The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: mtnman on October 16, 2017, 05:18:56 PM
-
Very exciting observation! Although I'm sure some here will pass it off as just another expansion of the vast conspiracy.
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/10/16/scientists-make-first-detection-neutron-star-collision (http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/10/16/scientists-make-first-detection-neutron-star-collision)
-
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
-
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers. You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.
-
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers. You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.
Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/15/ec/6e/15ec6e13b9659b4ed15e57e22cde4b3a--scientific-method-for-kids-scientific-method-experiments.jpg)
Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.
-
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers. You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.
Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/15/ec/6e/15ec6e13b9659b4ed15e57e22cde4b3a--scientific-method-for-kids-scientific-method-experiments.jpg)
Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.
If you follow the entire structure of the Scientific Method, then sure. But you don't have to have a controlled experiment every single time you want to prove a point. The structure of the Scientific Method is not necessary to think logically and conjure results. I know that my teacher is credible enough to be accurate when she said that Force = Mass*Acceleration. I trust that I wouldn't have to experiment something that seems too troublesome to lie about. And for the record, theories do not have to be recognized through the scientific method. You don't have to compare a finding if you can reason with it using another method. Go preach about the Scientific Method where it is relevant.
-
what experiments
virtually all experiments in astronomy measure one of two things: 1) how bright an object appears across all wavelengths of light, and 2) how bright an object appears at specific wavelengths of light.
the op is also an experiment, but it measures distance between two points on earth.
-
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers. You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.
Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/15/ec/6e/15ec6e13b9659b4ed15e57e22cde4b3a--scientific-method-for-kids-scientific-method-experiments.jpg)
Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.
Nice try. Observation, not experimentation is what is important. Observation is tested for sources of error and one way to do this is through laboratory experimentation. It is by no means the only way as you seem to insist.
-
Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.
-
Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.
By Tom's lights, only chemistry and physics (but not astrophysics) are sciences.
-
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
And this from the man who claims garlic cures cancer, where's your proof there Tom? One article? Or the man who believes the sun is 3,000 miles above us and yet still enables the sun sets/rises we observe to occur based on perspective "of the sun"?! You argue against the entire field of astronomy and their collective findings based on collaborative research using top of the range equipment with this? I asked you about seeing different constellations from different regions on earth, you claim the stars are closer than we are led to believe and direct me to " learn more flat earth" as an answer....you offer NOTHING anywhere close to the rational, impartial deductions of astronomy. You ignore it because you can not comprehend it. What scientific experiment would you suggest they carry out to add further proof too the mutually supporting raft of evidence astronomy provides! Stephen Hawkins V Tom Bishop.........good luck
-
Tom's problem is whether an "observation" counts as an "experiment". If it does, then astronomers are scientists - if it doesn't then Tom is right and they aren't scientists.
So - here is my hypothesis: Water boils at 100 degC. My experiment is to set up a thermometer in a container of water that's gradually heating up. When I see that the water is boiling - I look at the thermometer and write down the temperature.
That is (without doubt) an experiment.
But if we break it down, I designed some apparatus that I hoped would produce the desired effect - then I observed the reading given back to me by the equipment.
This is precisely what the LIGO people did. They hypothesised that there are gravity waves. They designed a piece of equipment (like my thermometer) that would measure those waves. They waited for something to happen - and they observed the results given back to them by the apparatus.
There really is ALMOST no difference between my water boiling experiment and their gravity wave observation.
The only real difference is that I caused the heat to be applied to the water in order to make it boil rather than simply waiting around for some natural source of boiling water.
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?
I think Tom wants the LIGO people to deliberately crash to neutron stars together and look at the results. That's obviously not going to be possible - so Tom feels free to tell us that their results are junk.
So it all comes down to the precise definition of the word "experiment".
The dictionary definition of the word "experiment" is:
* Dictionary.com: A test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.
* Merriam Webster: An operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.
* Oxford English Dictionary: A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
* Cambridge English Dictionary: A test done in order to learn something or to discover whether something works or is true.
* Collins: A scientific test done in order to discover what happens to something in particular conditions.
So some of these are circular definitions "A scientific test" is a terrible definition if "science" is defined by the need to do experiments! So scrap the OED and Collins definitions!
The definitions in Cambridge and Dictionary.com clearly allow astronomical observations to be classed as "Experiments".
Merriam Webster's definition brings forth an interesting question though. It demands that experiments are "carried out under controlled conditions" - and that's a tough bar for Astronomy to meet. You can't very well point one gravity wave detector someplace where there is no gravity wave - and another where there is - and prove that there is a difference...right? That would be a controlled experiment.
BUT...AHA!
Gotcha!
That's precisely what LIGO does. It has TWO gravity wave detectors at right angles to one another...AND another pair called VIRGO at a second site. If just one one of these detectors picks up a wobble - then it's ignored. If both arms of LIGO detect the same exact wobble and VIRGO doesn't - then it's something nearby and it's ignored.
But if the exact SAME wobble is detected on the SAME arms of BOTH detectors - and there is an appropriate speed-of-light delay between the two...then the only explanation is a passing gravity wave.
And in THIS case - they were able to figure out the direction to the source - and to get people with optical telescopes to go look in the exact same spot in the sky...and there was a new source of intense light at that exact spot.
