*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2019, 09:37:53 PM »
I completely disagree that higher education - at least in Engineering or other B.S. degrees (like physics or mathematics) - learns by rote. I remember quite clearly going through mathematical proofs of all the equations we used to determine some engineering result in all of my college courses. We were required to have an understanding of how things worked, not just the here is an equation, plug in a number and get a result approach. I even remember my Calc classes in high school doing the same thing.
I'm not talking about optional classes that plenty of people completely avoid and are only accessible after over a decade of other learning.

If you're talking with scientists who answer your questions with "That's just how it is," find different scientists because the ones you're talking to are doing a disservice to everyone.

My question was more about whether you feel qualified to judge the veracity of the claims of scientists. You answered that when you have checked, you've gotten non-answers. That's not exactly the same thing. Most people dramatically overestimate how good they are at judging scientific issues. It doesn't help when scientists are dismissive like the ones you've talked with.
That's not them being dismissive. They give spectacularly verbose ways of saying that it's the way things are, and when my research and them alike all say the same thing then I'm not going to base my opinion on a speculated better answer. They are spectacularly good at analyzing things and saying that we need them to be, but not why those conditions arise. An easy, non-controversial example would be Relativity. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest anything can go; why this is the case isn't understood. You can ask, you can research. You'll find plenty of lengthy papers on time and space dilation which tell you what happens to prevent things going that fast, but nothing to actually tell you why. The reason Einstein did so well is pretty much exactly because he stopped asking why, used it as a postulate, then derived everything.

Quote
As someone who has worked with hundreds of scientists and graduate students in the sciences, and has children of my own pursuing sciences, I can assure you this is not the case. No scientist wants to go along with the herd. The scientist that breaks the paradigm like Darwin or Einstein would have their name in the history books and a Nobel Prize to boot. Do you have to understand all that has been done before in your field? Absolutely. But once you know what has been done, you can strike out in new directions. But someone who only knows a little bit will only think they're striking out in new and paradigm-breaking directions. They won't be aware of how many people have already thought those thoughts and pursued that line of reason.

There may be some schools that simply demand science students conform, but they are in the vast, vast minority (and frankly, they'd have no alumni that have done anything of note). I don't think this is a line of reasoning you can support.

It shouldn't be the case. The ideal is not what's happening. It never is, we're human. There are certain things that are accepted, that don't get questioned. It's not like Darwin exactly had an easy time of it, and those were in better times, nowadays the weight of public opinion is far greater. You submit an article that so much as mentions FET in the abstract and it'll be rejected for that reason alone.
I know plenty, I'm well aware of the limitations of my knowledge and how much I don't know. That's precisely why this happens. The more you explore, the more avenues you see, the more work is done, speculatory and rigorous, the more you focus on those. The modern scientific establishment only allows questioning of certain things, if you go after any of their fundamentals then you won't get anywhere. Science nowadays and the resources it takes to carry out are done by grant and loan and by the interest of others; try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' to use your example and you'd be treated as a crackpot.
Academia has become bloated and scientists are humans, not a philosophical ideal. A paper, even if it got funding and resources and got published, that makes a dramatic claim about something they've spent years working and relying on and teaching, getting invested in, will go ignored. They'll figure it's just another crackpot, or wouldn't dedicate the time or money to unpicking and verifying the details because they've got better things to do, a dozen more papers to read given that it's pretty much global now. And even if they were interested in double-checking, funding studies is hard enough as it is, and funding a repeat of a study is notoriously tricky because people aren't interested in getting the same results a second time, and that's on top of the previously mentioned issues of trying to study anything like this in the first place. Instead it'll go brushed off, ignored, assumed to be flawed whether by bias or by some unlucky quirk of phrase.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2019, 01:14:16 PM »
That's not them being dismissive. They give spectacularly verbose ways of saying that it's the way things are, and when my research and them alike all say the same thing then I'm not going to base my opinion on a speculated better answer. They are spectacularly good at analyzing things and saying that we need them to be, but not why those conditions arise. An easy, non-controversial example would be Relativity. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest anything can go; why this is the case isn't understood. You can ask, you can research. You'll find plenty of lengthy papers on time and space dilation which tell you what happens to prevent things going that fast, but nothing to actually tell you why. The reason Einstein did so well is pretty much exactly because he stopped asking why, used it as a postulate, then derived everything.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are unhappy because if we dig deeply enough, we reach a point where we still have unknowns? Obviously, scientists are working on every unknown we have, and obviously as soon as we have an answer we will have an underly "why" regarding that.

Can you explain how that leads you to a belief in a flat Earth?

It shouldn't be the case. The ideal is not what's happening. It never is, we're human. There are certain things that are accepted, that don't get questioned. It's not like Darwin exactly had an easy time of it, and those were in better times, nowadays the weight of public opinion is far greater. You submit an article that so much as mentions FET in the abstract and it'll be rejected for that reason alone.

I'm sorry, but yes, the scientific method is absolutely being followed in research today. For the better part of 20 years I've worked with scientists from most disciplines, and the rigors have never been tighter. There absolutely are cases of garbage research getting through peer review, and absolutely we're human with all the shortcomings that entails. The scientific method, peer review, etc., is designed exactly with those shortcomings in mind. If you publish some results, you have to lay out in extreme detail how you got those results so others can replicate it, falsify it, or attempt the same experiment with changed variables.

Yes, if you submit an article that mentions FE you will absolutely get rejected. Why? Because that's not at all how the scientific method works. At all. It's not the flat Earth that gets rejected, it's because of the mountains of other solid science that must also get rejected. If you want FE to become accepted, you have to do that actual work, and that means showing experimentally that some observed phenomenon does not jibe with what we know of the Earth's surface right now. It means you have to address every argument against your position and account for it in your paper. You then have to submit it for peer review where experts will tell you where or if you've done something wrong (with citations), and you have to look up all that previous research and account for it experimentally.

You can't walk into a scientific discipline and announce that you're going to change everything we know about the physical sciences without doing all the insanely tedious work that every other scientist has to do for a paper that might modify one little aspect of what we know. You've got to start small and be just as rigorous.

The modern scientific establishment only allows questioning of certain things, if you go after any of their fundamentals then you won't get anywhere. Science nowadays and the resources it takes to carry out are done by grant and loan and by the interest of others; try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' to use your example and you'd be treated as a crackpot.
Academia has become bloated and scientists are humans, not a philosophical ideal. A paper, even if it got funding and resources and got published, that makes a dramatic claim about something they've spent years working and relying on and teaching, getting invested in, will go ignored. They'll figure it's just another crackpot, or wouldn't dedicate the time or money to unpicking and verifying the details because they've got better things to do, a dozen more papers to read given that it's pretty much global now. And even if they were interested in double-checking, funding studies is hard enough as it is, and funding a repeat of a study is notoriously tricky because people aren't interested in getting the same results a second time, and that's on top of the previously mentioned issues of trying to study anything like this in the first place. Instead it'll go brushed off, ignored, assumed to be flawed whether by bias or by some unlucky quirk of phrase.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely not how any of this works. I understand it may seem that way from the outside, but it's simply not what happens. For instance, "try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' and you're treated as a crackpot" is completely incorrect. Every few months I read a paper about a new experiment taking a shot at Einstein, so that's simply not true. But the larger point is exactly how you phrased it - You don't get a grant for trying to prove Einstein wrong. You get a grant for trying a novel, useful, experiment that might either bolster Einstein or prove him wrong. That would absolutely get funded. But part of the grant process is showing how your experiment is novel - you have to show no one else has done anything like it, or you're measuring in a new way, or maybe you've found an error in a calculation someone else has done that you think this experiment will rectify. Doing that requires really knowing what has been done in the field before, understanding why the people in the field have come to the conclusions they have, and being able to address those issues simply and directly.

By the way, there is an insane amount of double checking. On things that don't have much of a broader implication, maybe not much. But for things that might have repercussions, the double-checking becomes a bloodsport.

So the takeaway is this: Before you propose the Earth is flat, conduct experiments that support it. Before you conduct experiments, learn all the relevant experiments that have come before so you can speak knowledgeably about how your experiment is novel and perhaps better. Follow those steps, and if your research is flawless, you will upset the applecart and every scientist will take you seriously.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2019, 01:51:29 PM »
but it would take a rocket trip and first-hand witnessing for you to become convinced of a globe. Obviously, those are two very different levels of evidence for each position. Is there something less dramatic that could convince you of a globe?

I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence.
Just out of curiosity, how does a sunset fit into your day-in-and-day-out experience of the flatness of the Earth?  Do you feel that the FE explanation is "plain, simple, and logical as it is" and requires a lesser degree of evidence than the RE explanation?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2019, 02:22:22 PM »
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.

