The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Adrenoch on March 19, 2019, 07:25:28 PM
-
First post here. I've been a science educator for much of my professional life and have always been fascinated with how people come to the beliefs they do about "settled science."
What was it that convinced you FE is real? Was it one thing, or an accumulation of ideas? Was there a straw that broke the camel's back for you?
Do you ever have doubts now, or are you steadfast in your position?
What could convince you that FE isn't correct?
Have you ever pursued any research on your own along these lines?
Thanks in advance. I promise not to get into any arguments. Just curious about people's paths here.
-
What was it that convinced you FE is real? Was it one thing, or an accumulation of ideas? Was there a straw that broke the camel's back for you?
Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits. It was, for me, an accumulation of ideas; the plain and simple logic of flat Earth just makes sense to me far more than a globe Earth.
Do you ever have doubts now, or are you steadfast in your position?
I consider myself always skeptical, but steadfast in this position.
What could convince you that FE isn't correct?
Put me in a rocket, launch me up, and show me the globe.
Have you ever pursued any research on your own along these lines?
I have not yet.
Thanks in advance. I promise not to get into any arguments. Just curious about people's paths here.
You're welcome.
If you wish to debate, feel free. If you wish to argue, Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense are free and open places. ;)
-
Put me in a rocket, launch me up, and show me the globe.
Are you saying a trip in a rocket is the only thing that could convince you? I ask because you say you became convinced of FE by reading articles, but it would take a rocket trip and first-hand witnessing for you to become convinced of a globe. Obviously, those are two very different levels of evidence for each position. Is there something less dramatic that could convince you of a globe?
If you wish to debate, feel free. If you wish to argue, Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense are free and open places. ;)
I love a good debate, but I don't think it would be of much use. I've been pulled into hundreds of debates in my professional life with people who espouse creationism, expanding Earth theories, anti-vaccines, climate change denial, moon hoaxes, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. With a couple of exceptions, I don't think discussing evidence actually has any impact. Everyone, myself included, overestimates their ability to judge the merits of a given piece of evidence.
-
Put me in a rocket, launch me up, and show me the globe.
Are you saying a trip in a rocket is the only thing that could convince you? I ask because you say you became convinced of FE by reading articles,
I didn't say that.
but it would take a rocket trip and first-hand witnessing for you to become convinced of a globe. Obviously, those are two very different levels of evidence for each position. Is there something less dramatic that could convince you of a globe?
I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence.
-
For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space
Why do you deem that an extraordinary claim? All the other bodies we observe are spherical, gravity explains why all bodies above a certain size (mass really) are spherical.
I'd suggest it's an extraordinary claim that the earth is somehow different from every other body we can observe.
Especially given our observations are indicative of being on a globe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
-
What was it that convinced you FE is real?
Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits.
That is literally what you said though in response to his first question. You said nothing of witnessing anything in your initial response.
Have you done any experiments that test any of this evidence that you have read and witnessed? Or, are you simply believing what you see and what you read?
And again, what evidence would convince you otherwise? Based in your previous posts, that is a narrow window. So far, we have paid space travel, which you currently deny has ever happened.
-
I didn't say that.
Sorry, you're correct. I shouldn't have paraphrased. You said, "Spending time both here and on the Wiki as well as various subreddits."
I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence.
Fair enough. But the belief in a flat earth also comes with some extraordinary baggage of its own. In order for it to be true, nearly every field of science would need to be dramatically rewritten. The reason a globe Earth is so prevalent, is that it is remarkably consistent with what we know of other sciences. So when you suggest that the Earth being flat requires less evidence because you're witnessing what appears to be flat, you're also discarding a stunning amount of very successful scientific theory regarding almost every field that is compatible with a globe Earth, but not with a flat Earth.
As an example, I was once contacted by someone who believed the (global) Earth is expanding. It turns out, there's a surprising number of people who believe this. This group, over several decades, had developed a completely new set of physical laws to explain every aspect of reality. I was amazed at the depth of their work - this was countless hundreds of thousands of man-hours to put together all these videos, papers, etc., to show that this was the true model of the universe. But what was most amazing to me, was that all of this hinged on the idea that oceanic plates don't subduct beneath continental plates, and yet, nobody was putting in any effort to prove or disprove that idea. Instead, because they felt that their expanding Earth model was intuitively true, they focused all their efforts on things that would support it, rather than the crux issue that could settle it.
Likewise, you may intuitively feel that the Earth is flat, but in order for that to be correct you must also believe in a conspiracy across cultures, time, countries, and untold individuals - And, you must also believe that most of what we understand about science is not just wrong, but somehow internally consistently wrong.
All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.
Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."
-
What was it that convinced you FE is real? Was it one thing, or an accumulation of ideas? Was there a straw that broke the camel's back for you?
Lots and lots of little things. If there was a straw that broke the camel's back, it was seeing the reaction of the mainstream to competing models, there's an utter lack of reasoned discussion or informed rejection. You can't trust anything based on that foundation. That didn't convince me of FET, it just convinced me to check a few things out and think for myself, and FET was the unavoidable conclusion.
Do you ever have doubts now, or are you steadfast in your position?
Doubt's the wrong word, but I'm always open to being proven wrong or to need to refine my position, but at this point in time, barring some outstanding new discovery, I am confident that the Earth is flat. The only wiggle room is precisely how the model functions.
What could convince you that FE isn't correct?
RET practising what it preaches. When the scientific method starts to be followed and that starts to lead towards RET rather than away, with some replicable discovery, then that'll be a cue to re-examine.
Have you ever pursued any research on your own along these lines?
I learn what I can about various topics, always work towards improving my understanding. Generally the fact that complex issues begin to make intuitive sense rather than function as excuses like they do under RET ends up further solidifyign my view.
-
Why do you deem that an extraordinary claim? All the other bodies we observe are spherical, gravity explains why all bodies above a certain size (mass really) are spherical.
I agree with this. Even the minor bodies of solar system (asteroids and comets) which are below the mass limit to become spherical are irregular shaped.
For the Earth to become flat it would need to spin on its axis much, much faster than it does. Jupiter, the largest and most massive planet in the solar system is also the fastest spinning. It rotates fully in just under 10 hours. The spin of a planet causes a polar flattening effect (polar diameter less than the equatorial diameter) and this is most noticeable with Jupiter.
-
Just out of interest JRowe, how do you explain the observation that in the northern hemisphere the Sun rises in the east and moves to the south, while in the southern hemisphere it rises in the east and then moves to the north. So at noon shadows in the northern hemisphere point directly south but in the southern hemisphere they point directly north. That would be difficult to explain according to the model given in the FAQ section of FE Wiki wouldn't it?
Easy to explain if you understand RET properly though.
-
Just out of interest JRowe, how do you explain the observation that in the northern hemisphere the Sun rises in the east and moves to the south, while in the southern hemisphere it rises in the east and then moves to the north. So at noon shadows in the northern hemisphere point directly south but in the southern hemisphere they point directly north. That would be difficult to explain according to the model given in the FAQ section of FE Wiki wouldn't it?
Easy to explain if you understand RET properly though.
Case in point.
-
Fair enough. But the belief in a flat earth also comes with some extraordinary baggage of its own. In order for it to be true, nearly every field of science would need to be dramatically rewritten. The reason a globe Earth is so prevalent, is that it is remarkably consistent with what we know of other sciences. So when you suggest that the Earth being flat requires less evidence because you're witnessing what appears to be flat, you're also discarding a stunning amount of very successful scientific theory regarding almost every field that is compatible with a globe Earth, but not with a flat Earth.
You'll have to quantify "nearly every," which I'll assume to be 95%+, and then explain to me how natural sciences like biology, chemistry, zoology, and botany depend upon a globe. I'm assuming, too, that you aren't including social or formal sciences such as anthropology and logic, respectively.
As an example, I was once contacted by someone who believed the (global) Earth is expanding. It turns out, there's a surprising number of people who believe this. This group, over several decades, had developed a completely new set of physical laws to explain every aspect of reality. I was amazed at the depth of their work - this was countless hundreds of thousands of man-hours to put together all these videos, papers, etc., to show that this was the true model of the universe. But what was most amazing to me, was that all of this hinged on the idea that oceanic plates don't subduct beneath continental plates, and yet, nobody was putting in any effort to prove or disprove that idea. Instead, because they felt that their expanding Earth model was intuitively true, they focused all their efforts on things that would support it, rather than the crux issue that could settle it.
If, as it seems to me, you're implying that we FE'ers here are cherry-picking evidence, I think that you'll find yourself mistaken.
Likewise, you may intuitively feel that the Earth is flat, but in order for that to be correct you must also believe in a conspiracy across cultures, time, countries, and untold individuals - And, you must also believe that most of what we understand about science is not just wrong, but somehow internally consistently wrong.
My "intuition," acknowledged as though it is, is secondary to experimentation and observation. Have you read our Wiki, or have you looked up questions you have on the forum(s)?
As well, I disagree about the conspiracy. Cultures? No. Time? Define. Countries? Some. Untold individuals? Dozens, perhaps.
All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.
Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."
Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done. We clearly disagree that most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. You came up with that monumental, unfounded claim.
A flat Earth is still -- and fairly -- plain, simple, and logical.
-
All of which means that the burden of extraordinary claims actually falls on you, because you are suggesting that because you believe the Earth is flat, due to your intuition, most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. That's a monumental claim.
Again, you have every right to believe what you wish. But I don't think it's fair to say, as you said, "A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence."
Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done. We clearly disagree that most of our scientific understanding needs to be rewritten. You came up with that monumental, unfounded claim.
A flat Earth is still -- and fairly -- plain, simple, and logical.
The word intuition aside, I would say a flat earth is not plain & simple though it may be logical in some respects, but not in many others.
Point of fact, all long haul transportation of goods and humans, by sea or air, is navigated via a globe earth model, great circles, etc. So where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is when FET can summon a better means of worldly transport than exists today and prove that point. Be a global transport 'disruptor' as it were. Until such time there is nothing plain, simple, and logical about a flat earth construct. If FE were plain, simple, and logical there would be a map.
-
The word intuition aside, I would say a flat earth is not plain & simple though it may be logical in some respects, but not in many others.
Point of fact, all long haul transportation of goods and humans, by sea or air, is navigated via a globe earth model, great circles, etc. So where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, is when FET can summon a better means of worldly transport than exists today and prove that point. Be a global transport 'disruptor' as it were. Until such time there is nothing plain, simple, and logical about a flat earth construct. If FE were plain, simple, and logical there would be a map.
Beware of the straw man.
-
Lots and lots of little things. If there was a straw that broke the camel's back, it was seeing the reaction of the mainstream to competing models, there's an utter lack of reasoned discussion or informed rejection. You can't trust anything based on that foundation. That didn't convince me of FET, it just convinced me to check a few things out and think for myself, and FET was the unavoidable conclusion.
When you check things out for yourself, do you feel you have enough grasp of the underlying science to make informed decisions? Have you talked with geologists or physicists about why they espouse what they do?
RET practising what it preaches. When the scientific method starts to be followed and that starts to lead towards RET rather than away, with some replicable discovery, then that'll be a cue to re-examine.
Can you give me an example of "RET science" not following the scientific method?
-
You'll have to quantify "nearly every," which I'll assume to be 95%+, and then explain to me how natural sciences like biology, chemistry, zoology, and botany depend upon a globe. I'm assuming, too, that you aren't including social or formal sciences such as anthropology and logic, respectively.
Correct, not sociology, etc. If FE is correct, then astrophysics is entirely incorrect. Stellar physics would be entirely wrong, and stellar physics is one of the most oddly simplistic sciences there is. If it's wrong, our entire understanding of physics at the atomic level is also wrong. All elements heavier than helium are formed in stars, but if we have that wrong, then we don't know where elements come from, and the very basis of physics needs to be rewritten.
Tectonic plates don't make sense in a FE model, so the idea of continental drift either has to be rewritten or discarded entirely. Without continental drift you have to rewrite evolution because identical fossils found in South America and Africa either are no longer related or they migrated in unheard of ways. If evolution works differently that we have come to understand, then genetics doesn't work as we understand, and we have to re-examine biology.
I could go on. I doubt if there's a single hard science that would remain unaltered. But that's the issue you're facing. I agree with you that, ignoring everything else, a flat earth makes much more sense than a globe. A caveman would never even entertain the idea that the world is a globe. It would be ridiculous. But once you start millions of tests that start shedding light on the mechanisms behind millions of interactions in the world, and start forming rules and theories that start to explain how those mechanisms work, and all of those theories are consistent with each other, you can no long can no longer choose one observation and say it must be true because it feels true. That observation is linked to millions of tests and theories. If you want to upset that one observation, you have to also upset all the science that's consistent with it - And that demands the extraordinary proof we've been talking about.
-
Again, you're the one using the word intuition; I think you're also ignoring the research I've done.
My apologies. I skipped over this part and I didn't mean to ignore your research. Can you tell me a little about it?
-
When you check things out for yourself, do you feel you have enough grasp of the underlying science to make informed decisions? Have you talked with geologists or physicists about why they espouse what they do?
I look at what's offered and don't rush into decisions. Where possible I've used the myriad existing resources to check in with people who've studied the various areas to say if there is any explanation for the flaws, it's never more than "That's just how it is." That's one of the key flaws with modern science; it stops being about why anything happens, just what they need to happen to fit it into their framework. While that's understandable, it doesn't change the fact that a system that can't answer 'why' is not a good one.
Can you give me an example of "RET science" not following the scientific method?
You can look at the self-proclaimed champions and defenders of it for that, even big names using FET for diss tracks rather than even taking a look, the way they acrry on you'd think we didn't even know why things fell. On a more systemic level, there's how it's become ruled by tradition, things stop being questioned or open to refinement. Students learn by rote, skipping over understanding how anything happens until the model is hammered into their head, and they can't progress to the level where their input would be respected until they spend yet more years reciting the party line back. If you don't accept the mainstream, they don't want you. Victory by familiarity, models that you're used to don't seem absurd while new things do, regardless of how their contents actually compare.
For more direct examples:
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/47/food
-
I completely disagree that higher education - at least in Engineering or other B.S. degrees (like physics or mathematics) - learns by rote. I remember quite clearly going through mathematical proofs of all the equations we used to determine some engineering result in all of my college courses. We were required to have an understanding of how things worked, not just the here is an equation, plug in a number and get a result approach. I even remember my Calc classes in high school doing the same thing.
Who knows - maybe they do things differently where you are from, or things have changed since I went to college? Or maybe you are just projecting a biased opinion and have no actual evidence of your claim...
-
I look at what's offered and don't rush into decisions. Where possible I've used the myriad existing resources to check in with people who've studied the various areas to say if there is any explanation for the flaws, it's never more than "That's just how it is." That's one of the key flaws with modern science; it stops being about why anything happens, just what they need to happen to fit it into their framework. While that's understandable, it doesn't change the fact that a system that can't answer 'why' is not a good one.
If you're talking with scientists who answer your questions with "That's just how it is," find different scientists because the ones you're talking to are doing a disservice to everyone.
My question was more about whether you feel qualified to judge the veracity of the claims of scientists. You answered that when you have checked, you've gotten non-answers. That's not exactly the same thing. Most people dramatically overestimate how good they are at judging scientific issues. It doesn't help when scientists are dismissive like the ones you've talked with.
You can look at the self-proclaimed champions and defenders of it for that, even big names using FET for diss tracks rather than even taking a look, the way they acrry on you'd think we didn't even know why things fell.
I'm asking because all the scientists I know of that are conducting science that's consistent with a global Earth are using the scientific method with excruciating rigor. I'm asking if you could point me toward some scientists or science that isn't based on the scientific method.
On a more systemic level, there's how it's become ruled by tradition, things stop being questioned or open to refinement. Students learn by rote, skipping over understanding how anything happens until the model is hammered into their head, and they can't progress to the level where their input would be respected until they spend yet more years reciting the party line back. If you don't accept the mainstream, they don't want you. Victory by familiarity, models that you're used to don't seem absurd while new things do, regardless of how their contents actually compare.
For more direct examples:
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/47/food
As someone who has worked with hundreds of scientists and graduate students in the sciences, and has children of my own pursuing sciences, I can assure you this is not the case. No scientist wants to go along with the herd. The scientist that breaks the paradigm like Darwin or Einstein would have their name in the history books and a Nobel Prize to boot. Do you have to understand all that has been done before in your field? Absolutely. But once you know what has been done, you can strike out in new directions. But someone who only knows a little bit will only think they're striking out in new and paradigm-breaking directions. They won't be aware of how many people have already thought those thoughts and pursued that line of reason.
There may be some schools that simply demand science students conform, but they are in the vast, vast minority (and frankly, they'd have no alumni that have done anything of note). I don't think this is a line of reasoning you can support.
-
I completely disagree that higher education - at least in Engineering or other B.S. degrees (like physics or mathematics) - learns by rote. I remember quite clearly going through mathematical proofs of all the equations we used to determine some engineering result in all of my college courses. We were required to have an understanding of how things worked, not just the here is an equation, plug in a number and get a result approach. I even remember my Calc classes in high school doing the same thing.
I'm not talking about optional classes that plenty of people completely avoid and are only accessible after over a decade of other learning.
If you're talking with scientists who answer your questions with "That's just how it is," find different scientists because the ones you're talking to are doing a disservice to everyone.
My question was more about whether you feel qualified to judge the veracity of the claims of scientists. You answered that when you have checked, you've gotten non-answers. That's not exactly the same thing. Most people dramatically overestimate how good they are at judging scientific issues. It doesn't help when scientists are dismissive like the ones you've talked with.
That's not them being dismissive. They give spectacularly verbose ways of saying that it's the way things are, and when my research and them alike all say the same thing then I'm not going to base my opinion on a speculated better answer. They are spectacularly good at analyzing things and saying that we need them to be, but not why those conditions arise. An easy, non-controversial example would be Relativity. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest anything can go; why this is the case isn't understood. You can ask, you can research. You'll find plenty of lengthy papers on time and space dilation which tell you what happens to prevent things going that fast, but nothing to actually tell you why. The reason Einstein did so well is pretty much exactly because he stopped asking why, used it as a postulate, then derived everything.
As someone who has worked with hundreds of scientists and graduate students in the sciences, and has children of my own pursuing sciences, I can assure you this is not the case. No scientist wants to go along with the herd. The scientist that breaks the paradigm like Darwin or Einstein would have their name in the history books and a Nobel Prize to boot. Do you have to understand all that has been done before in your field? Absolutely. But once you know what has been done, you can strike out in new directions. But someone who only knows a little bit will only think they're striking out in new and paradigm-breaking directions. They won't be aware of how many people have already thought those thoughts and pursued that line of reason.
There may be some schools that simply demand science students conform, but they are in the vast, vast minority (and frankly, they'd have no alumni that have done anything of note). I don't think this is a line of reasoning you can support.
It shouldn't be the case. The ideal is not what's happening. It never is, we're human. There are certain things that are accepted, that don't get questioned. It's not like Darwin exactly had an easy time of it, and those were in better times, nowadays the weight of public opinion is far greater. You submit an article that so much as mentions FET in the abstract and it'll be rejected for that reason alone.
I know plenty, I'm well aware of the limitations of my knowledge and how much I don't know. That's precisely why this happens. The more you explore, the more avenues you see, the more work is done, speculatory and rigorous, the more you focus on those. The modern scientific establishment only allows questioning of certain things, if you go after any of their fundamentals then you won't get anywhere. Science nowadays and the resources it takes to carry out are done by grant and loan and by the interest of others; try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' to use your example and you'd be treated as a crackpot.
Academia has become bloated and scientists are humans, not a philosophical ideal. A paper, even if it got funding and resources and got published, that makes a dramatic claim about something they've spent years working and relying on and teaching, getting invested in, will go ignored. They'll figure it's just another crackpot, or wouldn't dedicate the time or money to unpicking and verifying the details because they've got better things to do, a dozen more papers to read given that it's pretty much global now. And even if they were interested in double-checking, funding studies is hard enough as it is, and funding a repeat of a study is notoriously tricky because people aren't interested in getting the same results a second time, and that's on top of the previously mentioned issues of trying to study anything like this in the first place. Instead it'll go brushed off, ignored, assumed to be flawed whether by bias or by some unlucky quirk of phrase.
-
That's not them being dismissive. They give spectacularly verbose ways of saying that it's the way things are, and when my research and them alike all say the same thing then I'm not going to base my opinion on a speculated better answer. They are spectacularly good at analyzing things and saying that we need them to be, but not why those conditions arise. An easy, non-controversial example would be Relativity. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest anything can go; why this is the case isn't understood. You can ask, you can research. You'll find plenty of lengthy papers on time and space dilation which tell you what happens to prevent things going that fast, but nothing to actually tell you why. The reason Einstein did so well is pretty much exactly because he stopped asking why, used it as a postulate, then derived everything.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are unhappy because if we dig deeply enough, we reach a point where we still have unknowns? Obviously, scientists are working on every unknown we have, and obviously as soon as we have an answer we will have an underly "why" regarding that.
Can you explain how that leads you to a belief in a flat Earth?
It shouldn't be the case. The ideal is not what's happening. It never is, we're human. There are certain things that are accepted, that don't get questioned. It's not like Darwin exactly had an easy time of it, and those were in better times, nowadays the weight of public opinion is far greater. You submit an article that so much as mentions FET in the abstract and it'll be rejected for that reason alone.
I'm sorry, but yes, the scientific method is absolutely being followed in research today. For the better part of 20 years I've worked with scientists from most disciplines, and the rigors have never been tighter. There absolutely are cases of garbage research getting through peer review, and absolutely we're human with all the shortcomings that entails. The scientific method, peer review, etc., is designed exactly with those shortcomings in mind. If you publish some results, you have to lay out in extreme detail how you got those results so others can replicate it, falsify it, or attempt the same experiment with changed variables.
Yes, if you submit an article that mentions FE you will absolutely get rejected. Why? Because that's not at all how the scientific method works. At all. It's not the flat Earth that gets rejected, it's because of the mountains of other solid science that must also get rejected. If you want FE to become accepted, you have to do that actual work, and that means showing experimentally that some observed phenomenon does not jibe with what we know of the Earth's surface right now. It means you have to address every argument against your position and account for it in your paper. You then have to submit it for peer review where experts will tell you where or if you've done something wrong (with citations), and you have to look up all that previous research and account for it experimentally.
You can't walk into a scientific discipline and announce that you're going to change everything we know about the physical sciences without doing all the insanely tedious work that every other scientist has to do for a paper that might modify one little aspect of what we know. You've got to start small and be just as rigorous.
The modern scientific establishment only allows questioning of certain things, if you go after any of their fundamentals then you won't get anywhere. Science nowadays and the resources it takes to carry out are done by grant and loan and by the interest of others; try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' to use your example and you'd be treated as a crackpot.
Academia has become bloated and scientists are humans, not a philosophical ideal. A paper, even if it got funding and resources and got published, that makes a dramatic claim about something they've spent years working and relying on and teaching, getting invested in, will go ignored. They'll figure it's just another crackpot, or wouldn't dedicate the time or money to unpicking and verifying the details because they've got better things to do, a dozen more papers to read given that it's pretty much global now. And even if they were interested in double-checking, funding studies is hard enough as it is, and funding a repeat of a study is notoriously tricky because people aren't interested in getting the same results a second time, and that's on top of the previously mentioned issues of trying to study anything like this in the first place. Instead it'll go brushed off, ignored, assumed to be flawed whether by bias or by some unlucky quirk of phrase.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely not how any of this works. I understand it may seem that way from the outside, but it's simply not what happens. For instance, "try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' and you're treated as a crackpot" is completely incorrect. Every few months I read a paper about a new experiment taking a shot at Einstein, so that's simply not true. But the larger point is exactly how you phrased it - You don't get a grant for trying to prove Einstein wrong. You get a grant for trying a novel, useful, experiment that might either bolster Einstein or prove him wrong. That would absolutely get funded. But part of the grant process is showing how your experiment is novel - you have to show no one else has done anything like it, or you're measuring in a new way, or maybe you've found an error in a calculation someone else has done that you think this experiment will rectify. Doing that requires really knowing what has been done in the field before, understanding why the people in the field have come to the conclusions they have, and being able to address those issues simply and directly.
By the way, there is an insane amount of double checking. On things that don't have much of a broader implication, maybe not much. But for things that might have repercussions, the double-checking becomes a bloodsport.
So the takeaway is this: Before you propose the Earth is flat, conduct experiments that support it. Before you conduct experiments, learn all the relevant experiments that have come before so you can speak knowledgeably about how your experiment is novel and perhaps better. Follow those steps, and if your research is flawless, you will upset the applecart and every scientist will take you seriously.
-
but it would take a rocket trip and first-hand witnessing for you to become convinced of a globe. Obviously, those are two very different levels of evidence for each position. Is there something less dramatic that could convince you of a globe?
I first-hand witness day-in-and-day-out the flatness of the Earth. For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space, I demand extraordinary evidence (essentially, the Sagan standard). A flat Earth -- plain, simple, and logical as it is -- requires a lesser degree of evidence.
Just out of curiosity, how does a sunset fit into your day-in-and-day-out experience of the flatness of the Earth? Do you feel that the FE explanation is "plain, simple, and logical as it is" and requires a lesser degree of evidence than the RE explanation?
-
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.
First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.
-
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.
First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.
I find it rather illogical that the Sun would be stationary, in either model. RET most certainly does not state that it is stationary.
-
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.
First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.
I find it rather illogical that the Sun would be stationary, in either model. RET most certainly does not state that it is stationary.
Although geocentric round earth models do feature a moving sun, heliocentric round earth models tend to have the sun stationary relative to the motions of the rest of the solar system. It isn't until you get to galactic or larger scales that the sun's motion becomes relevant.
-
Correct. Sorry I left that out. I made the assumption that stationary sun meant only in the context of other planets revolving around it.
-
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are unhappy because if we dig deeply enough, we reach a point where we still have unknowns? Obviously, scientists are working on every unknown we have, and obviously as soon as we have an answer we will have an underly "why" regarding that.
Can you explain how that leads you to a belief in a flat Earth?
Unknowns that don't get acknowledged as unknowns, the fact there are barely even hypotheses to fill in huge gaps in the underlying basics of major models is something you pretty much never hear about when you'd think it ought to be much more important.
It led me to question, the same as everything else. Questioning and re-evaluating and following the gaps led to the conclusion of FET.
I'm sorry, but yes, the scientific method is absolutely being followed in research today. For the better part of 20 years I've worked with scientists from most disciplines, and the rigors have never been tighter. There absolutely are cases of garbage research getting through peer review, and absolutely we're human with all the shortcomings that entails. The scientific method, peer review, etc., is designed exactly with those shortcomings in mind. If you publish some results, you have to lay out in extreme detail how you got those results so others can replicate it, falsify it, or attempt the same experiment with changed variables.
Yes, if you submit an article that mentions FE you will absolutely get rejected. Why? Because that's not at all how the scientific method works. At all. It's not the flat Earth that gets rejected, it's because of the mountains of other solid science that must also get rejected. If you want FE to become accepted, you have to do that actual work, and that means showing experimentally that some observed phenomenon does not jibe with what we know of the Earth's surface right now. It means you have to address every argument against your position and account for it in your paper. You then have to submit it for peer review where experts will tell you where or if you've done something wrong (with citations), and you have to look up all that previous research and account for it experimentally.
You can't walk into a scientific discipline and announce that you're going to change everything we know about the physical sciences without doing all the insanely tedious work that every other scientist has to do for a paper that might modify one little aspect of what we know. You've got to start small and be just as rigorous.
Yep, there's rigor, I said as much, it's just overzealous. Like you say, mention FET and it'd be rejected because the conclusion is accepted as false. You just assumed that the paper wouldn't contain evidence, even when we're talking about something hypothetical. That's the bias of mainstream science, you've made up your minds. Some things now are just treated as tradition, the weight of evidence thought too much when that's not how evidence works. The same piece of evidence can point to a multitude of models. We do all the work you just assume we don't, you just don't want to hear it. Listen to yourself. You cannot claim the scientific establishment is open to alternative ideas when you assume a set narrative for said alternative ideas.
Further, the criteria you mention. 'Address every argument against your position,' that's impossible for anything. Most papers generally just do most, and often get some other scientist writing up a rebuttal which may or may not be responded to. But look at how it would function in this case, look at the number of objections people raise to FET by sheer argument from exhaustion. So all the responses get compiled in one place, listed out with typical scientific rigour, just as the support for a paper on whole other disciplines. Miss one, or one slip your minds, it gets thrown out for that minor oversight regardless of the merit of the rest. And that's assuming anyone is going to bother with the topic, given the attitude you've already presented; they've made up their minds before they turn the first page.
To say nothing of finding a publication willing to house an article that long. If anything you'd need to split it up into two, or even three or four, but again then no one would meet your criteria. The angle of "FET can work, if we assume ___ and ___, which I'll prove later," is beyond niche and would be ignored, and the proof of said principles is, by your words, inadmissible without all the backing explanation.
If you want to question any of science's grand traditions, the system is geared to ensure it's impossible. Even if the papers would get a fair hearing, which they won't because of the biases of human beings, there's nothing that'd listen to all the various points. You just have to pray that the things you've built on are true. If they're not, you now have no way to fix it, you're just nipping and tucking and tweaking later additions. It's fruit of the poisoned tree.
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely not how any of this works. I understand it may seem that way from the outside, but it's simply not what happens. For instance, "try drumming up the money for anything claiming 'Einstein was wrong' and you're treated as a crackpot" is completely incorrect. Every few months I read a paper about a new experiment taking a shot at Einstein, so that's simply not true. But the larger point is exactly how you phrased it - You don't get a grant for trying to prove Einstein wrong. You get a grant for trying a novel, useful, experiment that might either bolster Einstein or prove him wrong. That would absolutely get funded. But part of the grant process is showing how your experiment is novel - you have to show no one else has done anything like it, or you're measuring in a new way, or maybe you've found an error in a calculation someone else has done that you think this experiment will rectify. Doing that requires really knowing what has been done in the field before, understanding why the people in the field have come to the conclusions they have, and being able to address those issues simply and directly.
By the way, there is an insane amount of double checking. On things that don't have much of a broader implication, maybe not much. But for things that might have repercussions, the double-checking becomes a bloodsport.
They're not experiments aimed towards a pillar, they're inevitably claims and theories geared towards tweaking or refining. The fact you need to dress up the pitch with evasive terminology to avoid saying what's actually going on should tell you plenty. Sure, propose testing something that hasn't been tested; my stand-by there is always whether the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction is continuous or discontinuous. The response is "Ok, why are you examining that? Why do you doubt it?" So you've got to either evade with an unsatisfactory 'I just want to see' or go through the untouchable topic of FET on which they've already made up their mind.
It's not repurcussions that matter, it's credibility, and anything too far from the mainstream lacks it on principle. That's science, you have the accepted facts, you have a grey area around that of competing theories, beyond that current hypotheses, beyond that a little wiggle room, and then beyond that there's what you get if you start from challenging an 'accepted fact' and if that's where you begin, that's as far as you go.
So the takeaway is this: Before you propose the Earth is flat, conduct experiments that support it. Before you conduct experiments, learn all the relevant experiments that have come before so you can speak knowledgeably about how your experiment is novel and perhaps better. Follow those steps, and if your research is flawless, you will upset the applecart and every scientist will take you seriously.
I'm not a child. Maybe look at how you assume how dumb we are before you claim you don't have a predetermined view of FET.
-
Usually scientific entries into journals state the conditions of the system that they are analyzing. They don't go around naming millions of unknowns that they aren't accounting for. It is given up front by stating that x, y, and z variables are the knowns of some closed system and the result is derived from those knowns. If a result does not match what is physically measured, then either the actual experiment conducted was done wrong, or the assumptions of said variables were lacking and they go back to the drawing board. (Given a certain amount of statistical error).
-
Unknowns that don't get acknowledged as unknowns, the fact there are barely even hypotheses to fill in huge gaps in the underlying basics of major models is something you pretty much never hear about when you'd think it ought to be much more important.
It led me to question, the same as everything else. Questioning and re-evaluating and following the gaps led to the conclusion of FET.
Are you talking about things like how gravity works, or why the universe has a speed limit, or how the Big Bang happened, or how can quantum theory and general relativity be reconciled, or if string theory is really underlying all of reality? Because people are working like crazy to answer those things.
Yep, there's rigor, I said as much, it's just overzealous. Like you say, mention FET and it'd be rejected because the conclusion is accepted as false.
Yes. It will be rejected because there is a mountain of evidence that points toward it being false. So don't take on the whole mountain. Do one experiment. There are hundreds you can do. Do the one of three poles over a long stretch of water and a laser. It doesn't cost anything so you don't need a grant. Be careful about your whole procedure. Document everything in excruciating detail. Show that the laser is level. Don't say it's because of a flat Earth. Say that it's a phenomenon that disagrees with expectation and invite others to replicate it.
Do it impeccably and you will absolutely get attention. You'll have scientists trying to replicate it, and they'll see that you're right, and everyone will be curious about how this can be.
If you try to get published by saying "The Earth is flat," then yes, you have to address all the accepted science that disputes that. If you work experiment by experiment, you can simply show that you are getting impeccable results that don't fit expectations. If you really believe people in the sciences are essentially brainwashed, this will certainly get their attention.
Basically, stop complaining on message boards and go DO THE SCIENCE!
They're not experiments aimed towards a pillar, they're inevitably claims and theories geared towards tweaking or refining.
YES! That's it exactly! Aiming for a pillar is nearly impossible for even the best scientists. For someone just breaking in, absolutely don't do that! Tweak and refine! Refine something like the 3-pole experiment. Show that it doesn't work as expected. Let people try to poke holes in it. Let them take their best shots. If you've done your work well (and since it has big implications, you have to do your work impeccably), your experiment will stand. You won't have proven that the Earth is flat, but you'll have proven something is not quite right with the global Earth model and the physics connected with it. Then you build on it, experiment by experiment. It takes time and it's a pain and you'll have setbacks, but it's the only way to build your ultimate pillar.
I'm not being at all sarcastic. I love when people do their own science. Do it well and do it impeccably and one way or the other you (and maybe the world) will be better for it.
-
Are you talking about things like how gravity works, or why the universe has a speed limit, or how the Big Bang happened, or how can quantum theory and general relativity be reconciled, or if string theory is really underlying all of reality? Because people are working like crazy to answer those things.
A couple of those, yes, but how honest are they about it?
Yes. It will be rejected because there is a mountain of evidence that points toward it being false.
That is not how evidence works. This is the problem, you never look beyond the cliche. There is only one possible way for the Earth to be flat and screw any alternatives, never mind that FET is perfectly capable of explaining all the results of those experiments, it's wrong because you believe something different. The only evidence we can give would be claims that wouldn't even follow from our models.
FET can explain everything RET can, but RET is what you already believe and it wins by merit of being what's accepted, and FET gets kicked out to obscurity and people remain uninformed and judge based on preconception.
YES! That's it exactly! Aiming for a pillar is nearly impossible for even the best scientists.
Exactly. Your system is broken, you admit it and you don't care. Think of it like cosmological constants, a set few numbers and if you tweak one of them just a little then life could never have developed. However if you change multiples of them a fair amount, you can fairly easily locate other stable systems. I think Victor Stenger wrote a good paper on that. Tiny tweaks won't work to get you a workable system, only big changes will. The scientific establishment only accepts small changes, and because of that it banks entirely on the hypotheses created centuries ago to explain observations to be accurate, rather than looking at the myriad other possibilities in light of modern knowledge.
The scientific establishment isn't going to replace a pillar. No matter how many small holes you come up with, they can nip and tuck and tweak to make excuses, and those will always be viewed as more believable than any alternatives developed from a baser level. (Your proposed experiment, for example, nets you excuses like temperature inversions).
And even what you're saying is absurd. The fact of the matter is older theories are going to look better than new ones, because they've had years to put together pages of math and adjust it to fit predictions, to append new details each time, to invent new areas of math as and when it's required. A counter-theory is going to take the same amount of work, and that's just for one leaf on one branch of the topic. To begin to argue against a pillar the way you say is literally lifetimes of work, and you can't just pose your end result because then you lose all credibility. You have to trust blindly that future generations will pick up the slack, will still be interested, and that they're not just going to all turn around and prefer addendum after addedum pasted onto the existing model.
No one's saying to accept something with less evidence, but the problem is that science doesn't acknowledge the unavoidable fact that things that are older will look better, regardless of their ultimate explanatory power. That's what I mean when I say sceince is locked into tradition. There is no vehicle for anything new to replace something more than one or two levels back, so much has been built and added to it that it's implicitly given preference.
Take something as simple as prediction. You've used it plenty, stating that prediction is necessary to make people question, but that should not be the case. A theory that explains equal amounts with fewer assumptions should be all that's required, but you always default to 'well what new thing is there?'
You give preference to the traditional model.
-
Sun is stationary and earth rotates vs Sun moves above earth, is a spotlight, disappears due to perspective and refraction, projection on atmosphere, and so on and so forth.
First one is simple and logical. Second one is ad hoc explanations to make a theory appear correct.
I find it rather illogical that the Sun would be stationary, in either model. RET most certainly does not state that it is stationary.
Although geocentric round earth models do feature a moving sun, heliocentric round earth models tend to have the sun stationary relative to the motions of the rest of the solar system. It isn't until you get to galactic or larger scales that the sun's motion becomes relevant.
That’s absolutely untrue. The planets do not orbit the Sun. Every celestial body in our solar system orbits the center of mass. What you are trying to say is that the dynamics are treated using relative coordinates and reduced mass. Heliocentric isn’t a term that really makes sense.
Also, the proper speed of the Sun is ONLY relevant on galactic distance scales. On cluster scales and larger, it is not.
-
FET can explain everything RET can
I think you'll find this is something that the RE'ers here are in serious disagreement with you about. I've read the Wiki and gone back through many, many threads here and I haven't found satisfactory FET explanations for almost all easily observable phenomenon. Just a sample:
1. Doing Eratosthenes experiment at three places along the same longitude. The elevation of the sun always points to two different places in the sky. Responses: none worth mentioning.
2. Stars rotating around North and South Celestial poles (the latter to observers in Australia, South America, and Africa over 24 hours). Responses - some sort of mirror-ball projection onto a dome that can't possibly work for all observers.
3. The sun rising at 120° SE where I live (Melbourne, Australia) in summer. I'll throw in almost 15 hours days here too, 17 hours in Punta Arenas (easily accessible), and 24 hours in Antarctica. Responses - none worth mentioning.
4. Lunar eclipse. Responses: otherwise invisible Antimoon - cannot take seriously.
5. Constant size of the sun during the day when viewed through any number of solar filters. Responses: perspective - invalid, projection onto atmolayer - invalid (impossible to maintain circular shape to all observers), producing shots of light sources out of focus with obvious glare to debunk - invalid (because we have controlled for those).
6. Edmund Halley's Transit of Venus experiment for determining distance to Venus. Responses: none worth mentioning.
7. Full moon (impossible on FE/close moon models). Responses: none that make sense.
8. No map (should be a far, far easier task on FE than RE). Responses: none worth mentioning.
9. Aligning satellite dishes for TV at three different locations. Elevation used always points to an object 36000km above the Earth. Responses: something about fake dishes.
And on and on and on...
-
FET can explain everything RET can
I think you'll find this is something that the RE'ers here are in serious disagreement with you about. I've read the Wiki and gone back through many, many threads here and I haven't found satisfactory FET explanations for almost all easily observable phenomenon. Just a sample:
REers would disagree if a FEer said the sky was blue. Their opinion doesn't particularly matter to me, just the quality of their arguments. 1-7, 9 trivial if you actually look at a decent model rather than stand proudly in an uninformed perspective, 8 is a perfect indication of the inability of REers to make a good argument. And all of this is another spectacular illustration given that you opted either for a gish gallop or just to insist on your self-proclaimed superiority in a thread that has nothing to do with those arguments.
-
We agree the scientific community is biased against FE.
We disagree about why it is biased.
You say scientists are essentially sheeple, following what they've been told.
I say scientists go where the evidence leads and are more knowledgeable about the evidence that refutes a flat Earth than non-scientists are.
First off, I can tell you from a couple of decades of first-hand experience with a few hundred scientists that "sheeple" is exactly what they're not. They do an immense amount of work trying to understand the world around us. Every one of them is pushing against things they were taught in order to find points that break. But just because I know this, doesn't mean it's useful to convince you here on the internet.
You say that today's scientists don't want to knock down pillars. I remember about 20 years ago when the first findings came out that the redshift of the most distant objects in the universe was far higher than we expected. It meant the universe's expansion was actually accelerating. That might not sound like a pillar was knocked down, but this was so radical a finding that it suggested the existence of something like a fifth force of nature. Around the same time, the measurements of galactic rotations suggested there was also more mass than we could see in the universe. These two ideas, together, meant that 96% of the universe was made of something we'd never knew existed. Think about that! We thought we had it all pretty much worked out, and then all of a sudden we find out we've missed 96% of everything! Because of those two pieces of evidence, a bunch of other teams jumped in and tried to replicate and disprove the findings, but it turned out to be supported every time. The physics community was split about what it all meant, but most now agree that we've indeed been missing nearly everything in the universe. It might not seem like a big deal to people outside of physics, but that was a monumental pillar that was knocked down, and it didn't topple easily.
Note that when the astrophysicists presented their evidence about the universe expanding, they didn't say "the universe's expansion is accelerating and I can prove it." They showed impeccable evidence, and admitted it didn't fit with the way we understood the world at the time.
You have to do the same thing. You have to show impeccable evidence and say it doesn't fit with what we understand of the world today. The three-pole experiment would be perfect. I don't understand why anyone on this forum doesn't just do that experiment and do it perfectly. It would create a major question for any scientist to answer. You think a scientist who sees something like that, and who sees that the experiment was done without error, wouldn't want to know what the heck was going on? They'd go nuts trying to find something you did wrong. And if you did nothing wrong, they'd go nuts trying to understand exactly what is going on. It would be a joy to witness.
I know you think any scientist would just dismiss your experiment because they can't think outside of the global Earth model, but you're not basing that on actually talking to any scientists. You're basing that on an assumption that you must be right, so anyone with expertise who doesn't think you're right must either be essentially brainwashed or dishonest.
Look, 30 days from now, you could have an amazing experiment completed that would force any scientist to stand up and take notice. You could even talk to a few scientists ahead of time and ask them how to do the three-pole experiment perfectly, with perfect documentation so it would meet the rigors of modern science. Go to a research university because those scientists love helping people learn. Do the experiment! Just do it! Cripes, I want you to do it because if you demonstrate a lack of curvature, I'll get famous for being the guy who got you to do it. It's such an easy experiment and just 30 days from today, it could be done and the course of human knowledge would change. And it could be because of you!
You don't change science by going after the pillar. You show extraordinary evidence that something is not as we expected. If that evidence holds up under extreme scrutiny and it's critical to the pillar, the pillar will fall. Look at what Einstein did to Newton, or the redshift-light team adding 96% more mass to the universe.
So get out there and do it! Don't make your next post something about how it's fruitless. Say "Okay, I'm going to make this happen!" Do the experiment perfectly so nobody can poke holes in it, document the heck out of every step, and make it happen. Document the setup on this forum and I'll do whatever I can to help. 30 days from now you could have world-changing results in your pocket!
Say you'll do it!!!
-
That’s absolutely untrue. The planets do not orbit the Sun. Every celestial body in our solar system orbits the center of mass. What you are trying to say is that the dynamics are treated using relative coordinates and reduced mass. Heliocentric isn’t a term that really makes sense.
Well, if we're being really pedantic, the center of mass of all the planets' orbits is still inside the Sun, so it could easily be argued that they do indeed orbit the Sun. The exception to this is Jupiter, whose orbit's center of mass is just outside the Sun. And if you want to get really, really pedantic, then every planet actually orbits the combined centers of mass of the orbits of all the planets and the Sun, which will almost always still be inside the Sun, but could actually yank several centers outside the Sun if all the planets were on one side at one time. Now, if you want to add in the effect of all the moons and stars...
-
You say that today's scientists don't want to knock down pillars. I remember about 20 years ago when the first findings came out that the redshift of the most distant objects in the universe was far higher than we expected. It meant the universe's expansion was actually accelerating. That might not sound like a pillar was knocked down, but this was so radical a finding that it suggested the existence of something like a fifth force of nature. Around the same time, the measurements of galactic rotations suggested there was also more mass than we could see in the universe. These two ideas, together, meant that 96% of the universe was made of something we'd never knew existed. Think about that! We thought we had it all pretty much worked out, and then all of a sudden we find out we've missed 96% of everything! Because of those two pieces of evidence, a bunch of other teams jumped in and tried to replicate and disprove the findings, but it turned out to be supported every time. The physics community was split about what it all meant, but most now agree that we've indeed been missing nearly everything in the universe. It might not seem like a big deal to people outside of physics, but that was a monumental pillar that was knocked down, and it didn't topple easily.
You are literally proving my point. They didn't go back and question their preconceptions, they leapt ahead and decided to append a massive new field rather than reconsider, and are still tweaking and adjusting that new field today to get it to work. Dark energy, especially dark matter, was one of the surefire death knells of RET's credibility. Rather than consider maybe the issue was with, say, how they took observations and what they accounted for, they instead decided to suppose invisible masses that should have been detected long since even with just the few properties applied to it as is (and never went back to reconsider what had previously been determined in light of it), and a mysterious force that they can't even explain how it does what they need it to do. They didn't knock down a pillar, they just added more and more to the top of it no matter how precariously it swayed. Absolutely no existing knowledge altered, it wasn't like they took the conclusion that their understanding of redshift was flawed say, they just kept things working the same way just with a new variable on play; questions were answered with unforeseen responses. The tradition stayed in place.
You have to do the same thing. You have to show impeccable evidence and say it doesn't fit with what we understand of the world today. The three-pole experiment would be perfect. I don't understand why anyone on this forum doesn't just do that experiment and do it perfectly. It would create a major question for any scientist to answer. You think a scientist who sees something like that, and who sees that the experiment was done without error, wouldn't want to know what the heck was going on? They'd go nuts trying to find something you did wrong. And if you did nothing wrong, they'd go nuts trying to understand exactly what is going on. It would be a joy to witness.
I know you think any scientist would just dismiss your experiment because they can't think outside of the global Earth model, but you're not basing that on actually talking to any scientists. You're basing that on an assumption that you must be right, so anyone with expertise who doesn't think you're right must either be essentially brainwashed or dishonest.
There is no such thing as impeccable evidence. And seriously, think about what you are saying. You aren't finding any actual experiment of an FE model, you're relying solely on your preconceptions of what that would be and going no further. We live on a flat Earth. All readings and experiments have already been performed on a flat Earth. The number of actually accessible experiments with the slightest bearing on anything, particularly that are remotely doable for a typical person, is beyond minimal and the rest have already been shoehorned into RET. You won't get a brand new discovery, all you'd get is a better explanation, but that's not good enough because the scientific establishment is built on tradition, better=older/familiar rather than logical or reducing assumptions. It's all about toppling the existing theory, not about actual comparison, new experiments rather than seeing how well the ones already done tie in.
And you're just assuming I haven't talked to scientists, you're very wrong on that. I'm speaking from experience. They won't even entertain anything too 'outlandish,' there are enough papers to go through that there's no point in picking apart an experiment they already believe to be wrong. Besides, if they already think the claim is wrong then they'll just assume the paper's lying. They won't tear their hair out, they'll shrug it off.
You're acting as though what we're talking about is akin to some discovered oddity in G-Type stars or whatever. It isn't. Science has layers, a pillar that it is verboten to question, and layers out from that. Only the outermost get particularly dealt with, and the closer you get the more controversial anything would be. Beyond a certain point you're assumed wrong and nothing can change that.
So get out there and do it! Don't make your next post something about how it's fruitless. Say "Okay, I'm going to make this happen!" Do the experiment perfectly so nobody can poke holes in it, document the heck out of every step, and make it happen. Document the setup on this forum and I'll do whatever I can to help. 30 days from now you could have world-changing results in your pocket!
Again, there's no point in performing an experiment when the results would not be what you're claiming. Stop being so bloody performative. Best case scenario, even if the Earth worked the way you were saying, even if it got any interest, and even if that interest was people trusting the paper's and documentation's word, the end result would be a few murmurs, a new discovery of dark temperature inversions or whatever, and a year from now they'll be heralding it as further proof of RET. If you don't want people to post about how dealing with academia is fruitless then fix your institutions, until then it needs to be called out.
Honestly, fixing the flaws in it is to me more important than FET. People will come to FET one way or another once there's a decent system that doesn't rely on tradition as value.
I say scientists go where the evidence leads and are more knowledgeable about the evidence that refutes a flat Earth than non-scientists are.
This is nonsense. They don't know what flat earth models are, how could they possibly have any conception of what it would take to refute one?
This is the problem.
-
They don't know what flat earth models are
It seems the same applies to flat Earthers as well given how many different models there seem to be and the wide variations among them!
-
They don't know what flat earth models are
It seems the same applies to flat Earthers as well given how many different models there seem to be and the wide variations among them!
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.
I'd take open-mindedness over blinkered tradition any day.
-
That’s absolutely untrue. The planets do not orbit the Sun. Every celestial body in our solar system orbits the center of mass. What you are trying to say is that the dynamics are treated using relative coordinates and reduced mass. Heliocentric isn’t a term that really makes sense.
Well, if we're being really pedantic, the center of mass of all the planets' orbits is still inside the Sun, so it could easily be argued that they do indeed orbit the Sun. The exception to this is Jupiter, whose orbit's center of mass is just outside the Sun. And if you want to get really, really pedantic, then every planet actually orbits the combined centers of mass of the orbits of all the planets and the Sun, which will almost always still be inside the Sun, but could actually yank several centers outside the Sun if all the planets were on one side at one time. Now, if you want to add in the effect of all the moons and stars...
Not really, because the stars will not contribute anything, even in the name of pedantry.
Maybe we could include all the comets and asteroids though?
Plus, this is only the case for specific reference frames. For a reference located in another galaxy, our solar system may appear quite different!
Being pedantic is what science is all about, except we scientists call it “precise” and “detailed.”
-
It's weird. I worked with about 200 physicists, geologists, biologists, chemists, and about every other "ist" you can think of for the better part of 20 years, every day at a research institution. I worked with colleagues at other such institutions around the U.S. as well, and the behaviour you're saying has infected modern science, never occurred. (ETA: I shouldn't have said it "never occurred" because I couldn't know that. I should have said the daily behavior I witnessed of the researchers does not fit with the behavior you've said is part of modern science.)
There are two possibilities for why FE theories aren't gaining traction:
1. The scientific community is either incompetent or deceitful, or
2. Your evidence isn't as good as you think it is
These were the same two points that came up every time I'd get a call or email from a creationist, or an expanding Earther, or people who feared vaccines, or who believed in alternate geological timelines, or that we never went to the moon, or any of about a dozen other ideas. They always knew, with absolute certainty, that they were right. And that meant the only reason the scientific community didn't accept their findings, was because of #1. It was never #2.
If you approach a scientist and try to convince them the Earth is flat, yes, they're going to dismiss you. Probably not for the reasons you might think. But if you approach a scientist with an experiment that was done excruciatingly carefully and documented excruciatingly well, which says that a laser met three posts across five miles at the same height, you're going to pique their interest because it goes against expectations. All I'm trying to do is help you eliminate #2 as the problem.
Of all the "alternate science" proponents I'd talked to over the years, only one actually decided to go out and get the hard data. All the rest scoffed and said their existing experiments were proof enough. The problem was always #1. The one other guy? He spent $3,500 of his own money collecting actual data (yes, I've always felt bad about that). The hard data didn't say what he expected.
I'm never going to convince you modern science isn't keeping good flat Earth science locked out. We both know that's not going to happen. I'm just hoping you'll do enough good science yourself to either convince yourself your evidence isn't as good as you thought, or to convince a single scientist that there is a mystery about the Earth's curvature to be re-examined. Either way, you win.
-
I'm never going to convince you modern science isn't keeping good flat Earth science locked out.
None of the flaws I've said are specific to academia dealing with FET. In the modern era, the response to a breathtaking new discovery is to append, not to replace.
Let's walk through your example. Again, I don't think it will have the result you're claiming, but that's not the point. I perform this experiment, I even manage to get it published, scientists all around the world see and even believe the data on this new bedford level-esque experiment. Even if it is conceded that that would happen, the community at large might:
1. Brush it aside and ignore it.
2. Pay attention to it, analyze it, shoehorn in some explanation of light interacting with a dark matter temperature inversion or some such and use it to add more and more to the existing model, test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation.
3. Start questioning whether the Earth was round.
The goal here is to reach 3, I am claiming they will do 2. Are there any objections so far? And if not, how might we reach 3?
-
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.
The difference is that there is only one RE model. Notice the use of the singular there. We don't need more than one model to explain everything we see in nature.
-
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.
The difference is that there is only one RE model. Notice the use of the singular there. We don't need more than one model to explain everything we see in nature.
You think that's a strength? All you're left with is the hope that someone didn't slip up centuries back and everything you've built isn't just hasty overcorrection.
-
Are you suggesting that multiple flat earth models IS a strength? All I see from this is a cult of personality. Everyone who claims they have their own model of the flat earth thinks they are some great scientist akin to the alchemist who claims to have turned lead into gold. What good does that do the FE movement when your own members are going to tear your model down? Until you have a unified flat earth theory with solid mathematical proofs behind all of the mechanisms FE claims exists, all you have is a bunch of unverifiable claims. You can continue to make whatever wild assertions you want. Its the wild west of science.
So you're claim that RE having one model is a weakness is ridiculous. Try again.
-
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.
The difference is that there is only one RE model. Notice the use of the singular there. We don't need more than one model to explain everything we see in nature.
You think that's a strength? All you're left with is the hope that someone didn't slip up centuries back and everything you've built isn't just hasty overcorrection.
Yes, a single RE model is a strength because it means that the model has stood the test of time and scrutiny. That single RE model is constantly being validated by almost every branch of the earth sciences.
-
Are you suggesting that multiple flat earth models IS a strength? All I see from this is a cult of personality. Everyone who claims they have their own model of the flat earth thinks they are some great scientist akin to the alchemist who claims to have turned lead into gold. What good does that do the FE movement when your own members are going to tear your model down? Until you have a unified flat earth theory with solid mathematical proofs behind all of the mechanisms FE claims exists, all you have is a bunch of unverifiable claims. You can continue to make whatever wild assertions you want. Its the wild west of science.
So you're claim that RE having one model is a weakness is ridiculous. Try again.
So it's a cult of personality... because we disagree? A cult of personality would better describe following one solitary path and listening to whatever those people said, making their names synonymous with genius rather than just mere contributors to a greater whole.
FET instead acknowledges we are human. We don't worship scientists and follow their words blindly, assume that they must be holy and accurate and truthful, it's slower going particularly when there's active sabotage, but it is by far a better way to do science as it means we don't neglect whole possibilities just because they're different.
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.
The difference is that there is only one RE model. Notice the use of the singular there. We don't need more than one model to explain everything we see in nature.
You think that's a strength? All you're left with is the hope that someone didn't slip up centuries back and everything you've built isn't just hasty overcorrection.
Yes, a single RE model is a strength because it means that the model has stood the test of time and scrutiny. That single RE model is constantly being validated by almost every branch of the earth sciences.
No, it means you tweak and nip and tuck constantly to shoehorn anything new into the established framework rather than see what might genuinely be best at explaining it. It's not validated by anything, the first plane wasn't invented by a theoretician building from scratch, it was made by trial and error of people who took inspiration but otherwise worked solely with what they saw with their own eyes, and created a whole discipline by direct experimentation that later got shoved into the mainstream with all the assumptions that entails, when it worked independently. Practical, applied science does not validate theory, at best the theory is inspiration.
There are two kinds of experimental results. One, where the experiment informs the theory and the result gets added to find a constant/adjust a parameter. Two, where the experiment matches with a prediction, something that could be achieved by force of numbers. That's all there is to science. It's not about certainty, it's never been meant to be. That's just how cults treat it.
Clinging to one model and disregarding alternatives is the bane of any scientific endeavour.
-
I certainly don't worship scientists. I personally can't stand Neil or Bill Nye (the two most popular ones). I speak only for myself. I am an educated and degreed engineer. I understand how science is supposed to work. I ask questions. I do not accept everything verbatim. I read scientific articles all the time because I like to see what is going on out in the scientific realm. Do I believe everything I read? No.
-
None of the flaws I've said are specific to academia dealing with FET. In the modern era, the response to a breathtaking new discovery is to append, not to replace.
Agreed. Because if you have 1,000 observations that can be explained by Theory X, and then you have a new observation that doesn't seem to fit, you can either A) see if there might be something you missed in Theory X that, if corrected, can now explain 1,001 observations, or B) create Theory Y that can re-explain the first 1,000 observations as well as the new one.
Science will always start with modifying existing theories because it's a smaller lift than rebuilding everything currently known. If that doesn't work, then it is forced to build a new theory.
Let's walk through your example. Again, I don't think it will have the result you're claiming, but that's not the point. I perform this experiment, I even manage to get it published, scientists all around the world see and even believe the data on this new bedford level-esque experiment. Even if it is conceded that that would happen, the community at large might:
1. Brush it aside and ignore it.
2. Pay attention to it, analyze it, shoehorn in some explanation of light interacting with a dark matter temperature inversion or some such and use it to add more and more to the existing model, test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation.
3. Start questioning whether the Earth was round.
The goal here is to reach 3, I am claiming they will do 2. Are there any objections so far? And if not, how might we reach 3?
What you're outlining in #2 is revealing what I think is the underlying fallacy in your understanding of how the scientific process works.
You said, "test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation." Yes, you start testing your hypotheses, and the ones that fail, get discarded. That leaves you with the ones that didn't fail, and as newer ideas and better equipment comes around each year, you test them until they fail and get discarded. All the while, you're probably coming up with some new hypotheses, testing them, and discarding some. When you hit a hypothesis that keeps passing every test you throw at it, it starts gaining more weight.
It's not a game of tweaking esoteric equations to make things just damn fit. It's predictions each hypothesis generates that gets tested.
As an example: The biggest question in physics is how to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics. We know they both can't be right, but they are both amazingly good at predicting what our experiments will find. String theory actually solved this conundrum for us - BUT, string theory doesn't generate any meaningful predictions. The math definitely lines up, but there's no way for us to disprove the hypothesis. So now, string theory is losing its luster and researchers are looking at other avenues. So it's not about the math just working and then scientists say, "Okay, that one works. Let's just go with that."
If you did solid research that showed an apparent lack of curvature over a 5-mile stretch, scientists would say, "That doesn't fit with all the other experiments I've seen that show the opposite. What's going on here?" They might say, "It's refraction," but you would already have thought of the top ten objections because you would have done research before you designed the experiment in order to account for something as obvious as refraction. Another researcher would say, "It's due to phenomenon ABC," and you'd figure out how to account for that and do the experiment again. In the meantime, other scientists would be wondering what's going on and would start trying to reproduce your experiment for themselves. If it keeps holding up, they'll start trying to disprove it by looking at some of its immediately testable predictions and setting up new experiments.
If it holds up under everything they throw at it, then they'll start trying to understand if there's a new phenomenon happening. They'll keep backing it up until they reach a point where math and hypotheses and observations all start to mesh again. That may very well mean backing all the way up to a flat Earth. That would be a very long way to back up, however, because as I mentioned earlier, physics itself would have to be gutted and rebuilt.
So it's not a single step from doing the experiment to the world accepting a flat Earth, which is why it hasn't happened yet. It takes an experiment done with extreme rigor that shows a lack of curvature, then legions of researchers trying to replicate, disprove, and enhance your experiment, then a process of tearing down every bit of conflicting science that is less certain than your evidence, and a new theory with new predictions that starts getting tested. That's a stunning amount of work that would need to be done just to break down the current paradigm, let alone build a new one that leads to the conclusion you're hoping for. It would likely take a decade at minimum since so many sciences would be affected.
With all that said, you can see why an experiment that would set all these wheels in motion absolutely has to be impeccable. Fortunately, there are a lot of simple curvature experiments that can be done inexpensively and with a great deal of precision.
-
For an example of scientists discarding something that was wrong:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028133-200-rewriting-the-textbooks-einsteins-cosmological-fudge/
Its ok to admit that we are wrong. Scientists go back to the drawing board all the time. It is the uneducated public that thinks that science is immutable.
-
Agreed. Because if you have 1,000 observations that can be explained by Theory X, and then you have a new observation that doesn't seem to fit, you can either A) see if there might be something you missed in Theory X that, if corrected, can now explain 1,001 observations, or B) create Theory Y that can re-explain the first 1,000 observations as well as the new one.
...
You said, "test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation." Yes, you start testing your hypotheses, and the ones that fail, get discarded. That leaves you with the ones that didn't fail, and as newer ideas and better equipment comes around each year, you test them until they fail and get discarded. All the while, you're probably coming up with some new hypotheses, testing them, and discarding some. When you hit a hypothesis that keeps passing every test you throw at it, it starts gaining more weight.
It's not a game of tweaking esoteric equations to make things just damn fit. It's predictions each hypothesis generates that gets tested.
...
If it holds up under everything they throw at it, then they'll start trying to understand if there's a new phenomenon happening. They'll keep backing it up until they reach a point where math and hypotheses and observations all start to mesh again. That may very well mean backing all the way up to a flat Earth. That would be a very long way to back up, however, because as I mentioned earlier, physics itself would have to be gutted and rebuilt.
The problem here is the bias towards modifying theory X. It's easy for errors to snowball in this system because there will always be a modification. There is nothing that would possibly make them back up all the way to the shape of the Earth because they'd just tweak something or add a new constant long before they got there. Creating a hypothesis to explain something, just appending it to a larger model, is trivial. If it gets lucky because it's tangentially related to what's really going on/just lucky in general because there were enough guesses that one had to be force of numbers and validates a prediction, later experiments would then be used to iron out the kinks calculate the constants in the mathematical description etc. Einstein didn't derive the speed of light in his work, he used the value arrived at by experimentation.
Familiarity wins out. By the time enough had been written to potentially make them question more, some hypothesis for the first experiment would be an accepted part of RET and it would no longer count as evidence against.
Yep, creating a theory Y takes much more work, and that's not going to happen in the current climate. They just modify, tweak, nothing will ever make them backtrack 1000 questions and so starting from the ground-up to develop something with half as much rigour is not something there is any incentive or interest in doing. You are stuck with modifying and praying the work of a few people centuries ago with far worse resources and understanding was accurate. It's only going to be possible if science lacked a central model. Applied science is its own thing, concerned with application and experiment, but as far as explaining why anything happens that needs to be open. It should never have been consolidated.
With all that said, you can see why an experiment that would set all these wheels in motion absolutely has to be impeccable. Fortunately, there are a lot of simple curvature experiments that can be done inexpensively and with a great deal of precision.
This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.
But again, like you pointed out lofty speeches on the ideals of science are something we're apparently not going to agree on, that was why I tried to have a discussion on the practicalities. Walk through what actually happened with small steps that can't reasonably be questioned.
Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.
Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?
For an example of scientists discarding something that was wrong:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028133-200-rewriting-the-textbooks-einsteins-cosmological-fudge/
Its ok to admit that we are wrong. Scientists go back to the drawing board all the time. It is the uneducated public that thinks that science is immutable.
If it's ok to admit that you're wrong, why are you repeating points I've already addressed several times over, and more than that completely contradicting yourself?
That's not discarding something wrong, that's a minor modification to a still-accepted model. And your centralized science relies on it being immutable, if the central tenets get questioned you lose everything.
-
I never said it wasnt ok to admit you were wrong. Where am I contradicting myself? I have said the same thing multiple times - that scientists work through the proofs of their theory with a set of assumptions. If that result does not match observation/measurement, they go back to the drawing board.
The scientific community is not afraid of being proven wrong. This happens all the time. Results get scrutinized. Some scientists get disgraced. Some get corrected.
-
Clinging to one model and disregarding alternatives is the bane of any scientific endeavour.
We "cling" to the model that works the best, and so far that's the RE model. If you want to change that, then you will need to prove that your model works better.
-
The problem here is the bias towards modifying theory X. It's easy for errors to snowball in this system because there will always be a modification.
You are stuck with modifying and praying the work of a few people centuries ago with far worse resources and understanding was accurate.
You seem to be suggesting that science builds on conclusions of the past, but never revisits or retests or re-evaluates those conclusions. That's patently false. Einstein and general relativity superseding Newton is a simple answer. Newton came up with the math that was incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of the planets. But Einstein came up with something completely different and it made a prediction about how certain orbits would act based on some extreme examples. When we checked those orbits, we realized Einstein's model was a lot closer than Newton's even though Einstein's makes far less intuitive sense. We had to reconstruct everything we thought we knew about what space and time are. It was a huge teardown.
This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.
I don't follow. Normally, science proceeds by working meticulously with a very narrow focus to explain a single observation. Enough of them build up to force larger changes in theories. Are you saying you want to do something different?
But again, like you pointed out lofty speeches on the ideals of science are something we're apparently not going to agree on, that was why I tried to have a discussion on the practicalities. Walk through what actually happened with small steps that can't reasonably be questioned.
Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.
Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?
Maybe this is the crux of the whole issue. Why is your goal to cause debate on the shape of the Earth? Shouldn't it be to find the truth, regardless of whether it causes debate about the shape of the Earth?
And I still think you're under a misunderstanding about "force of numbers" as you put it. Any modification to a theory still has to accurately fit the 1,000 previous observations as well as the new one. It's not like just making up a new formula or something to get you out of a jam. The modification to the theory has to explain every other observation at least as well as the old theory did. If it doesn't, then it's time to do some tearing down.
You seem to be suggesting that science just sees new things and tries to shoehorn them into what's already known because that's just what's easiest. If it doesn't explain the observations, it's no good, and nobody wants to dedicate their life and career to something they know is fruitless and erroneous.
To use dark matter as an example: When we found galaxies were rotating fast enough that the gravity of the visible stars wouldn't have been enough to keep the galaxies together, the first thing everyone asked was is there something wrong with our understanding of gravity. But we have an exhaustive amount of data on gravity that checks out. We use our calculations to send probes across the solar system with tremendous precision based on gravity. We can see with minute precision how satellites act in orbit. We see gravitational lensing exactly the way Einstein predicted we would. Everything we knew about gravity checked out.
So if not gravity, maybe we were counting the stars wrong. So they had several teams do the counting. They all came up the same, using different methods. That checked out.
Maybe galaxies were much younger than we thought. But if that were the case, how come we could we see stars in those galaxies that were seriously old? If we got the age of stars wrong, then our grasp of physics must be wrong, but the physics checks out in extreme detail in 100,000 other observations, so it's not likely that we've got that wrong either.
It went on and on like that, until the most likely possibility was that we're not seeing a huge amount of mass in the universe. It wasn't a snap decision by any stretch, and dark matter is still only a hypothesis. But we re-examined everything that that one set of observations conflicted with - as you would say, we re-examined most of the pillar. So it absolutely does happen.
As I said before, either the scientific community is too biased because they're incompetent or dishonest, or the arguments FE'ers are putting forward are nowhere near as solid as they think they are. I don't think I can convince you of the former, but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong on the latter.
-
I just realized I answered you poorly, and in a much more long-winded way than necessary.
Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.
This should not be your goal. Your goal should be to discover something new, regardless of whether it agrees with your position or not. But regardless...
Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested
So far, so good.
, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through
There's no "by force of numbers." If you were to do the laser test and others confirmed your findings, then there would have to be a new hypothesis about why this experiment goes against expectations. New hypotheses would arise, and each of those would generate a prediction. You and/or others would then test those hypotheses. Most will be falsified. Some might shed light on other things we thought were pretty well known, and we'd have to re-examine those. Maybe you'd have discovered an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe it could be explained by a small adjustment of the current theory. Or maybe an entirely new theory would be required.
and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?
Rejoice in the fact that you just added to the sum of human knowledge for all eternity!
But you're actually asking, "If my observation can be fully explained by only a small addition to the current body of knowledge, how do I get people to rethink the global Earth?"
If your aim is to cause scientific debate about the global Earth, you would have to do another impeccable experiment. Maybe that breaks it wide open, or maybe it just adds to the general body of knowledge. But hey, at least you'd then have two really solid experiments that can also point toward a flat Earth. You do more experiments. Maybe sometimes you revisit an old experiment of yours and show that the new accepted explanation fails under your new experiment, and then everyone will scramble to put the pieces back together in a meaningful order. Eventually, you may get enough experiments that the most likely explanation for your observations and everyone else's is that the Earth must be flat.
But you must also be prepared for the possibility that your experiments may be completely incompatible with a Flat Earth model, and you'd have to be a big enough person to recognize when/if that happens.
-
You seem to be suggesting that science builds on conclusions of the past, but never revisits or retests or re-evaluates those conclusions. That's patently false. Einstein and general relativity superseding Newton is a simple answer. Newton came up with the math that was incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of the planets. But Einstein came up with something completely different and it made a prediction about how certain orbits would act based on some extreme examples. When we checked those orbits, we realized Einstein's model was a lot closer than Newton's even though Einstein's makes far less intuitive sense. We had to reconstruct everything we thought we knew about what space and time are. It was a huge teardown.
It really wasn't. It was a massive addition. Newton and Newton's understanding is still used today. A teardown would be the transition from the caloric theory of heat to the mechanical, say, the caloric theory isn't used because it was rejected as wrong. That'd be over a century ago.
Einstein should have been a teardown, if scientific institutes worked properly. Like dark matter and many such things, something new and fundamental is discovered about the world, let's take it back now that we know space is more than an abstract dimension, or that we know there is mass not detected by anything other than its gravitational signature, let's change things based on that; nothing happens. Einstein at least offered the transit of Mercury, though it wasn't a teardown as there was no good answer to that, dark matter didn't impact, say, the field of composition of the Earth as we discovered it had more mass than current models indicated, because excuses are always made for why those things don't apply.
This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.
I don't follow. Normally, science proceeds by working meticulously with a very narrow focus to explain a single observation. Enough of them build up to force larger changes in theories. Are you saying you want to do something different?
Because you want the result to point to curvature of the Earth rather than a property of light. There is no such thing as impeccable evidence precisely because of this, this experiment's results can be explained either with with reference to either option. It's excessive focus on one option to the exclusion of another.
Maybe this is the crux of the whole issue. Why is your goal to cause debate on the shape of the Earth? Shouldn't it be to find the truth, regardless of whether it causes debate about the shape of the Earth?
Because we're talking in this thread, and you've said science should be open to the idea. If that is the case, let's show it. Suppose we live on a flat Earth with the result of the curvature experiment you wanted, could academia ever acknowledge that?
There's no "by force of numbers." If you were to do the laser test and others confirmed your findings, then there would have to be a new hypothesis about why this experiment goes against expectations. New hypotheses would arise, and each of those would generate a prediction. You and/or others would then test those hypotheses. Most will be falsified. Some might shed light on other things we thought were pretty well known, and we'd have to re-examine those. Maybe you'd have discovered an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe it could be explained by a small adjustment of the current theory. Or maybe an entirely new theory would be required.
Like your dark matter example, that is exactly what I mean. Propose enough hypotheses and one will pass its tests. That is the case regardless of whether it's true. It is just force of numbers, throw enough things at the wall and something will stick, they will always be able to invent a hypothesis that explains the observation, and either is close enough to appealing to the right principles, or is just straight-up lucky, that it passes the possible tests. Nothing is ever going to make that not the case. Look at the caloric theory of heat again for a good example; the carnot cycle, still used today, was developed from it, as well as accurate predictions of the speed of sound. The theory itself is still accepted as wrong, but the predictions it made are still valid.
But you're actually asking, "If my observation can be fully explained by only a small addition to the current body of knowledge, how do I get people to rethink the global Earth?"
If your aim is to cause scientific debate about the global Earth, you would have to do another impeccable experiment. Maybe that breaks it wide open, or maybe it just adds to the general body of knowledge. But hey, at least you'd then have two really solid experiments that can also point toward a flat Earth. You do more experiments. Maybe sometimes you revisit an old experiment of yours and show that the new accepted explanation fails under your new experiment, and then everyone will scramble to put the pieces back together in a meaningful order. Eventually, you may get enough experiments that the most likely explanation for your observations and everyone else's is that the Earth must be flat.
Except by the time I perform a second, the first will be viewed as pointing to RET because they'd have a theory. If I question it, they'd refine or replace said theory. So I'd only have one experiment, and the same would happen to it.
And equally, given that RET will propose an explanation for literally anything pointed out so that a point in time after such an experiment will have it looking as accepted a part of science as gravity decreasing with the inverse square law, for example, surely it follows it's sufficient to show that the most likely explanation for observations now is that the Earth is flat?
-
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
Be well, and I hope you get a chance to do some solid experiments someday because no matter the results, you'll probably benefit.
-
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?
-
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
-
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
-
JRowe, can you cite some specific sources from which you are drawing the claim of how modern science treats new discoveries?
Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
-
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis. Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are. Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.
If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help. Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.
-
JRowe, can you cite some specific sources from which you are drawing the claim of how modern science treats new discoveries?
Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
How on earth do you get that from all I've said?
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis. Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are. Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.
If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help. Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.
What is even the point in responding to you when you just outright ignore what my post said?
-
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:
1. They are the most open minded people I have ever met
2. They believe things based on evidence not on feelings
3. They are willing to entertain just about any idea
4. They require evidence to change their beliefs
5. They are most critical about their OWN theories.
-
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis. Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are. Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.
If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help. Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.
What is even the point in responding to you when you just outright ignore what my post said?
What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it? No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
-
I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:
Try questioning one of their pillars, try to encourage more than a relatively minor tweak, modification or addition to what's 'established,' see what happens.
What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it? No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
How about you take a look at what I'm actually saying? I shouldn't need to keep asking this. This is legitimately pathetic. I explain at length what I believe and why, you throw that all out the window to fit me in some little narrative box that you want to be the case, despite the fact you know full well it's not. And you wonder why I have zero respect for your 'science.'
The problem with your science is that it's long since stopped being about the scientific method, and started being about tradition, and you are a perfect example of that. Rather than honest response, you resort to 'it's different so it's wrong, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say.'
-
I think its funny that you think that any member here (except maybe QED) speaks for the scientific community - aka published scientists. I am just an engineer.
Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.
And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
-
I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:
Try questioning one of their pillars, try to encourage more than a relatively minor tweak, modification or addition to what's 'established,' see what happens.
What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it? No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
How about you take a look at what I'm actually saying? I shouldn't need to keep asking this. This is legitimately pathetic. I explain at length what I believe and why, you throw that all out the window to fit me in some little narrative box that you want to be the case, despite the fact you know full well it's not. And you wonder why I have zero respect for your 'science.'
What you believe won't change anything. Experimental evidence will.
The problem with your science is that it's long since stopped being about the scientific method, and started being about tradition, and you are a perfect example of that. Rather than honest response, you resort to 'it's different so it's wrong, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say.'
I never said "it's different so it's wrong". However, challenging the status quo is always an uphill battle. Why should science be any different? I don't think that you understand the degree of rigor that modern science has to go though to be accepted in the first place. Successfully challenging the status quo is a lot of hard work, but it does happen. Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe. Those were not minor revisions to the status quo.
-
Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe.
Good example. The BB theory always predicted that there should be radiation, representing effectively the echo of the big bang permeating throughout the Universe at a temperature of just over 3K. This radiation would not necessary according to the SS theory which stated that the age of the Universe was infinite. When this radiation, now known as the Cosmic Background was discovered in the mid 1960s by accident, that spelled the end of the story as far as the SS theory was concerned.
Science has never set out to prove something right or wrong. It simply looks for the best way of explaining what we see and experience in nature and the Universe. If the predictions that it makes from the models it develops turn out to be successful then we must be thinking along the right lines.
-
I think its funny that you think that any member here (except maybe QED) speaks for the scientific community - aka published scientists. I am just an engineer.
Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.
And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
Or the REer just doesn't bother trying to understand what it is the FEer has said, and insists that they're right in their understanding of the world just because. Take a look at yourself.
I call it like I see it. Your 'published scientists' just outright ignore anything contrary, you've constructed a definition so that the scientists that would react in the public eye are just celebrities to discount, ignoring the fact they still contribute to academia. They're still part of the system.
What you believe won't change anything. Experimental evidence will.
Yes, let's run an experiment on the ways in which academia responds to experiments, that isn't a logical incoherency at all.
I never said "it's different so it's wrong". However, challenging the status quo is always an uphill battle. Why should science be any different? I don't think that you understand the degree of rigor that modern science has to go though to be accepted in the first place. Successfully challenging the status quo is a lot of hard work, but it does happen. Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe. Those were not minor revisions to the status quo.
You don't need to say it, it's palpably clear in how you act. You completely ignore what I actually say because it's not the narrative you want to believe. The steady state universe was at best a placeholder, no one had any evidence for it. The first time it had any degree of popularity was about the time people actually had the resources to refute it. It was never the status quo, it was a "Well we need an answer to this, we don't know anything real yet, let's just use it for now."
I understand the degree of rigour science uses just fine. That was my problem. Pay. Attention.
Good example. The BB theory always predicted that there should be radiation, representing effectively the echo of the big bang permeating throughout the Universe at a temperature of just over 3K. This radiation would not necessary according to the SS theory which stated that the age of the Universe was infinite. When this radiation, now known as the Cosmic Background was discovered in the mid 1960s by accident, that spelled the end of the story as far as the SS theory was concerned.
Don't make things up. Hubble observed evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe in 1929, well before the steady state universe had any major degree of popularity. The simple fact is no one cared because they didn't have the technology to get solid data. It never got formalised as the big bang for a while, but an expanding universe vs a steady universe were always competitors, the steady state universe only got any popularity when the expansion started to become more supported and people rushed to defend it.
-
I am still waiting on cited sources to backup your claim that people are straight up dismissing your theories or anyone else's theories - by a real scientist.
Even on your own website you make this claim.
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/4/dual-earth-theory-faq
"Why should I accept DET over any alternatives?
Not only does it rely on fewer assumptions to explain all observations (setting it above RET and classical FET models), but it remains unrefuted and, ultimately, unaddressed. When presented, the model is met with mocking, but there is rarely any attempt to actually address the model, and more often than not those attempts are addressed in the model itself.
If you disagree, and believe you can refute the model, you are encouraged to do so. I do not object to disagreement, only dishonesty."
Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?
Your claims on your own website have gone unrefuted and unaddressed because there has been no one posting on your forum. Is this because you a) haven't published your work b) haven't presented it to anyone c) no one really has visited your forum d) you deleted comments on your forum or e) something else?
-
JRowe,
You are most welcome to continue believing this about scientists, I understand the motivation behind it: it insulates you from challenging your beliefs. If all scientists are biased, then you need not consider what they say. This is a lazy way out, and in taking it, you become what you detest.
Tyson is a scientist, and an entertainer. When he wears the hat of an entertainer, he is not doing science, and he says all sorts of shit. When he publishes research, he is a scientist, and his address is quite different. If you want to know Tyson as a scientist then read his research. Don’t assess him as a scientist by how he acts on a talk show. That’s just absurd.
You are correct about Hubble and SS vs BB. What you don’t understand is that two ideas run parallel while both are investigated. Even when some evidence is found for one, many folks continue to study both. This is because all ideas are only tentative, and scientists have open minds.
The narrative you require science to have is self-serving. It supports your insulated position, and hence no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise; you will continue to not “call it as you see it,” but instead “call it as you need to see it,” so that you feel vindicated in your position.
Ultimately, it only does you a disservice.
-
What you believe won't change anything. Experimental evidence will.
Yes, let's run an experiment on the ways in which academia responds to experiments, that isn't a logical incoherency at all.
I think I see your problem. It seems that you're confusing the scientific community with academia. Granted, scientists are usually trained in academia and a lot of scientific research happens there, the greater scientific community and academia are by no means the same thing. Academia takes its cues from the scientific community, not the other way around.
If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned. However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
-
You are correct about Hubble and SS vs BB. What you don’t understand is that two ideas run parallel while both are investigated. Even when some evidence is found for one, many folks continue to study both. This is because all ideas are only tentative, and scientists have open minds.
Until they stop. The models jostle, go back and forth, then with the knowledge of the time one gets preferred and the other left by the wayside. If a century later something new gets discovered that favours the other, no one will care, they'll find a way to tweak the accepted model and go on blindly. This is my problem. I shouldn't need to keep repeating it. Of course I'm going to have to aren't I? You'll never acknowledge it, you'll just go on insisting I have the motive you want me to rather than the one I have stated, explained and demonstrated.
If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned. However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?
Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?
I'm not ignoring it. I've answered it, I've pointed out the many times I have answered and explained it and given literally all it is possible to give. The problem is you don't care. Like the scientists you admire, you're only interested in tweaking and modifying until it fits with the cosy bubble you've built for yourself. I'm a FEer, so I must just be taking the easy way out, I must just be avoiding, I must just be lying. Look at the multiple choice you give; you assume I must be covering something up, that there haven't been several visitors (as seen by the few pages of threads), because the notion that the problem might not be with me is just unthinkable to you. You are a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about, and you're utterly blind to that fact.
-
Don't make things up
Not quite sure what you think I made up. I'm not in the habit of making things up. The discovery of the CMB in the mid 1960w put the validity of the BB theory over any other beyond doubt. Think or say whatever you want that is the truth.
If what I said before was 'made up' then this article from Wikipedia is also made up then according to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
-
If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned. However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?
Do you think that industry does all of its R&D in academia? And what do you think that peer-reviewed science journals are for?
-
Don't make things up
Not quite sure what you think I made up. I'm not in the habit of making things up. The discovery of the CMB in the mid 1960w put the validity of the BB theory over any other beyond doubt. Think or say whatever you want that is the truth.
If what I said before was 'made up' then this article from Wikipedia is also made up then according to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Or you could read what I actually said. You even took the time to cut out the link to the post. This is pathetic.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14067.msg188127#msg188127
If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned. However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?
Do you think that industry does all of its R&D in academia? And what do you think that peer-reviewed science journals are for?
R&D is a rather loaded term. Some of it is concerned strictly with finding a way to apply what has already been observed, that's not relevant to this at all. The handful of institutes geared towards pushing frontiers though still need to publish their results else what's the point? They still rely on academia.
What sets those science journals apart from the rest of it?
-
No, you havent posted any evidence to show someone has been mocking you. All you have done is stated that it has happened. Show me an email reply to your research that you have submitted, or a link to something. Claiming it here with a text reply on this forum does not constitute evidence.
-
No, you havent posted any evidence to show someone has been mocking you. All you have done is stated that it has happened. Show me an email reply to your research that you have submitted, or a link to something. Claiming it here with a text reply on this forum does not constitute evidence.
Wow. You really are just that blinkered aren't you?
If you are going to ignore everything I have already said there is literally nothing I could ever supply that you won't just cry 'faked!' at. Don't ask questions when you don't care about the answers and stop wasting everybody's time.
-
I'm not being narrow minded. You have posted absolutely no reference to any one thing that you or someone else has submitted and had it laughed. Yet, you continually reference having it done to you and others by a legitimate person from the scientific community. I am not talking about a general response to the FE community by Tyson or Nye in a random YouTube video. You continually reference yours and others FE research as being mocked by scientists. Yet, you provide no evidence of this whatsoever. Please show me what you or someone else has submitted in good faith to the scientific research community and show evidence that it has been rejected. Not some YouTube video or response on here.
And now you are just resorting ad hominem attacks on me. I have not cried fake at you once. And I won't cry fake at you if you provide me evidence. I, contrary to FEers, don't cry fake at everything that proves me wrong. I am legitimately asking for evidence to back up your claims.
-
I'm not being narrow minded. You have posted absolutely no reference to any one thing that you or someone else has submitted and had it laughed. Yet, you continually reference having it done to you and others by a legitimate person from the scientific community. I am not talking about a general response to the FE community by Tyson or Nye in a random YouTube video. You continually reference yours and others FE research as being mocked by scientists. Yet, you provide no evidence of this whatsoever. Please show me what you or someone else has submitted in good faith to the scientific research community and show evidence that it has been rejected. Not some YouTube video or response on here.
And now you are just resorting ad hominem attacks on me. I have not cried fake at you once. And I won't cry fake at you if you provide me evidence. I, contrary to FEers, don't cry fake at everything that proves me wrong. I am legitimately asking for evidence to back up your claims.
And it is patently clear that it's not a good faith question, it's an attempt to waste time. You have not engaged or responded to a single thing I have said, you have opted to ignore it all and insist only one specific thing will satisfy you. Don't pretend you care about evidence. You have ignored all reasoning, all explanation, all evidence, all the points that even your side has agreed on to focus on insisting I provide something that you would never believe. If you are not going to even bother responding to a word I said, I am not going to waste time on you. Sure, cry 'ad hominem,' not like that's a cliche at all. If you don't like it when people call you out then don't act like that.
-
Not true. When you started claiming that scientists have mocked you and others attempts to break into the scientific community I demanded evidence. There is nothing wrong with that. You continue to feel like you are being attacked. I am not. It has no relevancy to your arguments for or against FE or DE. You made a claim without evidence. I am asking for that evidence. I have regularly engaged with you on this topic and others and have not ridiculed you. Why are you so defensive?