*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 310
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2020, 02:28:01 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?

Do you compare yourself to Einstein?
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2020, 02:30:31 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?
Do you compare yourself to Einstein?
And we're two for two in dishonest comparisons meant to manipulate rather than make a point. Who wants to make it three?
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.

Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2020, 02:32:04 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?

Exactly!
I'm glad someone gets it.

Its like flat earthers have only seen a boxed iphone, maybe talked to a few people who used one or to someone who has a friend who used one....and they're calling up apple and telling everyone that they know what the circuits inside the iphone are.

When apple engineers come out and say "Hey, no, sorry - thats not right" the flat earthers claim that its all a conspiracy and someone is putting words in the mouth of every engineer that thinks they're using component X in the phone.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2020, 02:45:28 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?

Exactly!
I'm glad someone gets it.

Its like flat earthers have only seen a boxed iphone, maybe talked to a few people who used one or to someone who has a friend who used one....and they're calling up apple and telling everyone that they know what the circuits inside the iphone are.

When apple engineers come out and say "Hey, no, sorry - thats not right" the flat earthers claim that its all a conspiracy and someone is putting words in the mouth of every engineer that thinks they're using component X in the phone.
Aaaand you completely missed the point, well done.

Expertise is not some catch-all. Einstein is not appealed to as an expert in biology, but in physics, and a specific subset of that. A child would be more knowledgeable than any of history's great thinkers when it comes to something outside their field of reference, such as a facet of modern life. Physicists use the round earth model to get their results, true, so? They use observations and contort what the model predicts to allow for them, the model didn't come about in a vacuum, it was nipped and tucked until it worked as much as they could make it, up until some new discovery came along and they had to nip and tuck a little bit more. They are experts in their specific model and nothing more, just as engineers are great with telling you how to get from A to B but really don't concern themselves with why any of it works.
Am I more knowledgeable than, say, Steven Hawking? When it comes to certain topics, yes, just as I'm sure you are. For example, I'd put money on the fact that he wouldn't be able to describe any aspect of any of the major FE models. His expertise is in a set few fields, making claims as to how knowledgeable one is in comparison to him is plainly misleading becaue you are granting him an omniscience no human has.

All those people you mention know only what is within the framework they were taught. That is their expertise, that is their knowledge, if that framework is flawed then who's more knowledgeable about it is meaningless. I contest the foundation of that framework, not the petty bickering about intricacies long after the fact. Forget the geologists, physicists, they're working with fruit from the poisoned tree. What you really need to ask is if you're more knowledgeable than some bloke who thinks the elements are earth, water, wind and fire, or more knowledgeable than someone who thinks sacrificing a rabbit will cure an illness, the 'giants' upon whose shoulders all modern scientific understanding is based.
I'd say yes. We have centuries more knowledge since then, some founded on observation directly as opposed to assumptions and a flawed basis, if we used that to build a model of the world upon, used that as opposed to a blank page as our starting point, we'd have something very different to the mess we now have. The number of cracks that show when you take modern conclusions and try to tie them into established claims is staggering.

Meanwhile, to use the analogy, you're saying iphones are pseudoscience just because Einstein wouldn't have a clue how they worked. It was beyond his knowledge, but according to you admitting that is the height of arrogance. Do you call that scientific?
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.

totallackey

Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2020, 03:20:07 PM »
It all started when some of the Ancient Greek Philosophers decided that they wanted to rebel against the scriptures by showing that the Earth and various phenomena could be explained through natural processes rather than divine intervention.
I don't know if that was their motivation. If so it was misguided. Although I don't know what you mean by "the scriptures". Would the ancient Greeks have been that well versed in what we now know as the Old Testament?
Yes.

It is called the Septuagint.

Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2020, 03:40:16 PM »
It all started when some of the Ancient Greek Philosophers decided that they wanted to rebel against the scriptures by showing that the Earth and various phenomena could be explained through natural processes rather than divine intervention.
I don't know if that was their motivation. If so it was misguided. Although I don't know what you mean by "the scriptures". Would the ancient Greeks have been that well versed in what we now know as the Old Testament?
Yes.

