Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?

Look the Scientific dialog:

There is nothing scientific about your definition of absolute truth.

Lets see how it would go:

Alice: Pixies are real, that is the absolute truth.
Bob: Pixies aren't real, that is the absolute truth.
Astronomy: Absolute truth is that which cannot be shown to be false. There is no way to show that pixies exist, making it impossible to show Bob's claim to be false, thus I must accept it as absolute truth. However there is also no way to show that they don't exist, and thus no way to show Alice's claim is false, thus I must accept it as absolute truth.

And no, the Bible is not proof of your religion or proof of the existence of Jesus. The fictional Jesus is likely an agglomeration of multiple different people that lived around that time. The Bible, along with historical evidence paints his existence as an impossibility.
It is entirely possible to be an atheist without lying about being an atheist.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 25, 2018, 02:42:35 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 25, 2018, 04:47:33 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 25, 2018, 04:38:31 AM

But physicists know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not "compatible" but so far there has been no way to unify them.

I have Absolute True paper, what explains Dark stuff, and unites the QM and GR. Do you need the link? But it highly technical

If it's anything like your pebbles orbiting that the sun there seems little point but if send it if you like.

All rights reserved by God.
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Gf4d/k27ahSSJW

Thanks, but I see no justification for you claim that it is "Absolute True paper".
I'm sure anyone with a little more expertise in cosmology could debunk it with no problem.

But personally I think it is totally irrelevant to the flat-earth/Globe earth question or even the Geocentric/Heliocentric Solar System question.

Gravity, Dark Matter in the Solar System: Does it Matter?
Russian researchers Pitjev and Pitjeva have studied hundreds of thousands of observations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In fact the authors note that the aggregate dark matter within Saturn’s orbit should be less than 1/6th of 1 billionth of the Sun’s mass, which is 2 x 10²⁷ metric tons. We’re talking at most 3 x 10¹⁷ metric tons, which is a lot, but not in Solar system terms. The mass of the Moon is 7 x 10¹⁹ metric tons, so this is an amount over 200 times smaller than the Moon’s mass spread out over the volume within Saturn’s orbit.

In other words, within the Solar System the the question of dark matter is totally irrelevant.

Those questions stand on their own merits and dark matter and dark energy are totally irrelevant distractions.

But I'll comment briefly on dark matter and dark energy.
Firstly  "Dark Matter":

• There is no measurable "Dark Matter" within the Solar  System so forget about any attempt to measure it here on earth.
  Why do you think it would be called  "Dark Matter" any more if "Dark Matter particles" had been detected?
  
  
• You correctly say that,  "Recently, there has been found a particular galaxy without Dark Matter"
  but why would that raise the "the question again about the meaning of Dark Matter in cosmology"?
  
  Why can't there be an exception? Since the explanation of dark matter is not yet known that exception does not seem to raise any additional problems.
  

Again with "Dark Energy", if it could be explained by the sorts of analysis you are doing it wouldn't be called "Dark Energy".
You say, "For a small laboratory with a coordinate volume ∆V , the totall energy is given by . . . . ." seems, to one as naive as myself, meaningless.

There simply is no "expansion of the Universe" between systems bound by gravitation.
This applies within even galactic groups, such as the local group.
Only galactic groups far enough apart for gravitation to be swamped by other forces, such as radiation pressure, are candidates for expansion.

But I'm no cosmologist, so I'll refrain from commenting further.

Alice: Pixies are real, that is the absolute truth.

Bob: On what reasons?
Alice: no reasons.
Bob: thus, it is not scientific and violates the logic law of Aristotel.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 25, 2018, 11:14:47 PM

Alice: Pixies are real, that is the absolute truth.

Bob: On what reasons?
Alice: no reasons.
Bob: thus, it is not scientific and violates the logic law of Aristotel.

Astronomy: This paper, Virtual matter in Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize problem as Dawn of Q-Science, Dmitri Martila is "Absolute True Paper".
RABinOZ: on what reasons?
Astronomy: I said so!
RABinOZ: That defies Aristotelian Logical Deductions and so is without basis.

Tell it to the fairies but just remember that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are completely irrelevant to the reality of the Heliocentric Solar System.

In other words, within the Solar System the the question of dark matter is totally irrelevant.

