Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2020, 09:08:52 AM »
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 ?

Well, you need to do two things. Firstly you need to verify the method used. If you're doing observations of the horizon, say, over water and you haven't taken refraction into account then you may have drawn the wrong conclusions. I might well repeat your experiment and get the same results as you but if the method itself is flawed then the conclusion drawn from the results is still invalid.
And secondly yes, repeating the experiment can be part of peer review.
When Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's Last Theorum his paper was reviewed and a problem was found with it. He later fixed it but the point is the maths world didn't just take his word for it, like in science they checked his workings.

Quote
The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment

It was introduced as a better explanation for the retrograde motion of planets. You're right in that it wasn't new information but as telescopes got better and observations more accurate it became clearer that this explanation better matched observations than the geocentric model.

Quote
We have never measured any curve

Just demonstrably not true. Plenty of photos and video of the globe earth from multiple sources and even a horizon line on a beach a few miles out to see is evidence of curve - a sharp line always indicates that either that's the end of the object or the object is changing angle so you can't see any more of it. A sharp horizon line, the distance to that horizon line increasing with altitude and things sinking behind that horizon lines are all evidence of a curve.

Quote
or detected any rotation

You might want to tell that to the Coriolis and Eotvos effects, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes.
The weight of objects varying at different latitudes is evidence of rotation as are the the way star trails go in different directions at different latitudes.

TL;DR, the reason FE is not coherent and contains a lot of contradictory ideas is that you don't open up your work for peer review.
At best you might discuss your work within the FE community, but that is not proper peer review as that is made up of people who are not scientists. Peer review and cross-checking each other's work is a vital step in making progress.
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.

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2020, 11:00:36 AM »
The internet has undoubtedly made it a lot easier for flat Earthers to connect with each other and exchange ideas and claims. However as AATW points out as long as ideas and theories are only exchanged mainly within the flat Earth community through forums like this, how is that going to help you if you have aspirations to seriously try and compete with the mainstream, popular stage of science? 

Do you want to try and widen the size of the audience that is accepting about your flat Earth beliefs or are you happy to simply carry on running of each other as you currently are?  In which case I can't see things ever changing for you. Talking to the converted is all well and good but it won't get you anywhere.

Of course broadcasting what you believe alone is no guarantee of acceptance. If you are to target the mainstream science stage then you need to present evidence that works to back up your claims. That I think is going to be much harder because so far flat Earthers are much better at claiming than they are at showing. Relying on weak examples about canals, flags and flat horizons is not going to get you anywhere on the main stage.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 02:24:32 PM by IronHorse »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2020, 06:49:45 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 ?

Well, you need to do two things. Firstly you need to verify the method used. If you're doing observations of the horizon, say, over water and you haven't taken refraction into account then you may have drawn the wrong conclusions. I might well repeat your experiment and get the same results as you but if the method itself is flawed then the conclusion drawn from the results is still invalid.
And secondly yes, repeating the experiment can be part of peer review.
When Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's Last Theorum his paper was reviewed and a problem was found with it. He later fixed it but the point is the maths world didn't just take his word for it, like in science they checked his workings.

Quote
The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment

It was introduced as a better explanation for the retrograde motion of planets. You're right in that it wasn't new information but as telescopes got better and observations more accurate it became clearer that this explanation better matched observations than the geocentric model.

Quote
We have never measured any curve

Just demonstrably not true. Plenty of photos and video of the globe earth from multiple sources and even a horizon line on a beach a few miles out to see is evidence of curve - a sharp line always indicates that either that's the end of the object or the object is changing angle so you can't see any more of it. A sharp horizon line, the distance to that horizon line increasing with altitude and things sinking behind that horizon lines are all evidence of a curve.

Quote
or detected any rotation

You might want to tell that to the Coriolis and Eotvos effects, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes.
The weight of objects varying at different latitudes is evidence of rotation as are the the way star trails go in different directions at different latitudes.