It is called the Septuagint.
I'm sure they would have had access to some of that but the prevailing religion in ancient Greece, as far as I understand, would have been the old polytheistic one - a god of the sun, a god of the harvest, and so on. From the source Tom provides, that seems to be the thing Aristotle was railing against. And even if he was an atheist, what of it? He's just one person. The idea that science as a discipline is motivated by a rejection of God is not founded in reality. Some very notable scientists down the centuries have been Christians

https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2020, 05:50:34 PM »
I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.
Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?

Exactly!
I'm glad someone gets it.

Its like flat earthers have only seen a boxed iphone, maybe talked to a few people who used one or to someone who has a friend who used one....and they're calling up apple and telling everyone that they know what the circuits inside the iphone are.

When apple engineers come out and say "Hey, no, sorry - thats not right" the flat earthers claim that its all a conspiracy and someone is putting words in the mouth of every engineer that thinks they're using component X in the phone.
Aaaand you completely missed the point, well done.

I knew what you meant - it was just that the analogy didn't fit. Perhaps the sarcasm doesn't carry well enough on the internet.

Expertise is not some catch-all. Einstein is not appealed to as an expert in biology, but in physics, and a specific subset of that. A child would be more knowledgeable than any of history's great thinkers when it comes to something outside their field of reference, such as a facet of modern life.

So what is it that you think you've got that all those other people haven't got? A questioning nature? A lack of education?

Physicists use the round earth model to get their results, true, so? They use observations and contort what the model predicts to allow for them, the model didn't come about in a vacuum, it was nipped and tucked until it worked as much as they could make it, up until some new discovery came along and they had to nip and tuck a little bit more. They are experts in their specific model and nothing more, just as engineers are great with telling you how to get from A to B but really don't concern themselves with why any of it works.
Their jobs are based around questioning why things works - models only work if they predict reality. Do you not think that something so simple as the Earth being flat wouldn't have been picked up by enough of them by now?

Am I more knowledgeable than, say, Steven Hawking? When it comes to certain topics, yes, just as I'm sure you are. For example, I'd put money on the fact that he wouldn't be able to describe any aspect of any of the major FE models. His expertise is in a set few fields, making claims as to how knowledgeable one is in comparison to him is plainly misleading becaue you are granting him an omniscience no human has.
I'm not granting any single person omniscience - if anything thats what you're doing. The basis of the models has to be in physics, whether its FE or RE, now there are thousands of people whose job it is to test the boundaries of that, to come up with new ways to model things and test the predictions of that. No one has come out and said they discovered it was wrong. You'll claim thats because its taboo and goes against the grain but that is what these people do for a job. If they can find some definite proof with repeatable experiments to prove the earth is flat you bet some would be publishing it.

All those people you mention know only what is within the framework they were taught. That is their expertise, that is their knowledge, if that framework is flawed then who's more knowledgeable about it is meaningless. I contest the foundation of that framework, not the petty bickering about intricacies long after the fact. Forget the geologists, physicists, they're working with fruit from the poisoned tree. What you really need to ask is if you're more knowledgeable than some bloke who thinks the elements are earth, water, wind and fire, or more knowledgeable than someone who thinks sacrificing a rabbit will cure an illness, the 'giants' upon whose shoulders all modern scientific understanding is based.
I'd say yes. We have centuries more knowledge since then, some founded on observation directly as opposed to assumptions and a flawed basis, if we used that to build a model of the world upon, used that as opposed to a blank page as our starting point, we'd have something very different to the mess we now have. The number of cracks that show when you take modern conclusions and try to tie them into established claims is staggering.

Science moves on all the time - Einstein was completely against the idea of quantum mechanics, in fact a lot of people found it a tough pill to swallow. It went against everything that had been thought before but the theories could make predictions which held true. The framework changed. Round earth makes predictions that hold true.

There are some incredibly precise engineering fêtes that, in their construction, took the Earth's curvature into account. In the search for gravitational waves LIGO was constructed to bounce lasers between mirrors 4km apart several times. LIGO measures to precisions smaller than that of a proton. If asked where to place the mirrors the round earth and flat earth models would have disagreed by 1 meter. If round earth predictions hadn't held true this experiment would never have worked - the laser would have missed and some serious questions would have been raised. None of that happened though.

