Recent Posts

11
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."
12
Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method.

Only if you are the one defining the scientific method.

Quote
Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

Good thing that is not what astronomy does.
13
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

Quote
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.
14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which hemisphere/hemiplane do you live in?
« Last post by Revel on Today at 12:19:44 AM »
I wonder how one could live in the northern hemisphere of a flat Earth...
15
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.
16
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 17, 2017, 11:50:20 PM »
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.
17
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Rama Set on October 17, 2017, 11:29:51 PM »
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. 
18
Flat Earth Q&A / Which hemisphere/hemiplane do you live in?
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 17, 2017, 11:09:54 PM »
So where do people who come here live?

The question came up in a previous discussion and I thought a poll would be the best way to find out.

TIA.
19
Flat Earth Debate / What is the flat earth position?
« Last post by devils advocate on October 17, 2017, 11:03:29 PM »
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
20
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 17, 2017, 10:42:50 PM »
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.