This is VERY good science. It's reproducible in two ways (VIRGO and optical telescopes)...it's controlled. It is an "EXPERIMENT" by any dictionary definition of the word.
(Actually, there is another contraption called "AURIGA" which can detect gravity waves - and they've collaborated with LIGO too).
What's more - it's getting better, there are at least six more gravity wave observatories being planned...and following these successes, more LIGO-like detectors are at the funding stage in India and...I forget the other place.
-
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?
Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.
-
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?
Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.
It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.
-
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?
Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.
It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.
Dipping four thermometers into the bubbling alien liquid does not constitute a controlled experiment.
-
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?
Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.
It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.
Dipping four thermometers into the bubbling alien liquid does not constitute a controlled experiment.
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make, but there is nothing alien about light and gravity.
-
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.
I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.
but there is nothing alien about light and gravity
Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.
-
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method.
Only if you are the one defining the scientific method.
Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.
Good thing that is not what astronomy does.
-
Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.
No, Astrology and Astronomy are two different areas of science: the former is a pseudoscience, the latter is actually considered a real science. Here, let me analyze it for you, Bishop:
*The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment* is Google's definition of science. The scientists who discovered gamma rays across the Earth from the Neutron pair's collision had used a device constructed specifically for the purpose of detecting waves from space. They had conducted science through discovery. Sure, it was a discovery. But why do you need to experiment? To prove that they were gamma rays? Experiments are irrelevant here. Astronomy encompasses both physics and chemistry, two subjects that are used to explain why something is true, why something happens. Equations used thereof, to describe phenomena discovered by astronomers through observation, have been proven through practical means of experiment; the acceleration of the Earth has been proven by experiment. From this, we get the gravitational force of the Earth, and therefore, an equation for gravitational force that can be used for the rest of the universe. We used experiments to derive equations. That is how such equations become laws and sometimes theories (even theories have to be proven with observation AND experiment). So the experimental function of astronomy as a science has been established. From then on, observations are explained respectively. When an unexplainable observation has arisen, experiments will be conducted to legitimize its existence.
The Scientific Method is such an obvious strategy to prove that something is true, without the hypotheses and communication. Of course you are going to observe it first and of course you are going to prove that it works under certain conditions. Stop using the Scientific Method so strictly. It makes you sound like a middle schooler that doesn't know why the Scientific Method makes sense, just that "my teacher said so."
-
Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.
as rama rightly points out, the scientific method does not require laboratories. they're useful for conducting experiments, but they're not fundamental to the method.
it's worth noting that the bedford level experiment is methodologically identical to the practice astronomy; the experiment does nothing more than record the brightness of an object. in this case the brightness observation is binary (did we collect any light from the bridge or didn't we?), but the method is fundamentally the same as observing stars. you didn't put the bedford level in a giant laboratory. nor the surface of the earth. surely you don't think those observations worthless, do you?
an old analogy, but i'm here, so fuck it: suppose i'm a taxonomist. i've studied the biology, physiology, and anatomy of all manner of plants and animals, and my field is obviously based on empirical laboratory and field research.
now let's suppose two odd things: 1) suppose that i've never seen a racoon before. never even heard of one. i have no idea that they exist. 2) suppose that someone could somehow take a photo of 100,000 different raccoons at a particular instant in time and give it to me on a flash drive. so now i'm a taxonomist who has never seen a raccoon before, and i have 100,000 images of different raccoons all at different stages of life and death. some are infants. some are dead and rotting. some are giving birth. some are eating. some are banging, jumping, running, fighting, hunting, scavenging, etc. you get the idea.
having never handled a raccoon before, i could nevertheless tell you a lot of true things about raccoons by relating what i see to the animals and plants that i have studied. i could correctly classify them as mammals, describe their internal structure, fit them on the tree of life, and tell you a shitload else about their characteristics.
sure, there are plenty of questions that will be difficult to answer without getting my hands on a raccoon, but i'm still doing good science just by collecting photons.
-
If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.
Where are you getting the "alien" from????? 3D wrote about measuring the water in natural hot springs. These exist on earth, which is not an alien world. And we know they are water and it would be very easy to take a sample and have this proved. Seriously how do you get away from Junkers wagging finger with your derailments?
-
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.
I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.
but there is nothing alien about light and gravity
Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.
So, what you're also saying is that there is zero science behind FET. What experiments have been performed under controlled conditions to prove your world view? We can stick with things like "celestial" gravity or the motion of the Sun, moon, and stars if you like. Surely that has to be one intrepid scientist out there looking to make a name for themselves. Most of the great scientists from history have challenged conventional thought, so there is certainly a chance to make history.
For the record, LIGO is a controlled environment, but you've never let facts get in the way of your comments before. No reason to start now.
-
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.
I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.
but there is nothing alien about light and gravity
Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.
To quote from the Wiki:
"Zeteticism is a system of scientific inquiry. The word is derived from the Greek verb ζητέω (zeteo), which means "I seek; I examine; I strive for". A zeteticist is a person who practises zeteticism.
Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out."
And let's quote Tom again: "Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science."
And the Wiki again: "using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation".
