Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 19, 2021, 10:10:06 PM »

This is NOT to ask what FET can or can not explain, but to ask if there's something RET and the existence of the universe fails to explain. I believe RET has perfectly logical and provable explanations for the following (I have undoubtedly missed some). So, to reiterate, are there any phenomena that RET either can't explain or contradicts?

gravity
seasons
day and night
light and dark distribution
eccentricity, obliquity, and precession per Milankovitch cycles
area of continents and seas
distance from any point A to any point B on earth
direction from any point A to any point B on earth
continental drift
geologic strata
tides
eclipses
different stars visible in north vs south
moon waxing on right in the north and on left in the south
ocean currents
coriolis effect
weather patterns
magnetic field
space travel
all satellite functions such as GPS, satellite phone, satellite radio
millions of photos of earth from space

and all without inventing new phenomena such as EA and UA. 


Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2021, 10:24:44 PM »
There's always going to be something that science can't explain - that's an inevitable consequence of finding out more about our world and the universe around it. The alt science brigade, whether it's quack medicine or, as is the case here, FET proponents, seize on either past mistakes or uncertainties in current thinking as evidence that their ideas might be valid. It's a bogus argument, of course, because FET doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all, and there's nothing observable that is in conflict with the earth being spherical.

To your point, the most obvious unknown aspect of modern physics is probably dark energy, which is a very new, unproven hypothesis intended to explain the unexpected expansion of the universe. Which in no way whatsoever means the world is flat.

fortytwo

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2021, 08:56:19 AM »
Gravity is the base for RET but is not explained by it, so it should not be part of the list. IMHO it is known how gravity works (at least locally) but not what gravity exactly is.
It could also be called "invented phenomena" like EA and UA.
The difference to EA and UA is that the theory of gravity is well defined. One can calculate with it and make prediction. So gravity is testable which is not the case for any of the FE forces.

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2021, 09:41:28 AM »
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2021, 02:11:18 PM »
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?

Indeed. I'd also point that, whilst gravity isn't fully understood, it is entirely coherent with other physical phenomena and consistent with our observations. It also differs enormously from UA in that gravity is a force, and therefore requires no transfer of energy unless things are moving along the force axis (note that orbits therefore require no energy, as the velocity is perpendicular to the force). UA requires some mysterious and unknown energy source to keep us perpetually accelerating, and is at odds with the variance in g measured at different points on the planet.

EA is also completely at odds with what we observe, and isn't even consistent with itself. It is a distortion of light, but yet causes no apparent distortion of the stars as they rotate majestically around the celestial poles. It is a vertical bending of light beams, and yet there is no single solution for the amount of 'bend' that would provide a satisfactory explanation of the observed altitude angle of, say, Polaris at every latitude between the equator and the north pole. RET explains those observed angles perfectly - light travels in straight lines, notwithstanding refraction close to the horizon, and the curved surface of the earth perfectly explains the changing altitude angle with latitude - the observed angles all point in the same direction when you plot them on a curved earth.

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2021, 03:48:27 PM »
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?

Tides as caused by the moon's gravity and eccentricity (Milankovitch) are two more phenomena that comport with RET and gravitational effects 100%.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Also, there's something about UA that I've never seen discussed, which is the importance of PERFECT perpendicularity of the UA force and the shape of the both sides of a flat earth. Just think of pushing something flat with an accelerating car and of how easy it would be to get slightly off center and cause said flat object to start spinning. Also the weight of the flat side would have to be evenly distributed to keep from spinning. It's an absurd concept no matter how you approach it.

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2021, 04:11:34 PM »
RET can not explain the power of Shobijin to summon me.

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2021, 04:51:02 PM »
RET can not explain the power of Shobijin to summon me.

Give them my regards next time you see them.

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2021, 07:14:21 PM »
You don't have to explain or prove anything if you believe!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8483
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2021, 07:26:20 PM »
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2021, 09:14:55 PM »
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Wow. How many times are you not going to be able to understand this? If you still don’t understand that there are numerical solutions to this problem which work perfectly well for all practical purposes then I don’t know how to help you.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8483
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2021, 09:28:07 PM »
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Wow. How many times are you not going to be able to understand this? If you still don’t understand that there are numerical solutions to this problem which work perfectly well for all practical purposes then I don’t know how to help you.

