How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe? ???Universal accelerator theory, bendy light theory, flat earth theory, etc. Which side are you on again?
A theory doesn't help you understand the universe. A theory is a theory, a possible explanation for how things are. How does a possible explanation help you understand anything?
That aside, in the illustration is all wrong.
Scientific Method is
Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.
(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)
The Zetetic Method is
Ask a question -> Perform a series of experiments to test and compare known possible results -> Conclusion
The Zetetic Method is clearly superior, as you are testing contradicting possibilities rather than a single possibility and drawing a conclusion the first time you get a positive result. The Scientific Method leads you to half-truths and bad science.
The Zetetic method throws out previous theories and starts an inquiry afresh.
I believe it was the Wright Brothers who said:
"Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then did we invent the airplane."
Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences and relies upon a knowledge of physics and chemistry to understand the observations and build scientific models of stars, planets and galaxies. The scientific method employed by, and the vast amount of scientific discoveries made by astronomers over thousands of years would suggest that you sir... Are talking out if your arse! Again!
Are you saying that astronomers, because they are not real scientists, are too stupid to notice that everything they observe, everything they can measure and deduce is wrong. And that you are right? In all instances. Is that what you are saying Tom?
I'm saying that astronomers only observe and interpret. Pick up any of Stephan Hawking's works and count the number of controlled experiments performed to confirm any of his theories, such as his hypothesis for the metric expansion of space. He does not do any experiments on the universe before publishing his works. Scientists in other professions are expected to perform controlled experiments to come to the truth of the matter, so why not astronomers?
If I knew nothing of chemistry and only observed and interpreted I could come up with all sorts of assumptions to explain why water is wet, why cyanide kills, why oil doesn't mix with water, and why balloons float. That's where astronomers are, trapped in ignorance and assumption. They cannot perform controlled experiments on the universe to come to the truth of the matter as earthly professions can.
You claim that astronomers employ the scientific method, but you are embarassingly wrong. Look up the scientific method sometime. The scientific method demands that experiments be made to confirm the hypothesis.
(http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif)
Astronomers do not perform experiments. They do not follow the scientific method. They are not scientists and worthy of neither praise or credibility.
So are you saying it's wrong to have initial suspicions about the natural world that compel us to undertake an experiment? The hypothesis is an important step in the scientific method because for the prediction we have to reword it so that it can be demonstrated to objectively match or not match with experimental data.
When you hypothesize first and then design your experiment around that hypothesis, you are creating bias against all other possibilities.
The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
The Scientific Method doesn't have you prove what's true. It has you attempting to prove your hypothesis true.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1252998#msg1252998QuoteAstronomy is one of the oldest sciences and relies upon a knowledge of physics and chemistry to understand the observations and build scientific models of stars, planets and galaxies. The scientific method employed by, and the vast amount of scientific discoveries made by astronomers over thousands. .
Hey check this video out 8 min in. http://youtu.be/2NogyJ0k8Kw
It shows the way flat earth was actually created due to new understanding in physics! Watch the whole series and this new understanding of physics will explain so many things beyond the flat earth. This is the irrefutable proof we needed.
The Scientific Method says that one must hypothesize first and then create an experiment around that hypothesis.
The Zetetic Method says that one must experiment first, letting the results speak for themselves.
Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.
Experiment first, conclude after. That's how the truth is found.
When you hypothesize first and create an experiment around that hypothesis your experiment is fallacious because you are deliberately proving whatever you are trying to prove. Finding the absolute truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea true.
Quote from: turtlesHuh, what has modern science ever done for us? Apart from the aqueduct. And sanitation. And the roads. And irrigation... medicine... education... polio vaccinations... lasers... microchips... aircraft... the internet... funny how all that stuff works flawlessly... except when it proves the Earth is a sphere and then suddenly "nooo, thats a NASA microchip <hushed voice>you can't trust it...</hushed voice>".
Some of those things may have been developed using Zetetic methodology without the person aware that they were using it.
Quote from: moon squirterthen made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.
Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation. Rowbotham does not guess at what he cannot observe. For example, Rowotham freely admits that he cannot guess at what causes the sun to move in its particular North-South patterns throughout the year because to guess without evidence - to hypothesize - is against the Zetetic Philosophy. Empirical evidence is required for all explanations
Quote from: squevilTB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see
Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.
For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.
From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.
Quote from: squevilthis is what i wanted to discuss before with you :) i found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that.
Rowbotham backs up his conclusions about the workings of the world with empirical evidence, not mere presumption.
From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations.
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.
I had accidentally edited your post instead of creating a new one. I restored your comment.QuoteI don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.
Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.
It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them.
Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way.
Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)
1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.
SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.
With the object of testing the conclusions arrived at by
the learned relative to spectrum analysis, several experiments
were made by the writer. The light of the sun on a clear
day, about noon, seen through the prism disclosed the various
colours that can be seen through this instrument. On a hazy
day before sunset the colours seen were the same but very
faint. Light from a lighthouse and a star seen through the
prism, showed the colours to be the same, the colour from
the light of the star being much less brilliant than that from
the lighthouse. Light from a parafine street lamp gave the
same result as light from a star or the sun, only much fainter.
Then the electric light was tried. A large street lamp of
great power and several others of less power gave the same
result as the sun, star, lighthouse, and street lamp, but in
various degrees of brilliancy according to the power of the
light. Even a candle gave a very faint yellow-blue tinge, so
slight that it had to be looked at for some time before any-
thing but blue was apparent.
If, therefore, it be argued that spectrum analysis proves
that the sun is made of the same metals as we find in the
earth, and that, therefore, the earth is a product of evolution
then it is equally clear that the electric light and the glass
shade of the lamp which encases it are really composed of
iron and various other metals in a state of fusion, constituting
indeed, a globe of glowing vapour, and not glass, carbon,
etc, at all. It is also as reasonable to conclude that the
paraffine lamp and the candle are composed of metals in a
state of fusion and that there is in reality no paraffine, no
glass, no tallow, and no wick. That is to say, known facts be
thrown aside, common sense stultified, and reason
dethroned in order to bolster up the unprovable assumptions
of modern science relative to the doctrine of evolution
as applied to the earth and the heavenly bodies.
SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.
that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works. there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption. astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra. an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism. when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism. which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.
in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla
Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.. its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.
--Nikola Tesla
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?
Even in Rowbotham's day, the idea of a Round Earth was as dogmatic as stone. A whirl of constantly changing fact and conjecture which were systematically brainwashed into children from the age of three.
Here is a direct quote from Dr. Rowbotham:
"It is ... candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the world is round, that it is only 'imagined' or assumed to be do in order to afford an explanation of 'scores of phenomena'. This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have labored to prove the rotundity of the earth, It is pitiful to the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before anything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen laboring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labor is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors."
Rowbotham believed that Newtonian astronomy was a 'juggle and a jumble of fancies and falsehoods; an elaborate theoretical trick ' enough to make the unprejudiced observer revolt with horror from the terrible conjunction which has been practiced upon him'.
In the face of this elitist conspiracy, the only solution, Rowbotham declared, was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted as a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.
A man well ahead of his time, Rowbotham's life work and inquiry was able to predict the movements of the continents one hundred years before tectonic plate shifting was discovered. He was able to accurately and mathematically predict lunar eclipses, the tides, and a number of phenomena in his model of the Earth. He also published a book called Zetetic Astronomy which accurately explained the movements of the stars and completely rewrote Newtonian mechanics from the ground up.
Besides his honest investigation to the true shape of the earth, Rowbotham patented safety mechanisms for trains, vulcanized rubber, nutritional elixirs, and a number of other notable inventions. As a true Zetetic, Rowbotham did not simply make theories while sitting in a closet like Newton and Copernicus. Dr. Rowbotham used his wealth to sail the world in his life-long study of the earth and the cosmos.
