1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 08, 2022, 04:18:54 AM »

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

Actually, now that I think about it.  I don’t think a gravity battery would work at all on a flat earth.  First of all, an object on the ground has zero potential energy.  As you lift against gravity, potential energy is is generated.  The amount that is generated would be equal to m*g*h.  A 10 kg object raised 10m would gain 980 joules in potential energy.  If you are lifting with UA, the formula would be m*-g[-/b]*h, because you aren’t lifting against gravity, you are lifting with UA. The amount of energy generated would be -980 joules.  The object didn’t gain potential energy, it lost potential energy.

On top of that, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when a force is applied that causes it to move.  Kinetic energy is energy an object possesses due to it motion, if there is no force of gravity to cause motion, no electricity can be produced.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 08, 2022, 02:08:16 AM »

It means a small space, or area, like the inside of a rocket or an elevator.

lol.

Let's not waste our time, pricelesspearl. If you don't understand the subject you're presenting arguments about, you should brush up before speaking.

I gave your your chance even though I said I wouldn't have. Behave or join your alts. Your choice.

“Locally” means in a small region. So, the equivalence principle says: If you can only make measurements in a small region around you, then you cannot tell acceleration apart from gravity. You can only tell them apart if you can make measurements over a large enough distances.

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/what-is-equivalence-principle.html

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 08, 2022, 01:57:46 AM »

The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

There is a bit more in this that needs consideration though. One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't. Not quite the same thing, I realise.

This description of how a gravity battery works is wrong. 

The work energy theory states that work done an object adds energy to it.  Work is just another way of saying moving it. After the battery is lifted, it possesses more potential energy than when it was on the ground. The harder something is to lift, the more energy is added.   Its harder to lift the battery against gravity, than if there was no gravity, so different amounts of potential energy would be generated with gravity than would be generated without it.

The potential energy in the battery is released when the object is allowed to fall and the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, which is what produces the electricity.

The formula to calculate how much potential energy is generated by lifting the battery is m*g*h.  If you know how much mass the object has and how high it is lifted, you know how much potential energy should be created in the presence of gravity, how much kinetic energy should be released, and how much electricity should be produced.  If there is no gravity, the amount of electricity that is ultimately produced would be different than what is expected or observed.

That is an easy way to determine if the earth is accelerating upwards without gravity or if a gravitational field is present.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 06, 2022, 11:48:48 PM »

A "large enough area"? What on Earth are you talking about? The Equivalence Principle says nothing about areas.

Of course it does.  What do you think the term local means in the context of the equivalence principle.? It means a small space, or area, like the inside of a rocket or an elevator. 

The equivalence principle holds locally, i.e., within a small patch of space and time

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01%3A_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.05%3A_The_Equivalence_Principle_(Part_1)

Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity.

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle#:~:text=Locally%2C%20that%20is%20during%20any,where%20there%20is%20no%20gravity.

Here "local" has a very special meaning: not only must the experiment not look outside the laboratory, but it must also be small compared to variations in the gravitational field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#:~:text=The%20Einstein%20equivalence%20principle,-What%20is%20now&text=Here%20%22local%22%20has%20a%20very,entire%20laboratory%20is%20freely%20falling.

Einstein even said the equivalence principle doesn’t transform away the entire gravitational field of the earth.

From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a general theory of relativity must yield important results on the laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic pursuit of the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws satisfied by the gravitational field. Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these considerations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/333?highlightText=earth

The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

No it doesn’t.  And that wouldn’t even make sense on a flat earth.  A body isn’t subject to any forces when released from a height on a flat earth.

The potential energy is generated by the work involved in displacing it to a higher elevation.  While the battery remains suspended, the potential energy is stored in the battery.  When the battery is lowered, the energy is released to produce electricity.

If you pick up a textbook from the floor and put it on a table, it will require about 10 joules of energy—a unit where 1 J = 1 kg*m22/s2. We can calculate the change in energy by lifting things using the work-energy principle. This says that work done on a system is equal to the change in energy of that system, and also that work depends on the force pushing on that system and the distance the force moves. Here I am using "system" to mean some thing or collection of things.