I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that. :-)
The thing that's most annoying about this "zeteticism" thing is that it would be very useful here - but as far as I can tell, not a SINGLE experiment of ANY kind had been done by the FE'ers in the last 100 years. When real experiments are done (eg by flying a man to the moon and having him take an actual photograph of the Earth) it's ignored.
Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.
This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!
-
Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.
This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!
Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.
The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.
-
The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.
Oh, come off it! "space...must be guessed at." Are you kidding me? You call them guesses, of all words? Did we "guess" that the neutron collision occurred some hundreds of millions of years ago? Was Galileo some flat Earther that got lucky enough to make a telescope and record the motion of stars and our planets? Theories developed through astronomy aren't even mere speculations. They're solid inferences. The reason that the Big Bang theory is widely accepted, despite appropriate controversy, is through inductive reasoning, which may, arguably, serve as grounds for general notions, but still allows scientists to better understand the universe. We don't make up conjectures based on what is guessed. Replication is not the sole method necessary for something to be considered true, to validate.
-
Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.
This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!
Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.
The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.
But how do we know the air was really air? How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top? How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?
Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.
Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake. He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.
When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.
THAT is a controlled experiment. Try it with eye at water level, try it again at three feet above the water - compare results. Ooops...seems like the bizarre effect goes away when you control for humidity and temperature inversions.
It's a bad idea to continually parade the one and only experiment ever done that might maybe have supported your case in a situation where proper experimental hygiene destroys your result.
-
The water convexity scenario is controllable.
No, it's not and you are being willfully ignorant if you believe it is. At a minimum to claim it's controllable means you have no ground to stand on to deny the Foucault pendulum effect. Which means you need to account for that now in your pet conjecture. But in truth you cannot control the air between point A and point B, nor measure all of it. The exact thing that will throw this experiment off, is the thing you cannot control. How is that a controllable experiment? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
-
So Tom thinks a guy playing scientist down by a canal is a controlled environment, but a 4km long laser interferometer housed in a vacuum isn't. Wait, did I mention that built two of them in different regions to reduce the possibility of spurious noise in the data. Yeah...are there any serious FEers out there?
-
Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.
By Tom's lights, only chemistry and physics (but not astrophysics) are sciences.
And much of physics would fail Tom's test as well. Einstein was not able to test a lot of the things he came up with yet most proved to be right on the money.
-
So Tom thinks a guy playing scientist down by a canal is a controlled environment, but a 4km long laser interferometer housed in a vacuum isn't. Wait, did I mention that built two of them in different regions to reduce the possibility of spurious noise in the data. Yeah...are there any serious FEers out there?
I really wish there was a "like" button here.
-
But how do we know the air was really air? How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top? How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?
Well firstly, the experiments were repeated with the same result, so that answers your assertion.
But more importantly it is possible for the water convexity experiment test to be controlled; as it is an experiment which takes place on earth at all points.
Astronomers looking at space phenomena is not controllable. The experimenter can only observe. He cannot experiment with variables of the scenario, make direct samples, or conduct tests elsewhere, to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is said to be an "observing science," which is really just an admission that it is not a science at all.
Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.
Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake. He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.
When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham calculates the maximum refractive index and shows that it is not enough to account for what was seen.
Since all of this takes place on earth it is possible for us to know and test the phenomena of refractive indexes. The earth is not alien and refractive tests can show the limits to how light can behave within the atmosphere. Rowbotham references his sources for his determination of maximum refractive index. This is one control that is applied.
Another control is the fact that these water convexity experiments were conducted in several different ways, my multiple observers, over a period of many years.
Your assertion that each of these repeated experiments are affected by a chance phenomena which makes the earth appear to be exactly flat, no more and no less, when it is really a globe, and this despite that known refraction cannot account for what is seen, is absurd.
-
But how do we know the air was really air? How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top? How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?
Well firstly, the experiments were repeated with the same result, so what answers your assertion.
Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).
Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.
That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".
But more importantly it is possible for the water convexity experiment test to be controlled; as it is an experiment which takes place on earth at all points.
Astronomers looking at space phenomena is not controllable. The experimenter can only observe. He cannot experiment with variables of the scenario, make direct samples, or conduct tests elsewhere, to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is said to be an "observing science," which is really just an admission that it is not a science at all.
You really should sit down with an actual astronomer and make those accusations! Of COURSE they do more than just observe one time. They'll observe something happening in one galaxy - come up with a hypothesis as to why it happens - then try to come up with other things they can look at that might either confirm or deny that hypothesis - then they'll schedule telescope time to go look at more galaxies and see if those observations agree. This is an "experiment".
All experiments entail an observation - looking at the temperature - measuring a distance - all of those are observations. What makes it an "experiment" is what you observe and why.
Again - go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word - or, alternatively, read the definition of Zeteticism in the Wiki on this actual website...which SAYS that observations are OK.
Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.
Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake. He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.
When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.
Funny that multiple other experiments confirmed those results then.
And (again) you ignore the multiple OTHER experiments that denied them. (Wallace being the poster child for that). Why do you keep doing that?
-
Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).
Every disproof I have ever seen is a demonstration of the effect on the ocean. The experimenter is neglectful in his readings of Earth Not a Globe. There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.
The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.
