Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?

  • 91 Replies
  • 3637 Views
Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« on: November 09, 2024, 05:11:07 PM »
The only reason for this hypothesis is that FEers are more frequently heard attacking the "heliocentric model" rather than the "round earth model" or synonyms. Heliocentrism of course has nothing as such to do with the shape of the earth. However, the opposing geocentric model of the universe, which was disproved some 300-500 years ago, is a lot less difficult heresy to defend than FE. FEers have been ridiculed and showed up so much lately that it might be testing the endurance of some FEers and they may be considering migrating to geocentrism, which doesn't have evidence against it that is obvious to the everyday person like FE has.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2024, 06:15:13 PM »
The only reason for this hypothesis is that FEers are more frequently heard attacking the "heliocentric model" rather than the "round earth model" or synonyms.
It seems to me that FE'ers are more frequently attacking other models than doing any research on their own model.
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2024, 01:54:57 AM »
The only reason for this hypothesis is that FEers are more frequently heard attacking the "heliocentric model" rather than the "round earth model" or synonyms.
It seems to me that FE'ers are more frequently attacking other models than doing any research on their own model.
It's easier to dismiss other models such as a global set of models.
The rest of the research is always ongoing and may never be realised as to what Earth actually is yet also knowing what it actually isn't, which a globe it is not and certainly not a solid surface as a globe but maybe an atmospheric dome atop a more denser foundation, maybe.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2024, 03:09:24 AM »
It's easier to dismiss other models such as a global set of models.
The rest of the research is always ongoing and may never be realised as to what Earth actually is yet also knowing what it actually isn't, which a globe it is not and certainly not a solid surface as a globe but maybe an atmospheric dome atop a more denser foundation, maybe.
It is very easy for you to just dismiss things out of your wilful ignorance.
It is much harder for you to provide a viable alternative which actually works.

The RE model works. You are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.
There is no reason to reject the RE model, you simply dismiss it because you don't like it.

What we know it isn't is a flat surface, as what is observed is fundamentally incompatible with a flat surface.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2024, 03:47:12 AM »
Not hardly.

We have personal lives.


Quote

Flat Earth Dave App

The app has a friend finder to find people that have the same app. The app uses globe geometry to accurately calculate distance.  The code uses the haversine formula.


Quote






Flat Earth Dave’s App

Evidently the app’s code uses the known tilt of the earth in radians for some functions concerning the sun and Moon. The value was given the variable name Obliquity.

Quote








Again.  Flat earth is a con and is less accurate than the heliocentric reality. 




Then why does a Flat Earth App use globe geometry?


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30075
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2024, 04:50:09 AM »
It's easier to dismiss other models such as a global set of models.
The rest of the research is always ongoing and may never be realised as to what Earth actually is yet also knowing what it actually isn't, which a globe it is not and certainly not a solid surface as a globe but maybe an atmospheric dome atop a more denser foundation, maybe.
It is very easy for you to just dismiss things out of your wilful ignorance.
It is much harder for you to provide a viable alternative which actually works.

The RE model works. You are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.
Your global model only works for you because that's how you were brought up and schooled into that and it really is as simple as that.
Harry Potter and his exploits work because that's how it's been portrayed to people.
And yes, it is based on fiction and a story and told as such but imagine if it were portrayed as true but nobody was allowed to visit to verify.
This is what the global model offers.


Quote from: JackBlack
There is no reason to reject the RE model, you simply dismiss it because you don't like it.
I don't dismiss it because I don't like it. It's very interesting fiction, and it's very likeable, as are many fictional storylines.

Quote from: JackBlack
What we know it isn't is a flat surface, as what is observed is fundamentally incompatible with a flat surface.
Not all people go along with a flat surface. Clearly the surface isn't flat; it's uneven, even the calm waters are not always 100% on offer due to vibrations.
Essentially, the waters are close to flat and level and are certainly not in any way shape or form a downward continuous curve, and that should not only be visually obvious to those who can stand aside from the global sales pitching but logically clear to anyone who wishes to think outside of the schooling.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2024, 06:10:44 AM »

Harry Potter and his exploits work because that's how it's been portrayed to people.
And yes, it is based on fiction and a story and told as such but imagine if it were portrayed as true but nobody was allowed to visit to verify.
This is what the global model offers.



Oh?

The "Final Experiment" is a verification effort. If this is how you feel, then why haven't you gone on the record here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92861.0

?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • The Elder Ones
  • 50933
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2024, 06:53:33 AM »
 Careful now, everyone will figure out who you are.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2024, 08:37:49 AM »
Careful now, everyone will figure out who you are.

Why so unserious?

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2024, 11:26:36 AM »
Your global model only works for you because that's how you were brought up and schooled into that and it really is as simple as that.
No, it works for everyone. With you entirely incapable of showing a single fault.
Every attempt by you to show a fault has been refuted.

It is not based upon stories. It is based upon evidence, something your model severely lacks.

I don't dismiss it because I don't like it.
But that's the only reason you have.
You don't have any faults or any examples of where it doesn't work.
The sole reason you have to reject is because you don't like it.

Not all people go along with a flat surface. Clearly the surface isn't flat; it's uneven, even the calm waters are not always 100% on offer due to vibrations.
Essentially, the waters are close to flat and level and are certainly not in any way shape or form a downward continuous curve, and that should not only be visually obvious to those who can stand aside from the global sales pitching but logically clear to anyone who wishes to think outside of the schooling.
No, essentially the waters are not close to flat. Not unless you want to take a tiny portion of Earth where the difference between the curve and flat is not noticeable.
For any significant size, that water is quite clearly curved, as shown by how it hides objects which are above it, clear evidence of a continuous downwards curve which is visually obvious to those who notice this curved water blocking the view.
Something quite clear and logical to anyone willing to think honestly (so I guess that rules you out).

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2024, 06:01:02 PM »
A lot of the focus in the debates is on attacking RE Theory because it is shooting fish in a barrel. RE Science has been funded and studied for hundreds of years, so if there are flaws they have been highly studied and are easily found and supported by traditional sources.

On this forum we have denialists like this guy who sits here posting for years, pretending that he can't read the sources provided to him:

The RE model works. You are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.

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

The simplest models with a star and a planet and a moon do not work.

We won't see anything as comprehensive in response to say otherwise. What we will see, however, is endless whining and creative arguments for why the poster doesn't need to debate the materials presented to them.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2024, 08:35:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2024, 06:57:11 PM »
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The simplest models with a star and a planet and a moon do not work.
Don't be stupid.  Just because mathematicians haven't found an analytical solution, that doesn't mean that the universe can't make planets with moons orbit stars.
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.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2024, 12:30:31 AM »
A lot of the focus in the debates is on attacking RE Theory because it is shooting fish in a barrel.
You mean shooting fish in the middle of the ocean, with those fish wearing bullet proof armour.
You do it because you cannot defend your model, while you can lie about the RE model to pretend there are problems.


RE Science has been funded and studied for hundreds of years, so if there are flaws they have been highly studied and are easily found and supported by traditional sources.
Yet you can't show any.

On this forum we have denialists like this guy who sits here posting for years, pretending that he can't read the sources provided to him:
The RE model works. You are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
You mean we have honest, intelligent people that see through your dishonest BS, and dishonest people like you continually repeating the same refuted BS.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the three body is merely the lack of an exact analytical solution.
This is nothing like the killer problem you want to pretend it is.

This is not saying the RE model is inherently unstable and will fall apart within a few orbits.
It isn't even saying that the model will eventually fall apart.
It is not saying the model doesn't work.

All it is saying is that there is no simple analytical solution.
i.e. there is no solution where you can have a few simple parameters, where you can then stick in any value of t and know the exact position of the objects at that time.

And this problem is not unique to the RE and gravity.
It applies to ALL systems dictated by simple forces.
One quite well known one is atoms, and molecules.
We can get analytical solutions for the hydrogen atom, but nothing more complex.
Does that mean everything more complex than a hydrogen atom will spontaneously fall apart? No.

