The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TheScientist on September 23, 2019, 07:45:32 PM
-
In your FE Wiki page about astronomy you seem to (conveniently) overlook to mention that observation is very much part of the scientific method as well. The links below are just a few independent examples of many others I could list which mention the importance of observation in the scientific method.
Astronomers are expert observers in their field and if anything what you seemingly interpret as a limitation for astronomers in not being able directly interact with their field of study, I think that makes it even more a key aspect of true science. Very often the results of observations that have been made with telescopes directly can be explored further by building specialist equipment in carefully designed laboratory experiments.
So I think to suggest that astronomy is a 'pseudoscience' is not justified.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method
https://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method
-
All of your links say that the observation and hypothesis should be tested.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-method
scientific method
WORD ORIGIN
noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
https://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method
What is the Scientific Method?
- Formulate hypothesis
- Collect data
- Test hypotheses
- Conclude
-
Testing is at the heart of science. You design a hypothesis, gather data through observation, experiment or a combination of both to test that hypothesis and then gather more data using further observation or experiment whichever is more relevant and see if that continues to agree with the hypothesis. Not all data will of course provide a perfect fit. Nothing ever does. The more relevant question is whether such data lies within accepted tolerances for error. If it doesn't we must assess whether the hypothesis needs modifying or whether errors were made in the way the data was collected or recorded. The ancient Greeks identified that the Sun was more distant than the Moon and that the Earth was larger than the Moon through simple observation and deduction. They got their basic conclusions right but their proportions wrong compared to modern values. For the time I don't think they did too badly.
Science is the process of develping theories and models which are based on the results of data analysis. Whether that data is gathered through experiments or observation does not affect its validity of being 'scientific' data. It's what you do with the data that makes it science as well as how that data was obtained. Some aspects of science for example astronomy are more observation based, while others are more experimentally based. Astronomy covers both because astronomy is related to many paths of science. A particle accelerator carries out experiments which examine what conditions were like we think in the very early history of the Universe. Equally telescopes observe the far distant reaches of the Universe to see if the predictions match those conditions.
Very few aspects of modern astronomy seem to support your belief that the Earth is flat. Perhaps that is the main or only reason why astronomy is not popular among flat Earth believers. Of course it is easy to make interpretations of the real world seem to fit an assertion. You can describe the same thing in many different ways by taking into account or ignoring the fine details. But one thing is for sure, in the end the truth will always come out in the wash.
-
https://earthsky.org/human-world/today-in-science-discovery-of-neptune
I feel this is especially appropriate, given that today is the anniversary of it's discovery. Mathematics and Newton's theory used to produce a testable hypothesis about the location of a then-unknown planet beyond Uranus. A prediction that turned out to be accurate.
-
https://earthsky.org/human-world/today-in-science-discovery-of-neptune
I feel this is especially appropriate, given that today is the anniversary of it's discovery. Mathematics and Newton's theory used to produce a testable hypothesis about the location of a then-unknown planet beyond Uranus. A prediction that turned out to be accurate.
Your link says that it was discovered by luck.
Ironically, as it turns out, both Le Verrier and Adams had been very lucky. Their predictions indicated Neptune’s distance correctly around 1840-1850. Had they made their calculations at another time, both predicted positions would have been off. Their calculations would have predicted the planet’s position only 165 years later or earlier, since Neptune takes 165 years to orbit once around the sun.
-
Luck in their timing, sure. But the calculations based on the pertubations in Uranus' orbit were sound, and were based on Newton's theory of gravitation. It was clear that, assuming Newton was right, there was SOMETHING there affecting Uranus' orbit. What Adams and La Verriere got wrong was essentially the size of the orbit, not the existence of the planet itself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
-
There is an element of luck in most things Tom. Do you take the view that luck is somehow unscientific or a sign of weakness then?
Many disoveries of comets, asteroids and supernovae in other galaxies happen as a consequence of luck. Yet observations of the brightness curves and spectral lines in Type 1a supernovae in other galaxies can be used as a distance indicator and to measure the expansion velocity of the supernova and redshift of the galaxy. That is surely an example of science in action?
-
The Discovery of Neptune Wikipedia page that was posted suggests that people involved were not being entirely honest:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
In an interview in 2003, historian Nicholas Kollerstrom concluded that Adams's claim to Neptune was far weaker than had been suggested, as he had vacillated repeatedly over the planet's exact location, with estimates ranging across 20 degrees of arc. Airy's role as the hidebound superior willfully ignoring the upstart young intellect was, according to Kollerstrom, largely constructed after the planet was found, in order to boost Adams's, and therefore Britain's, credit for the discovery.
Read the following (https://books.google.com/books?id=ONX3Pr1M-D8C&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false) by astronomer Sears C. Walker:
If we admit for the moment that my views are correct, then LeVerrier's announcement of March 29th is in perfect accordance with that of Professor Peirce of the 16th of the same month, viz. that the present visible planet Neptune is not the mathematical planet to which theory had directed the telescope. None of its elements conform to the theoretical limits. Nor does it perform the functions on which alone its existence was predicted, viz. those of removing that opprobrium of astronomers, the unexplained perturbations of Uranus.
We have it on the authority of Professor Peirce that if we ascribe to Neptune a mass of three-fourths of the amount predicted by LeVerrier, it will have the best possible effect in reducing the residual perturbations of Uranus below their former value; but will nevertheless leave them on the average two-thirds as great as before.
It is indeed remarkable that the two distinguished European astronomers, LeVerrier and Adams, should, by a wrong hypothesis, have been led to a right conclusion respecting the actual position of a planet in the heavens. It required for their success a compensation of errors. The unforeseen error of sixty years in their assumed period was compensated by the other unforeseen error of their assumed office of the planet. If both of them had committed only one theoretical error, (not then, but now believed to be such,) they would, according to Prof. Peirce's computations, have agreed in pointing the telescope in the wrong direction, and Neptune might have been unknown for years to come.
http://www.helas.gr/conf/2011/posters/S_5/dallas.pdf
Airy seems to be the only scientist involved in the discovery that has thoughts of a possible modification of Newtonian gravity to explain the irregular movement of Uranus. But nowhere in his memoire is there a statement that the discovery of Neptune is a test, let alone a critical one, of the law of gravitation. It was apparent shortly after the discovery that luck played its part in the easy discovery of Neptune. The whole process is extremely error prone, in both the calculations and the observations, so if the planet were not discovered in the circumstances of 1846, this would not be a refutation of Newtonian gravity, but simply a refutation of the auxiliary prepositions.
Ah, so if it wasn't discovered at all it means nothing about gravity, but if something is sorta-kinda discovered somewhere, it's an irrefutable proof of gravity. The science of astronomy at its finest.
-
In your FE Wiki page about astronomy you seem to (conveniently) overlook to mention that observation is very much part of the scientific method as well. The links below are just a few independent examples of many others I could list which mention the importance of observation in the scientific method.
Astronomers are expert observers in their field and if anything what you seemingly interpret as a limitation for astronomers in not being able directly interact with their field of study, I think that makes it even more a key aspect of true science. Very often the results of observations that have been made with telescopes directly can be explored further by building specialist equipment in carefully designed laboratory experiments.
So I think to suggest that astronomy is a 'pseudoscience' is not justified.
You may be right but I also believe there is a point in comparing things like chemistry, biology, and physics in which you can experiment directly on things.
I believe that RE astronomy is more like a math than a science. Measuring and calculating cycles, positions, etc.
-
I believe that RE astronomy is more like a math than a science. Measuring and calculating cycles, positions, etc.
Math is applicable to many aspects of science. With a notable exception to biology I understand but I have never really studied biology in any great detail. So astronomy is certainly a subject area that math can be applied to but that doesn't make it any less a science. The purpose of science is to explore the mechanics of nature and the Universe and so I would have said that makes astronomy not only a very core science but one of the oldest as well.
As I inferred before, astronomy is a subject that asks questions about the nature of the Universe beyond Earth. Many discoveries that astronomy has made through its history, not just over the last century tend to go against what many flat Earth believers contend the Universe to be like. If that is true I don't find it in the least bit surprising that flat Earther have a rather dismissive or evasive attitude towards it. Tom for example I notice has been quick to lock on to some historically conflicting accounts about the circumstances relating to the discovery of Neptune. My answer to that would be so what? Neptune was discovered, exists and is now a well established member of the solar system. I have seen it many times.
Related to Neptune Tom also talks about luck. Well lets use another word associated with luck; chance. I would contend that there was a large element of chance associated with the discovery of Uranus and Pluto as well. More so in the case of Uranus because at the time its discoverer wasn't actually looking for a planet. Rather he was mapping the stars of the Milky Way. That doesn't in my opinion take away from the significance of the discovery of those planets. Rather it represents an excellent example of the skills of the observers involved. William Herschel in the case of Uranus and Clyde Tombaugh in the case of Pluto. It's true that we cannot put our little finger on a spot in the sky and say 'I predict we will find a new and unknown planet right there'. Nevertheless if we can get a pretty good idea of the region of sky. Then its just a case of isolating a single moving dot in amongst a heck of a lot of others around it which aren't moving. These days we have a technique called plate solving (anyone heard of it?) in which a large number of identical star fields can be compared quickly and computer software is able to distinguish anything that is moving between the stars and draw our attention to it.
-
If it's so loosey-goosy then how do we know it's gravity? Kepler thought that the solar system was held together with some sort of magnetism, as an example.
I find the fact that current dogma points to the Neptune saga as a proof of gravity as revealing indication that the bodies in the solar system cannot actually be predicted with gravity. Usually we are told that there is an n-body simulation of the solar system which accurately predicts celestial events. Surely a proof of gravity would simply be that the position of Mars or any body can be predicted on a regular basis, and that accurate predictions are made every day, rather than championing a questionable event from 1846 as their celestial proof of gravity.
The choice of proofs which are being used sort of suggests that what the professors and scientists are saying in this article is true: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
-
First, I'd like to correct myself: La Verrier and Adams' calculations WERE wrong. Turns out they had used something called Bode's Law to predict the position of the planet Neptune.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law
Problem was, Neptune didn't follow this law, as it turns out that it's much closer to the sun than the law predicted. This was apparently the first planet to do so, which is a big part of why Bode's Law has been superseded today.
So, both La Verrier and Adams started off on the wrong foot, and their calculations, which were based on this hypothetical position of Neptune, were thrown off as a result. The planet WAS basically found by pure luck.
But does that invalidate the prediction made using the theory of universal gravitation? I don't think it does. Yes, they got the position wrong. Yes, it could very well have been pure luck that the planet happened to be in the neighborhood. But it was still based on the hypothesis that, if Newton was correct, there should be a large mass out there perturbing Uranus' orbit. And, wouldn't you know it, there it was.
It's interesting that you bring up Walker. I read that article from start to finish, and he mentioned a fellow named Lalande quite a bit, and it turns out Lalande had actually spotted neptune in 1795, and didn't realize it. He used this, along with other possible prediscovery sightings , and observational data gathered in the 9 or so months of observation of the planet Neptune to help create a more accurate model of Neptune and it's orbit.
Claims of dishonesty with Adams. You can say that it appears to be dishonesty, but Adams was described as 'Diffident', or lacking in self confidence. And his predictions of Neptunes position certainly seem to support that, as he was jumping all over the place. So, you say 'Dishonest', I say, 'a man who couldn't make his calculations fit with reality and kept changing it until he could'.
Also, he openly stated that he though La Verriere deserved the credit and that he wasn't sore about. Doesn't sound like someone dishonest to me.
Interestingly, it was La Verriere that first noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn't quite line up with Newtonian mechanics. That's how we got to the whole 'planet Vulkan' bit, until general relativity managed to explain Mercury's orbit. Can't wait for Tom to jump on THAT tidbit.
Science advances due to it's failures as much as it's successes. Neptune showed us Bode's law was more like a suggestion, and Mercury showed us we had an incomplete picture of gravity.
Flat Earth can't even agree on a goddamn map.
Which one do you expect I should take seriously?
-
Kepler thought that the solar system was held together with some sort of magnetism, as an example.
Tom, why do you even bring this up? You know that at the time of Kepler the nature of magnetism was known. Magnetism is a force that follows the inverse square law. Kepler was bright enough to see the behavior he observed in planetary obits followed from a force that behaved kind of like magnetism. It was another few decades before Newton formalized the description of an non-polar force that made more sense.
I guess you imagine you are brighter than Kepler and Newton as you are fond of 'thrashing' them at every opportunity, yet you (nor anyone else, for that matter) can't come up with a single predictive model for the FE.
-
Given all we know about the Solar System now, it is coming to something when there are still a group of people about who seriously believe that the Earth is flat with all other other planets, Moon and Sun circling around above it. Evidence for that? I mean real, observable evidence?
-
Kepler thought that the solar system was held together with some sort of magnetism, as an example.
Tom, why do you even bring this up? You know that at the time of Kepler the nature of magnetism was known. Magnetism is a force that follows the inverse square law. Kepler was bright enough to see the behavior he observed in planetary obits followed from a force that behaved kind of like magnetism. It was another few decades before Newton formalized the description of an non-polar force that made more sense.
I guess you imagine you are brighter than Kepler and Newton as you are fond of 'thrashing' them at every opportunity, yet you (nor anyone else, for that matter) can't come up with a single predictive model for the FE.
Prediction of FE model
1. Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
Same survey applied to GE model will result in degrees of latitude of equal length - perfect sphere model .
Or in newtons gravitational oblate sphere model , degrees of latitude will lengthen northward.
Simple test carried out in the 1670s , by the French Academy of Sciences to determine the shape of earth and test Newtons theory of gravity .
We are not taught about this at school or university . Says alot about the mainstream controlled science . Research it please. Free your mind .
-
1. Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
What do you mean exactly by degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole?
1. Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
So I am standing at the north pole. I look directly up towards the zenith and I notice Polaris situated less than a degree away from the true zenith. I now move along any line of longitude until I reach the 80N latitude line and I notice that Polaris has now moved 10 away from the zenith. I continue my journey until I reach the 70N latitude line and I notice that Polaris is now 20 degrees away from the zenith. The pattern continues until I reach the equator, by which time Polaris is now sitting on the horizon. At all times the elevation of Polaris above the horizon is consistent with my latitude.
Are you saying that the distance I move over the Earths surface to reach different line of latitude away from the NP varies with my distance from it? If so then be assured that you are wrong. If you measure the distance over land between the lines of latitude you will find it is always equal. Exactly what you would expect if the Earth were spherical. That's because the lines of latitude divide the surface of the Earth into 360 equal parts, just as a circle is divided into 360 equal parts.
-
Congrats . You are now beginning to understand how latitude has been measured for hundreds of years .
And no . The survey carried out by a real scientific body will show you how latitude varies with distance.
And you can't assure me of anything .
-
Congrats . You are now beginning to understand how latitude has been measured for hundreds of years .
Well thank you.... I'm so glad you are putting me right after all these years when I though I understood things so well. Where were you when I was at school? I could have done so much better if you had been my teacher!
And yes... I am being very facetious :-)
Where did this comment come from anyway? Because the description I just provided about latitude goes against what you are insisting is true. You are clearly suffering from selective ignorance in that you ignore everything that is said which explains why your belief/faith or whatever it is that convinces you that the Earth is flat is wrong. Instead, flat Earthers bring in their own interpretation of physics in a very selective way in order to make observations fit in with their belief. There is actually a very simple observation that you can make which demonstrates very clearly that flat Earth models are wrong. No equipment needed, just a little bit of logical reasoning. I will leave you to consider what that observation might be.
It's a bit like the difference between looking and seeing. The world around us looks the same to everyone but our brains can choose to see anything we want to. You see a flat horizon all around you and that is enough to convince you that the Earth is flat because your assertion that the Earth is flat tells you that is what you will see. So what you see is what is true (to you) in effect. You don't consider if other possibilities would lead you to the same observation. If you limit your beliefs purely to what you can see directly then you are doomed to failure.
However I take things a stage further than you and think to myself..hang on, if the Earth was a sphere then the amount of curvature in every direction is the same. Given my height above the surface of about 2m then I will only see a very limited amount of the whole surface area at any one time. Not enough to see any curvature directly so I would expect to see a level horizon in all directions just as you do. In fact, if the Earth wasn't a sphere then you wouldn't see a clear and distinct horizon at all.
Two visual interpretations of the same thing. Yours is based purely on what you want to believe is true, mine is based on conceptual reasoning, backed up by my modern knowledge of the physical world. All your claims are that and nothing more.
-
Prediction of FE model
1. Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
No, this is not the way things work. The distance between lines of latitude is pretty constant and the angular change is constant. I have verified this myself using my equatorial mount telescope and the fact that I have traveled to different latitudes to make observations. You can verify this yourself if you did any actual research instead of googling up nonsense.
Simple test carried out in the 1670s , by the French Academy of Sciences to determine the shape of earth and test Newtons theory of gravity .
Do you have a link to any documentation regarding this survey?
We are not taught about this at school or university .
Well, of course not.
Research it please. Free your mind .
I have. If you don't have access to a portable equatorial mount telescope then just google how to set one up.
[space period? What is it with flat earther's putting spaces before punctuation marks?]
-
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
Ok lets dissect that statement bit by bit. I stand in my garden and I look north. I see the Pole Star sitting pretty close to the S-N meridian line at an elevation of 51.5 degrees. From that I conclude that I am at a latitude of 51.5N and accordingly I set the latitude of my equatorial mount to 51.5N. I look through the polar scope and sure enough I see the Pole Star pretty close to the cross in the centre which marks the NCP. I set the Pole Star on the Polaris circle centred on the NCP and according to the position angle of Polaris that the Polar204 utility tells me is correct for the time I am observing.
I then travel northwards to 60N and follow exactly the same routine again and everything works fine. I continue on to 70N, 80N and finally 90N at which point my equatorial mount has now essentially become an Alt-Azimuth mount because the polar axis is now vertical with respect to the ground. Does all that make sense BillO?
I note that the latitude scale on my mount has 90 degrees marked out in a right angle. That means that each degree is of equal size to correspond to the equal distance N or S I travel between each line of latitude on Earth. If the lines of latitude on Earth were different distances apart then the latitude scale on my mount would need to be set to allow for this.
In short there is no evidence of any shortening of distance between lines of latitude as you approach the North Pole. So if Somerled has got an equatorial mount where the latitude scale is marked up differently to everyone elses to allow for what he thinks is true then it is no wonder he is getting confused!
-
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
Ok lets dissect that statement bit by bit. I stand in my garden and I look north. I see the Pole Star sitting pretty close to the S-N meridian line at an elevation of 51.5 degrees. From that I conclude that I am at a latitude of 51.5N and accordingly I set the latitude of my equatorial mount to 51.5N. I look through the polar scope and sure enough I see the Pole Star pretty close to the cross in the centre which marks the NCP. I set the Pole Star on the Polaris circle centred on the NCP and according to the position angle of Polaris that the Polar204 utility tells me is correct for the time I am observing.
I then travel northwards to 60N and follow exactly the same routine again and everything works fine. I continue on to 70N, 80N and finally 90N at which point my equatorial mount has now essentially become an Alt-Azimuth mount because the polar axis is now vertical with respect to the ground. Does all that make sense BillO?
Yes, you have it right.
-
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
In short there is no evidence of any shortening of distance between lines of latitude as you approach the North Pole. So if Somerled has got an equatorial mount where the latitude scale is marked up differently to everyone elses to allow for what he thinks is true then it is no wonder he is getting confused!
The great astronomer Giovanni Cassini , of the French Academy of Sciences , carried out this scientific survey across 8 degrees of latitude S to N in France in the 1670 's . Latitude decreased in length to the North by a factor of 1/800 . That's the closest thing to scientific proof of the shape of earth that I can find .
Look up that evidence .
-
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
In short there is no evidence of any shortening of distance between lines of latitude as you approach the North Pole. So if Somerled has got an equatorial mount where the latitude scale is marked up differently to everyone elses to allow for what he thinks is true then it is no wonder he is getting confused!
The great astronomer Giovanni Cassini , of the French Academy of Sciences , carried out this scientific survey across 8 degrees of latitude S to N in France in the 1670 's . Latitude decreased in length to the North by a factor of 1/800 . That's the closest thing to scientific proof of the shape of earth that I can find .
Look up that evidence .
And presumably you believe that is evidence for a flat earth?
Why, then, is that not the prevailing scientific view currently?
The trouble with you is you're cherry picking evidence which you think backs up your agenda and ignoring any which does not.
-
Cherrypicking is certainly in evidence here. So is dismissing any evidence that suggests his agenda might be wrong or at best a little out of date.
He simply wants to believe a particular point of view so any and all evidence that suggests that point of view is inaccurate must be wrong or inaccurate.
-
The great astronomer Giovanni Cassini , of the French Academy of Sciences , carried out this scientific survey across 8 degrees of latitude S to N in France in the 1670 's . Latitude decreased in length to the North by a factor of 1/800 . That's the closest thing to scientific proof of the shape of earth that I can find .
Really? By a factor of 1/800?
I'm astounded you think this would be any where near enough to account for the earth being flat. You did not do any research or calculations on this, did you? What Cassini actually measured was the fact that the earth is slightly oblate.
The variance in the spacing of lines of latitude varies by more than 1% from pole to equator, so yeah, taking into account the accuracy of Mr. Cassini's 17th century instruments and not knowing exactly where these measurements were taken, it does not surprise me at all that he recorded and approximate .1% variation over 8 degrees. I'd love to see his quoted error in these observations. Again, I ask that you provide a link to this study, or at least search criteria that would bring up some documentation regarding it.
-
The experiment that Somerled is referring to is one which confirmed that the shape of the Earth is ellipsoid. Considering the equipment available to him I think he did very well. It strikes me as a little strange that someone who claims to be a flat Earth believer should attach so much importance to an experimemt which actually confirmed by experiment that it isn't flat.
Modern measurements bring the difference between the polar and equatorial diameters to be less than 43km so if you divide that difference around the whole surface, the divisions between latitude lines is very nearly equal.
-
Modern measurements bring the difference between the polar and equatorial diameters to be less than 43km so if you divide that difference around the whole surface, the divisions between latitude lines is very nearly equal.
I get what you're saying, but it's really not that simple. Have a quick look at the wikipedia article on latitude. It's pretty good.
Distance between latitudes:
At or near the poles - 110.57km
At or near the equator - 111.70km
Total variance: 1.13km or 1.02% (+/- 0.01%) or about 12.5m of change in variance per degree, but this is not consistent throughout the arc being worst near the 45 degree point. (right about where France is)
But we're arguing minutia at this point. My fault.
-
Yes if you want to split the thinnest of hairs then we can talk about a very slight variation between pole and equator that is caused by the Earths oblateness. The oblateness is caused by the Earths rotation which causes night and day.. However Somerled seems to need convincing about the rotation of the Earth but I'm not prepared to go into further discussion about that.
-
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .
In short there is no evidence of any shortening of distance between lines of latitude as you approach the North Pole. So if Somerled has got an equatorial mount where the latitude scale is marked up differently to everyone elses to allow for what he thinks is true then it is no wonder he is getting confused!
The great astronomer Giovanni Cassini , of the French Academy of Sciences , carried out this scientific survey across 8 degrees of latitude S to N in France in the 1670 's . Latitude decreased in length to the North by a factor of 1/800 . That's the closest thing to scientific proof of the shape of earth that I can find .
Look up that evidence .
Nothing about flatness. All about spheroids:
"Jacques Cassini later continued Picard's arc (Paris meridian arc) northward to Dunkirk and southward to the Spanish border. Cassini divided the measured arc into two parts, one northward from Paris, another southward. When he computed the length of a degree from both chains, he found that the length of one degree of latitude in the northern part of the chain was shorter than that in the southern part (see illustration).
Cassini's ellipsoid; Huygens' theoretical ellipsoid
This result, if correct, meant that the earth was not a sphere, but a prolate spheroid (taller than wide)."
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/CASSINIS%27_ELLIPSOID%3B_HUYGEN%27S_THEORETICAL_ELLIPSOID.GIF)
Jacques was Giovanni’s son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Europe
-
Look up that evidence .
Nothing about flatness. All about spheroids:
"Jacques Cassini later continued Picard's arc (Paris meridian arc) northward to Dunkirk and southward to the Spanish border. Cassini divided the measured arc into two parts, one northward from Paris, another southward. When he computed the length of a degree from both chains, he found that the length of one degree of latitude in the northern part of the chain was shorter than that in the southern part (see illustration).
Cassini's ellipsoid; Huygens' theoretical ellipsoid
This result, if correct, meant that the earth was not a sphere, but a prolate spheroid (taller than wide)."
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/CASSINIS%27_ELLIPSOID%3B_HUYGEN%27S_THEORETICAL_ELLIPSOID.GIF)
Jacques was Giovanni’s son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Europe
[/quote]
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to research and point out the prolate sphere model which is based on Cassinis survey which brought the age of "enlightenment " .
Giovanni Cassini drew out a map of the known world based on his results and those of other astronomers who corroborated his findings , centred on the N pole . Drawn as a 24 foot map on the floor of the observatory at The French Academy , if I recall . Terrestial planisphere .
The first mention of prolate sphere was put forward in 1718 - after G. Cassinis death (1712) . Still researching this though .
That uniform shortening of latitude , 1/800 , shortening Northward doesn't fit the prolate model either , although I will have to check that out and stand for correction . That ratio fits the flat earth model with measurable distance to the pole star .
Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .
-
Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .
So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?
-
Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .
So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?
No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias . Perhaps they didn't have a need to test , they did account for perspective in their building - and the fact that their great buildings were always built
with plumb line , set square and level . All parallel vertically too . Where is there any bias ?
Eratosthenes alleged experiment could be interpreted two ways - he assumed one way based on an assumption only . That is bias . He could have checked his conclusion easy enough - maybe he did but since none of his works have survived we don't know, and the main source for his "experiment" is a book written sometime between 200bc to 200ad by a Greek astronomer , Cleomedes , whom we nothing about - not even when or where he was born .
The main part of Cleomedes' book was an attack on the Epicurean philosophy - which espoused flat earth.
Giovanni Cassini's survey proved Newton's theories to be bunkum . After he , and his son , had died , the field was clear to ignore these findings and advance the solar system model. Regarded as accepted about 1770s if I recall correctly .
An interesting book , which covers quite well the controversy is "Full Meridian of Glory" . Gives a good outline of Maupertuis' flawed 1734 survey of less than one degree which is touted as proof of the oblate Newtonian sphere . Written by an astronomer as well , P Murdin - .not a FEr .
-
Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .
So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?
No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias .
We have day to day observations now. Just this morning I had a meeting and used GPS to get there. Unless you are going to tell me GPS uses balloons or towers?
-
Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .
So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?
No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias . Perhaps they didn't have a need to test , they did account for perspective in their building - and the fact that their great buildings were always built
with plumb line , set square and level . All parallel vertically too . Where is there any bias ?
Eratosthenes alleged experiment could be interpreted two ways - he assumed one way based on an assumption only . That is bias . He could have checked his conclusion easy enough - maybe he did but since none of his works have survived we don't know, and the main source for his "experiment" is a book written sometime between 200bc to 200ad by a Greek astronomer , Cleomedes , whom we nothing about - not even when or where he was born .
The main part of Cleomedes' book was an attack on the Epicurean philosophy - which espoused flat earth.
Giovanni Cassini's survey proved Newton's theories to be bunkum . After he , and his son , had died , the field was clear to ignore these findings and advance the solar system model. Regarded as accepted about 1770s if I recall correctly .
An interesting book , which covers quite well the controversy is "Full Meridian of Glory" . Gives a good outline of Maupertuis' flawed 1734 survey of less than one degree which is touted as proof of the oblate Newtonian sphere . Written by an astronomer as well , P Murdin - .not a FEr .
Sounds like an interesting book worth a read.
I found this article compelling regarding Epicurean philosophy around ethics and the motivations for describing/deciphering (or not) the physical world. Worth a perusal.
From the article, "Atoms and flat-earth ethics"
"Why did Lucretius ignore the work of contemporary astronomers such as Hipparchus and Aristarchus, who knew that the Earth is a sphere, the stars are distant and the Sun is much larger than the Earth? It was because Lucretius wasn’t really trying to reveal the truth about the physical world. His purpose, like that of Epicurus, was ethical. Epicurean philosophy teaches that the key to happiness is to avoid pain and experience pleasure. A key source of human angst is fear of death, and what punishment might come after it, as well as the suffering that can be inflicted on us by the gods. By explaining that the Universe is wholly material and that the gods are not bothered about human beings, Epicurus tried to banish fear of the supernatural. If we think we understand how the world really works, we will no longer be afraid. It doesn’t even matter if our beliefs about nature are false. Epicurus is explicit on this point: a completely accurate physical theory is beside the point. His natural philosophy is intended only to justify his ethical belief that the wise man has nothing to fear."
https://aeon.co/essays/lucretius-the-flat-earth-and-the-malaise-of-modern-science
-
There are a couple of other books out there which outline different aspects of the controversy caused by Cassinis meridian survey. The whole thing seems spread out - the book "the Mapmakers Wife" tells the story of the Peru survey , same time as Maupertuis . Again the opening chapters give the origins of the controversy . If I remember correctly this one actually mentions FE - first mention I saw of this . Both books list their academic sources but basically it was a battle between practical observation and survey v. theory - Newtonian and Copernican .
Between these books you get a good overview .
Interesting take on Epicurus and his philosophy . It usually gets the description of hedonistic applied to it - which it never was . I'm not sure but the fear of death seems to have been instilled into mankind over the centuries . It's interesting to see that many well known figures still adhere to the Epicurean philosophy . I know the atom stems from their belief system .
Like the part about once we know the truth about how the world works we will lose our fear .
I think governments and authorities instill fear into the population now . It's their job . Control through fear.
-
There are a couple of other books out there which outline different aspects of the controversy caused by Cassinis meridian survey. The whole thing seems spread out - the book "the Mapmakers Wife" tells the story of the Peru survey , same time as Maupertuis . Again the opening chapters give the origins of the controversy . If I remember correctly this one actually mentions FE - first mention I saw of this . Both books list their academic sources but basically it was a battle between practical observation and survey v. theory - Newtonian and Copernican .
Between these books you get a good overview .
Another book I stumbled upon that may be a good read is called "Longitude". The story about "John Harrison, an 18th-century clockmaker who created the first clock (chronometer) sufficiently accurate to be used to determine longitude at sea—an important development in navigation."
I'm going to check it out.
Interesting take on Epicurus and his philosophy . It usually gets the description of hedonistic applied to it - which it never was . I'm not sure but the fear of death seems to have been instilled into mankind over the centuries . It's interesting to see that many well known figures still adhere to the Epicurean philosophy . I know the atom stems from their belief system .
Like the part about once we know the truth about how the world works we will lose our fear.
Interesting too how the author of the article purports sort of an interesting twist on that notion. That once we know how the world works we lose our fear but at the same time, that "knowing" doesn't actually need to be the "truth".
I think governments and authorities instill fear into the population now . It's their job . Control through fear.
Certainly, to an extent, that's the nature of any 'authority'. It's just a matter of how far one thinks any authority extends.