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 - JRowe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21  Next >
1
At this point, neither side seems to support a reunification effort (even if it does look good on paper), and letting each group do their own thing seems like the only viable outcome.
Agree with this. I remember when I used to support it, but the sites have established themselves more fully now, doing their own thing... The only way reunification could work even hypothetically I think would be if it turned into a third society even if purely down to how the boards are different now.
At least the sites are hopefully on better terms. That always seemed to be one of the goals of reunification, and there's no need to merge the two if that's in place.

Also this site's better and those guys suck. I'm pretty much obligated to say that.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:00:11 PM »
I'm not being narrow minded. You have posted absolutely no reference to any one thing that you or someone else has submitted and had it laughed. Yet, you continually reference having it done to you and others by a legitimate person from the scientific community. I am not talking about a general response to the FE community by Tyson or Nye in a random YouTube video. You continually reference yours and others FE research as being mocked by scientists. Yet, you provide no evidence of this whatsoever. Please show me what you or someone else has submitted in good faith to the scientific research community and show evidence that it has been rejected. Not some YouTube video or response on here.

And now you are just resorting ad hominem attacks on me. I have not cried fake at you once. And I won't cry fake at you if you provide me evidence. I, contrary to FEers, don't cry fake at everything that proves me wrong. I am legitimately asking for evidence to back up your claims.
And it is patently clear that it's not a good faith question, it's an attempt to waste time. You have not engaged or responded to a single thing I have said, you have opted to ignore it all and insist only one specific thing will satisfy you. Don't pretend you care about evidence. You have ignored all reasoning, all explanation, all evidence, all the points that even your side has agreed on to focus on insisting I provide something that you would never believe. If you are not going to even bother responding to a word I said, I am not going to waste time on you. Sure, cry 'ad hominem,' not like that's a cliche at all. If you don't like it when people call you out then don't act like that.

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 28, 2019, 01:48:15 PM »
No, you havent posted any evidence to show someone has been mocking you. All you have done is stated that it has happened. Show me an email reply to your research that you have submitted, or a link to something. Claiming it here with a text reply on this forum does not constitute evidence.
Wow. You really are just that blinkered aren't you?
If you are going to ignore everything I have already said there is literally nothing I could ever supply that you won't just cry 'faked!' at. Don't ask questions when you don't care about the answers and stop wasting everybody's time.

4
A clever idea. Here’s the problem. The force that causes the stars to rotate must do so such that we observe neither a radial nor azimuthal dependence. Otherwise, certain strips of the night sky would rotate faster. But it all rotates together. You can see this on time lapse photography.
Some do rotate faster. That's how they are able to cross a larger distance in the same time as other stars cross a smaller. Why do I keep needing to explain this? You're jumping back and forth between linear and angular speed and coming up with something meaningless. There's no radial dependence for angular speed because angular speed is constant, it doesn't depend on anything, but there sure as hell is going to be for linear speed because the larger the radius, the faster it goes in order to keep up with the inner.
It is literally that simple. I'm not dedicating anything to a particular model here, I don't need to, whatever the FE model the rotational force exists. Faster the further you get from a pole, and so long as it's a model with two poles then it's there, and the distance between the stars does not change.

5
I suppose you should. I’ve placed the stars on the firmament dome for you, as FET posits, and am helping you understand the consequences of this model.

Yes the angular speed matters. Precisely because that is the frame that is ROTATING. The linear speed of a moving object matters, when it is moving in that rotating frame.

In fact, unless the Planar Earth is also rotating, you can’t have a Coriolis effect. That is what I’m trying to help you understand.

If it’s just the down that rotates, you won’t see any coriolis unless you are glued onto it and watching something move below you on the Earth.
Aside from how you're still trying to insist you know what I believe better than I do, it is not literally the stars reaching down that causes the coriolis effect, it's just that the force responsible for their motion doesn't vanish with altitude. There is another angular force acting at the Earth's surface, slower at the poles and faster at the equator, that acts in a set direction and as such will deflect motion in said direction. How would that have no effect, in your view?

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 28, 2019, 12:33:49 AM »
Quote
Don't make things up

Not quite sure what you think I made up.  I'm not in the habit of making things up. The discovery of the CMB in the mid 1960w put the validity of the BB theory over any other beyond doubt.  Think or say whatever you want that is the truth.