QuoteThere is more to astronomy then you think apparently. I already talked about comets and meteors and how they cant work in a fe. You claim the Au is wrong yet way before they au they new the order of the planets and they could tell some size.
Astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. The AU has wildly jumped throughout the ages, from 3, 20, 50, to 200 million miles. Astronomical theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.
The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following is a direct quote from Copernicus himself:"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
QuoteWell, you started right off the bat by saying "Look out your window", a statement that has been overturned time and time again.
By looking outside of our windows and studying the natural world around us we can do away with dogma and begin to seek afresh, for our own selves, the true nature of the earth and universe. We are Zetetics here at the Flat Earth Society. Skeptics who seek to learn the truth.
The term Zetetic is actually derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.
Zetetics are in direct opposition to "theoretics." Theoretics are people who are speculative, imaginary, not tangible; scheming - but not proving.
QuoteLogic will not solve physics and chemistry.
Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."
Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.
QuoteHis mind was not open about his possible findings, even if he was truthful he may have introduced a bias into the results. The point I was making was that Rowbotham's theories are a poor attempt to corroborate scientifically what he interpreted as the word of the Bible. He is untrustworthy because he has a vested interest in the outcome (the truth of his Holy Book).
Dr. Rowbotham starts his work as an honest inquiry into the shape of the Earth, starting afresh without interpreting the results of experiments to any one particular theory or predisposition. Tests are tried and facts are collected without ascribing to any one existing theory. The entirety of Rowbotham's work is to let the results of an experiment speak for itself.
A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.
QuotePerhaps there are some - point them out to me and give me suffiecient evidence that they exist, then show me how a flat earth can explain them. That is, explain them in a way that does not rely on quotes from Earth: Not a globe. I don't believe that Rowbotham has ANY scientific credibility - stop using his flawed experiments as evidence and start using real evidence.
Dr. Rowbotham has plenty of credibility. In his day Rowbotham toured Europe giving lectures at many prominent universities. At the conclusion of every lecture he would debate with the brightest minds of the day over the shape of the earth. Dr. Rowbotham was successful in swaying many members of the audience over to his position. A widespread Zetetic movement began, demanding that the government look into the sphere issue.
The following are a few quotes of the press after Rowbotham's lectures. I believe these reviews speak for themselves:
"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--No doubt many of our readers have been mystified and surprised within the last week by the announcement that, in three lectures, at the Northampton Mechanics' Institute, a gentleman who calls himself 'Parallax,' would undertake to prove the earth not a globe, &c., &c. . . . We were highly gratified by the manner in which this important subject was handled by 'Parallax'--a pseudonym which the lecturer informed his audience he had adopted in order to avert the effect of an insinuation that his startling announcement is but the morbid desire of an individual to be known as the propounder of a philosophy boldly at variance with that of the great astronomers of the past and present. His subject was handled in a plain and easy manner, his language and allusions proving him a man of education and thought, and certainly not a pedant. The experiments mentioned, divested of technicality in their recital, and understandable by all, were of such a nature as to cause a start of surprise at their simplicity and truthfulness. . . . It is not for us to pronounce a verdict upon so important an issue; 'Parallax' may be in error, but as far as his reasonings from fact and experiment go, there is much to set scientific men thinking. His arguments consist of facts, and such as are patent to all degrees of mental capacity. . . . In the discussions which followed, 'Parallax' certainly lost no ground, either in answer to questions or to some broad assertions quoted from learned authorities."--South Mid-land Free Press, August 14th, 1858.
-
"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.
-
"EARTH NOT A GLOBE.--On Monday last a gentleman adopting the nom de plume of 'Parallax'--a very appropriate name, seeing that the basis of his arguments is the relation to each other of parallel lines--commenced a series of lectures at the Public Hall on 'Zetetic Astronomy,' a system directly opposed to the great Newtonian theory. That he is a clever man, and has studied the matter deeply, and that he is master of his subject, and thoroughly convinced of its truth, is apparent; and his arguments are certainly very plausible. The lecture drew large audiences, and among those present we noticed (here a list is given of many of the leading men and families of the district). 'Parallax' commenced by explaining the word 'Zetetic,' which had been adopted, because they did not sit in their closets and endeavour to frame a theory to explain certain phenomena, but went abroad into the world, and thoroughly investigated the subject. Lengthy and animated discussions ensued; votes of thanks were passed to the lecturer and the chairman-- Nixon Porter, who declared that he was much struck with the simplicity and candour with which the lecturer had stated his views; and, after a promise by 'Parallax' that he would pay another visit to Warrington, the audience dispersed."--Warrington Advertiser, March 24th, 1866.
You may find additional reviews here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm).
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?Your post was accidentally edited. The quote and modify buttons are right next to each other. I wasn't able to restore your image.
Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.
QuoteSince all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.
Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)Please refrain from making the exact same argument in two different places (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg114041#msg114041). It achieves nothing other than making conversation much more difficult.
2-Humidity
[snip snip snip]
You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?
I have to agree with Nirmala on this. Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory. Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?
I have to agree with Nirmala on this. Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory. Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.
Incorrect. Rowbotham conducts a number of experiments in his work, and references experiments all throughout his work to support his model.
It it entirely on-topic. I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.
1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings
(...)
The mainstream scientific method involves these main steps:
1. Ask a Question2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
(...)
The basic Zetetic Method works as follows:
1. Come up with a question about the world
2. Design an experiment
3. Experiment and collect results/data
(...)
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.I suppose the it makes one thing clear,
Outline:
P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.
P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.
P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"
P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.
P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.
P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.
It seems that there's just a basic misunderstanding about the scientific method early in this thread.
1: Make an interesting observation
2: Create a hypothesis that could potentially explain said observation
3: Identify variables that would be testable for said hypothesis
4: Create an experiment that tests the effects of as many variables as you are able to control
5: Assume the null hypothesis (that your initial guess is wrong)
6: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion
7: Accept or reject the null hypothesis and report your findings
8. Try to Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
9. If peer reviewers agree that you followed the steps properly - then everyone in your field gets to read about it. If not, then back to steps (1)...(4).
10. Ask other people to attempt to reproduce your experiment.
11. If they agree with your findings - then you're on to something.
12. If they disagree with your findings - then you have to understand why that was. So back to step (1), (2) or maybe (4).
13. If enough people support your findings - then there will probably be a "meta-study", which (if it agrees with you) will result in widespread acceptance of your hypothesis.
14. People start using the word "Theory" and "Law" with your name in front of it.
These additional steps are crucial. They are what failed with the Rowbotham experiment. Even if he did steps 1..9 correctly, he skipped steps 10 through 14. When people decided to reproduce his experiment - they mostly disagreed (step 12!)...and at this point, he should have gone back to step (1):
HYPOTHESIS: The world is flat.
EXPERIMENT: Dover Level experiment.
RESULT: The world is flat!
PUBLICATION: Hey everybody! It seems from this one experiment that the world may be flat!
REPRODUCTION: FAIL! MAYBE! FAIL! FAIL! SUCCESS! THE OPPOSITE!
CONCLUSION: There is something wrong with the experimental technique - or else the hypothesis is incorrect.
Those last two processes never happened...hence nobody who follows the scientific method can possibly believe that Rowbotham was correct.
A bigger problem comes from another scientific principle - which should have kicked in at about step (2).
Any new hypothesis has to perfectly explain all of the known facts that are explained by preceding theories and laws that would be overturned by it.
In this case, Rowbotham should have asked how his hypothesis can explain many of the things in this thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0 - and if his hypothesis could not explain them (and it cannot) - then he need not even have bothered doing the experiment because any conclusions that come from it are not remotely credible.