TheScientist

Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« 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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2019, 09:19:39 PM »
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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
What is the Scientific Method?
- Formulate hypothesis
- Collect data
- Test hypotheses
- Conclude

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2019, 09:42:37 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 09:57:09 PM by TheScientist »

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2019, 09:44:26 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2019, 12:02:46 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2019, 02:00:46 AM »
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

 

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2019, 09:20:43 AM »
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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2019, 05:34:58 PM »
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

Quote
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 by astronomer Sears C. Walker:

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2019, 06:03:18 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. 


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.

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2019, 06:48:32 PM »
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2019, 06:53:04 PM by TheScientist »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2019, 06:50:03 PM »
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
« Last Edit: September 25, 2019, 06:55:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2019, 09:39:36 PM »
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?

BillO

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2019, 04:03:38 AM »
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.

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2019, 05:24:55 PM »
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?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2019, 08:34:59 PM »
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 .

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2019, 08:43:46 PM »
Quote
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? 

Quote
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. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 09:13:55 PM by TheScientist »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2019, 09:20:24 PM »
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 .

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2019, 10:58:40 PM »
Quote
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. 


« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 11:55:38 AM by TheScientist »

BillO

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2019, 02:43:08 PM »
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?]
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 02:47:54 PM by BillO »

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2019, 03:18:47 PM »
Quote
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!
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 10:10:47 PM by TheScientist »