amongst physics students, and I suspect every candidate for an degree in astronomy (and physics) would have taken classical mechanics before graduating.

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.

At this point, any search for a solution to the N-body problem (for N >= 3) would more likely be appropriate for realm of mathematics than  physics (and astronomy). If it has been proven mathematically to be impossible, then a new type of math would be necessary (kind of like the development of Calculus), and would be an inappropriate subject for a physics dissertation (What would the title be? "Another Failed effort to Solve the 3-Body Problem").

Why do you think the lack of an analytical solution for this is "a problem with the model" anyway?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43019
Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2024, 08:22:23 PM »
I wonder why Tom seems to think that FET should be immune from the n-body problem.
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.

Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2024, 09:04:04 PM »
because he's a cherry picker

rules for thee not for meeeeeeeee
weeeeeeeeee




*

JackBlack

  • 23384
Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2024, 01:56:56 AM »
I wonder why Tom seems to think that FET should be immune from the n-body problem.
Because they don't use gravity. They use magic.
Magic does not suffer from the n-body problem.

Re: Anyone amongst the Flat Earth people with an actual scientific background?
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2024, 04:12:24 AM »
been away for a while

I really didn't imagine that Tom Bishop would have the face to qualify numerical methods as “cheating”


In the case of the "numerical solutions" for the Three Body Problem, they are cheats which do not simulate the reality of the situation and use a series of disconnected two-body problems and similar methods.


of course, this is particularly funny coming from a side (FEs) who NEVER offers ANY solution, exact or numerical

anyway, now I have to suppose that Tom NEVER ventures into boarding a plane, or a train, or even a car. Because virtually EVERY component of these machines (and of countless other things) is designed by means of, yes, numerical methods!

Problems which admit an exact solution are the exception, not the rule, in math, physics or engineering. So, the alternative to numerical methods is embracing the Dao and spending the rest of one's life in contemplating the underlying unity of the WHOLE.
I heartily wish Tom that he might soon reach the satori.

*

Atam-Or

  • 10
  • Glad you showed up.
That's happens to be of discredit to a person these days.

Anyways, Science is a method and process, so apply the rules and learn the basics and your off. Chemistry is one of the last new hard science fields, a personal opinion totally arbitrary. Gotta draw the line somewhere.

 So whats up with that big long post to ask that question? It makes you appear outside of your element, and possibly vulnerable. Would you contribute your groundbreaking knowledge that scientifically challenges the forum to discussion and critical thinking! En garde