In the expression for work, Δr is the distance the force moves, and θ is the angle between the force and the direction it is moving.
If you want to lift a book with a mass (this includes most books you will find), then you will need to push up with a force equal in magnitude to the gravitational force. On the surface of the Earth, the gravitational force is the product of the mass (in kilograms) and the gravitational field with a value of approximately 9.8 newtons per kilogram.
So lifting a book up a distance h would have an angle between the force and displacement of 0° (remember that cosine of 0° = 0 1). The work done lifting an object of mass (m) and height (h) would then be:

This change in energy of the book is called gravitational potential energy. The more mass you lift, the greater the stored energy. The higher you lift the mass, the greater the potential energy.

The formula mgh tells you the amount of potential energy that is stored in the battery and that was generated by lifting it.  When the battery is lowered the energy is released.

Little by little, electric motors hoist the weight halfway up; it is now a giant, gravity-powered battery, storing potential energy that can be released when needed. And that moment is now: With a metallic moan, the weight inches back down. Reversing direction, the motors become electric generators, sending up to 250 kilowatts of power back to the grid. For peak power, the weight can descend in 11 seconds—but for testing purposes, it moves just a few meters at “creep speed,” says Douglas Hitchcock, project engineer at Scottish startup Gravitricity.

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.372.6541.446

It is also relative. Change the frame of reference, and the direction changes accordingly. The two are indistinguishable for you and I. If you dispute this, you immediately invalidate all of RET

You have to define relative to what. We aren’t talking about something that is falling.  The potential energy is stored in the battery while it is suspended from crane, or whatever mechanism is used. That amount is m*g*h.  The amount of potential gravitational energy any object possess is dependent on its mass and on its height relative to the earth because those are the factors that tell how strongly gravity is working on the object.  With UA, the mass and height don't effect how strongly it works on an object.  It works the same on any object of any mass at any height. 

There would be zero relative acceleration between the battery and earth with UA because they would be accelerating at the same rate.  The acceleration of the battery relative to anything else doesn't matter. But if you want to go that route, then fine.  There would be no potential energy in the battery with UA because  m*0*h=0.

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

They would work with UA, just not consistent with what we observe.

The change in  energy equals the net amount of work required to displace an object.  It would take more net work to mechanically displace the battery working against gravity than it would take to displace it mechanically without working against gravity and with UA.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 06, 2022, 03:21:25 AM »

To be clear: gravity absolutely does exist on FE. To claim otherwise would be to argue that we're currently all floating aimlessly. You might be referring to gravitation.

But hey, your question is obvious, and so is the answer: Universal Acceleration. Since the Equivalence Principle holds, the two are locally indistinguishable.

You would have known this if you simply took the time to familiarise yourself with FET - it would have taken much less time than you spent thoroughly documenting trivial concepts like gravity batteries.

No, I’m talking about gravity. The force between the earth and objects near it’s surface.  The difference between flat earth gravity and round earth gravity, of course, is that flat earth gravity isn’t dependent on the mass of an object or its distance from the earth.

The operative phrase in the definition of the equivalence principle is “locally indistinguishable”.  In a large enough area the effects are distinguishable, which is why I don’t believe it applies here or would explain where the energy stored in a gravity battery comes from.

Here’s why.  The formula for gravitational potential energy is m*g*h. 

    • The strength of the force of round earth gravity on an object is proportional to its mass.  Flat earth gravity, or universal acceleration, isn’t dependent on the mass of an object. The strength of Earth’s gravitational field is 9.8N/kg. This means that for each kg of mass, an object will experience 9.8 N of force. The strength of flat earth gravity is the same on any object, regardless of its mass.
    •  And height wouldn’t be a factor either.  Universal acceleration would have the same effect on the battery whether it was lifted 100 ft. Or a 1000 ft.
    •  the “g” in the formula means the acceleration due to gravity.  Acceleration is a vector,  It has direction and magnitude.  The direction of acceleration due to flat earth gravity is opposite that of acceleration due to round earth gravity, so the “g” in the formula would have to be -g.

Is short, the formula won’t work.  If the earth were accelerating up, the amount of potential energy wouldn’t be what you’d expect from the formula.  That’s a simple way to distinguish between accelerating up and being in a gravitational field.  The equivalence principle wouldn’t apply because the space being tested isn’t small enough to be considered “local”.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity Batteries

« on: May 05, 2022, 04:29:55 AM »

Gravity batteries work on the principle of stored gravitational potential energy.  The idea is lifting a heavy object and working against gravity generates gravitational potential energy in the object and when the object is allowed to fall, the energy is released and electricity can be generated.

I realize it sounds a little off the wall, but its a real thing and it works.

Gravitational potential energy is the work required to move an object in the opposite direction of Earth's gravity

 

In a gravity battery, a mass is displaced, or lifted, to generate gravitational potential energy that is transformed into electricity. Gravity batteries store gravitational potential energy by lifting a mass to a certain height using a pump, crane, or motor. After the mass is lifted, it now stores a certain gravitational potential energy based on the mass of the object and how high it was lifted. The stored gravitational potential energy is then transferred into electricity. The mass is lowered to fall back to its original height, which causes a generator to spin and create electricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery#:~:text=A%20gravity%20battery%20works%20by,a%20form%20of%20sustainable%20energy.

If you pick up a textbook from the floor and put it on a table, it will require about 10 joules of energy—a unit where 1 J = 1 kg*m22/s2. We can calculate the change in energy by lifting things using the work-energy principle. This says that work done on a system is equal to the change in energy of that system, and also that work depends on the force pushing on that system and the distance the force moves. Here I am using "system" to mean some thing or collection of things.

In the expression for work, Δr is the distance the force moves, and θ is the angle between the force and the direction it is moving.
If you want to lift a book with a mass (this includes most books you will find), then you will need to push up with a force equal in magnitude to the gravitational force. On the surface of the Earth, the gravitational force is the product of the mass (in kilograms) and the gravitational field with a value of approximately 9.8 newtons per kilogram.
So lifting a book up a distance h would have an angle between the force and displacement of 0° (remember that cosine of 0° = 0 1). The work done lifting an object of mass (m) and height (h) would then be:


This change in energy of the book is called gravitational potential energy. The more mass you lift, the greater the stored energy. The higher you lift the mass, the greater the potential energy.

https://www.wired.com/story/battery-built-from-concrete/

A few more resources

Gravity energy storage relies on the potential energy of an object due to its height relative to another object and could be key for intermittent power sources, like solar and wind. The basic concept is that excess energy captured from something like a solar array is used to lift a heavy object up. When there is not enough sunlight for direct power use, the heavy object is dropped down, converting the gravitational potential energy into electricity via generator.

https://www.engineering.com/story/are-gravitational-batteries-the-solution-to-grid-power-storage

The premise of these batteries is simple and does not use rare materials to construct. When the sun is shining, enough power is generated to lift a heavy object. When there is no sun, this object will slowly descend through gravity, operating a generator that converts that potential energy into stored electricity.
It is very similar to pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES), which uses the downward flow of water to power a generator which then pumps the water back uphill.
This has been a technology long hypothesised for use in solar systems, but the technology has never really evolved – until now.

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/how-gravity-batteries-are-set-to-transform-the-solar-network/

The system works by using an incredibly heavyweight and a long, tall structure. Some gravity batteries are housed in large, very tall buildings, while others use boreholes drilled deep into the earth to provide the height needed for the battery. 
At times when energy production outstrips demand, the surplus energy is diverted operate heavy machinery that winches the weight up to the top of the structure. When supply drops below demand and we need to harness the energy, the weight is dropped to generate electricity again using a generator and often utilising regenerative braking. The efficiency of a system like this can be as high as 90%.
Pumped hydro storage works on the same principle, except it uses reservoirs at different heights and moves the water between them to store and release energy as needed. The gravity battery has an advantage on this though as it can be used on much shorter notice. Moving a body of water is a more complex operation than dropping a weight. It also doesn’t have the same environmental impact as pumped hydro storage.

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/what-are-gravity-batteries/

So the obvious question here is, on a flat earth where gravity doesn’t exist, where does the energy that is stored in a gravity battery come from?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: May 04, 2022, 04:51:41 AM »

Tell us all how wrong it is, and how it can't possibly describe reality as we observe it, despite matching observations

It only matches observations if you use a “bendy ruler”.  That’s like saying a movie perfectly reflects reality as long as you wear 3-d glasses.

OP does not consider it a FE model.

Then why did he title the thread  “Found a fully working flat earth model?” 

But like I said, I don’t care what he considers it or what you consider it.  I simply made the observation he didn’t transform the metric tensor correctly. It isn’t debatable that he did it wrong.  Tensors are invariant with coordinate transformations. Period. Full stop.

