The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2020, 05:01:53 PM

Title: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2020, 05:01:53 PM
There is a 2019 European Journal of Physics paper called What the gravitation of a flat Earth would look like and why thus the Earth is not actually flat (https://web.archive.org/web/20200611164534/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/ab0bba/pdf), written by two Theoretical Physicists. Summarily they apply universal gravitation to an FE disk and conclude that it won't work and so the Earth can't be flat.

Quote
Abstract

This paper analyzes the calculation of the gravitational field of a disc-shaped
mass. This model, corresponding to the infamous flat Earth, is discussed in
detail.

(https://i.imgur.com/1BwKQo0.jpg)

This is similar to the approach many others take: Instead of looking into the matter they proceed to make up their own arguments for something which may not even be believed or part of any model. A cursory search will show what FE theorists actually say about gravity, even if not about UA. There is also the universal gravitation with an infinite earth model, and even the (IMO incorrect) "gravity = buoyancy" arguments that are generally unsupported here, but proposed by the FE'ers on Youtube. It's not really hard to find what FE says about gravity. The subject of gravity is one of the first things you learn about FE when doing research into the matter.

If one reads the paper, they also argue against themselves: "Flat-Earthers strike back? Let us consider first that the disc of the flat Earth is rotating in its plane" and then conclude that doesn't work either, like anyone ever actually proposed that as a gravity solution.

This is all like someone arguing that "RE can't work because water would just fall off the ball earth"... totally disregarding what is proposed and believed.

One of the first steps in the investigational method of the Scientific Method is to "research as much about your subject as you can".  At least address the first thing you come up with from a cursory search on the matter, not something that you make up yourself. It appears that not only do Theoretical Physcists have trouble satisfying the experimentation part of the Scientific Method, they have trouble with performing cursory research as well.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 12, 2020, 08:01:21 AM
I’d call it dishonesty if there were any actual established model of flat earth, and ignorance in the sense that they probably couldn’t find many published papers researching a flat earth. Why wouldn’t they use the established mechanics of gravity in their paper? Sorry to say but YouTube videos and an obscure wiki is not exactly showing any kind of decent foundation of research to be used. If you wanted people to use what you think is the correct gravity solution maybe consider publishing some papers on flat earth for the scientific community to have something to peer review?
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 08:51:49 AM
The information isn't just on the FE Wiki. I did a google search for "flat earth gravity" and this link came up as the first result:

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

Quote
Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat... Earth's gravity is an illusion, they say. Objects do not accelerate downward; instead, the disc of Earth accelerates upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared), driven up by a mysterious force called dark energy.

I didn't have trouble finding information to look into at all.

Even this biased RE article gave a FE mechanism for gravity to research. It is very popularized information that FE has its versions of gravity. So popularized that it appears on mainstream science websites and is easily found. Hardly obscure. If you can't even put in a modicum of investigation like a simple search for "flat earth gravity" you have utterly failed to research your subject.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 12, 2020, 09:03:26 AM
I didn't say it wasn't hard to find. youtube videos and an obscure wikis aren't likely going to be used in scientific papers. There's a reason even the Wikipedia website isn't cited as a source in papers, let alone the FES wiki and some crazy people on youtube. Even wikipedia has given a reason for this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia

it just isn't a reliable source of information to be using youtube and FES's wiki.

Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 09:05:45 AM
I didn't say it wasn't hard to find. youtube videos and an obscure wikis aren't likely going to be used in scientific papers.

Then why does this one link to several youtube videos in the references?
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 12, 2020, 09:21:23 AM
I didn't say it wasn't hard to find. youtube videos and an obscure wikis aren't likely going to be used in scientific papers.

Then why does this one link to several youtube videos in the references?
for visualization of their point it would seem. There's no groundbreaking new information in said videos and they aren't citing them for information, rather just to visualize what they're talking about. I should have worded my previous post better, apologies.
Quote
To describe a flat Earth, we use a simple model of a thin disc with a uniformly distributed mass. This approach allows for rather simple calculations to demonstrate what would the gravitational field of such a system be: for visualization, we refer the reader to some instructive video simulations [6, 7].