If what I said before was 'made up' then this article from Wikipedia is also made up then according to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Or you could read what I actually said. You even took the time to cut out the link to the post. This is pathetic.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14067.msg188127#msg188127

If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned.  However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?
Do you think that industry does all of its R&D in academia?  And what do you think that peer-reviewed science journals are for?
R&D is a rather loaded term. Some of it is concerned strictly with finding a way to apply what has already been observed, that's not relevant to this at all. The handful of institutes geared towards pushing frontiers though still need to publish their results else what's the point? They still rely on academia.
What sets those science journals apart from the rest of it?

7
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.

The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.

Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?

Only if you believe in a unipolar map.
How does a dipole or similar map avoid this issue? I already made an allowance about the unipolar/monopole map. It's fastest speed would be above Antarctica (which would at least match measurements in one location sort of) but a multiple pole FE should have exactly the opposite in regards to the linear speed of the stars. Just like a record spun above each pole.
Why? Slower at the poles, faster further away up to the equator, then slower up to the other pole as we observe with the stars. Constant angular, variable linear.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 10:16:08 PM »
You are correct about Hubble and SS vs BB. What you don’t understand is that two ideas run parallel while both are investigated. Even when some evidence is found for one, many folks continue to study both. This is because all ideas are only tentative, and scientists have open minds.
Until they stop. The models jostle, go back and forth, then with the knowledge of the time one gets preferred and the other left by the wayside. If a century later something new gets discovered that favours the other, no one will care, they'll find a way to tweak the accepted model and go on blindly. This is my problem. I shouldn't need to keep repeating it. Of course I'm going to have to aren't I? You'll never acknowledge it, you'll just go on insisting I have the motive you want me to rather than the one I have stated, explained and demonstrated.

If your only experience with the scientific method is in the context of academia, then yeah, I imagine that it's pretty easy to get disillusioned.  However, there are plenty of research scientists working outside of academia who make significant contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.
Ok then. Tell me. Where is this scientific research happening and being disseminated outside of academia and the entertainers you now decry?

Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?
I'm not ignoring it. I've answered it, I've pointed out the many times I have answered and explained it and given literally all it is possible to give. The problem is you don't care. Like the scientists you admire, you're only interested in tweaking and modifying until it fits with the cosy bubble you've built for yourself. I'm a FEer, so I must just be taking the easy way out, I must just be avoiding, I must just be lying. Look at the multiple choice you give; you assume I must be covering something up, that there haven't been several visitors (as seen by the few pages of threads), because the notion that the problem might not be with me is just unthinkable to you. You are a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about, and you're utterly blind to that fact.

9
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.

The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.

Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?

Only if you believe in a unipolar map.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 01:57:23 PM »
I think its funny that you think that any member here (except maybe QED) speaks for the scientific community - aka published scientists. I am just an engineer.

Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.

And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
Or the REer just doesn't bother trying to understand what it is the FEer has said, and insists that they're right in their understanding of the world just because. Take a look at yourself.
I call it like I see it. Your 'published scientists' just outright ignore anything contrary, you've constructed a definition so that the scientists that would react in the public eye are just celebrities to discount, ignoring the fact they still contribute to academia. They're still part of the system.

What you believe won't change anything.  Experimental evidence will. 
Yes, let's run an experiment on the ways in which academia responds to experiments, that isn't a logical incoherency at all.

Quote
I never said "it's different so it's wrong".  However, challenging the status quo is always an uphill battle.  Why should science be any different?  I don't think that you understand the degree of rigor that modern science has to go though to be accepted in the first place.  Successfully challenging the status quo is a lot of hard work, but it does happen.  Just look how we went from a steady state universe to an expanding universe to an accelerating expanding universe.  Those were not minor revisions to the status quo.
You don't need to say it, it's palpably clear in how you act. You completely ignore what I actually say because it's not the narrative you want to believe. The steady state universe was at best a placeholder, no one had any evidence for it. The first time it had any degree of popularity was about the time people actually had the resources to refute it. It was never the status quo, it was a "Well we need an answer to this, we don't know anything real yet, let's just use it for now."
I understand the degree of rigour science uses just fine. That was my problem. Pay. Attention.