You are incorrect about your assumption that numerical solutions fully simulate gravity - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2021, 09:41:30 PM »
Please stop straw manning.
I said the solutions work for all practical purposes.
We just put a rover on Mars so they seem to work pretty well.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8483
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2021, 10:19:42 PM »
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2021, 10:48:52 PM »
Tom, in your quest for mathematical completeness I would suggest you avoid travelling anywhere by aircraft. These machines are designed by engineers who lack a 100% complete mathematical solution to the design of the structures and instead use numerical solutions. This is obviously shoddy work, just like the lack of absolute precision in the problems you mention in the wiki.

For that matter, numerical solutions are also used in designing your car: better stop driving too. Even when a numerical solution approaches 99.95% accuracy it's not to be trusted? This is ridiculous, such ignorance of practical mathematics is embarassing.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2649
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2021, 10:50:41 PM »
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

Because of;

The hundreds of years of practical experience of it,
the measurements which correspond with it, and
the extensive space travel, since the 1960s or so, which has had flight paths based upon it.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2021, 01:02:10 AM »
If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

And the Bishop's constant is ??????????????


Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2021, 06:44:39 AM »
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?
What do you think is the significance if it doesn’t exist? I mean, there’s no way of trisecting an angle either. Does that mean thirds don’t exist? ???

The thing you seem to repeatedly not understand is that a model doesn’t have to be perfect to be a good enough model of reality to be extremely useful.

The numerical models which exist are good enough to land a rover on Mars or send a probe to Pluto, I’d say that’s good enough for all practical purposes.

Meanwhile, FE can’t make a single prediction about anything which matches reality. Your “equation” of EA has no derivation and contains a constant which is unknown. New models only become accepted and replace old ones if they are shown to be a better model of reality than the ones which exist. That’s how the geocentric got replaced by the heliocentric one. As equipment got better and observations more accurate the heliocentric model was shown to be better.

Your model isn’t taken seriously because...well, there isn’t really a coherent FE model. So coming back to the thread title there probably are things which RET doesn’t have completely figured out. Actually, there must be - otherwise all the scientist would be out of a job. But it’s demonstrably a better model than a FE one which has no predictive power and relies on a series of ad hoc often contradictory unexplained mechanisms as well as a lot of conspiracy theories.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 339
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2021, 06:49:12 AM »
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

This is utterly preposterous I'm afraid.

Firstly, you have completely misunderstood the papers you are quoting. In this one, for example - https://publications.mfo.de/handle/mfo/1355 - the 'standard algorithm' used to calculate the example where the moon is ejected from the three-body system is an explicit Euler solution, which is in itself a numerical method - a simplification needed to deal with the complexity of the set of PDEs. That you are holding this up as some sort of 'correct' answer and implying that the authors have tinkered with some parameters until they got to the answer they wanted shows a total failure to comprehend the information you have used in the wiki.

In the example in the paper the entire point was that, over time, implicit and explicit Euler methods do not conserve the energy of a system - there is a small error at each step that aggregates over time. This makes them poor choices for the long-term simulation of an n-body problem. The symplectic method used does conserve energy, and is therefore better in this regards, even though it is far from perfect.

Partial differential equations are extremely difficult to solve algebraically except for certain very specific cases, but they are everywhere in scientific and engineering problems at the micro and macro levels. It is impossible, for example, to solve the Navier Stokes equations for turbulent / viscous, compressible flow over an aircraft, but this is the information needed to accurately calculate lift and drag. And yet our aircraft don't fall from the sky; this is because aerodynamicists make judicious use of wind tunnels and various numerical methods, often involving vast computing power, to approximate solutions. Their inability to solve the equations by algebra does not make aviation impossible.   

There's nothing wrong with not understanding this stuff - it's complex, and well into undergraduate maths / physics / engineering territory - but it might be worth getting your assertions checked over by somebody who does understand it before publishing a wiki article about it.

 

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2021, 09:18:23 PM »
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Okay, you tried to give one. Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals, I would call that a swing and a miss. However, since there are "many problems with RE", you should be able to simply give us the next one on your list.

P.S. Add the fact that the moon has impact craters to my original list.