TL;DR, the reason FE is not coherent and contains a lot of contradictory ideas is that you don't open up your work for peer review.
At best you might discuss your work within the FE community, but that is not proper peer review as that is made up of people who are not scientists. Peer review and cross-checking each other's work is a vital step in making progress.

Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

Your statement "Just demonstrably not true" about the fact we have never measured the curve is very silly - you don't measure things with videos or photographs or saying "Oooh look - is that a curve on the horizon".

Coriolis effect is caused by the sun as it moves around the plain .

Eotvos effect and other stuff associated with gravity . See prof M Allais work ( started in 1954 ) on the  Foucault pendulum which proves that the gravitational/cosmological model is wrong , supported by other studies by professors Jevardin , Antonescu , Ratu . All reach the same conclusion . All these experimental results buried and ignored by the peer system in order to maintain the untenable heliocentric model .

Look up syzygy effects if interested.

You could also look up professor Fred Hoyle and his chums . See what they have to say about cosmology .

All distinguished scientists whose work is sidelined as science stagnates.






Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2020, 09:28:53 PM »
Quote
Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

How does the geocentric model explain things better in your opinion then? 

I would be interested to know then for example how you would account for the widely observed and measured annual aberration of starlight if the Earth is not orbiting the Sun as you will obviously claim.  No doubt you will just say that has just been fabricated or made up somehow. The FE account for the nature of the stars (vague as it is) would make the RE account for what causes the aberration impossible. But then the amount of aberration of stars varies with their location on the sky. Exactly in line with predictions based on the heliocentric model.

Quote
you don't measure things with videos or photographs

Isn't that just your opinion?



« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 10:56:41 PM by IronHorse »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2020, 07:24:43 AM »
Quote
Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

How does the geocentric model explain things better in your opinion then? 

I would be interested to know then for example how you would account for the widely observed and measured annual aberration of starlight if the Earth is not orbiting the Sun as you will obviously claim.  No doubt you will just say that has just been fabricated or made up somehow. The FE account for the nature of the stars (vague as it is) would make the RE account for what causes the aberration impossible. But then the amount of aberration of stars varies with their location on the sky. Exactly in line with predictions based on the heliocentric model.

Quote
you don't measure things with videos or photographs

Isn't that just your opinion?

For an explanation of aberration see the work of Cleo Loi -around 2014/15 . She did say at the time that astronomical observations need to be revisited in the light of this discovery .

Star light passing through plasma tubes in upper atmolayers is distorted . Light is affected by these plasma fields.
Star position changes due to this field.

I should imagine the journey of the sun around and across the plane has an effect too. Good place to start .

https://theconversation.com/how-an-undergraduate-discovered-tubes-of-plasma-in-the-sky-42810





 

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2020, 09:03:02 AM »
Yes of course the light from stars gets 'jiggled around' as your link says. But that has nothing to do with the cyclical movement or aberration of starlight and that article doesn't suggest it does. The word aberration doesn't appear once in that article.

If you'd care to look up Stellar aberration yourself you will discover that there are many websites which describe it as the same thing. It is caused by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

It isn't unusual for FE to try and twist or misconstrue the information contained in science based websites to try and make it seem to fall more in line with what they want to believe.

Here is a description of what aberration of starlight is and how it is caused.





« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 01:05:33 PM by IronHorse »

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2020, 02:10:42 PM »
The OP paper is a very silly strawman argument, just proving that a flat earth could just not be in a certain way, decided by the authors themselves. But it really gets wrong when they say:

"The mediƦval style of the title of the present paper is intended as an allusion to the Middle Ages which, followed by the Renaissance, symbolizes the struggle between ignorance and enlightenment",

because during the middle ages they were well aware about the roundness of Earth.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2020, 02:25:36 PM »
Yes of course the light from stars gets 'jiggled around' as your link says. But that has nothing to do with the cyclical movement or aberration of starlight and that article doesn't suggest it does. The word aberration doesn't appear once in that article.

