Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 313  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 08, 2019, 12:36:42 PM »
Is that the Scientific Method, or is it someone's commentary from a book?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 07, 2019, 10:53:13 PM »
The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true.
No, it isn't. Were that true we wouldn't have relativity, if Newton's ideas were thought to be "Proven True" then why would anyone ever have challenged them?
The reason it took so long for Newton to be shown to be wrong is because in most circumstances his theory does work fine, it's only in certain circumstances that his theories break down and it took a long time for us to have instruments sensitive enough to notice.
Science is always open to the possibility that it might not be correct and the models might need to be modified or discarded entirely and replaced.

Funny statements there, but the word "proven" is widely used by academia when a hypothesis is allegedly tested to be true.

Search term: "relativity was proven" site:.edu

Quote
In 1919 his theory of General Relativity was proven correct from measurements taken during a total solar eclipse and he instantly became a ...

Oct 25, 2018 · Shortly before the Versailles treaty was signed in 1919, Einstein received good new when his theory of relativity was proven by a British ...

Aug 4, 2017 · ... and how Einstein's theory of relativity was proven true to a skeptical world when, during the eclipse of 1919, scientists collected photographic ...

TOTALITY also looks back to a fascinating period in scientific discovery when general relativity was proven with the photographic recording of a total solar eclipse.

Mar 12, 2019 · Look back to a fascinating period in scientific discovery when general relativity was proven with the photographic recording of a total solar  ...

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Well, it's up to you whether you do further investigation but the end of the method is "Report results". This is the key part which allows others to review and attempt to repeat your result either using your method or different method which may test things you missed. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say this is not allowed, it's how progress has been made down the years.

The Scientific Method says nothing about testing a hypothesis with different methods to better determine a truth.

"Well it's up to you" --- That's not a method.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
As for the Wright brothers, they certainly did work in a scientific way:

Quote
The Wright brothers were much more scientific and methodical inventors. They believed in testing their ideas in smaller or safer versions before building an actual plane. Scientists today, like the Wright brothers, don't just build things and see what happens; they make observations, then form a hypothesis or guess, and then do more tests to see if their hypothesis is correct. This is known as the "scientific method." For example, the Wright brothers built a wind tunnel to compare wing shape ideas By attaching an old shop fan to a 6-foot-long wooden box, they could blow "wind" on hundreds of different miniature wings and measure with a scale exactly how much lift each wing produced. The Wright brothers also flew countless kites as well as motor-less gliders to test their designs. They studied the way birds move through the air and tried to duplicate it with their models. Throughout all their experiments, Orville and Wilbur took careful notes and measurements so they could analyze what worked and what didn't.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/flight/wright/invent.htm

Looks like investigating from experiment to experience to me.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 07, 2019, 07:40:20 PM »
The scientific method is about coming up with a hypothesis and then doing an experiment to test that hypothesis. No single test is said to prove anything.

The tests are thought to confirm the hypothesis, which is treated as proven true. Do you think that when people believed that spontaneous generation was true, that they thought it wasn't proven?

Standards of "proof" have always been very low in science.

Quote
If the test results are consistent with the hypothesis then no, you don’t declare yourself to be correct, you publish your method and your results so that other people can check your work. If other people manage to reproduce your results then it builds confidence in your hypothesis.

That would just lead to the same flawed conclusion of spontaneous generation.

Quote
People may devise different ways of testing your hypothesis.

That's beyond what the Scientific Method says. The Scientific Method just says to perform a test to confirm that your hypothesis is true. That's it. There is no further investigation on your subject matter.

I would recommend reading the steps of the Scientific Method. They do not involve multiple tests in different fundamental ways of a hypothesis. It just says to perform a test to confirm whether it is true or false. It is your understanding of what the scientific method says which is flawed. The scientific method says none of that.

If people "may" test the hypothesis in different ways, that's beyond what the scope of the scientific method says to do, and is closer to the Zetetic method.