You have had all this explained to you before, with you fleeing the thread after being refuted repeatedly; only to come back and repeat the same refuted BS.

So my point still stands. The RE model works, and you are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2024, 01:54:59 AM »


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

The simplest models with a star and a planet and a moon do not work.


Yes they do work. A numerical simulation based on Newtons law of gravitation works just fine on a three body system. What is the problem here?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2024, 03:59:43 AM »
Yes, we've talked about numerical solutions many times before, and the page addresses it. On the third paragraph of the Three Body Problem page I linked you guys to it says:

     "A typical response to this is to claim that there are numerical solutions. However, these are approximations which do not fully simulate the situation. See the page Numerical Solutions. We are taught that it should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, yet the greatest mathematicians of human history have been unable to get it to work."

If you click on that link you will understand why this particular line of argumentation fails. Numerical solutions for the n-body problem use cheats and workarounds. They are models that use limited gravitational interaction or ad-hoc falsities. Analytical n-body solutions are the ones which use the correct rules and treat gravity as universal.

A star-planet-moon system that uses cheats that keep it together and ignores the gravitational interaction of some bodies does not constitute a real solution to the Three Body Problem, for the obvious reason that gravity would be universal in the real scenario.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2024, 04:11:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2024, 07:02:03 AM »
Yes, we've talked about numerical solutions many times before, and the page addresses it. On the third paragraph of the Three Body Problem page I linked you guys to it says:

     "A typical response to this is to claim that there are numerical solutions. However, these are approximations which do not fully simulate the situation. See the page Numerical Solutions. We are taught that it should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, yet the greatest mathematicians of human history have been unable to get it to work."

If you click on that link you will understand why this particular line of argumentation fails. Numerical solutions for the n-body problem use cheats and workarounds. They are models that use limited gravitational interaction or ad-hoc falsities. Analytical n-body solutions are the ones which use the correct rules and treat gravity as universal.

A star-planet-moon system that uses cheats that keep it together and ignores the gravitational interaction of some bodies does not constitute a real solution to the Three Body Problem, for the obvious reason that gravity would be universal in the real scenario.

You are wrong. The numerical method is not limited in its accuracy except by practicalities. It can be made accurate to any desired degree by applying the required computing power, and its foundation remains newtonian gravitation, or if required, general relativity.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2024, 10:13:24 AM »
In other news, weather doesn’t exist because there are no analytical solutions to calculate airflow.

Meanwhile Tom still can’t explain how day and night work on a flat earth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2024, 10:48:01 AM »
You are wrong. The numerical method is not limited in its accuracy

Quote from: Unconvinced
In other news, weather doesn’t exist because there are no analytical solutions to calculate airflow.

The argument isn't that numerical methods are inaccurate. The Ancient Greeks could accurately predict the position of celestial bodies with a system of epicycles. It is irrelevant that a model can predict events accurately if the model is fundamentally wrong.

The tides can also be predicted by epicycles, but the tides are not governed by epicycles. See this quote from Gravitation Vs. Relativity by Professor Charles Lane Poor -

https://archive.org/stream/gravitationvers00chamgoog#page/n180/mode/2up

Quote
The Tide Predicting Machine of the Coast and Geodetic Survey at Washington is a note-worthy example of the application of the mechanical method [of prediction via epicycles]. The rise and fall of the tide at any port is a periodic phenomenon, and it may, therefore, be analyzed, or separated into a number of simple harmonic, or circular components. Each component tide will be simple, will have a definite period and a constant amplitude; and each such component may be represented mechanically by the arm of a crank, the length of which represents the amplitude; each crank arm being, in fact, the radius of one of the circles in our diagram.

Such a machine was invented by Sir William Thomson and was put in operation many years ago. The machine at present in use at Washington was designed by William Ferrell. It provides for nineteen components and directly gives the times and heights of high and low waters. In order to predict the tides for a given place and year, it is necessary to adjust the lengths of the crank arms, so that each shall be the same proportion of the known height of the corresponding partial tide, and to adjust the periods of their revolutions proportionally to the actual periods. Each arm must also be set at the proper angle to represent the phase of the component at the beginning of the year. When all these adjustments have been made, the machine is started and it takes only a few hours to run off the tides for a year, or for several years. This machine probably represents the highest possible development of the graphical or mechanical method. It is a concrete, definite mechanical adaptation of the epicyclic theory of Hipparchus.

But, because the Coast Survey represents and predicts the movements of tidal waters by a complicated mass of revolving cranks and moving chains, does anyone imagine for a moment that the actual waters are made up of such a system of cranks? No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for representing irregular, complicated motions.

While the graphical, or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by the patience of the mathematician and computer.

So prediction doesn't prove that the mathematical device used to create the prediction is the correct one. There are multiple ways to construct equations to predict a recurring phenomena. This is a prediction of patterns.

The Numerical Solutions page shows that the n-body numerical solutions don't use a full model of gravity.

You guys read the article and then proceeded to play dumb and argue that "it doesn't matter because it's accurate", which is an incredibly poor argument.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2024, 11:21:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2024, 11:30:20 AM »
You are wrong. The numerical method is not limited in its accuracy


The argument isn't that numerical methods are inaccurate. The Ancient Greeks could accurately predict the position of celestial bodies with a system of epicycles. It is irrelevant that a model can predict events accurately if the model is fundamentally wrong.



The model is not fundamentally wrong, its fundament is Newtonian gravitation.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2024, 11:33:17 AM »


The Numerical Solutions page shows that the n-body numerical solutions don't use a full model of gravity.

You guys read the article and then proceeded to play dumb and argue that "it doesn't matter because it's accurate", which is an incredibly poor argument.

The article shows no such thing. I already read it, and it contains no substance.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2024, 12:22:23 PM »
Yes, we've talked about numerical solutions many times before
Again, the far bigger issue is that you have no actual argument.

The three body problem doesn't mean such systems will just fall apart.

We are taught that it should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, yet the greatest mathematicians of human history have been unable to get it to work."
Quite the opposite.
The numerical solutions show it does work, depending on the conditions.

Again, all they haven't been able to "get work" is a simple analytical solution.

This in no way shows anything impossible about the system.

Just like helium can exist which also suffers from the three body problem.


If you click on that link you will understand why this particular line of argumentation fails.
Again, quite the opposite.
If you were honest, and actually thought about what your argument was, you would realise why your line of argumentation fails.

You are saying "we don't have a nice simple solution for this, so it impossible to exist".
It is pure nonsense.
The existence or lack thereof of a simple analytical solution has no bearing on if something exists or not.

Numerical solutions for the n-body problem use cheats and workarounds. They are models that use limited gravitational interaction or ad-hoc falsities.
Wrong again.
Once more, the three body problem is not just limited to gravity.


Again, if we accept your nonsense that means helium can't exist, oxygen can't exist, carbon can't exist, and so on.

It is irrelevant that a model can predict events accurately if the model is fundamentally wrong.
And a numerical solution is not a model.
In the actual RE, HC model, gravity is universal.
But there is no simple analytical solution to it, so approximations are used instead.

Again, this does NOTHING to show a problem with the RE model.

So prediction doesn't prove that the mathematical device used to create the prediction is the correct one.
And no one is saying it is.
Yet again, you are trying to change the argument.
Remember, you brought this up claiming it was a problem with the RE model. Now you are trying to pretend REers are bringing it up to prove the RE model is true.

You guys read the article and then proceeded to play dumb and argue that "it doesn't matter because it's accurate", which is an incredibly poor argument.
No, we don't.
You bring up the three body problem to pretend the RE model doesn't work, and we explain why your claim is BS.
We can model the system to any desired level of accuracy based upon the limitations of the devices used for the calculation.

You may as well be claiming no one can determine the circumference of a circle, because pi is only approximated.

Numerical models can take into consideration all gravitational interactions that are known.
They are not limited to ignoring some.