Good example. The BB theory always predicted that there should be radiation, representing effectively the echo of the big bang permeating throughout the Universe at a temperature of just over 3K.  This radiation would not necessary according to the SS theory which stated that the age of the Universe was infinite. When this radiation, now known as the Cosmic Background was discovered in the mid 1960s by accident, that spelled the end of the story as far as the SS theory was concerned.
Don't make things up. Hubble observed evidence in favor of the expansion of the universe in 1929, well before the steady state universe had any major degree of popularity. The simple fact is no one cared because they didn't have the technology to get solid data. It never got formalised as the big bang for a while, but an expanding universe vs a steady universe were always competitors, the steady state universe only got any popularity when the expansion started to become more supported and people rushed to defend it.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 12:09:24 PM »
I have to disagree. As a scientist who has published, been to conferences, and interacted with scientists all over the world, I can tell you this:
Try questioning one of their pillars, try to encourage more than a relatively minor tweak, modification or addition to what's 'established,' see what happens.

What is even the point in complaining about established science if you are completely unwilling to do any experiments to actually challenge it?  No one took Einstein's GR seriously until someone was able to confirm the gravitational lensing that it predicted.
How about you take a look at what I'm actually saying? I shouldn't need to keep asking this. This is legitimately pathetic. I explain at length what I believe and why, you throw that all out the window to fit me in some little narrative box that you want to be the case, despite the fact you know full well it's not. And you wonder why I have zero respect for your 'science.'

The problem with your science is that it's long since stopped being about the scientific method, and started being about tradition, and you are a perfect example of that. Rather than honest response, you resort to 'it's different so it's wrong, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say.'

12
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.

The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.

Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.

13
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 01:10:05 AM »
JRowe, can you cite some specific sources from which you are drawing the claim of how modern science treats new discoveries?

Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
How on earth do you get that from all I've said?

If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.
The scientific method pretty much demands using experiments to test your hypothesis.  Since RET already makes predictions about the rate of change in gravity in the vertical direction, it should be pretty straightforward for you to test those predictions to see how accurate they are.  Perhaps launching a precision gravimeter in a helium balloon would do the trick.

If you're worried about funding, one of the crowd funding sites should be able to help.  Just say that you want to test the rate of change of gravity at various altitudes and leave of the FE part.

What is even the point in responding to you when you just outright ignore what my post said?

15
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 26, 2019, 07:12:39 PM »
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?
If you feel that the foundations (or pillars) of modern science are so shaky, then what experiments would you propose in order to test them to your satisfaction?
You could just take a look at how it treats new discoveries, talk to a few scientists and mention disagreeing, see how quickly they act like experts on models they know nothing about...
The way the scientific method is applied by academia just causes tradition to hold sway. That's my objection. If you want to talk tests of FET, that's a whole other matter. My go-to example would be measuring the continuity of the rate of change of gravity in the vertical direction.

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 26, 2019, 05:26:10 PM »
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.
And when you see all my explanations and you decide that's the motivating factor, can you seriously blame me?

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 09:27:28 PM »
You seem to be suggesting that science builds on conclusions of the past, but never revisits or retests or re-evaluates those conclusions. That's patently false. Einstein and general relativity superseding Newton is a simple answer. Newton came up with the math that was incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of the planets. But Einstein came up with something completely different and it made a prediction about how certain orbits would act based on some extreme examples. When we checked those orbits, we realized Einstein's model was a lot closer than Newton's even though Einstein's makes far less intuitive sense. We had to reconstruct everything we thought we knew about what space and time are. It was a huge teardown.
It really wasn't. It was a massive addition. Newton and Newton's understanding is still used today. A teardown would be the transition from the caloric theory of heat to the mechanical, say, the caloric theory isn't used because it was rejected as wrong. That'd be over a century ago.
Einstein should have been a teardown, if scientific institutes worked properly. Like dark matter and many such things, something new and fundamental is discovered about the world, let's take it back now that we know space is more than an abstract dimension, or that we know there is mass not detected by anything other than its gravitational signature, let's change things based on that; nothing happens. Einstein at least offered the transit of Mercury, though it wasn't a teardown as there was no good answer to that, dark matter didn't impact, say, the field of composition of the Earth as we discovered it had more mass than current models indicated, because excuses are always made for why those things don't apply.

