Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby Mansur on Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:01 pm

On these few pages, written over a hundred years ago, one can clearly see (inter alia) that the assumption of the existence of exoplanets was indeed a logical thing.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0flapwx2xrif ... w.pdf?dl=0
Mansur
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby patrix on Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:16 pm

PR,
If you read "unshakable belief" in what I write then you are misinterpreting and I might have expressed myself unclear.

To form an idea/assumption/belief on what is true (knowing there's a lot of disinformation out there) can be hard. I have my ways of doing that and others may disagree.

This, now in my view a bit tiresome and circular discussion started with my reflection that the logic in that Galileo paper was flawed. The writer supported the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, that disproves the hypothesis that Earth moves at about 100000 kph around the Sun, but rejects the experimental results that disprove the idea that Earth does not rotate around its own axis. Now my expose on that stars are like our sun and that exoplanets probably exists was about showing that it is reasonable to set up the hypothesis that Earth has a diurnal rotation. And since I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that can be tested experimentally, and since those experiments have failed to disprove it, that's where I stand. Of course I have no way of knowing for sure if those white specks in our sky actually are suns with planets, but I find it the most reasonable assumption judging from available information. If you were to tell me they are something else I would like to see some observations that support what you claim they are instead.

And that's the essence to figure out what is true/false, in my opinion. Use logic and observations to set up a reasonable hypothesis. Try to disprove it through observations and experiments. If you fail, then the hypothesis holds. If others also fail and numerous attempts are made, then the likeliness of this hypothesis being true increases and might be called a theory. If it seems self evident and undisprovable, then it may even be upgraded to a law. This is the scientific method in a nutshell but as we know it has been violated throughout history. Newtons law of gravity for example. It cannot be disproved experimentally since we have no way to weigh planets. Observations however seem to disprove it. Some binary stars need to have an absurdly high mass if their orbits are to be in accordance with it. It should of course never have been called a law in the first place, but maybe it was just because of that it was turned into a law. Science has been turned into a religion and the scientific method has been ignored numerous times since the days of Newton.

And no I haven't done these experiments myself. So it may be the case that all the scientific literature is faked and what not. But that's going a bit too far as I see it. Then we're entering flat earth pragmatics where I have no say in how long a flight from London to Sydney takes if I haven't been on the plane and clocked it myself.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby PianoRacer on Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:11 am

If you read "unshakable beleif" in what I write then you are misinterpreting and I might have expressed myself unclear.


Apologies, Patrix, that term was perhaps uncalled for. It is the impression that I have gotten from you over the last year or so - I sincerely hope that any conclusion that you have come to could be overturned with enough logic/reason/evidence - certainty is, after all, the death of wisdom, thought, creativity, n'est-ce pas?

To form an idea/assumption/belief on what is true knowing there's a lot of disinformation out there can be hard. I have my ways of doing that and others may disagree.


I find that the science of epistemology is the only route to true knowledge - I hope your "ways of doing that" include understanding the science of logic, accounting for your own biases, demanding evidence for claims, etc.

since I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that can be tested experimentally, and since those experiments have failed to disprove it, that's where I stand.


Ah, so you arrive at your conclusions first, and then you demand experimental evidence to disprove your conclusions. Interesting approach! Perhaps you could aid me in my quest to disprove the notion that invisible pink unicorns infest my basement! I have no means nor access to the equipment necessary to disprove their existence, but renowned Unicornologists have assured me that their sophisticated instruments have conclusively detected the presence of these nefarious, invisible apparitions - and who am I to argue?

Of course I have no way of knowing for sure if those white specks in our sky actually are suns with planets, but I find it the most reasonable assumption judging from available information.


To this I quote the great H. L. Mencken:

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”


Moving on:

If you were to tell me they are something else I would like to see some observations that support what you claim they are instead.


I claim no special knowledge in this area, but to me giant balls of gas located at unfathomable distances is a bit of a stretch. If you need an alternative explanation, might I offer up the following?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9B3vzsZsr4

I'm not saying this is definitively what stars are, but if we are going solely on plausibility, I certainly find it more plausible than the theory you subscribe to!

And that's the essence to figure out what is true/false, in my opinion. Use logic and observations to set up a reasonable hypothesis. Try to disprove it through observations and experiments. If you fail, then the hypothesis holds. If others also fail and numerous attempts are made, then the likeliness of this hypothesis being true increases and might be called a theory. If it seems self evident and undisprovable, then it may even be upgraded to a law.


OK so, since you still have not answered any of my original questions, I will ask once again: WHAT are the experiments that fail to disprove either of the theories that we are discussing? Why are they so difficult for you to name?

This is the scientific method in a nutshell but as we know it has been violated throughout history. Newtons law of gravity for example. It cannot be disproved experimentally since we have no way to weigh planets. Observations however seem to disprove it. Some binary stars need to have an absurdly high mass if their orbits are to be in accordance with it. It should of course never have been called a law in the first place, but maybe it was just because of that it was turned into a law.


Glad to see that we agree that Newton was a ponce :D

Science have been turned into a religion and the scientific method have been ignored numerous times since the days of Newton.


Once again, I couldn't agree with you more here.

And no I haven't done these experiments myself. So it may be the case that all the scientific literature is faked and what not. But that's going a bit too far as I see it. Then we're entering flat earth pragmatics where I have no say in how long a flight from London to Sydney takes if I haven't been on the plane and clocked it myself.


Well thank you so much Patrix, for answering at least one of my questions! Say what you will about flat earthers, and here I think we will agree, their skepticism of heliocentrism is well-placed!
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby aa5 on Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:22 am

Presenting alternative ideas is powerful. In this case I had not thought of sonoluminescence and stars as a possibility.

