The math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.
QuoteAnd here’s the thing: we already have a theory that explains, simply, with great accuracy, and consistently with the rest of our scientific knowledge, how the sun and other celestial objects appear and their positions and paths through the sky.
"Zeus and the other gods did it" is also a theory that explains everything. That's why experimentation is necessary, I am afraid.
It certainly does not work at the vanishing point of railroad tracks, as the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch. The observation is evidence that the world model as they described it is wrong.Tom kept insisting that the "Greeks" were wrong when they asserted that parallel never meet! He says they "the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch." He cannot comprehend that "appearing to touch" is not the same as "actually touching". The whole interchange was quite enertaining and I think says a lot for the "Zetetic mind".
What the hell are you talking about? You do realize that according to mainstream science the moon is traveling the opposite direction as we see it going every night. You know east to west, just like the sun and stars.
and somehow is magically locked with the face always pointing at the earth, eventhough the earth is constantly spinning.
Also, another amazing coincidence for mainstream heliocentric theory is that the moon just so happens to be both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.
It's easy to force any theory to match observations when you're allowed to tweak the numbers to make them fit.
I didn't read beyond the first paragraph so I apologize if I didn't address the purpose of this post.
If you can get any constructive response from TheTruthIsOnHere you better that I! Every comment he makes to my posts is completely negative, yet he will never present any feasible alternative! I don't believe he has ever started a thread of his own, just tears down other's posts.What the hell are you talking about? You do realize that according to mainstream science the moon is traveling the opposite direction as we see it going every night. You know east to west, just like the sun and stars.
You answered your own question one sentence later. The earth is constantly spinning. The earth is spinning faster than the moon is orbiting around the earth. This causes the moon to appear to rotate backwards relative to the surface of the earth. To illustrate this, stand on a merry-go-round. Have someone walk slowly around it. Then spin the merry-go-round faster than the person is walking. To the person on the merry-go-round, the person walking will appear to be rotating in the opposite direction.Quoteand somehow is magically locked with the face always pointing at the earth, eventhough the earth is constantly spinning.
There is nothing magic about tidal locking. It is a direct result of Newtonian gravity. It does take a bit of effort to understand though. Here is an overview of the phenomena (http://www.universetoday.com/123391/what-is-tidal-locking). Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) provides a more detailed description.QuoteAlso, another amazing coincidence for mainstream heliocentric theory is that the moon just so happens to be both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.
It is an interesting coincidence. Isn't it just as much of a coincidence in flat-earth theory that they are the same size? Also notice that they aren't EXACTLY the same apparent size. The moon has a much less circular orbit than the earth. This causes the moon to change it's apparent size much more than the sun.QuoteIt's easy to force any theory to match observations when you're allowed to tweak the numbers to make them fit.
I'm not sure why this is a bad thing. If the theory matches observations, and consistently makes accurate predictions, then what is the problem? Flat earth theory does neither of these things. In fact, I haven't even seen any equations that can be used to make predictions. Just vague descriptions of phenomena.QuoteI didn't read beyond the first paragraph so I apologize if I didn't address the purpose of this post.
Please read the rest of the post if you want to make a meaningful contribution or objection to this thread. It is insightful and well written.
What I think is an amazing coincidence is that somehow the moon and sun don't collide with the flat earth, yet a ball I throw into the air comes back down again.
Is there some magic distance required to negate the UA?
The title of the thread "Science and FET" has two words that i never thought I would see in same sentence.
As you have found out Tom Bishop is prepared to bend anything (light, "universal laws", logic etc) to make the FE "look" plausible.
Look at:It certainly does not work at the vanishing point of railroad tracks, as the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch. The observation is evidence that the world model as they described it is wrong.Tom kept insisting that the "Greeks" were wrong when they asserted that parallel never meet! He says they "the math says that they do not touch, when they observably do touch." He cannot comprehend that "appearing to touch" is not the same as "actually touching". The whole interchange was quite enertaining and I think says a lot for the "Zetetic mind".
If you have the time you could follow it from: Some perspective on perspective « Reply #20 on: April 30, 2016, 10:49:11 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4953.msg95759#msg95759). It's really quite educational.
Quote from: Tom BishopThe math is very limited, and assumes that local effects hold true endlessly. Unless you have accurately experimented at all scales, it cannot be said that we know how things will look like at all scales based on math alone.
The universal laws and principles of the physical sciences are independent of scale or location, otherwise they would not be universal. It’s reasonable to assume, for example, that chemistry follows the same principles on Neptune as it does on the earth, because those principles have been found to hold wherever they have been tested, and they have been tested very extensively indeed, experimentally and by other forms of observation. Of course it's conceivable that chemistry works on different principles on Neptune or the Andromeda galaxy, but we have no evidence pointing in that direction and therefore no good reason to think so.
And if you think mainstream physics is wrong, let’s please see some actual evidence.
“The gods did it” is not a scientific theory. In any case, scientists have already done a huge amount of experimentation and other types of observation, resulting in mainstream physics and astronomy, including a round earth.
That literally does not and never will make sense tom.
Well, we believe that the sun is "appearing to touch" and not "actually touching". By making that argument and agreeing that railroad tracks do observably touch you are in agreement with our position that we live in an imperfect universe where perspective at great distances does not necessarily adhere to the mathematical universe of the ancient greeks which says that two parallel lines will never touch.