But I'm no cosmologist, so I'll refrain from commenting further.

But I am a cosmologist: https://www.sciencealert.com/apparently-there-s-a-dark-matter-hurricane-blowing-past-earth-right-now

Astronomy: This paper, Virtual matter in Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize problem as Dawn of Q-Science, Dmitri Martila is "Absolute True Paper".
RABinOZ: on what reasons?
Astronomy: I said so!

Are you liar? That is not my answer. I would answer following: the paper logically proves its points, so if you respect the Presumption of Innocence, then please use logic and reason to disprove the paper. Otherwise the paper counts as Absolute True.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 25, 2018, 11:52:20 PM

In other words, within the Solar System the the question of dark matter is totally irrelevant.

But I'm no cosmologist, so I'll refrain from commenting further.

But I am a cosmologist: https://www.sciencealert.com/apparently-there-s-a-dark-matter-hurricane-blowing-past-earth-right-now

Maybe you are, but that does not make you competent to judge the "Absolute Truth" of your own paper. You are highly biased on that matter.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 03:34:03 AM

Astronomy: This paper, Virtual matter in Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize problem as Dawn of Q-Science, Dmitri Martila is "Absolute True Paper".
RABinOZ: on what reasons?
Astronomy: I said so!

Are you liar?

No, but you have not provided any satisfactory proof that it is an "Absolute True Paper". All we have are your claims about you own paper.
So it all boils down to You said so! and that was my point. You have no reviews available from other independent cosmologists.

That is not my answer. I would answer following: the paper logically proves its points, so if you respect the Presumption of Innocence, then please use logic and reason to disprove the paper.

They are still just your claims about your own paper! Any author would, presumably, claim much the same, so to me, your words are useless.
"Presumption of Innocence" has nothing to do with the case.

Any good scientific papers should "logically prove its points" so I fail to see what right you have to claim that your "paper counts as Absolute True".
So I for one do not accept your reasoning.
What YOU think of YOUR OWN paper is worth nothing. I'll wait till there are reviews by unbiased competent cosmologists.

Otherwise, the paper counts as Absolute True.

No, I do not accept that at all. It is all no more than You said so! as i said in the first place.

I think we are done here. Nothing you have said is relevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe or to the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar System debates.

Bye!

Quote from: JackBlack on December 25, 2018, 11:14:47 PM

Alice: Pixies are real, that is the absolute truth.

Bob: On what reasons?

Alice: Because it can't be falsified, thus it is absolute truth.

Your nonsense definition has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with Aristotle.

But I am a cosmologist

The jury is still out on that.

the paper logically proves its points

It sure seems to just run off on tangents without proving anything.
Or just jumps straight to assertions. So no, it doesn't prove its points.
Also, I wouldn't call it a paper.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 03:11:04 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 25, 2018, 11:14:47 PM

Alice: Pixies are real, that is the absolute truth.

Bob: On what reasons?

Alice: Because it can't be falsified, thus it is absolute truth.

Bob: Are you crazy? Your statement is false, because it is not logical.

What YOU think of YOUR OWN paper is worth nothing. I'll wait till there are reviews by unbiased competent cosmologists.

Quote from: Astronomy

Otherwise, the paper counts as Absolute True.

No, I do not accept that at all. It is all no more than You said so! as i said in the first place.

I think we are done here. Nothing you have said is relevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe or to the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar System debates.

Bye!

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

In any case, even the name dark matter presumes that it is matter but what is unexplained is extra gravitation not necessarily extra matter.

Must go!

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:03:54 PM

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

Stop trolling the paper. Please, be afraid of hell.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 08:23:27 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:03:54 PM

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

Stop trolling the paper. Please, be afraid of hell.

It is only by his grace, that we may enter heaven, so I ask you, to please leave that out of the discussion.
If he wanted it to be flat it would be flat, but from what I see, he wanted it to be a globe, it is a globe.
He left it to us to figure it out.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:36:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 08:23:27 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:03:54 PM

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

Stop trolling the paper. Please, be afraid of hell.

It is only by his grace, that we may enter heaven, so I ask you, to please leave that out of the discussion.

I must glorify my Lord and Savior! No atheist is paying me to be silent!

Bob: Are you crazy? Your statement is false, because it is not logical.

