Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Algebraist

Pages: [1]
1
I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.

Quote
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.

Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way. It may be easier to observe something in a lab but observations and therefore experiments can in reality be carried out on virtually anything if you have the right equipment and opportunity. It's true in the outside world it's more difficult to control the conditions however instead you need to monitor and record detail what you have done to take the observations and the conditions under which it has been done so others can replicate what you've done and critique your experiment. Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)

1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.

Anyway that's just one example of an astronomical experiment there are many many more you can read about if you so wish.

Actually surely one good thing about astronomy is that virtually anyone can get involved. All you really need is a good telescope and some dedication to do observations. Thus it's good for the Zetetic method for one.

2
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.

3
From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations. This in isolation isn't the scientific method but it is a vital part of it. The science method is completed when you make theories to interpret what you've observed and then test those to determine if they are correct. I'm fine if you want to call the observation part of this also the Zetetic method but it's really not science without the testing and refinement of theories. The test or experiment crucially needs to have the power to either prove or disprove the theory.

An example is, I theorise that the Stars I observe are like our sun but a lot further away. This theory could originate from observations already made. Experiments to test this include methods to determine the distance to the star and analysis of the starlight etc. They would need to be replicable so others can verify your results.

4
This is a better representation of the ongoing scientific method. I think there is a lot of misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the scientific method in the above thread.

5
I know its not easy for RE'ers to argue the flat earth case but that doesn't justify pretending your seeing something different than is clearly shown in a photograph. The photos with the buoy do clearly show a sharp horizon - not perfectly sharp obviously but its easily sharp enough to see the position of the buoy relative to the apparent horizon ( I think that's a sufficient definition of sharp for this purpose) . In one the buoy is clearly in front of the horizon as you can see sea beyond and that horizon line extends up a 3rd of the buoy's height in the photo. In the second the buoy sits virtually at the horizon as no more sea can be seen beyond and the horizon line is at the base of the buoy. It's obvious the horizon is closer in this second picture from this and the size of the buoy in the picture. The difference is simply due to the first picture being taken from a higher height than the other - very easily explained on a globe as demonstrated above. Of course you are going to see different levels of blurring of the horizon and this is dependant on the distance the horizon is away from you and the atmospheric conditions.  However this blurring doesn't explain the position of the horizon since it can be changed so dramatically depending on the height you view from. In these pictures the atmosphere is rather clear so helps demonstrate this.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about ISS
« on: December 29, 2016, 01:02:59 PM »
To the question, could this be faked?
It seems very difficult. Both to man and the objects, most notably the iPad, which seem to behave like there is no external force such as gravity applying to them. The video continues for 50min. You can see the man clearly floating most of the time. There is nothing pushing him down so his body orientation is way off vertical much of the time. The iPad just floats there and whenever released it rotates or floats off in whatever direction it's been pushed. This all can't be done with strings and harnesses.
If it's CGI it's more realistic looking than anything even very high budget movies can achieve- there is always an unnatural look when CGI is employed to a significant extent. As this is single camera footage that looks unedited it's unfeasible really this is CGI

Ofcourse let's not forget you can observe the ISS directly yourself through a telescope when in the right part of the sky. Ive done so myself. There is a lot of footage released from the ISS that can also be viewed.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory Is WRONG!
« on: December 28, 2016, 08:37:10 AM »
"I think you're confusing coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration. The UA theory does have its flaws, but this isn't one of them."

Well, according to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes larger and larger. Therefore, in order for the object to continue to accelerate, the force applied must grow (f=ma, as the mass increases, so must the force).

In the reference frame of the accelerating body (earth in this scenario) you just appear to continue to accelerate  at the same rate. However from an observer reference frame ("stationary" relative to the earth) the acceleration of the earth gets less and less as it approaches the speed of light (effectively consistent with a constant force applied to an object increasing in mass). What both reference frames will see is that time will have slowed to a virtual standstill in other reference frame.
We don't observe that about the Stars so you'd have to conclude they were accelerating with us.
So you can imagine UAE scenario consistent with special relativity but this is obviously cherry picking a bit of science while chucking much of the rest away in proposing a flat earth.

