Flat Earth?

[wrighty]

OK Paul, I'll have a go at fitting Eratosthenes experiment to the scientific method you love - I agree though that he wasn't trying to prove the earth was round at the time.

1. It is observed that ships' masts gradually sink below the horizon as they sail further away

2. A possible hypothesis that explains this observation is that the earth is spherical

3. This hypothesis predicts that the length of the shadow of an object will vary in a mathematically predictable way (∆angle = distance/circumference)

4. This shadow test can be applied by many observers to confirm that the spherical earth model works.

You could of course do it all the other way around:

1. It is observed that the angle of the sun's rays changes by 7 degrees if you move 600 miles north

2. A possible hypothesis is that the earth is flat, and the sun is therefore 600/tan 7˚ miles away

3. This hypothesis predicts that the length of the shadow of an object will vary in a mathematically predictable way (∆angle = arctan(distance/solar distance))

4. This shadow test can be applied by many observers, who will find that it fails to predict the angles correctly, thereby rejecting the flat earth model.

[Uhtred]

2 minutes ago, wrighty said:

OK Paul, I'll have a go at fitting Eratosthenes experiment to the scientific method you love - I agree though that he wasn't trying to prove the earth was round at the time.

1. It is observed that ships' masts gradually sink below the horizon as they sail further away

2. A possible hypothesis that explains this observation is that the earth is spherical

3. This hypothesis predicts that the length of the shadow of an object will vary in a mathematically predictable way (∆angle = distance/circumference)

4. This shadow test can be applied by many observers to confirm that the spherical earth model works.

You could of course do it all the other way around:

1. It is observed that the angle of the sun's rays changes by 7 degrees if you move 600 miles north

2. A possible hypothesis is that the earth is flat, and the sun is therefore 600/tan 7˚ miles away

3. This hypothesis predicts that the length of the shadow of an object will vary in a mathematically predictable way (∆angle = arctan(distance/solar distance))

4. This shadow test can be applied by many observers, who will find that it fails to predict the angles correctly, thereby rejecting the flat earth model.

Care to take on the Labradoodle challenge? See my post at the foot of page 320.

[paul's got wright]

25 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.

So if he didnt have an hypothesis, he didnt have anything to test in experiment, so he didnt have science. 

So he can be dismissed as having proven the shape of the earth. Nothing more than a religious story, dare i say pk?

[wrighty]

15 minutes ago, P.K. said:

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.....

Unfortunately PK, you're not getting this.  There was only one observation - that of the shadow.  The sun's reflection at the bottom of the well is simply the 'origin' (in time and place) from which to reference the single observation of the shadow length 600 miles away.  To differentiate between a flat earth/near sun model and a spherical earth/distant sun model you need two observations.  Try reading my posts before dissing my intelligence.

[wrighty]

4 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Care to take on the Labradoodle challenge? See my post at the foot of page 320.

I'm running my own challenge actually - trying to teach the cat quantum mechanics.  I've managed to get it to sit in a box, just struggling to get it to understand that it can be both alive and dead at the same time if I fire the laser pointer at a half silvered mirror with my eyes shut.  Or something like that.

[paul's got wright]

6 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Care to take on the Labradoodle challenge? See my post at the foot of page 320.

Just give him a break will you, he's only just coming to terms with the scientific method!

Crawl before he walks if you like!

You are the fool on the hill here pk, on a religious crusade, blind to the science of these matters x

[paul's got wright]

14 minutes ago, wrighty said:

OK Paul, I'll have a go at fitting Eratosthenes experiment to the scientific method you love - I agree though that he wasn't trying to prove the earth was round at the time.

1. It is observed that ships' masts gradually sink below the horizon as they sail further away

2. A possible hypothesis that explains this observation is that the earth is spherical

3. This hypothesis predicts that the length of the shadow of an object will vary in a mathematically predictable way (∆angle = distance/circumference)

4. This shadow test can be applied by many observers to confirm that the spherical earth model works.

You could of course do it all the other way around:

1. It is observed that the angle of the sun's rays changes by 7 degrees if you move 600 miles north

2. A possible hypothesis is that the earth is flat, and the sun is therefore 600/tan 7˚ miles away

3. This hypothesis predicts that the length of the shadow of an object will vary in a mathematically predictable way (∆angle = arctan(distance/solar distance))

4. This shadow test can be applied by many observers, who will find that it fails to predict the angles correctly, thereby rejecting the flat earth model.