I am not ignoring it. I am saying that it confirms our results. Please read Earth Not a Globe!
That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".
Those results confirm what Samuel Birley Rowbotham determined over 150 years ago. So I would say that it is a win.
-
Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).
Every disproof I have ever seen is a demonstration of the effect on the ocean. The experimenter is neglectful in his readings of Earth Not a Globe. There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.
The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.
I am not ignoring it. I am saying that it confirms our results. Please read Earth Not a Globe!
That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".
Those results confirm what Samuel Birley Rowbotham determined over 150 years ago. So I would say that it is a win.
Oh good grief: Please go read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Experiments
Note there the number of times it says that Rowbotham's results were NOT confirmed. I count at least three.
-
You really should sit down with an actual astronomer and make those accusations! Of COURSE they do more than just observe one time. They'll observe something happening in one galaxy - come up with a hypothesis as to why it happens - then try to come up with other things they can look at that might either confirm or deny that hypothesis - then they'll schedule telescope time to go look at more galaxies and see if those observations agree. This is an "experiment".
They are assuming:
That all stars are the same
That all galaxies are the same
That the stars and galaxies are far away
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.
Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.
All experiments entail an observation - looking at the temperature - measuring a distance - all of those are observations. What makes it an "experiment" is what you observe and why.
All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?
Again - go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word - or, alternatively, read the definition of Zeteticism in the Wiki on this actual website...which SAYS that observations are OK.
Actually it says experimentation and observation is involved, but you guys just ignored experimentation and bolded the word observation to make some kind of point. ???
-
Oh good grief: Please go read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Experiments
Note there the number of times it says that Rowbotham's results were NOT confirmed. I count at least three.
There are a whole lot more than three experiments which confirm the experiments if you care to look through the many Flat Earth and journals published after Earth Not a Globe. Consult Youtube for more recent experiments. Way more than three.
You linked me to a wager for between two men for a year's worth of pay, where each man walked away from the experiment claiming that he had won, as a disproof of Earth Not a Globe? And another by a very vocal critic of Rowbotham, who called him immature names, and who had no witnesses for his experiment, whereas Rowbotham and Lady Blount had plenty. Solid proof there. We might as well close down this website. ::)
The article you linked also falsely states that refraction can account for what was seen. Rowbotham provides sources showing that it cannot account for what was seen.
-
When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham calculates the maximum refractive index and shows that it is not enough to account for what was seen.
Is Rowbotham's calculation for the maximum refractive index consistent with modern maximum refractive index calculations?
-
There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.
So what? There are books which SPECIFICALLY state that the Earth was created in six days. Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not it is written down.
The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.
Incorrect.
They are assuming:
That all stars are the same
Incorrect. They are not assuming, they actually observe the stars to be different. It is these differences that has lead to modern theories of stellar bodies.
That all galaxies are the same
Incorrect. Galaxies are not assumed to be the same, Galaxies are observed to be different, which has lead to numerous different hypotheses on galactic formation and has shown that some scientific theories are incomplete because they cannot adequately explain their behavior.
That the stars and galaxies are far away
Because they are, as has been measured by multiple methods thousands, if not millions of times. This is an empiric fact.
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
The spin rates of galaxies are indeed unexplained. It would be much stranger to assume that the laws of physics suddenly did not apply to galaxies spinning where they appear to everywhere else that to assume that there is a phenomena at work that we do not yet understand.
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.
Small but important fact: fusion is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction. That being said, stellar fusion reactions have been recreated in a laboratory.
http://news.sky.com/story/scientists-recreate-the-nuclear-fusion-reactions-found-inside-stars-10979047
Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.
Incorrect.
All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?
Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise. What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline. This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.
-
Consult Youtube for more recent experiments. Way more than three.
Hmm, okay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLl7oqdm_B8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vmVJKqUFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuGwQq7qZk
youtube science is AWESOME! can you imagine if we were still stuck with some of the dumb shit people were pulling 150 years ago? some douche tried to prove the Earth was flat because if you look at it, like, super hard, sometimes you can see a thing that's farther away than the horizon normally is. what a total mind blower, yowza
-
There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.
So what? There are books which SPECIFICALLY state that the Earth was created in six days. Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not it is written down.
If you are trying to contradict Earth Not a Globe you need to read the source material to know what you need to contradict.
They are assuming:
That all stars are the same
Incorrect. They are not assuming, they actually observe the stars to be different. It is these differences that has lead to modern theories of stellar bodies.
Astronomers assume that average stars represents a medium middle aged star and the differences seen in other stars tell us the age of the stars and their lifecycles.
That all galaxies are the same
Incorrect. Galaxies are not assumed to be the same, Galaxies are observed to be different, which has lead to numerous different hypotheses on galactic formation and has shown that some scientific theories are incomplete because they cannot adequately explain their behavior.
Galaxies are assumed to be the same in that they all operate with the same mechanisms, rather than by entirely different mechanisms.
That the stars and galaxies are far away
Because they are, as has been measured by multiple methods thousands, if not millions of times. This is an empiric fact.
Who measured the distance to a galaxy? ???
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
The spin rates of galaxies are indeed unexplained. It would be much stranger to assume that the laws of physics suddenly did not apply to galaxies spinning where they appear to everywhere else that to assume that there is a phenomena at work that we do not yet understand.
The laws of physics do not apply to the very small (see: Quantum Theory). Assuming that the galaxies are extremely large, what reasoning is there that physics should scale infinitely upwards if it does not scale infinitely downwards?
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.
Small but important fact: fusion is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction. That being said, stellar fusion reactions have been recreated in a laboratory.
http://news.sky.com/story/scientists-recreate-the-nuclear-fusion-reactions-found-inside-stars-10979047
Actually, despite the sensational headline of Sky News, if you read the article it does not describe that Stellar Fusion was achieved.
"Powerful lasers are used to create the high temperatures and pressures found inside stars 40 times more massive than the Sun."
"The experiments are the first thermonuclear measurements of nuclear reaction cross-sections — a quantity that describes the probability that reactants will undergo a fusion reaction — in high-energy-density plasma conditions that are equivalent to the burning cores of giant stars, i.e., 10-40 times more massive than the sun."
Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.
Incorrect.
All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?
Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise. What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline. This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.
Astronomers cannot put the universe under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter like a chemist can do with his subject matter. An Astronomer can only observe and interpret. That is not science. That does not follow the Scientific Method.
-
You really should sit down with an actual astronomer and make those accusations! Of COURSE they do more than just observe one time. They'll observe something happening in one galaxy - come up with a hypothesis as to why it happens - then try to come up with other things they can look at that might either confirm or deny that hypothesis - then they'll schedule telescope time to go look at more galaxies and see if those observations agree. This is an "experiment".
They are assuming:
That all stars are the same
That all galaxies are the same
That the stars and galaxies are far away
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.
Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.
All experiments entail an observation - looking at the temperature - measuring a distance - all of those are observations. What makes it an "experiment" is what you observe and why.
All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?
Again - go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word - or, alternatively, read the definition of Zeteticism in the Wiki on this actual website...which SAYS that observations are OK.
Actually it says experimentation and observation is involved, but you guys just ignored experimentation and bolded the word observation to make some kind of point. ???
Tom CLEARLY still doesn't understand what qualifies something as scientific. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/astronomy.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/astronomy.htm)
Beyond some disproved uncontrolled experiment from 100+ years ago, what experiments have confirmed the flatness of Earth? Seriously, buy a freaking decent camera, a weather balloon, some helium, and some tracking equipment and SHOCK the world with your discovery. It can be done for a few grand. Stop prattling on like someone's kooky grandpa and finally put your money where your mouth is if this means so much to you. Crowd source it if you can't fund it. The flat Earth is there to be seen be anyone with a little initiative. I want to see a little sun and a little moon spinning around a flat plane. If you're really ambitious, how about a map so you don't get lost on road trips. LOL, this is such a joke.
-
Tom CLEARLY still doesn't understand what qualifies something as scientific. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/astronomy.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/astronomy.htm)
The Mises Institute agrees that Astronomy is not a science:
https://mises.org/library/misess-non-trivial-insight
Austrians have argued that the method of the natural sciences "wouldn't work" in social affairs for two reasons. First, there are no underlying constants in human behavior, unlike the natural constants (such as the charge on an electron) that can be observed in, say, physics. Second, there is no way to conduct a truly controlled experiment in the social sciences. For example, two economists can't test rival theories of taxation on "the same" population, because the very occurrence of the first experiment (say, an increase in taxes) will change the initial starting point for the next experiment. The most obvious difficulty for this approach is that the subjects of the experiment—the people in the economy—are aware of the experiments and react accordingly. There is no way to hold their ideas "fixed" from one test to the next.
Against these arguments, I have seen positivists argue (rightly, I believe) that such observations would also "prove" that meteorology or astronomy is not a science. After all, the charge of an electron is still a constant, whether the electron is in a tornado or a consumer's brain. Moreover, two astronomers obviously can't settle their dispute over a binary star system by resort to a controlled experiment, yet the Austrians presumably wouldn't object to the method of the natural sciences in astronomy. Thus the positivist could argue that his approach would work just as well in economics as it does in astronomy or meteorology.
Beyond some disproved uncontrolled experiment from 100+ years ago, what experiments have confirmed the flatness of Earth?
Have you looked at Youtube lately? They are reproducing the water convexity experiments.
Seriously, buy a freaking decent camera, a weather balloon, some helium, and some tracking equipment and SHOCK the world with your discovery. It can be done for a few grand. Stop prattling on like someone's kooky grandpa and finally put your money where your mouth is if this means so much to you. Crowd source it if you can't fund it. The flat Earth is there to be seen be anyone with a little initiative. I want to see a little sun and a little moon spinning around a flat plane. If you're really ambitious, how about a map so you don't get lost on road trips. LOL, this is such a joke.
You seem to be under the impression that the sun is in the atmosphere, or that the atmosphere extends to a very great height. That is incorrect.
Regardless, we do not discount any such experiments. They show that we are looking down at a circle (https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs).
-
You found one guy. Good on you, Tom. You've completely changed my mind on the topic. LMAO....
The canal experiment was disproved and youtube videos can be faked. If you're not there verifying their setup, how can you possibly believe what you're seeing. Think for yourself, Tom.
No, they don't. There are plenty that show the edge of the Earth. Crisp and sharp. A FE would have a gradient fading to darkness. Where I live, evening lasts at least an hour. Sometimes more depending on the time of year.
-
If you are trying to contradict Earth Not a Globe you need to read the source material to know what you need to contradict.
this cuts both ways. you're right that a necessary component of any criticism is a demonstration that you fully understand the position you are criticizing; and, you consistently demonstrate that you do not understand what astronomer claim to know, how they claim to know it, and the assumptions they make in the process. your descriptions are wildly inaccurate.
as an example, astronomers do not assume all stars are the same; they assume stars are made of atoms. everything else follows from that.
-
That wiki page is wrong in nearly everything it says
for one, the continents are not "tens of thousands of miles away horizontally," because the Earth is about ~8000 miles across
for two, the area lit by the sun is not a circle on any flat Earth model, so the wiki is here once more contradicting itself ... further, curvature appears even in high altitude photography taken at night, so the page's explanation fails twice.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxBid6YwoHs
-
That wiki page is wrong in nearly everything it says
for one, the continents are not "tens of thousands of miles away horizontally," because the Earth is about ~8000 miles across for two, the area lit by the sun is not a circle on any flat Earth model, so the wiki is here once more contradicting itself ...
Where are you getting 8000 from? The Erathostenes experiment interpreted on a Flat Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter) tells us that the earth has a diameter of about 25,000 miles.
further, curvature appears even in high altitude photography taken at night, so the page's explanation fails twice.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxBid6YwoHs
High contrast light of the sun blends into the earth: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oZyNrUqyAfcY2EXYBXIaEyuZetCnbRCcQx0xZ7rYnp4/edit
-
8000 miles is the Earth's diameter. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)
Also, throwing out some optics buzzwords does not prove your point at all. In fact, drawing some lines on there was extremely helpful. It shows the curvature goes the other way - if the circle of the sun's light was the source of curvature in high altitude photos, then the bright light should have a clear curve away from the sun, not concave into it like the video shows.
good job shooting yourself in the foot, again, for the hundredth time
-
Where are you getting 8000 from? The Erathostenes experiment interpreted on a Flat Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter) tells us that the earth has a diameter of about 25,000 miles.
Ah, you're mistaken. No it doesn't.
Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too) did an experiment which can have two possible conclusions.
EITHER:
1) The Earth is round and has a radius of around 3,500 to 4,000 miles - and the sun is very much further away than that - at least millions of miles.
...OR...
2) The Earth is flat, and the sun is 3,500 to 4,000 miles away.
But you don't get to use BOTH interpretations - pick one or the other.
Eratosthenes could only knew the radius of the earth because he assumed it to be round. If you take away his round-earth assumption - and replace it with a flat-earth assumption - then he would have had no idea how big the Earth was. How could he possibly have known? Heck, even you Flat Earthers don't know.
In fact, there is a third possible interpretation that NOBODY likes:
3) That the Earth is round - but it's radius is larger than 4,000 miles - and the sun is not all that far away, but it's beyond 4,000 miles.
...this one sucks because you can't measure either the Earth's radius or the Sun's distance unless you assume that either one or the other is essentially infinite.
-
8000 miles is the Earth's diameter. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)
This is assuming the Earth is round (and thus the diameter is of a spheroid). The actual diameter of the Earth's disc is 24,901 miles measured at the equator.
-
8000 miles is the Earth's diameter. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)
Well, there is your problem. You are assuming a RE. See Rushy's message above.
Also, throwing out some optics buzzwords does not prove your point at all. In fact, drawing some lines on there was extremely helpful. It shows the curvature goes the other way - if the circle of the sun's light was the source of curvature in high altitude photos, then the bright light should have a clear curve away from the sun, not concave into it like the video shows.
The foreground picture clearly shows the bright light of the sun blending into the earth to create an inconsistent horizon.
-
Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)
Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes)?
Eratosthenes could only knew the radius of the earth because he assumed it to be round. If you take away his round-earth assumption - and replace it with a flat-earth assumption - then he would have had no idea how big the Earth was. How could he possibly have known? Heck, even you Flat Earthers don't know.
No one said that he would have known. The example just shows that his work can be interpreted differently.
-
To take a page from y'all... who measured that 25000 mile figure, exactly? Did Rowbotham sail from Antarctica to ... more of Antarctica ... with a tape measure? Was it Eratosthenes? No, see 3DGeek's post just now. You actually have no idea how big your flat Earth model is. Because you suck. And NASA rules. And once more, for the people in the back: the spheroidal diameter of the Earth is 8000 miles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
Also : the foreground picture clearly shows sunrise on a round planet. There isn't an inconsistent horizon at all. Some of it is bright, that's not 'inconsistent.' You're oblivious, openly lying, engaged in wishful thinking, and mayhaps too proud.
-
Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)
Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes)?
yo
3D and EB spell the Greek dude's name the same way. you spell it wrong. you linked EB and waved it around like it proves you're hot shit, but it's flashing a big arrow at you saying, this dude can't read
are you stupid?
-
Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)
Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes)?
yo
3D and EB spell the Greek dude's name the same way. you spell it wrong. you linked EB and waved it around like it proves you're hot shit, but it's flashing a big arrow at you saying, this dude can't read
are you stupid?
It is spelled both ways:
Erathostenes
https://books.google.com/books?id=T1_oCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA93&ots=M2lfUTnmkY&dq=%22Erathostenes%22&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q=%22Erathostenes%22&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=1dZQAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Erathostenes%22&dq=%22Erathostenes%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6itKSoYjXAhXD7iYKHdmoCOUQ6AEISTAG
https://books.google.com/books?id=OxXwkbYucWwC&lpg=PA84&dq=%22Erathostenes%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22Erathostenes%22&f=false
Eratosthenes
https://books.google.com/books?id=hWv-WUOHfSIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Eratosthenes%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQhYbQoYjXAhWFRyYKHWotB9sQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22Eratosthenes%22&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=4Sp8CaA5HI0C&lpg=PP1&dq=%22Eratosthenes%22&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=%22Eratosthenes%22&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=vCtYnEuW7TIC&lpg=PA19&dq=%22Eratosthenes%22&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q=%22Eratosthenes%22&f=false
-
To take a page from y'all... who measured that 25000 mile figure, exactly? Did Rowbotham sail from Antarctica to ... more of Antarctica ... with a tape measure? Was it Eratosthenes? No, see 3DGeek's post just now. You actually have no idea how big your flat Earth model is. Because you suck. And NASA rules. And once more, for the people in the back: the spheroidal diameter of the Earth is 8000 miles.
It's the diameter of the Earth as measured on the equator, and it also happens to be exactly the same in both FET and RET. I also highly suggest not placing "you suck!" in your posts when you're unaware of what your own model states, much less what other models state.
-
I'm happy for you that you managed to find a book that spells it your way. I think your action linking to Britannica speaks for itself. Regardless, it's spelled Eratosthenes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) It's a translated name, so we understand some people are going to spell it one way or another, especially when referring to older sources, but there is still a most correct way to spell the name.
BACK ON TOPIC
Science rules, flat Earth drools. We've got people measuring gravitational waves, meanwhile Rushy thinks gravity isn't real, meanwhile PizzaPlanet thinks gravity is real from an infinite plane, meanwhile Junker thinks it's UA. Meanwhile, the Earth is round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dTXB3O3dw
-
you suck
...spheroidal diameter
It's the diameter of the Earth as measured on the equator, and it also happens to be exactly the same in both FET and RET. I also highly suggest not placing "you suck!" in your posts when you're unaware of what your own model states, much less what other models state.
Don't misquote me, I obviously did not use an exclamation point. That would be crass, and rude.
Also, I am clearly referring to the diameter within the sphere - the radius, as in distance from the center of the globe to its surface, times two. The circumference is the great circle distance around the outside. This is not the same thing as diameter. Here:
"The average diameter of the reference spheroid is 12,742 kilometres (7,918 mi)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Shape)
-
https://mises.org/library/misess-non-trivial-insight
btw this article has a ton of super interesting shit to say, and one of them is right on point:
This stands in sharp contrast to the method of the positivists, a camp that includes most of today's practicing economists. In their opinion, economics can only be "scientific" if it adopts the procedures used by the natural scientists. Roughly, the positivists feel that economists should form hypotheses with testable implications, and then collect data to measure the accuracy of their predictions. Those tendencies that enjoy the most success in this sense are then deemed to be better "laws" than conjectures that do not fit the data so well.
laboratories are not required by the scientific method.
-
There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.
So what? There are books which SPECIFICALLY state that the Earth was created in six days. Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not it is written down.
If you are trying to contradict Earth Not a Globe you need to read the source material to know what you need to contradict.
I have. Not only were you making an appeal to an authority, which is a nonsense argument, your authority's argument is nonsense.
They are assuming:
That all stars are the same
Incorrect. They are not assuming, they actually observe the stars to be different. It is these differences that has lead to modern theories of stellar bodies.
Astronomers assume that average stars represents a medium middle aged star and the differences seen in other stars tell us the age of the stars and their lifecycles.
Source? What does "average star" even mean in this context? Considering your history I doubt you actually understand the topic, so I would appreciate some more substance.
That all galaxies are the same
Incorrect. Galaxies are not assumed to be the same, Galaxies are observed to be different, which has lead to numerous different hypotheses on galactic formation and has shown that some scientific theories are incomplete because they cannot adequately explain their behavior.
Galaxies are assumed to be the same in that they all operate with the same mechanisms, rather than by entirely different mechanisms.
Yes one of the underpinnings of empirical thought is that the universe operates in intelligible ways. This is a necessary assumption to make an intelligible investigation of the universe.
That the stars and galaxies are far away
Because they are, as has been measured by multiple methods thousands, if not millions of times. This is an empiric fact.
Who measured the distance to a galaxy? ???
Astronomers, for hundreds of years. You didn't know this and yet you presume to comment on their work?
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
The spin rates of galaxies are indeed unexplained. It would be much stranger to assume that the laws of physics suddenly did not apply to galaxies spinning where they appear to everywhere else that to assume that there is a phenomena at work that we do not yet understand.
The laws of physics do not apply to the very small (see: Quantum Theory). Assuming that the galaxies are extremely large, what reasoning is there that physics should scale infinitely upwards if it does not scale infinitely downwards?
This is wrong. The most accurate and robust scientific theories ever put together deal with Quantum Mechanics. What are you even talking about?
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.
Small but important fact: fusion is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction. That being said, stellar fusion reactions have been recreated in a laboratory.
http://news.sky.com/story/scientists-recreate-the-nuclear-fusion-reactions-found-inside-stars-10979047
Actually, despite the sensational headline of Sky News, if you read the article it does not describe that Stellar Fusion was achieved.
"Powerful lasers are used to create the high temperatures and pressures found inside stars 40 times more massive than the Sun."
"The experiments are the first thermonuclear measurements of nuclear reaction cross-sections — a quantity that describes the probability that reactants will undergo a fusion reaction — in high-energy-density plasma conditions that are equivalent to the burning cores of giant stars, i.e., 10-40 times more massive than the sun."
A nuclear reaction cross-section is a way of quantifying a nuclear reaction. Now I know you thought fusion was a chemical reaction, so I am glad we can clear this up. Fusion is a nuclear reaction that would be accurately described by a nuclear reaction cross-section. All nuclear reactions are probabilistic and what they did is recreate the environment of a stellar core where the probabilities of an individual particle undergoing fusion was the same as in their laboratory.
Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.
All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?
Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise. What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline. This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.
Astronomers cannot put the universe under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter like a chemist can do with his subject matter. An Astronomer can only observe and interpret. That is not science. That does not follow the Scientific Method.
Saying again and again that your conceptualization of what an experiment is is the only possible interpretation is not making it any more convincing. Engage with the counter argument or concede. After all, geology, biology, medical science and many other sciences also do research that does not use laboratory controlled experiments. Face it, your way is not the only way.
-
Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)
Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes)?
Eh? The Britannica and I (and Wikipedia and Google and...) all agree that it's spelled "Eratosthenes"...you (and the Wiki) are the ones spelling it incorrectly.
Eratosthenes could only knew the radius of the earth because he assumed it to be round. If you take away his round-earth assumption - and replace it with a flat-earth assumption - then he would have had no idea how big the Earth was. How could he possibly have known? Heck, even you Flat Earthers don't know.
No one said that he would have known. The example just shows that his work can be interpreted differently.
Yes, you can interpret his results differently - but when you do that, you can no longer claim (as you did, earlier) that his result tells you the size of the flat earth. He did not and could not have done that if the Earth was flat.
His results tell you EITHER the distance to the Sun under a Flat Earth assumption OR the radius of the Earth under a Round Earth assumption. If you assume a flat earth, you can't use his results (or any others that I'm aware of) to determine it's size. In fact, you cannot possibly know the size of your flat earth...you don't have a workable map...so you can't use circumnavigation distances - you deny that we know the speeds of airliners and you claim that GPS is faked. You have NO CLUE how far apart the continents are - or (in truth) how large they are.
So why did you claim to know the size of the Earth? On what basis was this determined?
-
Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.
Incorrect.
All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?
Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise. What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline. This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.
Astronomers cannot put the universe under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter like a chemist can do with his subject matter. An Astronomer can only observe and interpret. That is not science. That does not follow the Scientific Method.
Who put the Bedford Levels under controlled conditions during the water convexity experiments? What controls were changed between observations?
-
To take a page from y'all... who measured that 25000 mile figure, exactly? Did Rowbotham sail from Antarctica to ... more of Antarctica ... with a tape measure? Was it Eratosthenes? No, see 3DGeek's post just now. You actually have no idea how big your flat Earth model is. Because you suck. And NASA rules. And once more, for the people in the back: the spheroidal diameter of the Earth is 8000 miles.
It's the diameter of the Earth as measured on the equator, and it also happens to be exactly the same in both FET and RET.
Who measured it in FET? You aren't just trusting that the FET diameter should be the same as the RET diameter, are you?
-
I'm happy for you that you managed to find a book that spells it your way. I think your action linking to Britannica speaks for itself. Regardless, it's spelled Eratosthenes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes) It's a translated name, so we understand some people are going to spell it one way or another, especially when referring to older sources, but there is still a most correct way to spell the name.
There is in fact one and only one way to spell Eratosthenes, for the following simple yet very compelling reason :
in ancient Greek most of the names had a meaning, more or less in relation with the concerned person or one of his ancestors. Now "Erathostenes" has no specific meaning (at least to my knowledge), meanwhile "Eratosthenes" can split into its two components "Erato-sthenes", which means "strength of love" (or strengthened by love).
With such a mane, there is no wonder he was such a gifted and famous philosopher!....,
-
With such a mane, there is no wonder he was such a gifted and famous philosopher!....,
Turns out he was a lion. Makes sense now.
Maybe we can get back on topic?
-
That wiki page is wrong in nearly everything it says
for one, the continents are not "tens of thousands of miles away horizontally," because the Earth is about ~8000 miles across for two, the area lit by the sun is not a circle on any flat Earth model, so the wiki is here once more contradicting itself ...
Where are you getting 8000 from? The Erathostenes experiment interpreted on a Flat Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter) tells us that the earth has a diameter of about 25,000 miles.
Are you using flat earth miles here?