You could suggest it's rather strange that flat earthists have used a bit of science (special relativity) that is really not self evidently understandable and certainly not possible to demonstrate by normal observation to help "explain" a flat earth. In contrast there is some very much easier science and straight forward observations that can be done to demonstrate earth is a globe (e.g. observation of the sun and moon and stars, ships going below the horizon, distances on the globe etc)

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Circular Equator
« on: December 20, 2016, 11:17:31 PM »
Just a quick addition: it's surely trivial to show you can't directly map a flat earth onto a sphere and vice versa. A flat earth either has an edge (see ice wall) or is infinite. A sphere does not have an edge on the surface ( any direction you travel you eventually end up back where you started) and it's not infinite. How do you map an edge onto a sphere?

I think anyone who was making a flat earth map wouldn't try to use the sphere as a starting point.

Maybe not. Of course there is a huge amount of mapping information available but has at its base a spherical earth coordinate system. Such that any map can be directly pinpointed on the surface of the spherical earth. These maps are used for all sorts of purposes by different organisations with different sorts of geographic information. Millions of journeys are done using these maps.
If you can't map them onto a flat earth you've got a problem obviously!

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Circular Equator
« on: December 20, 2016, 09:17:56 PM »
Just a quick addition: it's surely trivial to show you can't directly map a flat earth onto a sphere and vice versa. A flat earth either has an edge (see ice wall) or is infinite. A sphere does not have an edge on the surface ( any direction you travel you eventually end up back where you started) and it's not infinite. How do you map an edge onto a sphere?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Things You Can Do Everyday!
« on: December 20, 2016, 08:41:38 AM »
Yes learning about the world by the Zetetic approach can be awesome. It's good to learn by your own observations sometimes rather than just books!

By the simple observations that.
1. The sun is a very long way away compared to the size of the earth, such that sunlight beams can be considered as parallel (unless you measure very accurately) - as determined by the observations discussed in the posts above (so I won't repeat)
2. On some parts of the earth it's night while it's day on other parts it's day ( I've personally verified that in my travels, and telephone conversations with my relatives in New Zealand!)

These two scenarios cannot both be represented by a flat earth. The sun has to dip down below the level of the earth from the observer view point for it to set and darkness fall. You can observe it doing that anyway so it's not exactly a biggy!

But if the earth is flat and the sun a very long way away, such that beams are effect parallel, then the angle of the sun in the sky will have to basically be virtually the same at all points on the earth. This it totally incompatible with darkness being a different times across the earth, particularly being at opposite times in the north vs south "hemispheres"

I should note that a mad bendy light theory can't help here because, the observation that "the sun is the same size wherever you view in the sky and light beams are therefore  virtually parallel" would obviously get distorted if light bends. Light would have to bend massively to try to replicate anything like the dual obversations given above and effectively invalidate the observation itself (light can't both bend like that and be parallel).

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Things You Can Do Everyday!
« on: December 20, 2016, 08:38:12 AM »
Yes as recognised the passage through the atmosphere can cause some light to be diffracted, that causes light to be more diffuse and shifted in the colour spectrum. Thus the various effects seen at sunset when light must travel further through the atmosphere and through more water vapour. However as you can observe in a sunset you can still see the disc of the sun in the centre, this hasn't been magnified, just it's got more diffuse around the edges and more reddish light spread out around it. Also the amount of diffuse light and colour change depends on atmospheric conditions, particularly how much water vapour. This isn't an effect that explains how we see the same size and even colour sun as a distinct disk move across across the sky on a clear day. Remaining the same size as it dips towards the horizon.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Things You Can Do Everyday!
« on: December 19, 2016, 09:12:07 PM »
The way the sun remains the same size wherever you see it in the sky and slips below the horizon like that shows it is a massively long way from the earth. Such that it's reasonable to treat the rays as parallel. There are some refraction effects as the sun gets close to the horizon but they are simply what's cause those lovely sunset colours and effects we can all see. The thing that is certainly not seen is the sun shrinking in size as the sun gets further away because that is simply not happening. While other objects e.g. Mountains are getting smaller when further away, the sun isn't. 
The idea that somehow atmospheric refraction causes magnification of the sun and somehow by exactly the right amount to keep it the same visible size is totallly ludicrous. I should mention no evidence or suggestion that flying objects are magnified with distance!

Pages: [1]