What they likely aren't going to do is take your wiki as an official source information and rightly so. Publish some papers on how you've concluded how gravity works, have those papers peer reviewed. Don't expect them to peer review and cite the FE wiki as a source of information.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2020, 09:55:41 AM
A paper from Physics Education, Volume 53, Number 4 (2018)

Flat Earth theory: an exercise in critical thinking

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/aac053/pdf

In the references I see:

Samuel Rowbotham - Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe
Eric Dubey - atlanteanconspiracy.com
William Carpenter - One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe

So no, I don't see that researchers are refraining from linking to FE content and addressing FE content and websites. This is something you appear to be making up.

Quote
What they likely aren't going to do is take your wiki as an official source information and rightly so.

The information isn't only on the wiki. Mainstream science websites also discuss gravity in FE. Again, the researchers have failed to do any amount of research into this.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 12, 2020, 11:30:01 AM
A paper from Physics Education, Volume 53, Number 4 (2018)

Flat Earth theory: an exercise in critical thinking

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/aac053/pdf (https://ia601504.us.archive.org/11/items/brizova-2018-phys.-educ.-53-045014/B%C5%99%C3%ADzov%C3%A1_2018_Phys._Educ._53_045014.pdf)

In the references I see:

Samuel Rowbotham - Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe
Eric Dubey - atlanteanconspiracy.com
William Carpenter - One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe

So no, I don't see that researchers are refraining from linking to FE content and addressing FE content and websites. This is something you appear to be making up.

Quote
What they likely aren't going to do is take your wiki as an official source information and rightly so.

The information isn't only on the wiki. Mainstream science websites also discuss gravity in FE. Again, the researchers have failed to do any amount of research into this.
Ok fair, so lets use gravity as an example. Can you show a peer reviewed paper showing how gravity correctly works in a flat earth that is backed up with evidence which can then be cited in a paper? So far the papers in this thread have referenced a visual representation and another paper referencing to show what a flat earth argument as general examples of peoples false claims. it's a direct study of flat earthers and their mindsets... Of course they're going to show examples of this.

Again, apologies as I should still have worded my first post better, but I don't want to be sent to angry ranting for basically saying that you're considered a crazy person on the internet with a wiki wondering why people aren't taking you seriously. Publish some of your research to be peer reviewed instead of complaining about how you think people are being dishonest for not knowing you or your ideas exist in a dark corner of the internet... What I mean when I say they won't cite the FE wiki in a paper as a source of information is that it's written by any random people just like wikipedia and as you've seen stamped below every flat earth video on youtube, information from said videos aren't to be considered factual (for or against flat earth) "The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century." Or in other words, youtube is actively saying take these videos with a grain of salt because we are long past the idea of flat earth now. They can't really cite youtube or wikipedia or the FES wiki as some kind of correct source of information when the source of those things are unverified ramblings of internet people.

TLDR; wikis and youtube isn't a verifiable source of information to back someones findings. Sourcing youtube like "look at this person's false claims for an example" isn't really the point you want to be making... and "here's a visual representation to show what my findings look like" still aren't citing for sources of information. But I'll be fair to you, links to youtube and maybe wikipedia are linked in papers, which is why I've said a few times I should have been clearer, so again, apologies for that.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 12, 2020, 03:46:01 PM
Peer review , also known as peer pressure , is a method of control of scientific endeavour.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 12, 2020, 05:05:23 PM
Peer review , also known as peer pressure , is a method of control of scientific endeavour.
That sounds like something someone would say if they knew their paper had incorrect information and didn't want it pointed out to them... The whole point in peer reviewing is to get multiple expert opinions to fact check your work. Is there any other reason you wouldn't want your research to be published and peer reviewed by the scientific community?
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 13, 2020, 01:09:45 PM
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it.

The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 13, 2020, 01:41:56 PM
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it.

The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.
Ok so, this isn't an exact equivalency but imagine you're in school and you're doing a test like everyone else but at the end instead of handing it in to be marked you sit there and say to the teacher "I won't hand this to you to check through because this is peer pressure... But it's totally all correct and there's no need for you to double check so just give me my A". then afterwards you go around telling your classmates how all your answers were totally correct and you start teaching them what you wrote in your test as answers and they totally believe you because you totally got an A so why wouldn't they? Can you see how this is just not going to happen? Surely you can see why the teacher needs to go through your test papers and mark it, and tell you where you went wrong? Can you see how telling your fellow students the potentially wrong answers would hinder their education as well?

Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 13, 2020, 04:23:50 PM
To pass a school exam you basically have to repeat what you are told by the teacher , that's all .
The point is that the pupil can excel the teachers .

Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Tumeni on June 13, 2020, 04:31:55 PM
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it. The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.

What's the alternative? Claim yourself to be right with no verification from anyone else in your field, and accept no dispute?
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 13, 2020, 04:53:23 PM
Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .
Experts looking at your work can learn from it or correct any mistakes and they do this constantly with each other. Knowledge is gained from sharing and challenging each other.  Why would this stifle knowledge instead? o_O The only reason I could think of that you wouldn't want your work to be checked is if you don't want to be corrected you want people to just assume you're right? Or worst case, you want everyone else to go off and do experiments entirely in secret and never share their work which is what I think some flat earthers think is the way to go, but it's really not. People work together, this is just how humans have progressed. If everyone lived in a way where we din't work together, correct, compete and challenge each other you would A) be foraging and hunting for your own food, B) be building your own home and everything in it with your own resources gathered by you, C) be having to make all your own clothes, D) would be definitely living without modern technology like the internet.

Imagine someone saying they know how the universe works and 95% of the worlds population and pretty much all experts are wrong and won't agree with them, and won't show you how they know. Who you gunna believe? That guy who's keeping his findings a secret or the 95% of experts who are sharing knowledge and correcting each other as they go? Yea...

The alternative to the scientific method and peer reviewing/checking/correcting each others work sounds pretty stupid and humans would probably still be in the dark ages.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 13, 2020, 06:26:32 PM
Peer review is not any part of the scientific method. Repeatable experiment and observation with predictable results are .

In the OP , if the two theoretical bozos, who somehow got their mathematical masturbations into a physics journal, wanted to show the earth wasn't infamously flat then all they had to do was go out and survey the curvature and publish their results. But fkn no ! "We'll sit on our arrises and fink about it". Modern science .

Start with the assumption earth is a globe - use circular arguments to prove something that cannot be possible since your applying globe theory to something that's not a globe.
An ancient Greek whos mythical experiment has two solutions , this reportedly from a book by the fictional author Cleomedes who we know feck all about . That's the old peer reviewed mainstream theoretical (imaginary) science for you .

It's dishonesty. And no one knows how the universe works.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 14, 2020, 01:20:18 PM
Peer review is not any part of the scientific method. Repeatable experiment and observation with predictable results are .

In the OP , if the two theoretical bozos, who somehow got their mathematical masturbations into a physics journal, wanted to show the earth wasn't infamously flat then all they had to do was go out and survey the curvature and publish their results. But fkn no ! "We'll sit on our arrises and fink about it". Modern science .

Start with the assumption earth is a globe - use circular arguments to prove something that cannot be possible since your applying globe theory to something that's not a globe.
An ancient Greek whos mythical experiment has two solutions , this reportedly from a book by the fictional author Cleomedes who we know feck all about . That's the old peer reviewed mainstream theoretical (imaginary) science for you .

It's dishonesty. And no one knows how the universe works.
and your alternative?
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 14, 2020, 01:46:31 PM
Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .
Unable to advance?
Then how come the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one which had held sway for centuries?
How come Relativity and Quantum Theory have become widely accepted - they haven’t exactly toppled Newtonian mechanics because in most situations Newton’s equations work just fine but in certain situations they don’t. GPS wouldn’t work without making Relativistic adjustments. To say that mainstream science hasn’t advanced is ludicrous.

I can’t see any argument against peer review. If you do an experiment and don’t publish your method and results then how does anyone else know whether your conclusions are valid?
I do an experiment which I say proves the world is a globe. You do one which you say proves the earth is flat. We can’t both be right because we are claiming contradictory things (we could both be wrong). How do we know who is right unless we publish our methods and results for review? That is how progress is made.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 14, 2020, 04:37:26 PM
You are getting to the point AATW . If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

The OP contained a link to a thought experiment - a mathematical daydream . Why is that considered to be science ? Who can be the judge on theoretic bs? How can that OP theory paper be peer reviewed?

