*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 11, 2020, 05:01:53 PM »
There is a 2019 European Journal of Physics paper called What the gravitation of a flat Earth would look like and why thus the Earth is not actually flat, written by two Theoretical Physicists. Summarily they apply universal gravitation to an FE disk and conclude that it won't work and so the Earth can't be flat.

Quote
Abstract

This paper analyzes the calculation of the gravitational field of a disc-shaped
mass. This model, corresponding to the infamous flat Earth, is discussed in
detail.



This is similar to the approach many others take: Instead of looking into the matter they proceed to make up their own arguments for something which may not even be believed or part of any model. A cursory search will show what FE theorists actually say about gravity, even if not about UA. There is also the universal gravitation with an infinite earth model, and even the (IMO incorrect) "gravity = buoyancy" arguments that are generally unsupported here, but proposed by the FE'ers on Youtube. It's not really hard to find what FE says about gravity. The subject of gravity is one of the first things you learn about FE when doing research into the matter.

If one reads the paper, they also argue against themselves: "Flat-Earthers strike back? Let us consider first that the disc of the flat Earth is rotating in its plane" and then conclude that doesn't work either, like anyone ever actually proposed that as a gravity solution.

This is all like someone arguing that "RE can't work because water would just fall off the ball earth"... totally disregarding what is proposed and believed.

One of the first steps in the investigational method of the Scientific Method is to "research as much about your subject as you can".  At least address the first thing you come up with from a cursory search on the matter, not something that you make up yourself. It appears that not only do Theoretical Physcists have trouble satisfying the experimentation part of the Scientific Method, they have trouble with performing cursory research as well.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 11:40:37 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2020, 08:01:21 AM »
I’d call it dishonesty if there were any actual established model of flat earth, and ignorance in the sense that they probably couldn’t find many published papers researching a flat earth. Why wouldn’t they use the established mechanics of gravity in their paper? Sorry to say but YouTube videos and an obscure wiki is not exactly showing any kind of decent foundation of research to be used. If you wanted people to use what you think is the correct gravity solution maybe consider publishing some papers on flat earth for the scientific community to have something to peer review?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2020, 08:51:49 AM »
The information isn't just on the FE Wiki. I did a google search for "flat earth gravity" and this link came up as the first result:

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

Quote
Members of the Flat Earth Society claim to believe the Earth is flat... Earth's gravity is an illusion, they say. Objects do not accelerate downward; instead, the disc of Earth accelerates upward at 32 feet per second squared (9.8 meters per second squared), driven up by a mysterious force called dark energy.

I didn't have trouble finding information to look into at all.

Even this biased RE article gave a FE mechanism for gravity to research. It is very popularized information that FE has its versions of gravity. So popularized that it appears on mainstream science websites and is easily found. Hardly obscure. If you can't even put in a modicum of investigation like a simple search for "flat earth gravity" you have utterly failed to research your subject.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2020, 09:03:26 AM »
I didn't say it wasn't hard to find. youtube videos and an obscure wikis aren't likely going to be used in scientific papers. There's a reason even the Wikipedia website isn't cited as a source in papers, let alone the FES wiki and some crazy people on youtube. Even wikipedia has given a reason for this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia

it just isn't a reliable source of information to be using youtube and FES's wiki.

Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2020, 09:05:45 AM »
I didn't say it wasn't hard to find. youtube videos and an obscure wikis aren't likely going to be used in scientific papers.

Then why does this one link to several youtube videos in the references?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2020, 09:21:23 AM »
I didn't say it wasn't hard to find. youtube videos and an obscure wikis aren't likely going to be used in scientific papers.

Then why does this one link to several youtube videos in the references?
for visualization of their point it would seem. There's no groundbreaking new information in said videos and they aren't citing them for information, rather just to visualize what they're talking about. I should have worded my previous post better, apologies.
Quote
To describe a flat Earth, we use a simple model of a thin disc with a uniformly distributed mass. This approach allows for rather simple calculations to demonstrate what would the gravitational field of such a system be: for visualization, we refer the reader to some instructive video simulations [6, 7].

What they likely aren't going to do is take your wiki as an official source information and rightly so. Publish some papers on how you've concluded how gravity works, have those papers peer reviewed. Don't expect them to peer review and cite the FE wiki as a source of information.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2020, 09:24:00 AM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2020, 09:55:41 AM »
A paper from Physics Education, Volume 53, Number 4 (2018)

Flat Earth theory: an exercise in critical thinking

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/aac053/pdf

In the references I see:

Samuel Rowbotham - Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe
Eric Dubey - atlanteanconspiracy.com
William Carpenter - One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe

So no, I don't see that researchers are refraining from linking to FE content and addressing FE content and websites. This is something you appear to be making up.

Quote
What they likely aren't going to do is take your wiki as an official source information and rightly so.

The information isn't only on the wiki. Mainstream science websites also discuss gravity in FE. Again, the researchers have failed to do any amount of research into this.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 12:14:18 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2020, 11:30:01 AM »
A paper from Physics Education, Volume 53, Number 4 (2018)

Flat Earth theory: an exercise in critical thinking

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6552/aac053/pdf

In the references I see:

Samuel Rowbotham - Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe
Eric Dubey - atlanteanconspiracy.com
William Carpenter - One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe

So no, I don't see that researchers are refraining from linking to FE content and addressing FE content and websites. This is something you appear to be making up.

Quote
What they likely aren't going to do is take your wiki as an official source information and rightly so.

The information isn't only on the wiki. Mainstream science websites also discuss gravity in FE. Again, the researchers have failed to do any amount of research into this.
Ok fair, so lets use gravity as an example. Can you show a peer reviewed paper showing how gravity correctly works in a flat earth that is backed up with evidence which can then be cited in a paper? So far the papers in this thread have referenced a visual representation and another paper referencing to show what a flat earth argument as general examples of peoples false claims. it's a direct study of flat earthers and their mindsets... Of course they're going to show examples of this.

Again, apologies as I should still have worded my first post better, but I don't want to be sent to angry ranting for basically saying that you're considered a crazy person on the internet with a wiki wondering why people aren't taking you seriously. Publish some of your research to be peer reviewed instead of complaining about how you think people are being dishonest for not knowing you or your ideas exist in a dark corner of the internet... What I mean when I say they won't cite the FE wiki in a paper as a source of information is that it's written by any random people just like wikipedia and as you've seen stamped below every flat earth video on youtube, information from said videos aren't to be considered factual (for or against flat earth) "The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century." Or in other words, youtube is actively saying take these videos with a grain of salt because we are long past the idea of flat earth now. They can't really cite youtube or wikipedia or the FES wiki as some kind of correct source of information when the source of those things are unverified ramblings of internet people.

TLDR; wikis and youtube isn't a verifiable source of information to back someones findings. Sourcing youtube like "look at this person's false claims for an example" isn't really the point you want to be making... and "here's a visual representation to show what my findings look like" still aren't citing for sources of information. But I'll be fair to you, links to youtube and maybe wikipedia are linked in papers, which is why I've said a few times I should have been clearer, so again, apologies for that.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2020, 03:46:01 PM »
Peer review , also known as peer pressure , is a method of control of scientific endeavour.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2020, 05:05:23 PM »
Peer review , also known as peer pressure , is a method of control of scientific endeavour.
That sounds like something someone would say if they knew their paper had incorrect information and didn't want it pointed out to them... The whole point in peer reviewing is to get multiple expert opinions to fact check your work. Is there any other reason you wouldn't want your research to be published and peer reviewed by the scientific community?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2020, 01:09:45 PM »
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it.

The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2020, 01:41:56 PM »
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it.

The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.
Ok so, this isn't an exact equivalency but imagine you're in school and you're doing a test like everyone else but at the end instead of handing it in to be marked you sit there and say to the teacher "I won't hand this to you to check through because this is peer pressure... But it's totally all correct and there's no need for you to double check so just give me my A". then afterwards you go around telling your classmates how all your answers were totally correct and you start teaching them what you wrote in your test as answers and they totally believe you because you totally got an A so why wouldn't they? Can you see how this is just not going to happen? Surely you can see why the teacher needs to go through your test papers and mark it, and tell you where you went wrong? Can you see how telling your fellow students the potentially wrong answers would hinder their education as well?

Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2020, 04:23:50 PM »
To pass a school exam you basically have to repeat what you are told by the teacher , that's all .
The point is that the pupil can excel the teachers .

Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2050
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2020, 04:31:55 PM »
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it. The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.

