Flat Earth?

[paul's got wright]

20 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Paul, I'm perfectly happy to go through this with you, and yes, let's use your University of Rochester template - though I will continue to say to you this is a simplification and the reality of science is a lot messier than this - we could go through countless Nature or Science peer reviewed papers and they wouldn't exactly fit the template.  It's a guide, a reasonable guide, but a simplification.  But let's use it and Eratosthenes to see where we go.

Are you willing to give it a go or not?

I ask again - can you identify what he observed or not?  I'm not trying to trick you, just seeing if you will actually give a straight answer for once.

Did it mention theory or model in any of the steps the citation i gave you china? Are they part of the scientific method?

The answer is no china. When we can agree such basic first principles, then i will proceed with you. I cant handle fantasy china it gets in the way of facts.

An hypothesis is a special kind of prediction, unlike your mystic meg type "predictions".

A scientific prediction takes the form of an hypothesis, which MUST be tested in experiment, if it is to have a scrap of scientific validity to it.

Science is simple, your belief system is very complicated and convoluted, hence why you so desperately need science to be complicated. To you, that would be validation. But science is simple china, its a method of systematically testing your hypothses via EXPERIMENT. And i will hammer home feynman on you til you accept the fact of the matter here

"If it disagrees with experiment, then its wrong"

[paul's got wright]

Thoughts manxy?!!!

https://www.thescinewsreporter.com/2018/07/nasa-wants-to-probe-uranus-in-search-of.html?fbclid=IwAR3zZCpucuslI81Ffs5bH_7vdvfxOp4tfOC5-E488W8O4UnoTUT1BVCUDPQ

[Chinahand]

Sigh ... as ever PGW refuses to engage in even the most basic way.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Eratosthenes observed that at one place the sun was vertically above the observer, ie 90 degrees from the horizontal, at a second place it was 83 degrees from the horizontal.

These two places were 5000 stadia apart - basically north south.

PGW do you agree or disagree.  Do you think he observed anything different from this?

What do you think was his hypothesis? Any guess as to the mathematical relation he formulated?

[paul's got wright]

36 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Paul, I'm perfectly happy to go through this with you, and yes, let's use your University of Rochester template - though I will continue to say to you this is a simplification and the reality of science is a lot messier than this - we could go through countless Nature or Science peer reviewed papers and they wouldn't exactly fit the template.  It's a guide, a reasonable guide, but a simplification.  But let's use it and Eratosthenes to see where we go.

Are you willing to give it a go or not?

I ask again - can you identify what he observed or not?  I'm not trying to trick you, just seeing if you will actually give a straight answer for once.

Again, your disbelief is apparent china!

Its not MY template, its THEIRS!

And i reckon they know a thing or two about the scientific method. I trust them on this. I can provide you as many as you like from universities all over the world. Its THE scientific method china. Not mine. It doesn't change to suit you and your beliefs.

This is the moment all your fantasies fall to the sword of experiment. Its reiligion's nemesis and the scientific method is the only way to validate an hypothesis SCIENTIFICALLY! Its a special kind of prediction. Read the citation, grow up and accept the facts of the matter

You haven't a shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth is spinning.or spherical

Just "crazy notions" china x

 

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

what experiment?

what is the hypothesis for Eratosthenes "experiment" pk?

have a read of this before your brain engages your fingers

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html#Heading3

It wasn't a hypothesis.

On a certain day the sun was directly overhead of a well in Syene and yet 600 miles north a vertical pole had a shadow.

The only possible explanation of this is the curvature of the earth.

So in your own words try and explain how this factual observation could possibly be wrong.

[Chinahand]

Changing the subject as ever PGW - care to stick with Eratosthenes?  Do you agree with the observations?  What do you think was his hypothesis?

[wrighty]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

It wasn't a hypothesis.

On a certain day the sun was directly overhead of a well in Syene and yet 600 miles north a vertical pole had a shadow.

The only possible explanation of this is the curvature of the earth.

So in your own words try and explain how this factual observation could possibly be wrong.

The earth could be flat and the sun about 6500km away, is another explanation that fits the single observation.  Did you see my post previously?

[paul's got wright]

19 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Sigh ... as ever PGW refuses to engage in even the most basic way.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Eratosthenes observed that at one place the sun was vertically above the observer, ie 90 degrees from the horizontal, at a second place it was 83 degrees from the horizontal.

These two places were 5000 stadia apart - basically north south.

PGW do you agree or disagree.  Do you think he observed anything different from this?

What do you think was his hypothesis? Any guess as to the mathematical relation he formulated?

You deny reality in defense of your belief system china.

Im not your lap dog china you need to accept the stark facts presented to you, by rochester university. Try and gain a basic understanding of what is required, before you can claim this or that to be scientific. Then we can talk about it rationally. What part of wrighty's post didnt you understand? Which steps of the citation do you refute?

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, Chinahand said:

Changing the subject as ever PGW - care to stick with Eratosthenes?  Do you agree with the observations?  What do you think was his hypothesis?

I don't think we will ever get pgw to explain, in his own words, how the observations could possibly be erroneous.

Seeing is believing errrr maybe if you're pgw.

The beauty of it is it's in two unassailable parts.

First Eratosthenes realises that the difference in the observed results between Syene and Alexandria can ONLY be down to curvature of the earth so it's a sphere.

Second he goes and measures it.

QED.

[paul's got wright]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

It wasn't a hypothesis.

On a certain day the sun was directly overhead of a well in Syene and yet 600 miles north a vertical pole had a shadow.

The only possible explanation of this is the curvature of the earth.

So in your own words try and explain how this factual observation could possibly be wrong.

There is no helping you pk!

Tyson and v sauce both tell you in the videos, i quoted them!!!

There are two possible explanations for his observation!!! dear dear god, wrighty has just poted the explanation! !!!

[P.K.]

3 minutes ago, wrighty said:

The earth could be flat and the sun about 6500km away, is another explanation that fits the single observation.  Did you see my post previously?

There wasn't a single observation.

One was made at Syene and the other at Alexandria.

I did see your previous post and credited you with more intelligence.

Actually I saw it but I didn't read it.....

[paul's got wright]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I don't think we will ever get pgw to explain, in his own words, how the observations could possibly be erroneous.

Seeing is believing errrr maybe if you're pgw.

The beauty of it is it's in two unassailable parts.

First Eratosthenes realises that the difference in the observed results between Syene and Alexandria can ONLY be down to curvature of the earth so it's a sphere.

Second he goes and measures it.

QED.

Just see wrightys post for the love of god man! 

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, paul's got wright said:

There is no helping you pk!

Tyson and v sauce both tell you in the videos, i quoted them!!!

There are two possible explanations for his observation!!! dear dear god, wrighty has just poted the explanation! !!!

Explain in YOUR OWN WORDS.

[paul's got wright]

5 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Explain in YOUR OWN WORDS.

The observations could mean flat earth with a cose sun, as told to us in the videos by neil degrase tyson and v sauce. Are you claiming they are both incorrect?

You are agreeing with sagan. They both contradict him. Just watch the videos, this is embarrassing for you at this point of the science weekend

[Uhtred]

So....things are coming along very nicely. The Labradoodle is willingly sitting and listening. I’m ahead I’d say. China, you’re on the back foot; I’m confident I have the better student.Confused? See my post at the foot of page 320.