What typically uses limited gravity are simplifications which are not necessarily numerical models and in fact can be analytical solutions.



Again, the existence of the three body problem no more rules out the existence of the HC solar system, as it rules out the existence of helium.
Both exist, regardless of the inability to create an analytical solution.

The three body problem is NOT a fault or problem with the RE model.
It does not challenge the existence of a round Earth orbiting the sun with a moon orbiting it.


So my point still stands. The RE model works, and you are yet to show a single instance where it doesn't.
Instead, you blatantly lie to everyone to pretend a non-problem for the model is magically a problem for the model.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2024, 04:42:39 PM »
The Ancient Greeks could accurately predict the position of celestial bodies with a system of epicycles.
So it doesn't bother you in the least that the Ancient Greek's system of epicycles are part of a round earth model?
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.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2024, 06:49:54 PM »
Quote
So it doesn't bother you in the least that the Ancient Greek's system of epicycles are part of a round earth model?

Why should it?

I'm not even sure that I believe in epicycles. I've certainly not found them relevant to my model of the sky.

Quote
In Ptolemaic cosmology, a small circle, the center of which moves on the circumference of a larger circle at whose center is the earth and the circumference of which describes the orbit of one of the planets around the earth.
A circle whose circumference rolls along the circumference of a fixed circle, thereby generating an epicycloid or a hypocycloid.

If you don't think the Earth and moon are on fixed orbits around each other, if you think the Earth is still and the moon and sun are on independent tracks, if it it doesn't seem to matter at all, then this comes across as a bunch of delusional people trying to explain mathematical problems inherent with their delusion.

In much the same way as I don't think the Earth is a pyramid and try to measure 45° upward slanted lines toward a 90° North Pole, I don't bother with this stuff.

Epicycles, as they say, are first world problems. Like PTSD. Real people worry about droughts and how they're gonna affect crops, or whether a persistent cough is a sign of developing TB and not simple dehydration, whether their parents will stay married in a few years, and how they'll manage when their loved ones are gone. Maybe about politics, maybe about upcoming bad weather or events.

Not even if I was absolutely bored out of my mind, epicycles would still neither be interesting or concerning to me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2024, 08:52:27 PM »
Quote
So it doesn't bother you in the least that the Ancient Greek's system of epicycles are part of a round earth model?

Why should it?

I'm not even sure that I believe in epicycles. I've certainly not found them relevant to my model of the sky.
Epicycles were developed to explain the observed retrograde motion of the planets.  Epicycles are necessary in a geocentric round earth model, but are unnecessary in a heliocentric round earth model.  I'm not sure they would help much in a flat earth model.

Not even if I was absolutely bored out of my mind, epicycles would still neither be interesting or concerning to me.
Good, then you can feel free to bugger off.
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: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2024, 03:47:32 PM »
Whoops!

Concrete example:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92899.0

On this thread, OdinSkyBorn keeps diverting the discussion from FE to the Heliocentric model.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2024, 01:05:15 AM »
Whoops!

Concrete example:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92899.0

On this thread, OdinSkyBorn keeps diverting the discussion from FE to the Heliocentric model.
You mean a thread where you decided to derail a discussion about eclipses by bringing up the entirely useless and completely non-final "final experiment"?

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2024, 07:26:45 AM »
Whoops!

Concrete example:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92899.0

On this thread, OdinSkyBorn keeps diverting the discussion from FE to the Heliocentric model.
You mean a thread where you decided to derail a discussion about eclipses by bringing up the entirely useless and completely non-final "final experiment"?


What is your point, mr. Jack?

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2024, 12:20:06 PM »
What is your point, mr. Jack?
Don't try to use a thread to provide an example of FEers fleeing a topic, when YOU changed the topic.

Re: Are Flatearthers retreating from FE?
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2024, 12:39:11 PM »
What is your point, mr. Jack?
Don't try to use a thread to provide an example of FEers fleeing a topic, when YOU changed the topic.

The one thing has got nothing to do with the other in this instance.