His two models, or  coordinate systems, if that makes you feel better, have different metrics. That means he didn’t transform correctly.  That’s tensor calculus 101….and basic differential geometry.  And we don’t even know if his “bendy ruler metric” is even valid. Valid metrics have defined characteristics.  You can’t just make up some random formula and call it a “metric”. 

I'll leave it to those who want to argue what the implications of those observations are.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: May 03, 2022, 09:51:06 PM »

Right, I know everything I needed to know. Before you come back to argue against RET (which is what you're currently trying to do), get a grasp of geometry.

 It doesn’t matter if you are talking about a Euclidean or non-Euclidean space, the metric tensor is invariant under  any  coordinate transformation.  If you are going from Euclidean to Euclidean, it is invariant.  If you are going from non-Euclidean to non-Eucldiean, it is invariant.  If you are going from Euclidean to non-Euclidean or the other way, it is invariant.

The whole point is that you can’t transform a Euclidean space to a non-Euclidean space accurately because they have different metrics.  The Euclidean metric is  the Pythagorean Theorem.  If you correctly transform to a non-Euclidean coordinate system, the metric remains the Pythagorean Theorem and distances and angles won’t make sense.  The PT doesn’t work in a non-Euclidean space.  You can’t randomly decide not to use the PT.
 
I guess you can decide that and just make up your own metric  and invent a bendy ruler to make it work.  The physics police won’t come and drag you away, but the results are meaningless.  It makes distances entirely subjective if you can arbitrarily decide to “measure differently”.  What makes his random metric the right one?  What makes his bendy ruler better than my super bendy ruler?  By the OP’s logic, I can change the defintion of a pound and claim I have lost weight. I still won’t fit into my skinny jeans though so it doesn’t mean anything.

He doesn't, and it's not a FE model. Please form an understanding of what's being discussed before you explain how proudly you disagree with it.

He specifically said they have different metrics.

The map has a different distance metric.

  And you may not consider it an FE model, but the OP does.  If you disagree with that then take it up with him.  I don’t care what the OP calls it. Or what you call it.  Either way, its not the right way to do coordinate transformation.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: May 03, 2022, 05:52:19 PM »

You can't just choose whatever metric you want to use.

Of course you can. In fact, you have no other option than to do so.

Metric tensors transform according to specific rules and that's what determines the geometry.

In Euclidean spaces, sure. This is emphatically not one. Considering you've missed that, I somehow doubt you know what you're talking about.

Euclidean or non has nothing to do with it.  Metrics are tensors and tensors, by definition, are invariant under coordinate transformations.

A Tensor is an object that in invariant under a change of coordinate systems, with components that change according to a special set of mathematical formulae

If you transform the individual components correctly according to the transformation laws, the net result is the same metric that you started with.

If the OP has different metric for his globe model and his FE model, he didn't transform the components properly.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: May 03, 2022, 03:56:20 PM »

The map has a different distance metric. Distance is just a formula, it's up to you to choose a meaningful one.
Using the correct metric, the circumference of 80N and 80S is the same as the globe and so it's smaller than the equator

It sounds like the OP just made up his own metric.  That's not how it works.  You can't just choose whatever metric you want to use. Metric tensors transform according to specific rules and that's what determines the geometry.  When done correctly, according to the rules, the geometry of the manifold doesn't change.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 27, 2022, 11:23:09 AM »

A sweeping statement on how our society accepts the results of Rowbotham's experiments. In reality, some FE'ers accept some of Rowbotham's results. The claim that Rowbotham is some sort of "Flat Earth Messiah" is only ever used by RE'ers, and only by ones who don't know what they're talking about.

I can only go what is on the wiki. And the wiki implies his method is the method TFES uses. It even says that Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is TFES "best" experimental evidence of a flat earth.   The wiki should say so if TFES doesn't completely endorse his methods. 

Their competence. We've seen plenty of RE'ers who claim to be "true disciples of science", but who struggle to distinguish the concepts of velocity and acceleration in their minds.
    • Resources. If you start me off with a budget of £10,000,000, I sure as hell am gonna do better than the science enthusiast starting with £50.
    • Time. This one hopefully doesn't require an explanation.

Those aren’t reasons why zecticism hasn’t produced any real results.  They are evidence that it is a flawed system to begin with.  If it had merit, qualified and knowledgeable people, trained scientists, would practice it and resources would be available.  But those people understand that it’s logically impossible to reach a valid conclusion without starting with a hypothesis.  That’s why Rothbotham had to do it, while pretending not to.