A key part of propaganda, or heck even convincing people of something you believe to be true, is to present them with your argument, and then as the alternative have a laughable strawman argument. An aspect of this strategy is to have the strawmen supporters only be attacking the main theory.

So say I ask you do you think it is reasonable that stars could be other suns. And the person isn't sure, but then I say or do you think they are lightbulbs that gods put in the firmament to give us coded messages. And then when given that dichotomy the person is leaning towards the stars being other suns.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby patrix on Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:50 am

PianoRacer » September 5th, 2018, 2:11 am wrote:
Apologies, Patrix, that term was perhaps uncalled for. It is the impression that I have gotten from you over the last year or so - I sincerely hope that any conclusion that you have come to could be overturned with enough logic/reason/evidence - certainty is, after all, the death of wisdom, thought, creativity, n'est-ce pas?

I claim no special knowledge in this area, but to me giant balls of gas located at unfathomable distances is a bit of a stretch. If you need an alternative explanation, might I offer up the following?

Well thank you so much Patrix, for answering at least one of my questions! Say what you will about flat earthers, and here I think we will agree, their skepticism of heliocentrism is well-placed!


I can be both flamboyant and wrong. And I know I have been regarding rockets and satellites. No need to apologize.

And no offense from my part but a "sacral" video like this really puts on my alarm bells. Hypnotic BBC voice, check. Dreamy synth cords, check. This does not mean however that the idea is necessarily wrong. But I tend to favour the uniform and boring. If I stand beside a tree and see green tree looking stuff at the horizon, I go with the idea that those are trees as well. But if I have a telescope and can confirm they only look like trees from a distance, I would certainly change my mind.

And this is by the way a very neat and interesting thing with TYCHOS that you may have overlooked dear Piano Racer. If the reason for the nonexistent parallax between stars is that the Earth hardly moves and not that they are very very very distant as Copernicans claim, then the stars do not have to be humongous to be visible to us. That is one of the key points in Simons book. Please buy/read and support this groundbreaking research in any way you can [/shameless plug] :) The stars are then much much closer and no larger than our very own Sun. This means that Betelgeuse for example isn't a giant that makes the Sun a tiny speck in comparison.

Going back to my tree analogy, if I looked at the green stuff in the horizon with a telescope and could confirm they sure look like the trees right beside me, I would be confused if someone claimed they are many thousand times taller, and equally relieved if someone convinced me that's wrong (as Simon has).

Yes the Flat Earthers have a point with Geocentricity and that's probably one of the many objectives with that disinformation campaign. Associate criticism of the Copernican model with the idea that Earth is Flat and/or does not rotate around its own axis.

I did name some of the experiments that confirms our diurnal rotation but forgive me for not wanting to dig into this. When astronomy in the 17th century was able to break free from the shackles of Aristotle and Ptolemy, this idea was laid forward by both Tychonians and Copernicans and I think that hypothesis has been strengthened ever since.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby simonshack on Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:04 pm

aa5 » August 24th, 2018, 9:30 pm wrote:Thats the problem with exoplanets. If they have blatant errors in their math and theories for our solar system, what chance is there that they are really finding exoplanets with their calculations.


Dear aa5,

Just to clarify my stance on the issue of exoplanets (i.e. those supposedly Earthlike "habitable planets" that we keep hearing about of late).

For what it's worth - I repeat, for what it's worth - we may find articles such as this (my bolds):

"It turns out, 52.3% of possible planets are actually just eclipsing binary stars, according to the source—pairs of stars that orbit each other. Planets are detected based on the subtle movements and light dimming of stars, so two stars influencing each other’s behavior can be a real headache [to] planetary researchers.”

https://www.redorbit.com/news/space/111 ... on-120615/


Looks like, if anything, they are finding more and more binary systems! What a "headache"... ;)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby aa5 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:54 am

I wouldn't be surprised if the real math requires binary systems for large masses to form. When you think about it something can't easily 'balance itself'. But with a second object.. Eg.. going on a teeter-totter, by adjusting the length of the sides even very light objects can balance a big object.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby simonshack on Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:50 pm

*
This thread about my recent trip to the USA to present my TYCHOS model has been somewhat derailed - but that's ok...



The TYCHOS model's very first public outing
at the ALCON 2018 Astronomy Convention (July 11-14, 2018)


To those who wish to know a bit more of how it all went, please listen to this section of the last Clues Chronicle hosted by my two fantastic friends, Hoi and Kham :

go to 1:22:22 (of Issue 26 of the Clues Chronicles titled : Hi, Utøya!) http://www.theclueschronicle.info/


Our TYCHOS table at the ALCON Astronomy Convention :

IMG_0325.JPG

I dare say that this little post of mine may possibly become something for historians to remember. If I'm wrong, no harm will be done! :)
Yes, we are truly struggling at promoting this - but hopefully it will slowly gather some gravitational momentum by ... action at a distance. :P

*********************************************************
From the Alcon website : https://alcon2018.astroleague.org/list-of-vendors/
Tychos_at_Alcon_Convention_Minneapolis_01.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6599
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Simon in the USA — Summer 2018

Postby patrix on Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:23 am

simonshack » September 12th, 2018, 7:50 pm wrote:I dare say that this little post of mine may possibly become something for historians to remember. If I'm wrong, no harm will be done! :)

I dare say so too. Because you are right on arguably the biggest question in science of all times. And anyone with honest intentions who takes the time to look into this will see that. Congratulations Simon!
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Previous

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests