paul's got wright Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Oh and i nearly forgot that little corker " how science proves..." haha Now who was it that said science doesnt prove things? Well now you have an assistant professor of physics and astronomy from unlv to argue the toss with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 2 hours ago, paul's got wright said: so regarding this https://www.unlv.edu/news/release/round-earth-clues-how-science-proves-our-home-globe, the article john linked to, shock horror, the first word in the title is the much parroted misnomer "round". there's the start of the shambles. coins are round,plates etc etc. so why are people who are against the flat earth subject, so reluctant to call a ball a ball, or at least use the correct terminology? Agree this is poor language, but not really relevant to the issue. It's not like we don't understand he's trying to explain why the world is spherical. Is a sphere round? It's semantics and not really relevant to the issue. then we have "round earth clues" followed by, how science proves that our home is a globe" i dont see how clues are related to scientific proof, or even relevant? Erm - well an observation is evidence - all he's alluding to is that there are observations you make which allow you to understand the shape of the earth. Gathering evidence - clues - is the stamp collecting part which is a part of science. Though I will add I really dislike using the word "proves" when it comes to science. Mathematics proves things, science can only prove things in a general layman's terms - the reality is it provides a pre-ponderance of evidence. It is better at disproving things but even that is complex - Einstein didn't really disprove Newton, for most observations the approximations a Newtonian model provides are sufficient - rather he finessed it. One way to think about it is that the error bars are narrower when you use the predictions of Einstein compared to Newton. next we have "as the flat earth theory gains resurgence with a new Netflix documentary". totally disingenuous, as it has nothing to do with the netflicks mockumentary, clearly the mockumentary is a result of the resurgence which has been around for well over a decade but obviously becoming a resurgence at least 4 years ago when gerry started the thread. the shambles continues ..... OK, but not really relevant. "UNLV astronomer explains how it fizzles" really? we shall see. i presume you have all read this short article? lets go on........ "do you want to prove that the earth is round?".........er no spherical actually please if you dont mind? "Hop on a plane, and fly to Cape Town, South Africa, or Melbourne, Australia — two major cities located in the Southern Hemisphere..." anyone see the problem here? its called circular reasoning. what exactly is the "Southern Hemisphere"??? would that be the presupposed "southern" part of the "Globe" that the reader is supposed to be in process of proving? so if you want to prove the globe, you have to start off by presupposing the globe? the very definition of a circular reasoning. so thats that out of the window of proof. whats next? No, I don't agree with this. He's not presuming the Earth is a sphere. He's presuming its divided into a section called the North Hemisphere and a section called the South Hemisphere - Australia is in the south hemisphere, as is South Africa. Flat earth maps and diagrams also break the world down in this way. He's not presuming the world is a sphere just demarcating. "This might seem like an expensive trip, but it’s one part of an experiment..." REALLY?........So hopping on a plane and presupposing that you live on a globe, is an experiment is it! wonder what the natural phenomena observed is gonna be and the independent variable? let's see. Did you look up "lies to children" and "Wittgenstein's ladder"? You have a very absolutist definition of what science is, which is too prescriptive. But even so he is trying to observe natural phenomena, and does have an independent variable - though he doesn't attempt to explain it that way. Going to these two places enables you to make observations and look for changes compared to a different place in a different location - the independent variable, the one you control, is distance, how far you've moved. The observations he takes are looking at the stars and seeing how they change. "There, you won’t be able to see the North Star." great we have our observed phenomena! wonder whether this "experiment" has a null hypothesis! we shall see.... Yes, we shall see. Though null hypotheses are statistics, which can be a part of science, but don't have to be. "This might seem like an expensive trip, but it’s one part of an experiment that can be done to disprove the Flat Earth Theory — a theory at the centre of a popular new documentary — Behind the Curve — that is now streaming on Netflix."....... wait what??? "an experiment that can be done to DISPROVE the Flat Earth Theory" but i thought they were showing us how to PROVE the "round" earth! this is getting silly. we're only on the first and second, very short paragraphs! If you can provide evidence for a spherical earth, it is also evidence against a flat earth - the two hypotheses are mutually inconsistent. We have two hypotheses - a flat earth, and a spherical one and we are taking observations to see if the evidence is consistent with one or the other - or none of them. "OK, so how do we know — scientifically — that the Earth is a sphere? ......this sounds promising, lets see what we get? "At a very basic level, we can see the Earth’s curvature through satellites that we’ve launched into space" please check the article, that is a genuine quote! my question is simply, what is the natural phenomena observed please, whats the hypothesis, independent variable, null hypothesis. any citations maybe? Making observations is perfectly scientific, though limited. Again you have a very closed definition of science. A hypothesis could be there are no squirrels on the Isle of Man. An observation of a squirrel would disprove this hypothesis. Observing that Boris has blond hair does disprove the hypothesis that he has black hair, you don't need independent variables, or null hypotheses to do this. We do have multiple independent views of the earth from space at a sufficient distance to see that it is spherical - geostationary weather satellites for example. My understanding is that most flat earthers just claim this evidence is fake and not to be trusted - even though they do trust their weather forecast which relies on the observations the weather satellites provide. "Additionally, through the use of high-powered telescopes, we’ve been able to examine planets both in our solar system and beyond, and all of them are spherical in shape." so no citations then, and no example of how we know SCIENTIFICALLY", that the earth is a sphere. just nonsense. telescopes looking at lights in the sky is not a scientific experiment its an observation, the beginning of an opportunity for a hypothesis, but nowhere near an experiment. this article is utterly dismal. It isn't a particularly good article, but it isn't meant to be