Meanwhile, to use the analogy, you're saying iphones are pseudoscience just because Einstein wouldn't have a clue how they worked. It was beyond his knowledge, but according to you admitting that is the height of arrogance. Do you call that scientific?

No, Einstein didn't come into my analogy. I was just saying that you're trying to tell people who spend their life studying a thing that they're wrong and you, as a hobbyist who probably watched a few youtube videos, are saying you know better. I'm not questioning whats scientific, I'm asking why you don't question yourselves more. Nothing I've read on here has given anything like definite proof and yet there are people who believe it with such fervour its basically a religion. If thats what it is then fine. God works for some people to feel like they've purpose and maybe flat earth is your thing.

My problem is that if you need to have faith to divert from what all of those experts have told you then fine but don't try to pretend to be scientific about it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2020, 07:51:20 PM »
Quote
So what is it that you think you've got that all those other people haven't got? A questioning nature? A lack of education?
It's not a matter of having, it's a matter of doing. The modern scientific community is based on building upon certain principles, it's long since ceased re-evaluating them.

Science does move on, that's the problem. It needs to look back. We know more than we did a thousand years ago, why don't we use those things we've established to analyze the starting point they had? Until that happens, every conclusion reached by the modern scientific community is tainted. That's inescapable, like it or not, the only reason I'm saying it and they're not is they have their funding to worry about. It's not at all hard to see if you're willing to contemplate the possibility, it's just that everyone taught science by the mainstream is forced to deny it.

Quote
Their jobs are based around questioning why things works - models only work if they predict reality.
You are confusing cause and effect. The model was tweaked and changed until it reflected reality. When something unexplained comes up again, they'll change the model that little bit more. They create equations with unknowns and then add whatever unknowns are required to make it fit the data they have.

Quote
I'm not questioning whats scientific, I'm asking why you don't question yourselves more. Nothing I've read on here has given anything like definite proof and yet there are people who believe it with such fervour its basically a religion.
I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm giving you  a starting point and letting you come to your own conclusions. You meanwhile are telling me to stop questioning and go along with what They say. Which of those sounds like religion, and which sounds like science, to you?
'Definite proof' betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of any scientific process, what do you expect, a convenient few lines that point to just one option and render impossible all others? You're never going to get that in any scientific field. I've noticed REers have a tendency towards 'gotcha!' arguments, which seems to be the mindset you're expecting us to have: it's a flawed one. There is no 'gotcha' in science, no disproof, just a requirement to refine the hypothesis a little more. The 'proof,' as you call it, is just the comparison of options to see which hypothesis requires more unsubstantiated assumptions to be realized, and to compare that you'll need to learn FET to roughly the same extent that you know RET. That's the only kind of 'definite proof' that exists in science, and I'm at a loss as to how you'd expect to so easily see it.
This ties into the above as well; the RE model is tweaked until it reflects reality the best they can. The issues you'll find are not contradictions, any contradiction that gets exposed would in a week be heralded as evidence for some groundbreaking new Dark String Loop Quantum Teapot theory, you can explain away anything with sufficient imagination, the problem is the sheer amount of convenience that is required in some fields, or the interactions between newer concepts and old claims that were never developed with them in mind. Those are the only ways there could conceivably be objections raised in an actual scientific setting.
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 JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #68 on: April 20, 2020, 08:29:16 PM »
You are confusing cause and effect. The model was tweaked and changed until it reflected reality. When something unexplained comes up again, they'll change the model that little bit more. They create equations with unknowns and then add whatever unknowns are required to make it fit the data they have.

Scientists see stuff and make a model about it. They see new stuff and add that to the model. You seem to be angry and upset that scientists don't always throw everything out and come up with totally new models. What is the problem with taking something that works, and making it work better? What bothers you so much?

Besides, science comes up with new things all the time. Einstein's relativity theories have no math in common with Newtons, and explain the universe in a completely new way.  Time dilation, the speed of light, mass and energy being the same thing.  Isn't that what you want?