First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2019, 02:50:30 PM »
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.

First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.

I find it rather illogical that the Sun would be stationary, in either model. RET most certainly does not state that it is stationary.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2019, 03:32:39 PM »
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.

First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.

I find it rather illogical that the Sun would be stationary, in either model. RET most certainly does not state that it is stationary.
Although geocentric round earth models do feature a moving sun, heliocentric round earth models tend to have the sun stationary relative to the motions of the rest of the solar system.  It isn't until you get to galactic or larger scales that the sun's motion becomes relevant. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2019, 03:39:30 PM »
Correct. Sorry I left that out. I made the assumption that stationary sun meant only in the context of other planets revolving around it.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2019, 06:32:06 PM »
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are unhappy because if we dig deeply enough, we reach a point where we still have unknowns? Obviously, scientists are working on every unknown we have, and obviously as soon as we have an answer we will have an underly "why" regarding that.

Can you explain how that leads you to a belief in a flat Earth?
Unknowns that don't get acknowledged as unknowns, the fact there are barely even hypotheses to fill in huge gaps in the underlying basics of major models is something you pretty much never hear about when you'd think it ought to be much more important.
It led me to question, the same as everything else. Questioning and re-evaluating and following the gaps led to the conclusion of FET.


Quote
I'm sorry, but yes, the scientific method is absolutely being followed in research today. For the better part of 20 years I've worked with scientists from most disciplines, and the rigors have never been tighter. There absolutely are cases of garbage research getting through peer review, and absolutely we're human with all the shortcomings that entails. The scientific method, peer review, etc., is designed exactly with those shortcomings in mind. If you publish some results, you have to lay out in extreme detail how you got those results so others can replicate it, falsify it, or attempt the same experiment with changed variables.

Yes, if you submit an article that mentions FE you will absolutely get rejected. Why? Because that's not at all how the scientific method works. At all. It's not the flat Earth that gets rejected, it's because of the mountains of other solid science that must also get rejected. If you want FE to become accepted, you have to do that actual work, and that means showing experimentally that some observed phenomenon does not jibe with what we know of the Earth's surface right now. It means you have to address every argument against your position and account for it in your paper. You then have to submit it for peer review where experts will tell you where or if you've done something wrong (with citations), and you have to look up all that previous research and account for it experimentally.

You can't walk into a scientific discipline and announce that you're going to change everything we know about the physical sciences without doing all the insanely tedious work that every other scientist has to do for a paper that might modify one little aspect of what we know. You've got to start small and be just as rigorous.
Yep, there's rigor, I said as much, it's just overzealous. Like you say, mention FET and it'd be rejected because the conclusion is accepted as false. You just assumed that the paper wouldn't contain evidence, even when we're talking about something hypothetical. That's the bias of mainstream science, you've made up your minds. Some things now are just treated as tradition, the weight of evidence thought too much when that's not how evidence works. The same piece of evidence can point to a multitude of models. We do all the work you just assume we don't, you just don't want to hear it. Listen to yourself. You cannot claim the scientific establishment is open to alternative ideas when you assume a set narrative for said alternative ideas.
Further, the criteria you mention. 'Address every argument against your position,' that's impossible for anything. Most papers generally just do most, and often get some other scientist writing up a rebuttal which may or may not be responded to. But look at how it would function in this case, look at the number of objections people raise to FET by sheer argument from exhaustion. So all the responses get compiled in one place, listed out with typical scientific rigour, just as the support for a paper on whole other disciplines. Miss one, or one slip your minds, it gets thrown out for that minor oversight regardless of the merit of the rest. And that's assuming anyone is going to bother with the topic, given the attitude you've already presented; they've made up their minds before they turn the first page.
To say nothing of finding a publication willing to house an article that long. If anything you'd need to split it up into two, or even three or four, but again then no one would meet your criteria. The angle of "FET can work, if we assume ___ and ___, which I'll prove later," is beyond niche and would be ignored, and the proof of said principles is, by your words, inadmissible without all the backing explanation.

If you want to question any of science's grand traditions, the system is geared to ensure it's impossible. Even if the papers would get a fair hearing, which they won't because of the biases of human beings, there's nothing that'd listen to all the various points. You just have to pray that the things you've built on are true. If they're not, you now have no way to fix it, you're just nipping and tucking and tweaking later additions. It's fruit of the poisoned tree.


