You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.
FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
You need to understand that the "you guys" is "humanity". That includes you, and me. Yes, we as a species have had thousands of years to figure things out. Interesting to think about where the clock starts - when did we first start trying to figure out how reality works rather than just trying to survive - but I would certainly agree with thousands. But it should be taken into account that for much of that time we didn't have the tools necessary to understand things properly. How do you understand about pathogens if you don't have microscopes? How do you understand the universe if you don't have telescopes? In the context of those thousands of years the tools we've needed to really understand stuff have only been available for a short time. It's only in the last 60 years or so we've had the ability to launch stuff into space which has helped us explore the other planets, visit the moon, launch Hubble and learn all kinds of new things. In some ways our understanding of things is quite mature, in other ways we're just getting started.
You're right, we as a species do not have a complete model of how everything works. If we did then we wouldn't need to do science, we'd have it all worked out. The fact our model is incomplete is partly because the more we look the more complicated reality seems to be - quantum theory is a good example from the last century, how could people hundreds of years ago have had any idea that crazy stuff like that was going on. And it's partly because we've only recently had the tools to really discover what is going on. A few hundred years ago Newton thought he'd figured out gravity and how things move. His model passed a lot of tests and stood the test of time, it got us to the moon. It is still for most practical purposes a very useful model. But Einstein came along and showed that Newton wasn't quite right, Einstein's model is more complete, it works in more scenarios and has also stood the test of time and passed a lot of experimental tests - GPS wouldn't work if relatavistic effects weren't accounted for. Maybe someone will come along one day and give us an even more complete model of how things work. That is how things work in real science. Models are developed which explain things and can predict things, if the model is shown to fail then it is either modified or - in the example of the geocentric model - abandoned completely. Various ways were tried to fix the geocentric model to take account of the movement of planets, in the end the only way of fixing it so that it matched observations was to abandon it and realise that the heliocentric model was correct.
And that is also what happened with FET. It is not new, it was the model which the ancients believed. And why wouldn't you? If you just go about your day to day business why wouldn't you think that you live on a flat plane and the sun and stars go around it (by "around", most people would have assumed that the sun goes under the flat earth at night because you see the sun going down below the horizon). But then Eratosthenes came along and showed that if we're on a flat plane then the shadows would be of consistent length across it at a certain time of day, but that wasn't the case. A curved surface explains that. Things like that saw the flat earth model rejected. As you note in your Wiki, an alternative explanation is a small, near sun. But were that the case you would be able to measure the distance to it by measuring the angle of the sun in different places a known distance apart at the same time and triangulating. I have seen no evidence that FE has done this. So much for empiricism. You can't just provide an altenative explanation for the experiment result without some evidence that that explanation is correct.
Our current model of the solar system is pretty good. I don't know what your "observations and experiments which contradict the predictions" are but looking at your posts most of your problems with mainstream science are you just not understanding things, despite repeated explanations. And you refuse to do any experiments which would help you understand things when they are suggested. So you don't learn anything. Several experiments to measure horizon dip have been outlined, you refused to do any. You lament you have no budget but nor does Bobby and he showed horizon dip very clearly. You laments about a lack of budget make as much sense as someone on a modern day alchemy forum lamenting that there is no budget for research into alchemy. No, there isn't. And for good reason. When alchemy was a big thing loads of people tried to do it and no-one succeeded. In the end it was concluded it was impossible. We now understand why it's impossible - I'm getting to the limit of my understanding here but it's something to do with the sheer amount of energy required to turn one element into another, it's something which generally only happens in stars. If someone there said "be fair, alchemy is quite new" it would be a ridiculous statement, as is yours. Alchemy isn't new, the idea of a flat earth isn't new, both were rejected when they were shown not to work.
I asked you previously in this thread on what basis you were satisfied that the earth is flat. You never replied. Care to share with the class now?
Show Posts