The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment . We have never measured any curve or detected any rotation but science carries on as though these basic assumptions are truths. The only research carried out thus has to include these assumptions - it's why the current cosmological model doesn't conform to reality - it's all theory where anything can be imagined . It's not science . 



Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Tumeni on June 14, 2020, 09:32:31 PM
If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

Norwood measured around 2 degrees of meridian to calculate the circumference in the 1600s

The French Geodesic Mission, using a slightly different method, confirmed Norwood's figure in the 1700s, within reasonable bounds of error.

Further measures have used other methods to refine the figure.

Don't these repeats form a sequence of peer reviews? Or are they something else?
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2020, 09:08:52 AM
You are getting to the point AATW . If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

Well, you need to do two things. Firstly you need to verify the method used. If you're doing observations of the horizon, say, over water and you haven't taken refraction into account then you may have drawn the wrong conclusions. I might well repeat your experiment and get the same results as you but if the method itself is flawed then the conclusion drawn from the results is still invalid.
And secondly yes, repeating the experiment can be part of peer review.
When Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's Last Theorum his paper was reviewed and a problem was found with it. He later fixed it but the point is the maths world didn't just take his word for it, like in science they checked his workings.

Quote
The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment

It was introduced as a better explanation for the retrograde motion of planets. You're right in that it wasn't new information but as telescopes got better and observations more accurate it became clearer that this explanation better matched observations than the geocentric model.

Quote
We have never measured any curve

Just demonstrably not true. Plenty of photos and video of the globe earth from multiple sources and even a horizon line on a beach a few miles out to see is evidence of curve - a sharp line always indicates that either that's the end of the object or the object is changing angle so you can't see any more of it. A sharp horizon line, the distance to that horizon line increasing with altitude and things sinking behind that horizon lines are all evidence of a curve.

Quote
or detected any rotation

You might want to tell that to the Coriolis and Eotvos effects, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes.
The weight of objects varying at different latitudes is evidence of rotation as are the the way star trails go in different directions at different latitudes.

TL;DR, the reason FE is not coherent and contains a lot of contradictory ideas is that you don't open up your work for peer review.
At best you might discuss your work within the FE community, but that is not proper peer review as that is made up of people who are not scientists. Peer review and cross-checking each other's work is a vital step in making progress.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: IronHorse on June 15, 2020, 11:00:36 AM
The internet has undoubtedly made it a lot easier for flat Earthers to connect with each other and exchange ideas and claims. However as AATW points out as long as ideas and theories are only exchanged mainly within the flat Earth community through forums like this, how is that going to help you if you have aspirations to seriously try and compete with the mainstream, popular stage of science? 

Do you want to try and widen the size of the audience that is accepting about your flat Earth beliefs or are you happy to simply carry on running of each other as you currently are?  In which case I can't see things ever changing for you. Talking to the converted is all well and good but it won't get you anywhere.

Of course broadcasting what you believe alone is no guarantee of acceptance. If you are to target the mainstream science stage then you need to present evidence that works to back up your claims. That I think is going to be much harder because so far flat Earthers are much better at claiming than they are at showing. Relying on weak examples about canals, flags and flat horizons is not going to get you anywhere on the main stage.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 15, 2020, 06:49:45 PM
You are getting to the point AATW . If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

Well, you need to do two things. Firstly you need to verify the method used. If you're doing observations of the horizon, say, over water and you haven't taken refraction into account then you may have drawn the wrong conclusions. I might well repeat your experiment and get the same results as you but if the method itself is flawed then the conclusion drawn from the results is still invalid.
And secondly yes, repeating the experiment can be part of peer review.
When Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's Last Theorum his paper was reviewed and a problem was found with it. He later fixed it but the point is the maths world didn't just take his word for it, like in science they checked his workings.

Quote
The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment

It was introduced as a better explanation for the retrograde motion of planets. You're right in that it wasn't new information but as telescopes got better and observations more accurate it became clearer that this explanation better matched observations than the geocentric model.

Quote
We have never measured any curve

Just demonstrably not true. Plenty of photos and video of the globe earth from multiple sources and even a horizon line on a beach a few miles out to see is evidence of curve - a sharp line always indicates that either that's the end of the object or the object is changing angle so you can't see any more of it. A sharp horizon line, the distance to that horizon line increasing with altitude and things sinking behind that horizon lines are all evidence of a curve.

Quote
or detected any rotation

You might want to tell that to the Coriolis and Eotvos effects, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes.
The weight of objects varying at different latitudes is evidence of rotation as are the the way star trails go in different directions at different latitudes.

TL;DR, the reason FE is not coherent and contains a lot of contradictory ideas is that you don't open up your work for peer review.
At best you might discuss your work within the FE community, but that is not proper peer review as that is made up of people who are not scientists. Peer review and cross-checking each other's work is a vital step in making progress.

Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

Your statement "Just demonstrably not true" about the fact we have never measured the curve is very silly - you don't measure things with videos or photographs or saying "Oooh look - is that a curve on the horizon".

Coriolis effect is caused by the sun as it moves around the plain .

Eotvos effect and other stuff associated with gravity . See prof M Allais work ( started in 1954 ) on the  Foucault pendulum which proves that the gravitational/cosmological model is wrong , supported by other studies by professors Jevardin , Antonescu , Ratu . All reach the same conclusion . All these experimental results buried and ignored by the peer system in order to maintain the untenable heliocentric model .

Look up syzygy effects if interested.

You could also look up professor Fred Hoyle and his chums . See what they have to say about cosmology .

All distinguished scientists whose work is sidelined as science stagnates.





Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: IronHorse on June 15, 2020, 09:28:53 PM
Quote
Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

How does the geocentric model explain things better in your opinion then? 

I would be interested to know then for example how you would account for the widely observed and measured annual aberration of starlight if the Earth is not orbiting the Sun as you will obviously claim.  No doubt you will just say that has just been fabricated or made up somehow. The FE account for the nature of the stars (vague as it is) would make the RE account for what causes the aberration impossible. But then the amount of aberration of stars varies with their location on the sky. Exactly in line with predictions based on the heliocentric model.

Quote
you don't measure things with videos or photographs

Isn't that just your opinion?



Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 16, 2020, 07:24:43 AM
Quote
Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

How does the geocentric model explain things better in your opinion then? 

I would be interested to know then for example how you would account for the widely observed and measured annual aberration of starlight if the Earth is not orbiting the Sun as you will obviously claim.  No doubt you will just say that has just been fabricated or made up somehow. The FE account for the nature of the stars (vague as it is) would make the RE account for what causes the aberration impossible. But then the amount of aberration of stars varies with their location on the sky. Exactly in line with predictions based on the heliocentric model.

Quote
you don't measure things with videos or photographs

Isn't that just your opinion?

For an explanation of aberration see the work of Cleo Loi -around 2014/15 . She did say at the time that astronomical observations need to be revisited in the light of this discovery .

Star light passing through plasma tubes in upper atmolayers is distorted . Light is affected by these plasma fields.
Star position changes due to this field.

I should imagine the journey of the sun around and across the plane has an effect too. Good place to start .

https://theconversation.com/how-an-undergraduate-discovered-tubes-of-plasma-in-the-sky-42810





 
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: IronHorse on June 16, 2020, 09:03:02 AM
Yes of course the light from stars gets 'jiggled around' as your link says. But that has nothing to do with the cyclical movement or aberration of starlight and that article doesn't suggest it does. The word aberration doesn't appear once in that article.

If you'd care to look up Stellar aberration yourself you will discover that there are many websites which describe it as the same thing. It is caused by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

It isn't unusual for FE to try and twist or misconstrue the information contained in science based websites to try and make it seem to fall more in line with what they want to believe.

Here is a description of what aberration of starlight is and how it is caused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-fXTO-trFY



Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: Bikini Polaris on June 16, 2020, 02:10:42 PM
The OP paper is a very silly strawman argument, just proving that a flat earth could just not be in a certain way, decided by the authors themselves. But it really gets wrong when they say:

"The mediæval style of the title of the present paper is intended as an allusion to the Middle Ages which, followed by the Renaissance, symbolizes the struggle between ignorance and enlightenment",

because during the middle ages they were well aware about the roundness of Earth.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: somerled on June 16, 2020, 02:25:36 PM
Yes of course the light from stars gets 'jiggled around' as your link says. But that has nothing to do with the cyclical movement or aberration of starlight and that article doesn't suggest it does. The word aberration doesn't appear once in that article.

If you'd care to look up Stellar aberration yourself you will discover that there are many websites which describe it as the same thing. It is caused by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

It isn't unusual for FE to try and twist or misconstrue the information contained in science based websites to try and make it seem to fall more in line with what they want to believe.

Here is a description of what aberration of starlight is and how it is caused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-fXTO-trFY

I know the theory. It's wrong . The aberration is caused by the suns yearly journey across the tropics and the magnetic fields.
That gives us the seasons and the aberration. More evidence of the plane .

In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: IronHorse on June 16, 2020, 03:11:27 PM
Quote
In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

https://space.fandom.com/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.

Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: totallackey on June 16, 2020, 03:26:15 PM
Quote
In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

https://space.fandom.com/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.
You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Really high fiction of the most amusing sort!
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: IronHorse on June 16, 2020, 05:13:51 PM
Quote
You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

I'm so sorry.... perhaps you could point out the bit that you think I misunderstand?

Quote
If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Speed is really irrelevant in space because there is no air to cause any resistance.  So there is nothing remarkable about 828,000 km/h to me. I'm glad you find a few scientific facts amusing. I'm sure I will probably react in the same way towards whatever your explanation is.

Your screen name seems to be quite appropriate to what you obvious know (nor don't) about how things work in space. 
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: ChrisTP on June 16, 2020, 07:30:57 PM
Quote
In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

https://space.fandom.com/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.
You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Really high fiction of the most amusing sort!
You'd only need to observe a planet and it's moons to see celestial bodies can move together. Why this surprises anyone is strange... Even then, on this website where the wiki states the hypothesis of UA... Strange that you'd challenge the notion of things moving together but not the notion that everything is moving together.

At any rate, back to the main point. If someone has any gripes with how scientists have accepted how gravity affects things, challenge it with a theory that better explains how gravity affects things. That's a start to disproving the paper in in the OP. It's not dishonest to be using the fully accepted theory of gravity... What they've done is say "here, we have observed how gravity works in nature, so we'll use that mechanic on an object to show how gravity would work on it" in this case a disk. Does it match reality? No? shocking. Don't like it? Come up with a better theory that works with everything like gravity does. Hell we even put this mechanic to practical use by putting satellites into orbit so we know its working as we think it is. We see other planets with gravitational properties that match what we expect. It'd be strange to think that we must live in some bubble where gravity doesn't exist and it must be something else, just to keep the flat earth idea.
Title: Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
Post by: IronHorse on June 17, 2020, 08:58:43 AM
Let's be clear.  We don't make the laws of nature or the laws of the Universe ourselves.  Our existence in the Universe is very, very recent. Science represents mans efforts to understand how the Universe works and I think in the very short period of time we've had to work it all out, we are not doing a bad job at all.

FE have their own version of 'science' which seems to based on 'seeing is believing' and nothing more than that.  But not everything in nature is as it seems to us visually so you cannot rely on your senses alone.  It would be so much easier if you could! To my mind FE theory is based on nothing more than what some people want to believe. If you want to believe in something then to you it will seem to be true. It certainly creates a relationship between eye and mind within the individual so that it makes what you believe in seem to be true and real. Call it selective mind filtering.

This is why flat Earthers have an objection to mainstream science. It conflicts with their beliefs. For that reason alone it must be wrong. Science never claims to know all the answers or to be right about stuff all the time every time. It would be boring if it was. The difference is that scientists don't restrict what they accept as true to what they want to believe.  If new evidence comes to light which shows that a theory or hypothesis needs to be changed or updated then that is taken on board, tested and re-tested. If the new data turns out to be true the hypothesis is modifed and we move forward.  That's how we learn.   Gravity is the classic example. Under normal, everyday conditions Newtonian gravity is quite adequate but under relativistic conditions, Einstein provided a better explanation.

If a star can orbit the Galactic centre at 858,000km/h then what is to say 8 planets and countless asteroids and comets bound by gravity to that star cannot as well?  Perfectly acceptable to science.