Quote
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely not how any of this works. I understand it may seem that way from the outside, but it's simply not what happens. For instance, "try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' and you're treated as a crackpot" is completely incorrect. Every few months I read a paper about a new experiment taking a shot at Einstein, so that's simply not true. But the larger point is exactly how you phrased it - You don't get a grant for trying to prove Einstein wrong. You get a grant for trying a novel, useful, experiment that might either bolster Einstein or prove him wrong. That would absolutely get funded. But part of the grant process is showing how your experiment is novel - you have to show no one else has done anything like it, or you're measuring in a new way, or maybe you've found an error in a calculation someone else has done that you think this experiment will rectify. Doing that requires really knowing what has been done in the field before, understanding why the people in the field have come to the conclusions they have, and being able to address those issues simply and directly.

By the way, there is an insane amount of double checking. On things that don't have much of a broader implication, maybe not much. But for things that might have repercussions, the double-checking becomes a bloodsport.
They're not experiments aimed towards a pillar, they're inevitably claims and theories geared towards tweaking or refining. The fact you need to dress up the pitch with evasive terminology to avoid saying what's actually going on should tell you plenty. Sure, propose testing something that hasn't been tested; my stand-by there is always whether the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction is continuous or discontinuous. The response is "Ok, why are you examining that? Why do you doubt it?" So you've got to either evade with an unsatisfactory 'I just want to see' or go through the untouchable topic of FET on which they've already made up their mind.
It's not repurcussions that matter, it's credibility, and anything too far from the mainstream lacks it on principle. That's science, you have the accepted facts, you have a grey area around that of competing theories, beyond that current hypotheses, beyond that a little wiggle room, and then beyond that there's what you get if you start from challenging an 'accepted fact' and if that's where you begin, that's as far as you go.

Quote
So the takeaway is this: Before you propose the Earth is flat, conduct experiments that support it. Before you conduct experiments, learn all the relevant experiments that have come before so you can speak knowledgeably about how your experiment is novel and perhaps better. Follow those steps, and if your research is flawless, you will upset the applecart and every scientist will take you seriously.
I'm not a child. Maybe look at how you assume how dumb we are before you claim you don't have a predetermined view of FET.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2019, 06:45:27 PM »
Usually scientific entries into journals state the conditions of the system that they are analyzing. They don't go around naming millions of unknowns that they aren't accounting for. It is given up front by stating that x, y, and z variables are the knowns of some closed system and the result is derived from those knowns. If a result does not match what is physically measured, then either the actual experiment conducted was done wrong, or the assumptions of said variables were lacking and they go back to the drawing board. (Given a certain amount of statistical error).
BobLawBlah.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2019, 07:44:37 PM »
Unknowns that don't get acknowledged as unknowns, the fact there are barely even hypotheses to fill in huge gaps in the underlying basics of major models is something you pretty much never hear about when you'd think it ought to be much more important.
It led me to question, the same as everything else. Questioning and re-evaluating and following the gaps led to the conclusion of FET.

Are you talking about things like how gravity works, or why the universe has a speed limit, or how the Big Bang happened, or how can quantum theory and general relativity be reconciled, or if string theory is really underlying all of reality? Because people are working like crazy to answer those things.

Quote
Yep, there's rigor, I said as much, it's just overzealous. Like you say, mention FET and it'd be rejected because the conclusion is accepted as false.

Yes. It will be rejected because there is a mountain of evidence that points toward it being false. So don't take on the whole mountain. Do one experiment. There are hundreds you can do. Do the one of three poles over a long stretch of water and a laser. It doesn't cost anything so you don't need a grant. Be careful about your whole procedure. Document everything in excruciating detail. Show that the laser is level. Don't say it's because of a flat Earth. Say that it's a phenomenon that disagrees with expectation and invite others to replicate it.

Do it impeccably and you will absolutely get attention. You'll have scientists trying to replicate it, and they'll see that you're right, and everyone will be curious about how this can be.

If you try to get published by saying "The Earth is flat," then yes, you have to address all the accepted science that disputes that. If you work experiment by experiment, you can simply show that you are getting impeccable results that don't fit expectations. If you really believe people in the sciences are essentially brainwashed, this will certainly get their attention.

Basically, stop complaining on message boards and go DO THE SCIENCE!

Quote
They're not experiments aimed towards a pillar, they're inevitably claims and theories geared towards tweaking or refining.

YES! That's it exactly! Aiming for a pillar is nearly impossible for even the best scientists. For someone just breaking in, absolutely don't do that! Tweak and refine! Refine something like the 3-pole experiment. Show that it doesn't work as expected. Let people try to poke holes in it. Let them take their best shots. If you've done your work well (and since it has big implications, you have to do your work impeccably), your experiment will stand. You won't have proven that the Earth is flat, but you'll have proven something is not quite right with the global Earth model and the physics connected with it. Then you build on it, experiment by experiment. It takes time and it's a pain and you'll have setbacks, but it's the only way to build your ultimate pillar.

I'm not being at all sarcastic. I love when people do their own science. Do it well and do it impeccably and one way or the other you (and maybe the world) will be better for it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2019, 01:11:36 PM »
Are you talking about things like how gravity works, or why the universe has a speed limit, or how the Big Bang happened, or how can quantum theory and general relativity be reconciled, or if string theory is really underlying all of reality? Because people are working like crazy to answer those things.

A couple of those, yes, but how honest are they about it?

Quote
Yes. It will be rejected because there is a mountain of evidence that points toward it being false.
That is not how evidence works. This is the problem, you never look beyond the cliche. There is only one possible way for the Earth to be flat and screw any alternatives, never mind that FET is perfectly capable of explaining all the results of those experiments, it's wrong because you believe something different. The only evidence we can give would be claims that wouldn't even follow from our models.
FET can explain everything RET can, but RET is what you already believe and it wins by merit of being what's accepted, and FET gets kicked out to obscurity and people remain uninformed and judge based on preconception.

Quote
YES! That's it exactly! Aiming for a pillar is nearly impossible for even the best scientists.
Exactly. Your system is broken, you admit it and you don't care. Think of it like cosmological constants, a set few numbers and if you tweak one of them just a little then life could never have developed. However if you change multiples of them a fair amount, you can fairly easily locate other stable systems. I think Victor Stenger wrote a good paper on that. Tiny tweaks won't work to get you a workable system, only big changes will. The scientific establishment only accepts small changes, and because of that it banks entirely on the hypotheses created centuries ago to explain observations to be accurate, rather than looking at the myriad other possibilities in light of modern knowledge.
The scientific establishment isn't going to replace a pillar. No matter how many small holes you come up with, they can nip and tuck and tweak to make excuses, and those will always be viewed as more believable than any alternatives developed from a baser level. (Your proposed experiment, for example, nets you excuses like temperature inversions).
And even what you're saying is absurd. The fact of the matter is older theories are going to look better than new ones, because they've had years to put together pages of math and adjust it to fit predictions, to append new details each time, to invent new areas of math as and when it's required. A counter-theory is going to take the same amount of work, and that's just for one leaf on one branch of the topic. To begin to argue against a pillar the way you say is literally lifetimes of work, and you can't just pose your end result because then you lose all credibility. You have to trust blindly that future generations will pick up the slack, will still be interested, and that they're not just going to all turn around and prefer addendum after addedum pasted onto the existing model.
No one's saying to accept something with less evidence, but the problem is that science doesn't acknowledge the unavoidable fact that things that are older will look better, regardless of their ultimate explanatory power. That's what I mean when I say sceince is locked into tradition. There is no vehicle for anything new to replace something more than one or two levels back, so much has been built and added to it that it's implicitly given preference.

Take something as simple as prediction. You've used it plenty, stating that prediction is necessary to make people question, but that should not be the case. A theory that explains equal amounts with fewer assumptions should be all that's required, but you always default to 'well what new thing is there?'
You give preference to the traditional model.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2019, 01:31:01 PM »
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.

First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.

I find it rather illogical that the Sun would be stationary, in either model. RET most certainly does not state that it is stationary.
Although geocentric round earth models do feature a moving sun, heliocentric round earth models tend to have the sun stationary relative to the motions of the rest of the solar system.  It isn't until you get to galactic or larger scales that the sun's motion becomes relevant.

That’s absolutely untrue. The planets do not orbit the Sun. Every celestial body in our solar system orbits the center of mass. What you are trying to say is that the dynamics are treated using relative coordinates and reduced mass. Heliocentric isn’t a term that really makes sense.