What's the alternative? Claim yourself to be right with no verification from anyone else in your field, and accept no dispute?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2020, 04:53:23 PM »
Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .
Experts looking at your work can learn from it or correct any mistakes and they do this constantly with each other. Knowledge is gained from sharing and challenging each other.  Why would this stifle knowledge instead? o_O The only reason I could think of that you wouldn't want your work to be checked is if you don't want to be corrected you want people to just assume you're right? Or worst case, you want everyone else to go off and do experiments entirely in secret and never share their work which is what I think some flat earthers think is the way to go, but it's really not. People work together, this is just how humans have progressed. If everyone lived in a way where we din't work together, correct, compete and challenge each other you would A) be foraging and hunting for your own food, B) be building your own home and everything in it with your own resources gathered by you, C) be having to make all your own clothes, D) would be definitely living without modern technology like the internet.

Imagine someone saying they know how the universe works and 95% of the worlds population and pretty much all experts are wrong and won't agree with them, and won't show you how they know. Who you gunna believe? That guy who's keeping his findings a secret or the 95% of experts who are sharing knowledge and correcting each other as they go? Yea...

The alternative to the scientific method and peer reviewing/checking/correcting each others work sounds pretty stupid and humans would probably still be in the dark ages.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2020, 06:26:32 PM »
Peer review is not any part of the scientific method. Repeatable experiment and observation with predictable results are .

In the OP , if the two theoretical bozos, who somehow got their mathematical masturbations into a physics journal, wanted to show the earth wasn't infamously flat then all they had to do was go out and survey the curvature and publish their results. But fkn no ! "We'll sit on our arrises and fink about it". Modern science .

Start with the assumption earth is a globe - use circular arguments to prove something that cannot be possible since your applying globe theory to something that's not a globe.
An ancient Greek whos mythical experiment has two solutions , this reportedly from a book by the fictional author Cleomedes who we know feck all about . That's the old peer reviewed mainstream theoretical (imaginary) science for you .

It's dishonesty. And no one knows how the universe works.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2020, 01:20:18 PM »
Peer review is not any part of the scientific method. Repeatable experiment and observation with predictable results are .

In the OP , if the two theoretical bozos, who somehow got their mathematical masturbations into a physics journal, wanted to show the earth wasn't infamously flat then all they had to do was go out and survey the curvature and publish their results. But fkn no ! "We'll sit on our arrises and fink about it". Modern science .

Start with the assumption earth is a globe - use circular arguments to prove something that cannot be possible since your applying globe theory to something that's not a globe.
An ancient Greek whos mythical experiment has two solutions , this reportedly from a book by the fictional author Cleomedes who we know feck all about . That's the old peer reviewed mainstream theoretical (imaginary) science for you .

It's dishonesty. And no one knows how the universe works.
and your alternative?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2020, 01:46:31 PM »
Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .
Unable to advance?
Then how come the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one which had held sway for centuries?
How come Relativity and Quantum Theory have become widely accepted - they haven’t exactly toppled Newtonian mechanics because in most situations Newton’s equations work just fine but in certain situations they don’t. GPS wouldn’t work without making Relativistic adjustments. To say that mainstream science hasn’t advanced is ludicrous.

I can’t see any argument against peer review. If you do an experiment and don’t publish your method and results then how does anyone else know whether your conclusions are valid?
I do an experiment which I say proves the world is a globe. You do one which you say proves the earth is flat. We can’t both be right because we are claiming contradictory things (we could both be wrong). How do we know who is right unless we publish our methods and results for review? That is how progress is made.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2020, 04:37:26 PM »
You are getting to the point AATW . If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

The OP contained a link to a thought experiment - a mathematical daydream . Why is that considered to be science ? Who can be the judge on theoretic bs? How can that OP theory paper be peer reviewed?

The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment . We have never measured any curve or detected any rotation but science carries on as though these basic assumptions are truths. The only research carried out thus has to include these assumptions - it's why the current cosmological model doesn't conform to reality - it's all theory where anything can be imagined . It's not science . 




*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2050
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2020, 09:32:31 PM »
If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

Norwood measured around 2 degrees of meridian to calculate the circumference in the 1600s

The French Geodesic Mission, using a slightly different method, confirmed Norwood's figure in the 1700s, within reasonable bounds of error.

Further measures have used other methods to refine the figure.

Don't these repeats form a sequence of peer reviews? Or are they something else?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?