Improve where we can, replace when we come up with something new. What exactly is your objection?



*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #69 on: April 20, 2020, 09:48:44 PM »
Scientists see stuff and make a model about it. They see new stuff and add that to the model. You seem to be angry and upset that scientists don't always throw everything out and come up with totally new models. What is the problem with taking something that works, and making it work better? What bothers you so much?
Because it puts that which came before up on a pedestal. It refines, it doesn't replace.
To take your Einstein example, what the logical approach should have been was to take that, and look back, to start from ground level with the knowledge that such phenomena are even possible, as opposed to building everything up assuming such things never happen. The knock on effects for a new discovery like that should be tremendous, instead they affect only Newton in certain circumstances and affect plenty of things looking forward, but don't alter anything looking back.
Taking something 'that works' is making far too much of an assumption, something isn't above question just because it works, more often than not it works because it was forced to work, it started life as a failure, then was tweaked and made vague enough that values could be assigned that gave it the appearance of working, with no guarantee that the underlying process is actually an accurate description of why what happens, well, happens. It's always easy to answer the what, the why is much harder to figure out, but the scientific community has taken the lazy route of equating the two.

The modern scientific community is far too concerned with building up higher and higher that it's not checking its foundations. What of alternatives? If something is wrong with our current understanding of the world, odds are it isn't going to be something small, it would be some oversight made when our technology and knowledge was far less than it is now and the issues would have gotten bigger and bigger as time went by and more was built upon that error, constantly tweaking and nipping and tucking until it gave the appearance of working, while being an unwieldy, flawed explanation that's only going to keep causing problems.
And what you call science is woefully unequipped to even acknowledge such a possibility, let alone address it.
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 BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #70 on: April 20, 2020, 09:58:53 PM »
Scientists see stuff and make a model about it. They see new stuff and add that to the model. You seem to be angry and upset that scientists don't always throw everything out and come up with totally new models. What is the problem with taking something that works, and making it work better? What bothers you so much?
Because it puts that which came before up on a pedestal. It refines, it doesn't replace.
To take your Einstein example, what the logical approach should have been was to take that, and look back, to start from ground level with the knowledge that such phenomena are even possible, as opposed to building everything up assuming such things never happen. The knock on effects for a new discovery like that should be tremendous, instead they affect only Newton in certain circumstances and affect plenty of things looking forward, but don't alter anything looking back.
Taking something 'that works' is making far too much of an assumption, something isn't above question just because it works, more often than not it works because it was forced to work, it started life as a failure, then was tweaked and made vague enough that values could be assigned that gave it the appearance of working, with no guarantee that the underlying process is actually an accurate description of why what happens, well, happens. It's always easy to answer the what, the why is much harder to figure out, but the scientific community has taken the lazy route of equating the two.

The modern scientific community is far too concerned with building up higher and higher that it's not checking its foundations. What of alternatives? If something is wrong with our current understanding of the world, odds are it isn't going to be something small, it would be some oversight made when our technology and knowledge was far less than it is now and the issues would have gotten bigger and bigger as time went by and more was built upon that error, constantly tweaking and nipping and tucking until it gave the appearance of working, while being an unwieldy, flawed explanation that's only going to keep causing problems.
And what you call science is woefully unequipped to even acknowledge such a possibility, let alone address it.

I don’t know about this. It looks like they DO look back when something happens. From what I remember, the Newton stuff still is correct and the reason why is because the Einstein stuff is small at slow speeds.

So not only did they look back, but they re-described newton as approximate and only good to do under certain cases.

Do you have any examples of scientists ignoring scientific finding that disprove these pedestal items?
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2020, 11:09:55 PM »
Scientists see stuff and make a model about it. They see new stuff and add that to the model. You seem to be angry and upset that scientists don't always throw everything out and come up with totally new models. What is the problem with taking something that works, and making it work better? What bothers you so much?
Because it puts that which came before up on a pedestal. It refines, it doesn't replace.
To take your Einstein example, what the logical approach should have been was to take that, and look back, to start from ground level with the knowledge that such phenomena are even possible, as opposed to building everything up assuming such things never happen. The knock on effects for a new discovery like that should be tremendous, instead they affect only Newton in certain circumstances and affect plenty of things looking forward, but don't alter anything looking back.

I'm still not sure what's so wrong about how science works. The knock on effects of Einsteins theories were tremendous, in the areas they affected. They didn't change say, genetics or structural engineering. It changed nearly everything about astronomy from stellar dynamics to entirely new fields like black holes.

Just what would you like to do with Newton, which is still damn useful when not dealing with extreme speeds or gravity? Throw it all away? And replace it with what?

You're still not explaining well what the problem is.  Science throws stuff away all the time. In fact right now scientists would LOVE to throw out Relativity AND Quantum Mechanics and replace it with something thats compatible, they just haven't found it yet. But they keep looking, to the tune of building massive colliders hoping to find SOME results that don't match. Thats where you are dead wrong. Scientists WANT to find new things, find data that doesn't fit. Because that means they found something NEW, and that, is why they are scientists in the first place.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10004
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2020, 02:02:46 AM »
Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

I'm not focused on Christianity. In the FE discussions we are usually talking about the Abrahamic religions in general. Many religions accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes the creation of the world and Noah.

Other religions who do not specifically associate with the Old Testament have oddly similar stories to the Old Testament stories, such as the Flood story, immoral serpents, and depict the Earth as flat. There is possibly some common genesis.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 04:30:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #73 on: April 21, 2020, 02:22:16 AM »
Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

I'm not focused on Christianity. In the FE discussions we are usually talking about the Abrahamic religions in general. Many religions accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes the creation of the world through Noah.

Other religions who do not specifically associate with the Old Testament have oddly similar stories to the Old Testament stories, such as the Flood story, immoral serpents, and depict the Earth as flat. There is possibly some common genesis.

From what I can tell, the argument from design has 3 things: irreducible complexity, arguments of fine tuning, arguments from beauty.

Since none of them can make a science claim, the design idea isn’t scientific.

What am I missing here?
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10004
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2020, 02:37:47 AM »
Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

I'm not focused on Christianity. In the FE discussions we are usually talking about the Abrahamic religions in general. Many religions accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes the creation of the world through Noah.

Other religions who do not specifically associate with the Old Testament have oddly similar stories to the Old Testament stories, such as the Flood story, immoral serpents, and depict the Earth as flat. There is possibly some common genesis.

From what I can tell, the argument from design has 3 things: irreducible complexity, arguments of fine tuning, arguments from beauty.

Since none of them can make a science claim, the design idea isn’t scientific.

What am I missing here?

Science claims that ID is not testable. Neither is any alternative claim. One cannot experiment on the past. One can only observe and interpret.

Take Max Plank's quote “Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination.”

If we stick to that as the absolute rule for science and knowledge, and avoid arguing by human 'logic', what do we really and truly know? Not much.

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #75 on: April 21, 2020, 03:58:41 AM »
Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

I'm not focused on Christianity. In the FE discussions we are usually talking about the Abrahamic religions in general. Many religions accept the Old Testament. The Old Testament includes the creation of the world through Noah.

Other religions who do not specifically associate with the Old Testament have oddly similar stories to the Old Testament stories, such as the Flood story, immoral serpents, and depict the Earth as flat. There is possibly some common genesis.

From what I can tell, the argument from design has 3 things: irreducible complexity, arguments of fine tuning, arguments from beauty.

Since none of them can make a science claim, the design idea isn’t scientific.

What am I missing here?

Science claims that ID is not testable. Neither is any alternative claim. One cannot experiment on the past. One can only observe and interpret.

Take Max Plank's quote “Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination.”

If we stick to that as the absolute rule for science and knowledge, and avoid arguing by human 'logic', what do we really and truly know? Not much.

I’m no biologist, but haven’t they observed speciation in the laboratory? Can’t anyone show natural selection that makes preferred qualities in their own vegetable gardens? I think I’m just trying to understand your position.

Anyway, so what I’m hearing you say next is that sticking to a rule and avoiding logic means we don’t really know anything. So, does this include that we don’t know intelligent design or the shape of the Earth too?

I mean, isn’t every experiment thought of first with imagination? And even if plank is right, he didn’t actually say that experiments can only be done to test the present.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 04:04:27 AM by BRrollin »
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #76 on: April 21, 2020, 09:05:47 AM »
Taking something 'that works' is making far too much of an assumption, something isn't above question just because it works, more often than not it works because it was forced to work, it started life as a failure, then was tweaked and made vague enough that values could be assigned that gave it the appearance of working, with no guarantee that the underlying process is actually an accurate description of why what happens, well, happens. It's always easy to answer the what, the why is much harder to figure out, but the scientific community has taken the lazy route of equating the two.

I'd say a good example of that is the geocentric model.
The heliocentric model was opposed for a long time because it was so revolutionary, the earth being at the centre of everything was so ingrained. Many attempts were made to tweak the geocentric model to make it fit observations. Ultimately though, the heliocentric model won out. It took a long time but ultimately science will replace models if new ones come along which fit observations. I don't think in this day and age it would take as long as it did in that case because of better communication and collaboration.

Ultimately, if a model has been demonstrably working for centuries it's going to take some pretty compelling evidence to replace it.
Einstein's work did revolutionise our understanding of certain things and you could argue that it has replaced Newtonian mechanics as our best understanding of the way things work. But the Relativistic effects are so small in normal circumstances that they don't need to be considered. When it comes to building a GPS system though with the speeds those satellites are going at, it does need to be accounted for, and it is.

The method of testing hypothesis, building models and tweaking them has demonstrably worked down the centuries, very occasionally a model may need to be completely replaced, and it has been at times, but if a model is making predictions which conform to reality, if it's useful then it's going to be retained. The geocentric model was a useful model and did a pretty good job for centuries. It was only when telescopes got good enough for people to make detailed observations of things like planets that problems were discovered. The end result of that was the entire model being replaced when it was realised to be wrong.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #77 on: April 21, 2020, 03:50:52 PM »
Quote
Just what would you like to do with Newton, which is still damn useful when not dealing with extreme speeds or gravity? Throw it all away? And replace it with what?

You're still not explaining well what the problem is.  Science throws stuff away all the time. In fact right now scientists would LOVE to throw out Relativity AND Quantum Mechanics and replace it with something thats compatible, they just haven't found it yet. But they keep looking, to the tune of building massive colliders hoping to find SOME results that don't match. Thats where you are dead wrong. Scientists WANT to find new things, find data that doesn't fit. Because that means they found something NEW, and that, is why they are scientists in the first place.

You're still doing it. You're holding the current system up and expecting me to answer in terms of it. I'm saying no, I'm saying that's the flawed approach. By rights there should be way more than one mainstream, all developed independently, held to the same standard of needing to provide accurate explanations, and allowed to develop to an equivalent standard rather than being rejected simply because a younger model would lack depth. Start from scratch using knowledge, possibilities and conclusions that we have come to using greater technology. Don't throw anything away, but be prepared to build other possibilities. There should be multiple mainstreams, all functional by tweaking and observation, but all with different basic principles. That at least would allow for error. And when there's a new discovery that would alter any starting point, make a new model based on that. The one held as true would be the one that wins an honest comparison to see which requires the most special pleading, but the door would always be open for another to take the reins. Science does technically do this, but on such a piddlingly small scale. It's verboten to question anything 'established,' and I'm saying that's wrong, open the doors to consider far more, put whole models to the test as opposed to tiny side elements on the frontier, that would at least be intellectually honest.
Would it be slower? Yes, absolutely, but speed isn't what matters. Accuracy and truth is.

Science isn't looking to throw out relativity or QT, it's looking to give it the Newton treatment, "Well it works so we'll say it holds in this situation, but not this one..." refining and adding, not replacing.

That's the problem. The scientific community just isn't equipped to deal with a long-held flaw. Even the examples you bring up of things that might get tweaked are more recent, comparatively speaking, developments. If a flaw gets brought up with something like, say, gravity, they're just going to assume the theory was right and invent, say, dark matter or some equivalent to make it work, rather than go back and rethink the starting point. And why? Because almost everything has been built on that starting point. The scientific community has become a top-heavy unwieldy mess, and its refusal to rethink the basics means all that's keeping it going is a hope, prayer and a whole heap of denial.







Quote
Ultimately though, the heliocentric model won out. It took a long time but ultimately science will replace models if new ones come along which fit observations. I don't think in this day and age it would take as long as it did in that case because of better communication and collaboration.

Ultimately, if a model has been demonstrably working for centuries it's going to take some pretty compelling evidence to replace it.
That's a very flawed comparison. Flaws with the geocentric model, under RET, had been identified for ages, there was no good explanation for epicycles, it was merely 'we need this to happen, so it does.' The problem wasn't equipment, the problem was a theocracy. It isn't a sound basis for comparison because nowadays, at least internally, the scientific community lacks those specific pressures. The problem is that a 'new model that fits observations' is never going to happen because of the sheer amount of knowledge we now have compared to then, a new model that fits observations in even half the detail RET does is going to take decades to develop. That's no measure of truth, that just means math takes a while to develop, models time to put together, and the mainstream has been nipped and tucked and tweaked to force it in line with those experiments. Creating another that the mainstream would be willing to even consider is not going to happen regardless of what model is true.
RET hasn't demonstrably been working for centuries. It's run into problem after problem, it's just that they solved those problems internally as opposed to seeing what alternatives could do, and the longer that goes on, the harder it's going to be to make them look at anything outside their comfort zone. If a flaw in it gets pointed out tomorrow, we're a week away from it being heralded as evidence of some new facet of RET. That's how the community works now. There's no room to question the principles.
And that's where the comparison to Galileo comes in. Heliocentrism required fighting against the religiously enforced geocentric worldview to be accepted, but at least there was an enemy to disprove. Now the scientific community has taken on the same religious mindset when it comes to venerating those that came before, it is its own theocracy, and an enemy within cannot be fought so easily.

That's where we enter into 'tear it all down' territory. The modern scientific community has become so poisoned I honestly don't know how it can be fixed.
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 ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #78 on: April 21, 2020, 04:54:42 PM »
The point in science is simply to observe and understand. What you describe as "mainstream" is simply what works best. You are welcome to come up with equations and such that work better and if they do work better then it will replace "mainstream". That's the whole point. Nothing is really set in stone with science and anything can be challenged, but the thing challenging it needs to be better.

You think alternatives to how we work with gravity should exist? Putting rockets into orbit etc, make one. Until someone finds a better way of course things will stay the same. This is the reason flat earth isn't "mainstream". A globe model functions much better with observation and reality. Go ahead and try to put anything into orbit assuming a flat earth. Go ahead and find a better explanation than evolution. Anything you come up with needs to better describe reality. We cannot have more than one mainstream scientific theory unless they both equally work.

Nothing is stopping you from starting from scratch and providing evidence to back up your claims and putting out a paper to be peer reviewed. 
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Read the FAQ and still: why?
« Reply #79 on: April 21, 2020, 04:57:48 PM »
Science isn't looking to throw out relativity or QT, it's looking to give it the Newton treatment, "Well it works so we'll say it holds in this situation, but not this one..." refining and adding, not replacing.

You keep describing how science works like it's a bad thing. You keep insisting science is flawed and broken because it doesn't come up with a dozen alternative theories to Newton.

You need to understand that is exactly what science is trying to do. There are not a dozen competing theories for how planets orbits behave not because nobody wants to discover them, but because we have tried and nothing else WORKS. You don't think there are people working on that right now?

You have to understand that if tomorrow someone came up with equations that work as well as Newton but on an entirely different principle, it would cause a massive storm of excitement. Everyone would be studying it, trying to figure out how to use it, how to create experiments to explore it, how it could lead to new physics and discoveries. it would be massive, international news. You seem to think it would be swept under the rug because 'science hates new things'. That's garbage.

You have repeated yourself a dozen times now, saying science is bad because Newton is still used. Well, what do you propose we use instead? It WORKS. You still haven't said what you expect science to DO with that 'old' theory. Just throw it out and not use anything at all?