If you'd care to look up Stellar aberration yourself you will discover that there are many websites which describe it as the same thing. It is caused by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

It isn't unusual for FE to try and twist or misconstrue the information contained in science based websites to try and make it seem to fall more in line with what they want to believe.

Here is a description of what aberration of starlight is and how it is caused.



I know the theory. It's wrong . The aberration is caused by the suns yearly journey across the tropics and the magnetic fields.
That gives us the seasons and the aberration. More evidence of the plane .

In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2020, 03:11:27 PM »
Quote
In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

https://space.fandom.com/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 03:15:05 PM by IronHorse »

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2020, 03:26:15 PM »
Quote
In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

https://space.fandom.com/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.
You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Really high fiction of the most amusing sort!
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2020, 05:13:51 PM »
Quote
You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

I'm so sorry.... perhaps you could point out the bit that you think I misunderstand?

Quote
If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Speed is really irrelevant in space because there is no air to cause any resistance.  So there is nothing remarkable about 828,000 km/h to me. I'm glad you find a few scientific facts amusing. I'm sure I will probably react in the same way towards whatever your explanation is.

Your screen name seems to be quite appropriate to what you obvious know (nor don't) about how things work in space. 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2020, 08:03:56 PM by IronHorse »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 876
    • View Profile
Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2020, 07:30:57 PM »
Quote
In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

https://space.fandom.com/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.
You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Really high fiction of the most amusing sort!
You'd only need to observe a planet and it's moons to see celestial bodies can move together. Why this surprises anyone is strange... Even then, on this website where the wiki states the hypothesis of UA... Strange that you'd challenge the notion of things moving together but not the notion that everything is moving together.

At any rate, back to the main point. If someone has any gripes with how scientists have accepted how gravity affects things, challenge it with a theory that better explains how gravity affects things. That's a start to disproving the paper in in the OP. It's not dishonest to be using the fully accepted theory of gravity... What they've done is say "here, we have observed how gravity works in nature, so we'll use that mechanic on an object to show how gravity would work on it" in this case a disk. Does it match reality? No? shocking. Don't like it? Come up with a better theory that works with everything like gravity does. Hell we even put this mechanic to practical use by putting satellites into orbit so we know its working as we think it is. We see other planets with gravitational properties that match what we expect. It'd be strange to think that we must live in some bubble where gravity doesn't exist and it must be something else, just to keep the flat earth idea.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2020, 08:58:43 AM »
Let's be clear.  We don't make the laws of nature or the laws of the Universe ourselves.  Our existence in the Universe is very, very recent. Science represents mans efforts to understand how the Universe works and I think in the very short period of time we've had to work it all out, we are not doing a bad job at all.

FE have their own version of 'science' which seems to based on 'seeing is believing' and nothing more than that.  But not everything in nature is as it seems to us visually so you cannot rely on your senses alone.  It would be so much easier if you could! To my mind FE theory is based on nothing more than what some people want to believe. If you want to believe in something then to you it will seem to be true. It certainly creates a relationship between eye and mind within the individual so that it makes what you believe in seem to be true and real. Call it selective mind filtering.

This is why flat Earthers have an objection to mainstream science. It conflicts with their beliefs. For that reason alone it must be wrong. Science never claims to know all the answers or to be right about stuff all the time every time. It would be boring if it was. The difference is that scientists don't restrict what they accept as true to what they want to believe.  If new evidence comes to light which shows that a theory or hypothesis needs to be changed or updated then that is taken on board, tested and re-tested. If the new data turns out to be true the hypothesis is modifed and we move forward.  That's how we learn.   Gravity is the classic example. Under normal, everyday conditions Newtonian gravity is quite adequate but under relativistic conditions, Einstein provided a better explanation.

If a star can orbit the Galactic centre at 858,000km/h then what is to say 8 planets and countless asteroids and comets bound by gravity to that star cannot as well?  Perfectly acceptable to science.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 11:44:38 AM by IronHorse »