4
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:51:39 PM »
Actually, on review, I was mistaken about what you were doing. I was somehow under the impression that you were going to ax the moon phase page and just redirect to the moon phase section on the EA page.

In that case, yes, there should be one dedicated page. Feel free to make the changes suggested. What you suggested would be for the best.

5
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:30:04 PM »
Are you sure that will keep Google happy? The redirect pages seem to only have the title as the content for the page on Google.

There are other websites besides us dedicated to the flat Earth moon phases: https://www.flat-earth-moon-phases.com/

Do you think that a page with only the title as its contents, "Phases of the Moon" will outrank a website like that? I have yet to see a redirect page show up as a high ranking in Google Search, which is why I think combining the pages may not be the best idea.

There are alternatives. We can expand on the page with additional information about the phases. There is surely more that could be said about the phases than a paragraph and a couple of images on the EA page. That EA page description should just be a summary anyway.

The phases also rotate in weird ways over the night (Moon Tilt Illusion). And there are some questions about timing between the phases. Unfortunately making a page out of the anomalies takes work.

We could also just leave it as be.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism
« on: December 07, 2019, 05:56:56 PM »
If you follow the Scientific Method as it is written you will get half-truths and fallacies. The Scientific Method has us coming up with a hypothesis and then performing an experiment around that hypothesis to prove it to be true or false. If it is true, and the experiment comes out in your favor, the next step is to declare yourself to be correct, communicate your results, and it ends there.

However, this is not sufficient. As an example consider Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation which mankind accepted as true for upwards of 2000 years. If you perform an experiment and put out a piece of meat and find that it eventually rots and flies and maggots develop on it, you would be prone to believe that the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation is true.

We see that a single experiment to confirm a hypothesis is not enough, and deeper and basic investigation is necessary to validate the underlying hypothesis. The Zetetic philosophy is conceived as a method of inquiry, where tests are tried and investigation is performed, not to corroborate any particular theory, but where all theories are discarded and the goal is to uncover basic truths about nature, with experience itself as the guiding force.

Many inventors and researchers already perform a Zetetic form of inquiry without knowing it. When Folding@Home systematically tests many different protein folding combinations across a distributed network to see what works and what does not, the Zetetic method is applied. When the Wright Brothers wrote that they had discarded scientific theories and began from experiment to experience, and that only then could they invent the airplane, they were performing the Zetetic method. Knowledge does not come from the 'logically sound' theories and models of man that are built up in academia, but from experience and nature.

7
Flat Earth Projects / Re: "Phases of the Moon" and "The Phases of the Moon"
« on: December 07, 2019, 05:25:44 PM »
Currently, the Wiki has two pages on lunar phases:

-Phases of the Moon redirects to a section of the Electromagnetic Acceleration page
-The Phases of the Moon appears to be a separate page, which also includes a link to the EA page for more details.

Is the page starting with "The" necessary, or should it be merged?

"The Phases of The Moon" comes up first on Google for the phrase "flat earth moon phases" and similar terms relating to phases. It would be ideal to just leave it, as to keep that. Better would be a dedicated page without the "The" at the top of google.

Perhaps the dedicated page can be improved or expanded on.

SMF really needs to make it more clear that you are editing another person's post instead of quoting them.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 09:32:45 PM »
Where does he state that it's a thought experiment?
"For others it is the fact that it is possible to probe Einstein's theory experimentally that is most compelling"

Oh, and let me add to this the fact that he begins the whole discussion of the experiment with the words: "Think now about what all of this means in a practical situation.  Consider ..."

I don't see where it's stated that the statements he gives do not represent what is occurring in General Relativity. The author clearly states, several times, that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time, and this is the cause for why bodies of different masses fall at the same rate in the Galileo experiment.