That literally does not and never will make sense tom.
Well, we believe that the sun is "appearing to touch" and not "actually touching". By making that argument and agreeing that railroad tracks do observably touch you are in agreement with our position that we live in an imperfect universe where perspective at great distances does not necessarily adhere to the mathematical universe of the ancient greeks which says that two parallel lines will never touch.
If I wanted to test that myself, since I have straight tracks no more than a mile from my house, I could. Just rig up a battery to a transmitter and some aluminum plates. Hold the receiver and keep walking until they appear to touch (and then some). If I don't get a signal (and I won't) then that proves that they do not, in fact, touch. This means that parallel lines do not touch. They physically do not touch. True parallels will never touch. They neither converge nor diverge and are perfectly straight. There is no reason for them to touch.
Are you even reading what I'm writing? We DONT belive that the sun touches the surface of the earth. We are saying that it only appears to. Like the railroad tracks. The tracks observably touch in the distance. By agreeing that two parallel lines can be seen to touch in the distance, you are agreeing with us.
No, it is not reasonable to assume that chemistry would work the same under all pressures, at all temperatures, at all gravities.
QuoteAnd if you think mainstream physics is wrong, let’s please see some actual evidence.
How about you presents positive evidence that everything in science is the same at all scales, in all environments, and there are no other outside factors or effects to consider instead of "prove me wrong"?
Good grief, we have been over this thoroughly in the other thread. Railroad tracks appear to touch when they are really far away, and the angle between them is very small, too small to distinguish with our eyes/camera. The angle between the sun and the horizon is NOT small. 20 degrees is NOT small. Do railroad tracks appear to touch 10 feet away from you? No. Because the angle between the tracks 10 feet away from you is roughly 20 degrees.
No, it is not reasonable to assume that chemistry would work the same under all pressures, at all temperatures, at all gravities.
Why not?
Because that would be literally impossible. You are basically asking us to observe every possible scenario in the Universe. The point of science is, among other things, to allow us to predict what will happen in a situation that we haven't directly observed yet. Physics is very very successful at this. If you want to question the validity of theories that have been successfully used for hundreds of years, then yes, the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence that it is wrong.
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.
According to the ancient greeks, two pefectly straight lines (meaning no curves, bends, or angles) that are parallel (meaning they are neither converging nor diverging) will never touch. That is what they said it it is true. They never once said that our eyes would never percieve them to touch. And again, the difference between appear to touch and physically touch is very clear, and by all means should be obvious.
If I put my fingers close to my face so they appear to be larger than the guy in front of me, and close them, it'll appear I just crushed him. But lo and behold, I open my fingers and the man is unharmed, as if my hand wasn't actually large enpugh to crush him. Similar to how distant tracks don't touch, or the two passing cars on a road don't crash.
Perception is different from reality.
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.
And yet you STILL won't share any of those reasons with us
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.
According to the ancient greeks, two pefectly straight lines (meaning no curves, bends, or angles) that are parallel (meaning they are neither converging nor diverging) will never touch. That is what they said it it is true. They never once said that our eyes would never percieve them to touch. And again, the difference between appear to touch and physically touch is very clear, and by all means should be obvious.
If I put my fingers close to my face so they appear to be larger than the guy in front of me, and close them, it'll appear I just crushed him. But lo and behold, I open my fingers and the man is unharmed, as if my hand wasn't actually large enpugh to crush him. Similar to how distant tracks don't touch, or the two passing cars on a road don't crash.
Perception is different from reality.
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.
Perhaps perspective has a fundamental distance limit, and its unrealistic to expect that we should be able to see things extremely far away.Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.And yet you STILL won't share any of those reasons with us
If there were more experimentation for how perspective at large distances, a conclusion could be drawn for how perspective works at larger scales.
Why are you so against the need for experimentation?
Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.
Perhaps perspective has a fundamental distance limit, and its unrealistic to expect that we should be able to see things extremely far away.Your analysis of why they touch has not been proven. I can imagine 30 different reasons for why they touch. We need experimentation before assuming any particular cause.And yet you STILL won't share any of those reasons with us
But we ARE able to see the sun. Try again.QuoteIf there were more experimentation for how perspective at large distances, a conclusion could be drawn for how perspective works at larger scales.
Why are you so against the need for experimentation?
We have tons of experimental evidence that perspective works just fine at that scale. We have observed planets, the sun, the moon... all of which appear to be the correct size based on our understanding of perspective. We have been to the moon and looked back at the earth. We have sent probes to other planets, asteroids, and moons of other planets. No evidence has turned up indicating that perspective suddenly stops working at any distance around 3000 miles.
You demand experimental evidence that perspective doesn't suddenly stop working at large distances, but any experiment on the scale of 3000 miles is going to involve space. However, you automatically label anything involving space as "fake".
Do you see our problem? So: what kind of experiment would satisfy you? What do you propose?
Yes, it is possible that perspective suddenly stops obeying known physical laws at 3000 miles. But which theory is more likely: the one that behaves correctly according to all known physical laws, or the one that relies on sudden convenient lapses in physical laws in order to agree with reality? You tell me.