Also, the proper speed of the Sun is ONLY relevant on galactic distance scales. On cluster scales and larger, it is not.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2019, 01:09:24 AM »
FET can explain everything RET can

I think you'll find this is something that the RE'ers here are in serious disagreement with you about. I've read the Wiki and gone back through many, many threads here and I haven't found satisfactory FET explanations for almost all easily observable phenomenon. Just a sample:

1. Doing Eratosthenes experiment at three places along the same longitude. The elevation of the sun always points to two different places in the sky. Responses: none worth mentioning.
2. Stars rotating around North and South Celestial poles (the latter to observers in Australia, South America, and Africa over 24 hours). Responses - some sort of mirror-ball projection onto a dome that can't possibly work for all observers.
3. The sun rising at 120° SE where I live (Melbourne, Australia) in summer. I'll throw in almost 15 hours days here too, 17 hours in Punta Arenas (easily accessible), and 24 hours in Antarctica. Responses - none worth mentioning.
4. Lunar eclipse. Responses: otherwise invisible Antimoon - cannot take seriously.
5. Constant size of the sun during the day when viewed through any number of solar filters. Responses: perspective - invalid, projection onto atmolayer - invalid (impossible to maintain circular shape to all observers), producing shots of light sources out of focus with obvious glare to debunk - invalid (because we have controlled for those).
6. Edmund Halley's Transit of Venus experiment for determining distance to Venus. Responses: none worth mentioning.
7. Full moon (impossible on FE/close moon models). Responses: none that make sense.
8. No map (should be a far, far easier task on FE than RE). Responses: none worth mentioning.
9. Aligning satellite dishes for TV at three different locations. Elevation used always points to an object 36000km above the Earth. Responses: something about fake dishes.

And on and on and on...


 
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 06:34:33 AM by Balls Dingo »

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2019, 10:40:36 AM »
FET can explain everything RET can

I think you'll find this is something that the RE'ers here are in serious disagreement with you about. I've read the Wiki and gone back through many, many threads here and I haven't found satisfactory FET explanations for almost all easily observable phenomenon. Just a sample:
REers would disagree if a FEer said the sky was blue. Their opinion doesn't particularly matter to me, just the quality of their arguments. 1-7, 9 trivial if you actually look at a decent model rather than stand proudly in an uninformed perspective, 8 is a perfect indication of the inability of REers to make a good argument. And all of this is another spectacular illustration given that you opted either for a gish gallop or just to insist on your self-proclaimed superiority in a thread that has nothing to do with those arguments.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2019, 11:07:53 AM »
We agree the scientific community is biased against FE.

We disagree about why it is biased.

You say scientists are essentially sheeple, following what they've been told.

I say scientists go where the evidence leads and are more knowledgeable about the evidence that refutes a flat Earth than non-scientists are.

First off, I can tell you from a couple of decades of first-hand experience with a few hundred scientists that "sheeple" is exactly what they're not. They do an immense amount of work trying to understand the world around us. Every one of them is pushing against things they were taught in order to find points that break. But just because I know this, doesn't mean it's useful to convince you here on the internet.

You say that today's scientists don't want to knock down pillars. I remember about 20 years ago when the first findings came out that the redshift of the most distant objects in the universe was far higher than we expected. It meant the universe's expansion was actually accelerating. That might not sound like a pillar was knocked down, but this was so radical a finding that it suggested the existence of something like a fifth force of nature. Around the same time, the measurements of galactic rotations suggested there was also more mass than we could see in the universe. These two ideas, together, meant that 96% of the universe was made of something we'd never knew existed. Think about that! We thought we had it all pretty much worked out, and then all of a sudden we find out we've missed 96% of everything! Because of those two pieces of evidence, a bunch of other teams jumped in and tried to replicate and disprove the findings, but it turned out to be supported every time. The physics community was split about what it all meant, but most now agree that we've indeed been missing nearly everything in the universe. It might not seem like a big deal to people outside of physics, but that was a monumental pillar that was knocked down, and it didn't topple easily.

Note that when the astrophysicists presented their evidence about the universe expanding, they didn't say "the universe's expansion is accelerating and I can prove it." They showed impeccable evidence, and admitted it didn't fit with the way we understood the world at the time.

You have to do the same thing. You have to show impeccable evidence and say it doesn't fit with what we understand of the world today. The three-pole experiment would be perfect. I don't understand why anyone on this forum doesn't just do that experiment and do it perfectly. It would create a major question for any scientist to answer. You think a scientist who sees something like that, and who sees that the experiment was done without error, wouldn't want to know what the heck was going on? They'd go nuts trying to find something you did wrong. And if you did nothing wrong, they'd go nuts trying to understand exactly what is going on. It would be a joy to witness.