Now now wrighty lad! Its not love, just measured respect for the method.

Thanks for the reply.

You havent got a valid  hypothesis. Its supposed to state an if/then prediction or cause and effect.

Try to modify the statement as you need an independent variable, and as it is you cant validate your hypothesis in an experiment. Read the method again and apply the observation and go from there x 

[wrighty]

No Paul, I think you need to re-read my post to understand it better.  Both of my numbered examples state a hypothesis (first one, the earth is spherical, second one, the earth is flat), and then in point 3 it is stated what prediction would come from those hypotheses.  The independent variables in each case would be the distance you are away from the well, and the dependent variables would be the length of the shadow, from which you derive the angle.

Which part of that are you having trouble with, or do you think doesn't fit with the 'scientific method'?

[paul's got wright]

54 minutes ago, wrighty said:

No Paul, I think you need to re-read my post to understand it better.  Both of my numbered examples state a hypothesis (first one, the earth is spherical, second one, the earth is flat), and then in point 3 it is stated what prediction would come from those hypotheses.  The independent variables in each case would be the distance you are away from the well, and the dependent variables would be the length of the shadow, from which you derive the angle.

Which part of that are you having trouble with, or do you think doesn't fit with the 'scientific method'?

Honestly wrighty i read it correctly.

You have to have an if then statement in your hypothesis, as it is trying to establish a cause (independent variable) for the effect(dependent variable). 

Distance is not an independent variable, otherwise that means distance would be your cause! Of what though?

What has distance causing shadows got to do with measuring, not calculating, the shape of the earth?

"The earth is flat" is not an if/ then statement so it is not valid as a scientific hypothesis.

Just start again and adjust it til it fits. In no way am i demeaning you or your reply i just want you to try this and see if its possible to put through the method. I will post the definition of hypothesis for clarity x

[paul's got wright]

https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

[paul's got wright]

Just now, paul's got wright said:

https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

Its all about if/ then, cause and effect relationships. Without experiment, any hypothesis can be disregarded immediately, as being scientific

[manxy]

6 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

China would have you believe great rivers rush north up the ball manxy! How do you reconcile that with your actual experience? 

We're told to believe that gravity keeps the water in place around the globe model theory. There is no mention as to what depth it has to be in order that gravity pulls the water around a curved area and I'll wait for the technical/science explanation if there's any about? 

I look out to sea and I see a fair distance depending on whether there is any cloud or mist cover and when it's clear, I can see land at the other side. Using optical equipment, I can see further and using bigger lens, even further.  I hold a ball, add water to it and the water falls off. I pour lots of water on it and it also falls off. I place a ball in water and gently move it up and the water falls down and again, the water becomes level. No gravitational pull around the ball except that the water will fall down to find its true level.

Canals are also level and built that way so that boats can travel calmly along the slow moving waters edge and when a boat has to go up or down, a canal lock is used and is simply a chamber with gates at either end. By emptying or filling that chamber with water, the boat can move up or down onto a new section of the waterway. There is no bendy water and if the canal was curved, the water would flow to where it can be level again.

Using a powerful telescope, you can see a vast distance along a canals length (without locks) and with the water being level and not bendy and using the Pythagorean theorem, it calculates the curvature of the earth at approx 8 inches per mile (squared) and yet the canal is straight. Surely if it was straight and the curvature of the earth was 8 inches per mile, then the canal would require locks to correct the angle? Hmmm.... Most odd? And then we're told that the Nile being a thousand miles and the longest river in the world, falls but a foot along its length. How can this be using the globe theory model? Hmmm.... Strange again?

Finding out the information for the first time can be thought provoking, especially when you were informed as a child that the world is round and here's the globe model to prove it, then you accepted it, but then when you start looking at things with open eyes, seeing a dome model with level water and looking at different facts, then something clicks and its where you understand that everything you've been told may not be the truth after all. I suppose its a bit like Santa with the flying reindeer who pops down the chimney or the Tooth Fairy who swaps money for a tooth under the pillow?

 

To Trolls - Sorry I can't see your posts but I somehow feel that it wouldn't add anything but negative thoughts or comments anyway. Maybe I'm wrong about you and maybe the earth is a globe?.... LOL

[TheTeapot]

40 minutes ago, manxy said:

 And then we're told that the Nile being a thousand miles and the longest river in the world, falls but a foot along its length. How can this be using the globe theory model? Hmmm.... Strange again?

I don't know where manxy gets her information from but here's a nice calming video to help

 

[La Colombe]

7 hours ago, manxy said:

Using a powerful telescope, you can see a vast distance along a canals length (without locks) and with the water being level and not bendy and using the Pythagorean theorem, it calculates the curvature of the earth at approx 8 inches per mile (squared) and yet the canal is straight. Surely if it was straight and the curvature of the earth was 8 inches per mile, then the canal would require locks to correct the angle? Hmmm.... Most odd?

Rofl! Brilliant, thanks for that. 

[wrighty]

8 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

Honestly wrighty i read it correctly.

You have to have an if then statement in your hypothesis, as it is trying to establish a cause (independent variable) for the effect(dependent variable). 

Distance is not an independent variable, otherwise that means distance would be your cause! Of what though?

What has distance causing shadows got to do with measuring, not calculating, the shape of the earth?

"The earth is flat" is not an if/ then statement so it is not valid as a scientific hypothesis.

Just start again and adjust it til it fits. In no way am i demeaning you or your reply i just want you to try this and see if its possible to put through the method. I will post the definition of hypothesis for clarity x

I think Paul that you're being too dogmatic with what you accept as a definition of hypothesis.  Other definitions are available - for example, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." which is what came up on Google.  So in my example previously my use of the word 'hypothesis' was exactly that.

But let's go with the one you linked with for a moment.  The essence seems to be if/then, and the identification of an independent variable, which you feel has to be causal - is that right?  If so, then getting back to Eratosthenes and the well, the independent variable would be the earth's curvature, as being the cause of the observed angle changes.  Now it's impractical to build yourself a new earth with a different curvature to get a different set of results, which is why the restriction of 'hypothesis' to a simple 'x causes y' relationship is not helpful in this case.

I'm more of a mathematician than a scientist - maths being the purer subject in my opinion.  As well as the scientific method, there is the discipline of mathematical modelling. The steps involved are: Formulate the model, generate equations, make predictions, test by experiment, refine the model and repeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model#Significance_in_the_natural_sciences

The model of the earth as a sphere with a distant sun works, and accurately predicts the length of shadows as in Eratosthenes-type experiments.  In other circumstances the model may need to be more sophisticated - it's a slightly flattened sphere.  In yet others you may need to add in sophistication to take into account non-uniform density, or surface roughness.  The most sophisticated model of the earth is the earth itself, but it's impractical to use this to carry out experiments as you'd prefer them to be with your dogmatic interpretation of what science is, and how a hypothesis is formulated.

Do you accept that mathematical modelling is a valid means of scientific discovery?  It is after all how Newton worked out gravity and planetary motions, and later how Einstein came by relativity theory.  The latter has interesting parallels with the flat-earth 'debate'.  Einstein postulated that space was curved by the presence of matter and energy.  Before him, it was thought that space was just 'space', and thereby flat.  He created a model of curved space, did the maths (very complex, took him years to get his head around it), made predictions (precession of the perihelion of mercury, bending of light by mass...) based on his model, observations were done which aligned with his predictions, and hence the theory of general relativity, with its curved space, was given credence, much like a curved earth surface compared with a flat one a couple of thousand years previously.

No doubt you argue that the theory of general relativity isn't science because no-one has ever tested the hypothesis by directly measuring the curvature of space in the vicinity of an experimental mass/energy (the independent variable you insist is essential).  Most people would view Einstein, and Newton before him, as the greatest scientific minds of all time.  What's your view on that Paul, given they didn't follow your method?