Quote
This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.
I don't follow. Normally, science proceeds by working meticulously with a very narrow focus to explain a single observation. Enough of them build up to force larger changes in theories. Are you saying you want to do something different?
Because you want the result to point to curvature of the Earth rather than a property of light. There is no such thing as impeccable evidence precisely because of this, this experiment's results can be explained either with with reference to either option. It's excessive focus on one option to the exclusion of another.

Quote
Maybe this is the crux of the whole issue. Why is your goal to cause debate on the shape of the Earth? Shouldn't it be to find the truth, regardless of whether it causes debate about the shape of the Earth?
Because we're talking in this thread, and you've said science should be open to the idea. If that is the case, let's show it. Suppose we live on a flat Earth with the result of the curvature experiment you wanted, could academia ever acknowledge that?

There's no "by force of numbers." If you were to do the laser test and others confirmed your findings, then there would have to be a new hypothesis about why this experiment goes against expectations. New hypotheses would arise, and each of those would generate a prediction. You and/or others would then test those hypotheses. Most will be falsified. Some might shed light on other things we thought were pretty well known, and we'd have to re-examine those. Maybe you'd have discovered an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe it could be explained by a small adjustment of the current theory. Or maybe an entirely new theory would be required.
Like your dark matter example, that is exactly what I mean. Propose enough hypotheses and one will pass its tests. That is the case regardless of whether it's true. It is just force of numbers, throw enough things at the wall and something will stick, they will always be able to invent a hypothesis that explains the observation, and either is close enough to appealing to the right principles, or is just straight-up lucky, that it passes the possible tests. Nothing is ever going to make that not the case. Look at the caloric theory of heat again for a good example; the carnot cycle, still used today, was developed from it, as well as accurate predictions of the speed of sound. The theory itself is still accepted as wrong, but the predictions it made are still valid.

Quote
But you're actually asking, "If my observation can be fully explained by only a small addition to the current body of knowledge, how do I get people to rethink the global Earth?"

If your aim is to cause scientific debate about the global Earth, you would have to do another impeccable experiment. Maybe that breaks it wide open, or maybe it just adds to the general body of knowledge. But hey, at least you'd then have two really solid experiments that can also point toward a flat Earth. You do more experiments. Maybe sometimes you revisit an old experiment of yours and show that the new accepted explanation fails under your new experiment, and then everyone will scramble to put the pieces back together in a meaningful order. Eventually, you may get enough experiments that the most likely explanation for your observations and everyone else's is that the Earth must be flat.
Except by the time I perform a second, the first will be viewed as pointing to RET because they'd have a theory. If I question it, they'd refine or replace said theory. So I'd only have one experiment, and the same would happen to it.
And equally, given that RET will propose an explanation for literally anything pointed out so that a point in time after such an experiment will have it looking as accepted a part of science as gravity decreasing with the inverse square law, for example, surely it follows it's sufficient to show that the most likely explanation for observations now is that the Earth is flat?

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 05:03:23 PM »
Agreed. Because if you have 1,000 observations that can be explained by Theory X, and then you have a new observation that doesn't seem to fit, you can either A) see if there might be something you missed in Theory X that, if corrected, can now explain 1,001 observations, or B) create Theory Y that can re-explain the first 1,000 observations as well as the new one.
...
You said, "test a few dozen hypotheses until one happens to be in line with something by force of numbers, take that as the accepted explanation." Yes, you start testing your hypotheses, and the ones that fail, get discarded. That leaves you with the ones that didn't fail, and as newer ideas and better equipment comes around each year, you test them until they fail and get discarded. All the while, you're probably coming up with some new hypotheses, testing them, and discarding some. When you hit a hypothesis that keeps passing every test you throw at it, it starts gaining more weight.

It's not a game of tweaking esoteric equations to make things just damn fit. It's predictions each hypothesis generates that gets tested.
...
If it holds up under everything they throw at it, then they'll start trying to understand if there's a new phenomenon happening. They'll keep backing it up until they reach a point where math and hypotheses and observations all start to mesh again. That may very well mean backing all the way up to a flat Earth. That would be a very long way to back up, however, because as I mentioned earlier, physics itself would have to be gutted and rebuilt.
The problem here is the bias towards modifying theory X. It's easy for errors to snowball in this system because there will always be a modification. There is nothing that would possibly make them back up all the way to the shape of the Earth because they'd just tweak something or add a new constant long before they got there. Creating a hypothesis to explain something, just appending it to a larger model, is trivial. If it gets lucky because it's tangentially related to what's really going on/just lucky in general because there were enough guesses that one had to be force of numbers and validates a prediction, later experiments would then be used to iron out the kinks calculate the constants in the mathematical description etc. Einstein didn't derive the speed of light in his work, he used the value arrived at by experimentation.
Familiarity wins out. By the time enough had been written to potentially make them question more, some hypothesis for the first experiment would be an accepted part of RET and it would no longer count as evidence against.

Yep, creating a theory Y takes much more work, and that's not going to happen in the current climate. They just modify, tweak, nothing will ever make them backtrack 1000 questions and so starting from the ground-up to develop something with half as much rigour is not something there is any incentive or interest in doing. You are stuck with modifying and praying the work of a few people centuries ago with far worse resources and understanding was accurate. It's only going to be possible if science lacked a central model. Applied science is its own thing, concerned with application and experiment, but as far as explaining why anything happens that needs to be open. It should never have been consolidated.

Quote
With all that said, you can see why an experiment that would set all these wheels in motion absolutely has to be impeccable. Fortunately, there are a lot of simple curvature experiments that can be done inexpensively and with a great deal of precision.
This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.

But again, like you pointed out lofty speeches on the ideals of science are something we're apparently not going to agree on, that was why I tried to have a discussion on the practicalities. Walk through what actually happened with small steps that can't reasonably be questioned.
Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.
Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?


For an example of scientists discarding something that was wrong:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028133-200-rewriting-the-textbooks-einsteins-cosmological-fudge/

Its ok to admit that we are wrong. Scientists go back to the drawing board all the time. It is the uneducated public that thinks that science is immutable.
If it's ok to admit that you're wrong, why are you repeating points I've already addressed several times over, and more than that completely contradicting yourself?
That's not discarding something wrong, that's a minor modification to a still-accepted model. And your centralized science relies on it being immutable, if the central tenets get questioned you lose everything.

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 01:56:27 PM »
Are you suggesting that multiple flat earth models IS a strength? All I see from this is a cult of personality. Everyone who claims they have their own model of the flat earth thinks they are some great scientist akin to the alchemist who claims to have turned lead into gold. What good does that do the FE movement when your own members are going to tear your model down? Until you have a unified flat earth theory with solid mathematical proofs behind all of the mechanisms FE claims exists, all you have is a bunch of unverifiable claims. You can continue to make whatever wild assertions you want. Its the wild west of science.

So you're claim that RE having one model is a weakness is ridiculous. Try again.
So it's a cult of personality... because we disagree? A cult of personality would better describe following one solitary path and listening to whatever those people said, making their names synonymous with genius rather than just mere contributors to a greater whole.
FET instead acknowledges we are human. We don't worship scientists and follow their words blindly, assume that they must be holy and accurate and truthful, it's slower going particularly when there's active sabotage, but it is by far a better way to do science as it means we don't neglect whole possibilities just because they're different.

Quote
We know our own models, we know those of others far better than roundies seem to.

The difference is that there is only one RE model.  Notice the use of the singular there. We don't need more than one model to explain everything we see in nature.
You think that's a strength? All you're left with is the hope that someone didn't slip up centuries back and everything you've built isn't just hasty overcorrection.
Yes, a single RE model is a strength because it means that the model has stood the test of time and scrutiny.  That single RE model is constantly being validated by almost every branch of the earth sciences.
No, it means you tweak and nip and tuck constantly to shoehorn anything new into the established framework rather than see what might genuinely be best at explaining it. It's not validated by anything, the first plane wasn't invented by a theoretician building from scratch, it was made by trial and error of people who took inspiration but otherwise worked solely with what they saw with their own eyes, and created a whole discipline by direct experimentation that later got shoved into the mainstream with all the assumptions that entails, when it worked independently. Practical, applied science does not validate theory, at best the theory is inspiration.

There are two kinds of experimental results. One, where the experiment informs the theory and the result gets added to find a constant/adjust a parameter. Two, where the experiment matches with a prediction, something that could be achieved by force of numbers. That's all there is to science. It's not about certainty, it's never been meant to be. That's just how cults treat it.
Clinging to one model and disregarding alternatives is the bane of any scientific endeavour.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21  Next >