I know you think any scientist would just dismiss your experiment because they can't think outside of the global Earth model, but you're not basing that on actually talking to any scientists. You're basing that on an assumption that you must be right, so anyone with expertise who doesn't think you're right must either be essentially brainwashed or dishonest.

Look, 30 days from now, you could have an amazing experiment completed that would force any scientist to stand up and take notice. You could even talk to a few scientists ahead of time and ask them how to do the three-pole experiment perfectly, with perfect documentation so it would meet the rigors of modern science. Go to a research university because those scientists love helping people learn. Do the experiment! Just do it! Cripes, I want you to do it because if you demonstrate a lack of curvature, I'll get famous for being the guy who got you to do it. It's such an easy experiment and just 30 days from today, it could be done and the course of human knowledge would change. And it could be because of you!

You don't change science by going after the pillar. You show extraordinary evidence that something is not as we expected. If that evidence holds up under extreme scrutiny and it's critical to the pillar, the pillar will fall. Look at what Einstein did to Newton, or the redshift-light team adding 96% more mass to the universe.

So get out there and do it! Don't make your next post something about how it's fruitless. Say "Okay, I'm going to make this happen!" Do the experiment perfectly so nobody can poke holes in it, document the heck out of every step, and make it happen. Document the setup on this forum and I'll do whatever I can to help. 30 days from now you could have world-changing results in your pocket!

Say you'll do it!!!

Adrenoch

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2019, 11:20:22 AM »
That’s absolutely untrue. The planets do not orbit the Sun. Every celestial body in our solar system orbits the center of mass. What you are trying to say is that the dynamics are treated using relative coordinates and reduced mass. Heliocentric isn’t a term that really makes sense.

Well, if we're being really pedantic, the center of mass of all the planets' orbits is still inside the Sun, so it could easily be argued that they do indeed orbit the Sun. The exception to this is Jupiter, whose orbit's center of mass is just outside the Sun. And if you want to get really, really pedantic, then every planet actually orbits the combined centers of mass of the orbits of all the planets and the Sun, which will almost always still be inside the Sun, but could actually yank several centers outside the Sun if all the planets were on one side at one time. Now, if you want to add in the effect of all the moons and stars...

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2019, 07:11:59 PM »
You say that today's scientists don't want to knock down pillars. I remember about 20 years ago when the first findings came out that the redshift of the most distant objects in the universe was far higher than we expected. It meant the universe's expansion was actually accelerating. That might not sound like a pillar was knocked down, but this was so radical a finding that it suggested the existence of something like a fifth force of nature. Around the same time, the measurements of galactic rotations suggested there was also more mass than we could see in the universe. These two ideas, together, meant that 96% of the universe was made of something we'd never knew existed. Think about that! We thought we had it all pretty much worked out, and then all of a sudden we find out we've missed 96% of everything! Because of those two pieces of evidence, a bunch of other teams jumped in and tried to replicate and disprove the findings, but it turned out to be supported every time. The physics community was split about what it all meant, but most now agree that we've indeed been missing nearly everything in the universe. It might not seem like a big deal to people outside of physics, but that was a monumental pillar that was knocked down, and it didn't topple easily.
You are literally proving my point. They didn't go back and question their preconceptions, they leapt ahead and decided to append a massive new field rather than reconsider, and are still tweaking and adjusting that new field today to get it to work. Dark energy, especially dark matter, was one of the surefire death knells of RET's credibility. Rather than consider maybe the issue was with, say, how they took observations and what they accounted for, they instead decided to suppose invisible masses that should have been detected long since even with just the few properties applied to it as is (and never went back to reconsider what had previously been determined in light of it), and a mysterious force that they can't even explain how it does what they need it to do. They didn't knock down a pillar, they just added more and more to the top of it no matter how precariously it swayed. Absolutely no existing knowledge altered, it wasn't like they took the conclusion that their understanding of redshift was flawed say, they just kept things working the same way just with a new variable on play; questions were answered with unforeseen responses. The tradition stayed in place.



Quote
You have to do the same thing. You have to show impeccable evidence and say it doesn't fit with what we understand of the world today. The three-pole experiment would be perfect. I don't understand why anyone on this forum doesn't just do that experiment and do it perfectly. It would create a major question for any scientist to answer. You think a scientist who sees something like that, and who sees that the experiment was done without error, wouldn't want to know what the heck was going on? They'd go nuts trying to find something you did wrong. And if you did nothing wrong, they'd go nuts trying to understand exactly what is going on. It would be a joy to witness.