Another paper on the same topic: https://www.docdroid.net/AbDLJgt/earths-surface-accelerates-upwards.pdf

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 03:25:08 PM »
Where does he state that it's a thought experiment?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 02:27:13 PM »
We have a source from a physicist which says that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time.

Quote
the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

Do you have anything to support your opinion that he is wrong or mistating things?

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 01:24:27 PM »
It clearly says that gravity occurs in GR because the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.

Quote
Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Which makes it very clear that it is the sky diver moving, not the earth?

Did you read the content? It says the opposite:

Quote
we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:40:43 AM »
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.
Do you have a link to some recognized or suitably qualified physicist stating this (preferably not a link to the FE wiki)?  I'd be seriously interested in seeing how they come to that conclusion.  Or are you trying to apply Einstein's equivalency theory?

Right here:

Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:

Quote
Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

Author info:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/gravity-a-very-short-introduction-9780198729143?cc=us&lang=en&#

Quote
Dr Timothy Clifton studied under John Barrow in Cambridge and is now a lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London. He is a specialist in gravitational physics. He has published many research papers on the subject, as well as co-authoring a cover story on gravity in Scientific American.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Session problems on the Wiki
« on: December 01, 2019, 04:18:43 AM »
When I checkmark the stay logged in option it seems to keep me logged in, but when I try to edit it gives me this error:

Quote
Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data.

You might have been logged out. Please verify that you're still logged in and try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in, and check that your browser allows cookies from this site.

14
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Session problems on the Wiki
« on: November 30, 2019, 08:29:09 PM »
I gave it another try. On a desktop Chrome browser I logged in, navigated to a page, performed an edit, and it logged me out when I hit "submit".

Edit: I was ale to get a few edits to go through, but it is constantly logging out and is in a, in my opinion, unusable state for editors.

15
I see that SpaceX is putting up satellites for Argentina, Indonesia, Tiawan, Bulgaria, Japan, and Malasia. Interesting that the zealots claim that that space is an international endeavor, yet a few organizations are relied on for access.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: November 29, 2019, 09:10:17 PM »
It's pretty crazy that the official explanation for gravity is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time. That alone shows everything else to be questionable.

17
Suggestions & Concerns / Session problems on the Wiki
« on: November 29, 2019, 06:20:25 AM »
It seems that after a recent Wiki software update I have a hard time staying logged in. After logging in and going to make an edit, the Wiki will log me out when I go to press submit. After several attempts I might get an edit to go through. It is happening on Chrome and Firefox on a desktop, as well as Chrome on an Android phone.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: November 27, 2019, 06:16:41 PM »


Quote
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.


I sometimes wonder if and FEer even understands what GR is and what it means.  First of all, it postulates, and is dependent upon the Newtonian concept of gravity that matter “attracts” matter being correct.  It is just a proposed theory has to how/why that happens. In Einstein’s field calculations, G is the gravitational constant from Newton's law of gravitation, Guv is the metric tensor, which describes spacetime and gravitational potential and Tuv is the stress-energy tensor, which is the source of the gravitational field.  So if you want to try and use GR to support UA, you can’t do so without also accepting the Newtonian concept of gravity that matter “attracts” matter.  If GR is true, then it is also true that matter “attracts” matter.  It is, after all, a theory of gravitation.

The how or why shouldn’t be relevant to FE because no matter how or why it happens, ultimately, the fact that it does ends with a sphere earth.

We have some pages on the topic of the universal gravitation of mass here: https://wiki.tfes.org/General_Physics

Feel free to address them.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: November 26, 2019, 11:42:26 PM »
Yep. The official explanation is that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through space-time.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Gravity
« on: November 25, 2019, 06:24:59 PM »
General Relativity is an upwardly accelerating earth simulator.

Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:

Quote
Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs!

See the bolded. "In both situations you are accelerating upwards" and the Earth is "pushing you upwards through space-time."

Different bodies have different weights because the Earth is accelerating upwards, pushing itself into bodies which have different inertial resistances to being moved through space.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 313  Next >