So, I repeat myself: If you don't understand something, ask. Don't imagine an answer and demand that someone defends it for you.

I did ask. That’s why I started out asking in my first post  how would you design an experiment to figure out why one balloon floats away and another doesn’t, without starting by testing what you think the answer might be?  Nobody seems to want to answer that.  That's the only reason the conversation goes in circles.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 26, 2022, 02:26:49 AM »

No, you just have a poor understanding of Zeteticism, but you decided that it is everyone else who must be wrong. You once again reveal the flaws of your philosophy.

 I don’t understand it the way it is presented on this site that’s for sure. 

Your society accepts the results of Rothbotham’s experiments, so it should follow that it agrees with the way he conducted his experiments.  Except it doesn’t.

 the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed to testing that hypothesis;

 

Things that don’t make logical sense are hard to understand.

Superior methods produce superior results in a controlled environment

If its the way science should be done, zetecisim should be able to figure out how to do a controlled experiment.

Your experimental setup is a shambles, since you haven't accounted for a plethora of factors unrelated to the method chosen; but still felt confident enough to draw conclusions.

Does that word salad come with an entree? Can I get some dressing on the side? 

I haven’t proposed any “experimental set up” , much less drawn any conclusions from one. Just commented on Rowbotham’s  method , asked how it could be put into actual practice and made  observations that he didn’t practice what he preached and that what he preached doesn’t seem to have led to explaining much of anything.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 25, 2022, 03:24:15 AM »

What is it with RE'ers and this unshakeable obsession with Samuel Rowbotham? From what you're saying (which I didn't verify, because it's pretty unimportant) it sounds like Rowbotham was wrong. So what?

I can’t speak for anybody else, but I’m certainly not obsessed with him.  I was curious about Zeteicism. He’s apparently the “father” of the it, or at least the version of it the flat earth movement seems to embrace.  You want to learn about something, original sources are usually the best place to start.

His whole philosophy is based on  believing that theories and hypothesis are inconsistent with real science.  Those were direct quotes from ENAG. If your brand of flat earth theory doesn’t support that idea, then its not very clear from your wiki.   

Your wiki says

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, as is instructed by the scientific method.

The site claims to support Zeteticism, so it’s a pretty glaring inconsistency if you do believe that its ok to base a conclusion on an “ initial theory that is to be proved or disproved” or “speculate on what the right answer might be”,    If your wiki isn’t clear, or worse, contradictory, its hardly fair to fault your readers for not understanding what you believe. The real problem is that that description  is such an oversimplification of the scientific method that its misleading.

Once again you demonstrate the flaws of your philosophy. Superior methods produce superior results in a controlled environment. Your experimental setup is a shambles, since you haven't accounted for a plethora of factors unrelated to the method chosen; but still felt confident enough to draw conclusions.

What are you talking about?  What experimental set up?  Maybe I wasn’t clear in my response. You asked on what basis I thought zecticism should have contributed more knowledge than it has about the flat earth.  I responded because a superior method, which the wiki claims it to be, should produce superior results.  If zecticism is a superior method of scientific inquiry, then there should be some results that show that.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 24, 2022, 06:35:28 AM »

Considering that Zeteticism is backwards-compatible with science, and that it's a method of inquiry, this question doesn't even begin to make sense.

The scientific method is a method of inquiry too and according to Rowbotham the two methods aren’t compatible at all. According to him if you hypothesize or theorize, your conclusions are invalid. 

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena

Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.

The very construction of a theory at all, but especially such as the. Copernican, is a complete violation of that natural and legitimate mode of investigation to which the term "Zetetic" has been applied. 

I don’t know if he was just ignorant of what a hypothesis or theory is, or deliberate misrepresentation, but a hypothesis isn’t just a WAG.  Its using  reasoning to predict a possible outcome of an experiment based on prior knowledge and observation.

That process is apparently legitimate enough that he used it himself

IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle.

Then he designed his whole experiment around testing that hypothesis. That’s using the scientific method, whether he realized it or not.  He obviously didn’t understand the process enough to understand that his results couldn’t ,and didn’t, prove the earth was flat. It could only prove that it wasn’t a globe 25,000 English statute miles in circumference.  He didn’t even understand that by his own logic his conclusion was invalid because it began with a hypothesis.

So back to my question, what knowledge has been gained about the flat earth, without using any baseline hypotheses or theorizing?

What do you base this assertion on?

Superior methods produce superior results.  That’s what makes them superior methods. 

I’m not trying to bash zetecism, I just don’t see the point of it. It’s “Scientific Method Lite”. 

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 23, 2022, 02:58:10 PM »

If you're willing to be sloppy and imprecise, then the differences between Zeteticism and the scientific method are indeed "minor". It's entirely up to you whether you want to explore them, or whether such differences "don't really matter" to you.

I don’t know what you are getting by sloppy and imprecise.  In the legal context "presumption of innocence" has a precise meaning.  Rowbotham made his argument in the legal context, so that is that definition that should be used.  If anything, Roundy was being sloppy and imprecise by using the colloquial meaning.

The minor differences do matter because they lead to different conclusions.

Here’s a question.  Using the zetetic method, what knowledge has been gained about the flat earth over the last couple of hundred years?  The proof is in the pudding, so they say.  If the zetetic method is superior, it seems like a lot more should have been learned.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 22, 2022, 11:15:20 PM »

No, they don't. They are similar. But assumption implies that one is sure of something without sufficient reason. Presumption does not carry that connotation.

If innocence was assumed there would be no trial.

Assume and presume both mean "to take something for granted" or "to take something as true." The difference between the words lies in the degree of confidence held by the speaker or writer. If he or she is making an informed guess based on reasonable evidence, presume is the word to use; if a guess is made based on little or no evidence, assume is usually used. (This is not true, however, in the legal catchphrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty." That sense of presume is separately defined as "to suppose to be true without proof" and is based on the fact that legal systems grant the presumption of innocence, thereby placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/assume-vs-presume#:~:text='Presume'%20is%20the%20word%20to,to%20use%20is%20'assume'.

A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

You are being pedantic but it doesn’t really matter. If you presume innocence or assume innocence, either way you are starting with a hypothesis.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 22, 2022, 08:43:24 PM »

This is incorrect. In the US there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. That is not the same thing. Assuming anything heading into a trial is a thing to be avoided

.

Assume and presume are synonyms.  They mean the same thing.

verb (used with object), pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing.
to take for granted, assume, or suppose:
I presume you're tired after your drive.
Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
to undertake with unwarrantable boldness.
to undertake (to do something) without right or permission:
to presume to speak for another.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/presume

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Questions about Zeteticism

« on: April 22, 2022, 05:09:05 PM »

Apologies if this isn’t posted in the right place.  Please move if it belongs somewhere else.

I’ve been reading on the wiki about Zeteticism  and trying to wrap my head around it.  The whole idea seems pretty vague to me, but from what I gather, you shouldn’t start with a hypothesis.

My question is, without a hypothesis, how can you do experiments?  You have to know what you are looking for to design and perform an experiment.

Here’s what I mean.  You know from experience that whenever you let go of a balloon, it floats away.  Except one time it doesn’t and you wonder why.  There could be dozens of reasons why.  If you want to find out why, you have to choose one of those “hypothetical” reasons and test it.  If the first reason doesn’t explain why, you start with a new hypothesis and keep moving through the other reasons until you find one that could explain why.

And more basically, you have to start with the assumption that there is something different this time from all the other times.  That by itself is a “hypothesis”.

Here’s a couple of quote from Rowbotham that makes my point.

We have an excellent example of a "Zetetic" process in an arithmetical operation, more especially so in what is called the "Golden Rule," or the "Rule of Three." If a hundredweight of any article costs a given sum, what will some other weight, less or more, be worth? The separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts in the inquiry; the placing and working of them as the logical arrangement of the evidence; and the quotient, or answer, as the fair and natural deduction,--the unavoidable or necessitated verdict. Hence, in every arithmetical or"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

The bolded part is the hypothesis.  You are starting with the assumption that something is true and working your calculations based on that.

Here’s another.

We have another example of the "Zetetic" process in our Courts of Justice. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against him is demanded: when advanced it is carefully arranged and patiently considered. It is then presented to the Jury for solemn reconsideration, and whatever verdict is given, it is advanced as the unavoidable conclusion necessitated by the whole of the evidence. In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!

But there is an assumption of innocence, and it is up to the prosecution to disprove that assumption.  At least that is how it works in the US.  Innocence is the hypothesis by starting with the assumption that it is true.

I really don’t see any difference, in practice, between the Zetetic method and the scientific method.