a scientific paper so expecting citations is a bit odd - everything he's mentioned are generally known. more of the same here "There is a very deep, fundamental reason why the Earth is round". its funny really because many of the flat earth models are round so they are in agreement here at least! round like a wheel? Yes, you are making lots out of the round v spherical imprecision ... well done. "the force of gravity depends upon the distance between two interacting objects, and the only three-dimensional object you can make with a single distance is a sphere" which gravity, einsteinian or newtonian? is "gravity" a force? lets have a look around the science scene to find out.........does ndt even know what gravity is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh4bu4rcbs also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZB7niY98w Erm, now this is more subtle - Einstein provided an entirely new way of looking at the world - you need to understand the Equivalence principle. It is perfectly fine to talk about gravity creating a force - this however is equivalent to saying gravity distorts space time. They aren't contradictory, rather different ways of saying the same thing. Science can also involve simplifying things to get useful predictions - simplifying to gravity is a force is hugely useful in multiple applications - I work in aerospace and the balance between lift and gravitational forces is perfectly fine to understand why a bird flies or a plane stays in the air. It's an approximation but a useful one. When a mass gets to a certain size its gravitational force - the amount of space curvature it generates - causes it to collapse into a roughly spherical shape - the hydrostatic pressure is high enough to cause plastic deformation in the material the object is made from and so it cannot resist the deformation gravity is causing. This is simply factual, of course it is more complicated than that and you could go into endless detail about space time etc, but none of this makes it untrue that gravity can be approximated as a force acting on a body which if that body is a certain size will result in it becoming spherical shaped depending on how strong the material it is made from is. im almost losing the will to type but lets get to the pathetic end, after i get my tea! see you all soon x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 46 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Who are you trying to convince or educate here china? Certainly not me! I have told you time and time again that i know more about this flat earth subject than you and anyone else in here. I know your model inside out. I know all the flat earthers gripes against the heliocentric globe model, and every model and theory they have proposed as alternatives. Thats why its so easy to pick apart that absolutely shocking article john offered to the discussion. I will respond again tomorrow to your broken record of a post, no offence, its just boring going round in circles with your mainstream opinionated rhetoric, in lieu of you actually providing the scientific validation for the spinning ball earth claim after over 4 years! I told you gerry was onto something! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Maybe if we all chip in a hundred grand each we can get Paul a ticket for Virgin Galactic or SpaceX, and then “accidentally” set the controls for the heart of the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Well Paul, So you know all about the flat earth subject, more than everyone else. Well done. Do you know anything about the shape of the Earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, Sheldon said: Maybe if we all chip in a hundred grand each we can get Paul a ticket for Virgin Galactic or SpaceX, and then “accidentally” set the controls for the heart of the sun. Or, we could start a go fund you! maybe if we raise enough, you could actually come back in here with a viable independent variable! I'll post a pic of me waiting for you to provide one shelly x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 15 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Well Paul, So you know all about the flat earth subject, more than everyone else. Well done. Do you know anything about the shape of the Earth? Yes but the ball earth faithful arnt doing too well at the minute. It never goes well for them after the boy who cries wolf gimmick " quick quick close the science thread down" How about a bit of astrology to change the mood? https://i.thehoroscope.co/capricorn-monkey-the-inquisitive-charmer-of-the-chinese-western-zodiac/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 heres me so it is, waiting for shelly and the majik independent variable beans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hampsterkahn Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Arguments, (OK, “debates”if you prefer)on this subject, seem to fall into 2 categories: 1 .Firmly within in the confines of “belief”,they are delivered liberally seasoned with a varied dilution of vitriol ,bricks and sneers based on many previous encounters between old adversaries on MF. 2. The second is apparently based on “Science”, Long words.Long sentences.They rely heavily on “cut and paste” ammunition amounting to a Wikipedia or U tube “Top Trumps”. Whether it is flat, round, and /or spherical, it is what it is, to vaguely paraphrase Galileo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 8 hours ago, paul's got wright said: Check the national anthem i think it says something interesting about it in there x Who's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 7 hours ago, paul's got wright said: heres me so it is, waiting for shelly and the majik independent variable beans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 2 hours ago, display name said: Who's? No i think you cand find a better one than that about god x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Sheldon said: Thats about as scientific as it gets from you shelly! Looks like you just found out that the independent variable MUST be manipulated by the scientist doing the experiment! Panic mode, science emergency! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, paul's got wright said: Thats about as scientific as it gets from you shelly! Looks like you just found out that the independent variable MUST be manipulated by the scientist doing the experiment! Panic mode, science emergency! Without copy and pasting: Explain what the independent variable is in the scientific method and what relevance does it have in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said: Without copy and pasting: Explain what the independent variable is in the scientific method and what relevance does it have in this discussion. Oh here comes the next joker! Richard, i have done so many many times throughout this thread. So must i repeat myself or can you actually be bothered to do some research in here by reading the thread? Are you willing to partake in a rational polite discussion about it so you can learn something, and maybe offer something in return? If thats the case id be happy to x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.