1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!

« on: August 19, 2019, 02:57:32 PM »

Well thank you for that little collection of quotes Tom. All very fascinating. I just typed in 'astronomy' into Google and I struggled to find a definition of astronomy that didn't contain the word scientific or science somewhere within it.  Astronomy involves a lot of physics and chemistry so how you could get away from describing it as a science is beyond me.

Your evidence to support your opinion focuses on comments that other people have said.  Notably Stephen Hawking and Edwin Hubble I notice. Both key figures in the field of astronomy and physics. That is fair enough but a comment or opinion does not in itself form a definition.  To be honest it doesn't really bother me what other people have said about it. But if you are going to describe astronomy as a 'pseudo' science then I think you will find yourself in a small, if not extremely small minority who do so. Astronomy is a huge subject because it studies the entire Universe and you cannot get much bigger than that. It is also a very personal subject and the way one person studies the subject is unique and independent. Why not join a local astronomy society yourself and I'm sure all the members will be more than happy to give you their personal insight into just how fascinating a subject astronomy is. I would be a little careful about describing it as a 'pseudo' science though. That would make you rather unpopular very quickly.

I am well aware of the scientific method and I believe that in many cases the definition of science includes the words experimentation or observation as the means of obtaining data. Science then involves the analysis of that data to identify trends and relationships.

All the astronomy or astrophysics degrees that I know of are classified as BSc degrees.  BSc meaning Batchelor of Science. Must be a reason for that.  I look forward to receiving mine in a couple of years time.

In my opinion one of the reasons why the FE movement have a tendency to belittle or dimsiss astronomy as they do is because they know that it is their threat or obstacle for want of a better expression. Especially modern astronomy. A popular way of fending off a threat or obstacle is to belittle it. Obviously they won't admit that but denial is no evidence of the truth or otherwise.

I believe that the point being made by Tom , if you would read the quotes more thoroughly, is that scientific process is not being truely applied when conclusions are being thrown out which don’t fit well , or at all , with your beliefs which are held to be so , regardless of outcome . In so much as saying “ it can’t be so as this does not fit into my religion .

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do FE-researchers account for limited instrumental resolution?

« on: August 08, 2019, 05:56:31 PM »

Good question . Let me ask you one . How does it make any sense on a RE model for an Oct8 th 2015 flight from Taiwan to Los Angeles to divert for emergency medical  landing to Anchorage for child birth ? I could see Hawaii as a possible emergency landing , but Anchorage ? Now read the news articles and look at the flight path on a FE model . Perhaps the flight was diverted to Anchorage due to the pilots limited instrument resolution ?
How do FE-researchers account for the limited resolution of the instruments they use?

You can measure a distance only with a certain accuracy, you measure angles only with a certain accuracy, you can measure time only with a certain accuracy, digital images have a pixel-resolution and silverhalogenide-photographies have a grain-resolution. How do you take that fact into account?

How do you design your experiments and how do you analyze your data to sidestep the problem that you cannot get a precise value?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: August 08, 2019, 05:05:14 PM »

Leanardo DaVinci lived and studied in the Renaissance ( following the dark ages ) . Many of his beliefs and studies including anatomical drawings ( which were from (“life”) would have been considered heracy so he wrote in his journals in such a fashion that they could only be read in the reflection of a mirror . He would have been executed for his findings as being contrary to the Church doctrine .
     Flat Earthers are today’s heretics , but no longer is that punishable by death. Where exactly does one go to obtain a grant to accurately map the flat earth ? Sign me up . This would be interesting work , indeed .

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Does Water Look Flat?

« on: August 08, 2019, 01:51:09 PM »

Yes , gravity is a universal property (law) and can be measured , compensated for in engineering , but has yet to be defined . To Newton an apple dropping from a tree , to Einstein a mass warping space/time in the midst of dark matter. Only our creator has the overview of space/time. Why try to discredit simple observations in our world , space , and time ?
Yes, but as Flat Earthers arbitrarily removed gravity and space/time warping from their universe laws, so your assumption that water is attracted to the center of a mass, will not work.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Does Water Look Flat?

« on: August 08, 2019, 01:15:16 PM »

Because when your on the earth it is flat relative to you for some distance before the curvature starts, you can observe this on any sphere such as a ball or even just a round part of an item

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Does Water Look Flat?

« on: August 08, 2019, 01:01:30 PM »

[/color][/font]Yes , why does water appear to be flat ? This is of particular interest when one is at the perspective over a great expanse of water , such as viewing a large placid lake surrounded by hills or mountains , particularly as viewed from such a mountain , or looking out over an ocean from any or varying heights . It seems that as many problematic questions that arise from scrutiny of either the RE construct or the FE  , there are an equal amount of observations supporting the construct. The “ why does water appear flat “ querie
is no exception , but that is only on the surface .
     A flat body of water appears to be like a mirror when still . It only marginally contorts reflection here and there due to the “surface” being fluid , though still , but to me , expounding on that question ...how does light play off that surface the same as it would off a flat reflective surface is the question . Picture a large chromed ball bearing or pinball and how light reflects off of it and now picture yourself as a microcosm on it’s surface . Would light or sunlight play off that surface as if it were flat ? Now picture yourself leaving that surface in a
Microcosm size rocket , how far above the pinball would you need to go before light played off of it as though you were looking into a fisheye lens ( as all chromed balls appear to the naked eye ) ? signed Dumbo