I know you think any scientist would just dismiss your experiment because they can't think outside of the global Earth model, but you're not basing that on actually talking to any scientists. You're basing that on an assumption that you must be right, so anyone with expertise who doesn't think you're right must either be essentially brainwashed or dishonest.
There is no such thing as impeccable evidence. And seriously, think about what you are saying. You aren't finding any actual experiment of an FE model, you're relying solely on your preconceptions of what that would be and going no further. We live on a flat Earth. All readings and experiments have already been performed on a flat Earth. The number of actually accessible experiments with the slightest bearing on anything, particularly that are remotely doable for a typical person, is beyond minimal and the rest have already been shoehorned into RET. You won't get a brand new discovery, all you'd get is a better explanation, but that's not good enough because the scientific establishment is built on tradition, better=older/familiar rather than logical or reducing assumptions. It's all about toppling the existing theory, not about actual comparison, new experiments rather than seeing how well the ones already done tie in.
And you're just assuming I haven't talked to scientists, you're very wrong on that. I'm speaking from experience. They won't even entertain anything too 'outlandish,' there are enough papers to go through that there's no point in picking apart an experiment they already believe to be wrong. Besides, if they already think the claim is wrong then they'll just assume the paper's lying. They won't tear their hair out, they'll shrug it off.

You're acting as though what we're talking about is akin to some discovered oddity in G-Type stars or whatever. It isn't. Science has layers, a pillar that it is verboten to question, and layers out from that. Only the outermost get particularly dealt with, and the closer you get the more controversial anything would be. Beyond a certain point you're assumed wrong and nothing can change that.

Quote
So get out there and do it! Don't make your next post something about how it's fruitless. Say "Okay, I'm going to make this happen!" Do the experiment perfectly so nobody can poke holes in it, document the heck out of every step, and make it happen. Document the setup on this forum and I'll do whatever I can to help. 30 days from now you could have world-changing results in your pocket!
Again, there's no point in performing an experiment when the results would not be what you're claiming. Stop being so bloody performative. Best case scenario, even if the Earth worked the way you were saying, even if it got any interest, and even if that interest was people trusting the paper's and documentation's word, the end result would be a few murmurs, a new discovery of dark temperature inversions or whatever, and a year from now they'll be heralding it as further proof of RET. If you don't want people to post about how dealing with academia is fruitless then fix your institutions, until then it needs to be called out.
Honestly, fixing the flaws in it is to me more important than FET. People will come to FET one way or another once there's a decent system that doesn't rely on tradition as value.



Quote
I say scientists go where the evidence leads and are more knowledgeable about the evidence that refutes a flat Earth than non-scientists are.
This is nonsense. They don't know what flat earth models are, how could they possibly have any conception of what it would take to refute one?
This is the problem.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

manicminer

Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2019, 09:58:04 PM »
Quote
They don't know what flat earth models are

It seems the same applies to flat Earthers as well given how many different models there seem to be and the wide variations among them!

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #38 on: March 25, 2019, 01:11:08 AM »
Quote
They don't know what flat earth models are

It seems the same applies to flat Earthers as well given how many different models there seem to be and the wide variations among them!
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.
I'd take open-mindedness over blinkered tradition any day.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Your Path to FE
« Reply #39 on: March 25, 2019, 01:57:27 AM »
That’s absolutely untrue. The planets do not orbit the Sun. Every celestial body in our solar system orbits the center of mass. What you are trying to say is that the dynamics are treated using relative coordinates and reduced mass. Heliocentric isn’t a term that really makes sense.

Well, if we're being really pedantic, the center of mass of all the planets' orbits is still inside the Sun, so it could easily be argued that they do indeed orbit the Sun. The exception to this is Jupiter, whose orbit's center of mass is just outside the Sun. And if you want to get really, really pedantic, then every planet actually orbits the combined centers of mass of the orbits of all the planets and the Sun, which will almost always still be inside the Sun, but could actually yank several centers outside the Sun if all the planets were on one side at one time. Now, if you want to add in the effect of all the moons and stars...

Not really, because the stars will not contribute anything, even in the name of pedantry.

Maybe we could include all the comets and asteroids though?

Plus, this is only the case for specific reference frames. For a reference located in another galaxy, our solar system may appear quite different!

Being pedantic is what science is all about, except we scientists call it “precise” and “detailed.”
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior