Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2018, 11:05:01 AM »
What data is being interpreted in Astrology? I guess you're going to say "the position of the stars", but I'm not sure what scientific principle is being used to determine that because the stars are in a certain position that means I'll meet a tall, dark stranger.

I sort of see what you're getting at, and you're right in that a lot of astronomy is about collecting data and interpreting it, but interpreting data like red shift and blue shift isn't pseudo-science, it's based on well tested scientific principles which can be tested on earth in controlled conditions.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5490
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #41 on: October 11, 2018, 11:45:39 AM »
Quote
What data is being interpreted in Astrology? I guess you're going to say "the position of the stars", but I'm not sure what scientific principle is being used to determine that because the stars are in a certain position that means I'll meet a tall, dark stranger.

Correct. A science which only observe and interprets is not a science, it is a pseudo-science.

Quote
I sort of see what you're getting at, and you're right in that a lot of astronomy is about collecting data and interpreting it, but interpreting data like red shift and blue shift isn't pseudo-science, it's based on well tested scientific principles which can be tested on earth in controlled conditions.

The red shift and blue shift of a substance's spectral lines isn't something that only happens with high velocities. It also happens in chemistry. Look into Bathochromic Shift and Hyposochromatic Shift. The spectral lines of a substance can shift left or right along the color spectrum for a variety of chemical reasons.

http://photonicswiki.org/index.php?title=Changes_in_Absorption_Spectra

Quote
Changes in Absorption Spectra

Terminology for absorption shifts

Bathochromic, Hypsochromic, Hyperchromic, Hypochromic shifts summarized

Changes in chemical structure or the environment lead to changes in the absorption spectrum of molecules and materials. There are several terms that are commonly used to describe these shifts, that you will see in the literature, and with which you should be familiar.

Bathochromic: a shift of a band to lower energy or longer wavelength (often called a red shift).
Hypsochromic: a shift of a band to higher energy or shorter wavelength (often called a blue shift).
Hyperchromic: an increase in the molar absorptivity.
Hypochromic: an decrease in the molar absorptivity.

Solvatochromism

Negative and positive solvatochromism

If as substance shifts to a lower energy state with a longer wavelength, it is referred to as a Bathochromic shift or (also called) red shift. The color will move more toward the red. Conversely, something that moves to higher energy will be referred to as a hypsochromic shift. If there is an increase in the absorptivity or cause the spectrum to become more intense, it will be referred to as a hyperchromic shift. But a decrease is referred to as a hypochromic shift. There is a variety of factors that can cause these changes. One of the factors is found in a process known as solvatochromism. This explains why certain molecules can, in a profound way, look very different in terms of their color depending on whether the molecules are in a polar or non-polar solvent.

Solvatochromism is the property of a molecule changing its color as a function of the solvent polarity. But it is actually more complex than that. It can be related to the solvent polarizability as well. Basically it is the change in the color of a material, or change in the spectrum, as a function of the dielectric properties of the solvent. The dielectric properties of the solvent have polarizability and polarity built into them. Therefore, if molecules go from a less polar solvent to a more polar solvent and a red shift or a bathochromic shift occurs, then the substance is referred to as being positively solvatochromic. Conversely if you put molecules into a more polar solvent and a blue shift occurs, i.e. higher energy, the molecules are referred to as being negatively solvatochromic.

Hence, the need for controlled experimentation. The appearance of stars shifted "red" and "blue" is not good enough.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 12:19:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2018, 12:32:44 PM »
I can reproduce an experiment to bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon by an Apollo mission. I'm not even smart.
Uh...no you cannot.
You make me upset.
Why on earth would you allow another person to do that?

Especially over the internet?

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #43 on: October 11, 2018, 12:34:17 PM »
Yes, you mentioned that before Tom, and someone with more knowledge than me, JohnAdams1145, explained why that isn't what we observe when observing red or blue shift in stars:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.40

I note you never replied...

This is why conversations go round and round on here. Keep bringing up the same incorrect things and you're going to get the same response and explanation. If you then just ignore that then round and round we go.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5490
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2018, 12:53:09 PM »
Yes, you mentioned that before Tom, and someone with more knowledge than me, JohnAdams1145, explained why that isn't what we observe when observing red or blue shift in stars:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.40

I note you never replied...

This is why conversations go round and round on here. Keep bringing up the same incorrect things and you're going to get the same response and explanation. If you then just ignore that then round and round we go.

The posters from that thread admit that the chemical redshift and blueshift could be possible if the stars were made up of molecules rather than single free-floating atoms:

Followed your link, Tom.  That was interesting, thank you.  I did wonder why you suggest that the behavior of molecules in a solvent is at all applicable to stars?  Anyway, I then did some more reading.  Wikipedia has this relevant point:
Quote
Bathochromic shift is a phenomenon seen in molecular spectra, not atomic spectra

That means the mechanisms you suggest as substitute explanations of spectral shift are not applicable here, as we are talking about atomic spectra.

Eh. We can't assert that we're talking about atomic spectra unless we ascertain that stars are pretty much only made up of elemental molecules and free-floating atoms (which they are). After all, the measured spectra "could be" a result of molecular spectra if we knew that stars contained such complex molecules capable of such things... Of course, I've pointed out in my previous post that this hypothesis is trash.

We find that molecules have been found in stars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules_in_stars

Quote
Stellar molecules are molecules that exist or form in stars.

...

Although the Sun is a star, its photosphere has a low enough temperature of 6,000 kelvin and therefore molecules can form. Water has been found on the Sun, and there is evidence of H2 in white dwarf stellar atmospheres.[2][3]

Cooler stars include absorption band spectra that are characteristic of molecules. Similar absorption bands are found in sun spots which are cooler areas on the Sun. Molecules found in the Sun include MgH, CaH, FeH, CrH, NaH, OH, SiH, VO, and TiO. Others include CN CH, MgF, NH, C2, SrF, zirconium monoxide, YO, ScO, BH.[4]
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 12:58:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2018, 12:55:28 PM »
Nice cherries, you're picking.
I thought astronomy was pseudo-science, no better than astrology. Why are you now presenting things claimed by astronomy as evidence?
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Offline Mysfit

  • *
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2018, 01:33:35 PM »
I can reproduce an experiment to bounce a laser off a reflector placed on the moon by an Apollo mission. I'm not even smart.
Uh...no you cannot.
This is gonna become a "yes, I can", "no, you can't" until i'm forced to do it.
I'm unsure linking to a video of someone doing it is evidence, so I will be lazy and say perhaps I can't.

You make me upset.
Why on earth would you allow another person to do that?

Especially over the internet?
I'm soft.

Do you have anything to add to what a zetetic experiment is? It feels like paddling in custard atm.

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2018, 12:55:13 AM »
The posters from that thread admit that the chemical redshift and blueshift could be possible if the stars were made up of molecules rather than single free-floating atoms:

lol that's one way of characterizing it.  what i actually said it that it doesn't matter because atomic lines don't have anything to do with molecular lines.  the hydrogen alpha line, for example, comes from a single hydrogen atom absorbing a photon of a specific wavelength.  if it were just some quirk of molecules, then the atomic lines would be unaffected.  it wouldn't be systematic across all absorption lines.

also, i get the impression from the literature that the shifts you're describing are small: on the order of a few nanometers.  here is a plot of "the bathochromic shift of the Soret bands of Zn-TNMPyP by increasing of pH" in some chemistry nerd's dumb nerd paper:
 

here's a sample of redshifts presented in a super smart astronomy paper:


the shifts are systematic and large.  if it were some chemical reaction, then all the shifts would be the same, and they would be small.  nothing about what we observe matches with what we already know about chemical spectra.  it's a nonsense explanation.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5490
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2018, 01:27:24 AM »
Why are you comparing the wavelength of light to rest frequency?

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2018, 02:28:13 AM »
Why are you comparing the wavelength of light to rest frequency?

why would you not?  for a light wave, wavelength and frequency mean the same thing.  they're just inverses of one another.

wavelength * frequency = the speed of light
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5490
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2018, 03:06:44 AM »
http://amazingspace.org/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/glossary/term-full.php?t=wavelength_and_frequency

is there a point to this post?

"Light is measured by its wavelength or frequency."  they're just inverses of one another.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5490
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2018, 03:09:32 AM »
They are different properties of light with different units of measurement.

Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2018, 04:19:43 AM »
They are different properties of light with different units of measurement.

they have different units, but they correspond to the same property.  they are not independent of one another.  if you know one, then you know the other.  you're quibbling over a unit conversion.





shitposting leftists are never alone

Offline Mysfit

  • *
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2018, 10:45:16 AM »
I have found something interesting on a different forum section and will put it here as I think it will help.
Also, I'm not allowed to debate it there.
It's easier for me if I keep my notes here and update the thread with content as I go.

Outline:

P1. Define Zetetic: Zetetic method is a method of empiricism where all possibilities considered and all tests tried.

P2. Examples of Zetetc Method in practice. Creation of new medicines is generally based on Zetetic method, for example.

P3. Disclaimer on the meaning of truth and how it generally means the "current truth"

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.
I think only P1, P2 and P4 are releveant, but I didn't want to lose context.

P1 - I don't understand how all possibilities can be considered or all tests done. There isn't enough time for either. Ever.
As an example, I want to test how high my bouncy-ball bounces.
There's an infinite range of possibilities for the expected height, it may even not bounce (I was sold a duff one).
Then on to testing it. What do I bounce it on? Concrete, grass, wood or an infinite spectrum of surfaces?
How do I measure the results? Video camera or human eye? What height do I put those? How would I illustrate scale?
At this point, i'm shaking with not being allowed to bounce the ball and I haven't even gotten to the possible errors in equipment.

P2 - Medicine development is almost certainly following the scientific process. It even has the safeguards of animal testing before moving on to human trials.
Error is expected from the beginning, it's literally assuming the medicine is deadly until proven otherwise.
Then you get on to side-effects, which can sometimes change the scope of the experiment entirely. Viagra was a good example of this, even though it still works as originally intended.

P4 - The inferiority of the scientific method. Wow. I'd be interested to see how P2 develops for this.
We're back to P1 for the not considering all possibilities, but I have no idea what a half-truth is.
By definition, it is also a half-lie. Why would that be helpful to understanding?
I can't even factor it in for my bouncy-ball explanation. (I tried writing guesses, but none of them made sense)

Anyways, I hope this injection of Zeteticism helps to get us somewhere.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2018, 07:03:46 PM »
P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

From a meta perspective, you start with the hypothesis that the scientific method of building truth off of a hypothesis is inferior to Zeteticism, which doesn’t start with a hypothesis, then presumably proceed to explain why hypothesizing may obscure some truth.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

Much of Astronomy is based upon observation. And pattern based. Wouldn’t that make it more Zetetic than anything else? Defacto, wouldn’t that make Zeteticism “not a science”?

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.

A couple of things here. There is more to space flights and space science than just NASA. Many other countries and organizations partake in such endeavors.

Specifically, NASA has ‘pubspace’, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/funder/nasa/) their repository "to permanently preserve and provide easy public access to the peer-reviewed papers resulting from NASA-funded research."

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5490
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2018, 07:18:45 PM »
P1 - I don't understand how all possibilities can be considered or all tests done. There isn't enough time for either. Ever.
As an example, I want to test how high my bouncy-ball bounces.
There's an infinite range of possibilities for the expected height, it may even not bounce (I was sold a duff one).
Then on to testing it. What do I bounce it on? Concrete, grass, wood or an infinite spectrum of surfaces?
How do I measure the results? Video camera or human eye? What height do I put those? How would I illustrate scale?
At this point, i'm shaking with not being allowed to bounce the ball and I haven't even gotten to the possible errors in equipment.

Perhaps it can be worded better. The meaning behind "all possibilities tested" is that you have to try and disprove yourself in the context of testing your hypothesis. If you have a hypothesis, you need to conduct tests to prove yourself wrong.

The Scientific Method has you coming up with a hypothesis, performing an experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis, and then declaring victory with any positive result. You are not instructed to prove yourself wrong.

Quote
P2 - Medicine development is almost certainly following the scientific process. It even has the safeguards of animal testing before moving on to human trials.
Error is expected from the beginning, it's literally assuming the medicine is deadly until proven otherwise.
Then you get on to side-effects, which can sometimes change the scope of the experiment entirely. Viagra was a good example of this, even though it still works as originally intended.

The example I am thinking of is the process of creating new drugs. Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.

Quote
P4 - The inferiority of the scientific method. Wow. I'd be interested to see how P2 develops for this.
We're back to P1 for the not considering all possibilities, but I have no idea what a half-truth is.
By definition, it is also a half-lie. Why would that be helpful to understanding?
I can't even factor it in for my bouncy-ball explanation. (I tried writing guesses, but none of them made sense)

Anyways, I hope this injection of Zeteticism helps to get us somewhere.

I would say that the question of "I want to see how high bouncy balls bounce" is actually a great example of Zetetic inquiry, because you are wanting to assess the possibilities.

The Scientific Method version of that (make a hypothesis and then test it) would have you make a formal hypothesis that the ball will behave in a certain manner and then declare victory if you experiment and observe it. But, you and I know both know that the bouncy ball may in fact exceed such a hypothesis and have all sorts of behaviors, and that the confirmation of a specific hypothesis may not be the entire truth, and would lead one astray if we then started using that knowledge to build other theories of bouncy-ball dynamics.

Hence we see that if the basic and fundamental truths are incorrect, then the entire house cards that rests on top of it is also incorrect.

Offline Mysfit

  • *
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2018, 10:29:43 PM »
The Scientific Method has you coming up with a hypothesis, performing an experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis, and then declaring victory with any positive result. You are not instructed to prove yourself wrong.
I think I can see where me and Tom differ on the scientific method.
To illustrate from my side, I will use the bouncy-ball experiment in my best recollection of the scientific method.

So, I have a bouncy ball, which I am almost certain bounces like any other. My recollection of how high they bounce is a bit sketchy, so I will test it's bounciness.
The ball will be dropped next to a rule and someone else watching will interpret the results (not perfect, but i'm not after a nobel prize)
On to the hypothesis, I think it will bounce to half-height the first time then less than a quarter-height on the second bounce. I think it'll work like I remember
[insert test here] (then hot drink break)
Results are in! The results seem to correspond to my hypothesis and I am one step closer to understanding the bounciness. I then post my results so that the world can marvel at my brilliance. I could provide hypothesisses... hypothesi... hypotheses (really?) for the flaws in my results. Other folks may look into those or come up with their own. Some folks may repeat my experiment to check that I wasn't telling fibs.
(rewinds time a bit)
Results are in! That hypothesis was WAY off. Who came up with that nonsense?! Time to start from scratch and work out why it's so far off. I post the results along with hypotheses for what went oh so wrong. Others may look into those hypotheses, or repeat my test to verify the veracity (said with a cowboy accent).

The negative result does seem more of a step forward to some sort of ultimate theory of bounciness.
I can agree that a positive result does not lead much further, which I assume is the point of peer-review. Other scientists trying to disprove something.
I like to think of Flat Theory as the peer-review of Round Theory, though I'm sure some folks might get upset by my use of peer.

From what you are saying, Zeteticism seems to focus on disproving a hypothesis, to improve the overall theory (of bounciness) but at the risk of not coming to a conclusion.
Any and every outcome would have to be disproved to the best of the Zetetic's efforts. This is where the infinite questions come in. It simply does not stop as everything is assumed wrong.
You can see my confusion and I worry.

Offline Pinky

  • *
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: A Zetetic Experiment
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2018, 03:28:20 PM »
Rowbotham is correct. Science has always had a seemingly underlying goal to prove old religious knowledge to be wrong. Science characterizes ancient knowledge as mythical and ignorant.

It is not a mistatement in any manner to say that many members of the scientific community have been historically athiest and 'agnostic'.

That is absolutely incorrect.

If you look at the earliest members of the modern scientific tradition (Francis Bacon, John Dee, Isaac Newton, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Leibniz...) you will find that they were not atheist at all but ardent christian believers.

Science moved away from religious concepts and towards materialism at around 1800, when it became undeniable that experiments proved those religious concepts to be wrong.