Alice: What is illogical about it?
It seems to make perfect sense.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 07:59:19 PM

Bob: Are you crazy? Your statement is false, because it is not logical.

Alice: What is illogical about it?
It seems to make perfect sense.

Please go and study the logic laws

Please go and study the logic laws

No thanks.
Pixies are no less logical than your god.
You can't simply dismiss something as false as it being "illogical" without providing why.
There is nothing intrinsically illogical about the existence of pixies. The only reason it would be deemed illogical is that there is no evidence showing they exist.

So does that mean your definition of "absolute truth" now requires evidence of existence rather than simply an inability to prove it false?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 08:23:27 PM

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

Stop trolling the paper. Please, be afraid of hell.

Stop pretending that you have the "ABSOLUTE TRUTH". All I see is you words blowing your own trumpet.
And I'm sure that had Confucius had thought of it he would have said, "Man who blow own trumpet, blow far too long far too loud and _{far too flaaaaat!}".

And I repeat all your maths are totally irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.

Your own topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?" So what about you posting something relevant to your own topic?

And I repeat all your maths are totally irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.

Your own topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?" So what about you posting something relevant to your own topic?

Flat cosmology is product of trolling. Latter is lack of logic.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 27, 2018, 12:12:33 AM

And I repeat all your maths are totally irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.

Your own topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?" So what about you posting something relevant to your own topic?

Flat cosmology is product of trolling. Latter is lack of logic.

In other words you haven't a clue - figures!

---

---

---

Quote from: MouseWalker on December 26, 2018, 09:35:32 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:36:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 08:23:27 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:03:54 PM

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

Stop trolling the paper. Please, be afraid of hell.

It is only by his grace, that we may enter heaven, so I ask you, to please leave that out of the discussion.

I must glorify my Lord and Savior! No atheist is paying me to be silent!

Nevertheless you cannot buy your way into heaven.
But the topic is; is the earth a flat plain, or a globe, so let us, stick to that, if you can.
As yet, what you have presented, does not hold up.
Please try again.

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 10:57:25 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on December 26, 2018, 09:35:32 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:36:06 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 26, 2018, 08:23:27 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on December 26, 2018, 08:03:54 PM

You sound much like a damn troll. Because you criticize the paper having found no single mistake in its math.

Because your math was irrelevant to the questions of Flat-Earth vs Globe and Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system.
Not only that but from the little I know you cannot prove or disprove dark matter and dark energy because the reason that they are called dark matter and dark energy is that experimental results are unexplained by those maths.

Stop trolling the paper. Please, be afraid of hell.

It is only by his grace, that we may enter heaven, so I ask you, to please leave that out of the discussion.

I must glorify my Lord and Savior! No atheist is paying me to be silent!

Nevertheless you cannot buy your way into heaven.
But the topic is; is the earth a flat plain, or a globe, so let us, stick to that, if you can.
As yet, what you have presented, does not hold up.
Please try again.

Maria: Why there is dark at night?
Bob: Because the Flat Cosmology is not found yet.

Quote from: MouseWalker on December 27, 2018, 03:56:30 PM

But the topic is; is the earth a flat plain, or a globe, so let us, stick to that, if you can.
As yet, what you have presented, does not hold up.
Please try again.

Maria: Why there is dark at night?
Bob: Because the Flat Cosmology is not found yet.

What about something relevant to the question Flat-Earth vs Globe or the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system?

After YOUR topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?"

Quote from: Astronomy on December 27, 2018, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on December 27, 2018, 03:56:30 PM

But the topic is; is the earth a flat plain, or a globe, so let us, stick to that, if you can.
As yet, what you have presented, does not hold up.
Please try again.

Maria: Why there is dark at night?
Bob: Because the Flat Cosmology is not found yet.

What about something relevant to the question Flat-Earth vs Globe or the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system?

After YOUR topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?"

Why there is dark at night?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 27, 2018, 10:38:00 PM

What about something relevant to the question Flat-Earth vs Globe or the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system?

After YOUR topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?"

Why there is dark at night?

Dark where at night? My bedroom is "dark at night" because I draw the blinds and turn off the lights so you'll have to be more specific.

Did you mean to ask "Why is the night sky dark?"

Quote from: Astronomy on December 27, 2018, 10:43:36 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 27, 2018, 10:38:00 PM

What about something relevant to the question Flat-Earth vs Globe or the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar system?

After YOUR topic is "Can this disprove the Flat Earth possibility?"

Why there is dark at night?

Dark where at night? My bedroom is "dark at night" because I draw the blinds and turn off the lights so you'll have to be more specific.

Did you mean to ask "Why is the night sky dark?"

Maria: Yes, I did. Why?
Bob: have you looked the plastic models of flat Earth in net?
Maria: they are fakes, because there is no working Flat Earth Cosmology.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 27, 2018, 11:22:28 PM

Did you mean to ask "Why is the night sky dark?"

Maria: Yes, I did. Why?
Bob: have you looked the plastic models of flat Earth in net?
Maria: they are fakes, because there is no working Flat Earth Cosmology.

Of course there is no Flat Earth Cosmology but my answer to "Why is the night sky dark?" could have been one or more of:

• The Universe is not infinite in size.
• The Universe is not infinite in age.
• Stars only have a finite life.

But, what would I know? I'm no cosmologist?

I still must ask why this is relevant to the question of Flat-Earth vs Globe or of the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar System?
As far as I am concerned the Globe and the Heliocentric Solar System were proven beyond reasonable doubt long before any thought of "modern Cosmology".

Quote from: Astronomy on December 28, 2018, 01:03:12 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 27, 2018, 11:22:28 PM

Did you mean to ask "Why is the night sky dark?"

Maria: Yes, I did. Why?
Bob: have you looked the plastic models of flat Earth in net?
Maria: they are fakes, because there is no working Flat Earth Cosmology.

Of course there is no Flat Earth Cosmology but my answer to "Why is the night sky dark?" could have been one or more of:

• The Universe is not infinite in size.
• The Universe is not infinite in age.
• Stars only have a finite life.

But, what would I know? I'm no cosmologist?

I still must ask why this is relevant to the question of Flat-Earth vs Globe or of the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar System?
As far as I am concerned the Globe and the Heliocentric Solar System were proven beyond reasonable doubt long before any thought of "modern Cosmology".

My question "Why the night is DARK?" means "Why I can not find the Sun on the sky at night?"

Quote from: rabinoz on December 28, 2018, 02:23:13 AM

Of course there is no Flat Earth Cosmology but my answer to "Why is the night sky dark?" could have been one or more of:

• The Universe is not infinite in size.
• The Universe is not infinite in age.
• Stars only have a finite life.

But, what would I know? I'm no cosmologist?

I still must ask why this is relevant to the question of Flat-Earth vs Globe or of the Geocentric vs Heliocentric Solar System?
As far as I am concerned the Globe and the Heliocentric Solar System were proven beyond reasonable doubt long before any thought of "modern Cosmology".

My question "Why the night is DARK?" means "Why I can not find the Sun on the sky at night?"

My answers were for why the night sky is dark when there ought to be stars filling the night sky - "Olbers' Paradox".

But as to "Why I can not find the Sun on the sky at night?" I would say that a big hulking thing called earth gets in the way and blocks our view of the sun. It's that simple!
Those ancient flat-earthers in Babylon (Mesopotamia), Greece and China had no problem with that.
Modern flat-earthers, however, try to claim that the sun circles above the earth then have no workable explanation as to why "the sun goes away at night".

Those ancient flat-earthers in Babylon (Mesopotamia), Greece and China had no problem with that.
Modern flat-earthers, however, try to claim that the sun circles above the earth then have no workable explanation as to why "the sun goes away at night".

That violates the 4-th law of Aristotle Logic called "any claim must have sufficient reason." Thus, Flat Earth thing is not reasonable. Do you get it now?

That violates the 4-th law of Aristotle Logic called "any claim must have sufficient reason."

I cannot find any such law of logic linked to Aristotle.
He had 3 which typically weren't called laws: identity, non-contradiction & excluded middle.

The closest I can find for him is based upon cause, claiming that anything which exists or any event which happened must have had sufficient to do so.

Regardless, that is literally an argument from ignorance.
It is saying I don't know any reason to think this is true, so it must be false.
Remember, you aren't trying to prove a globe here, nor are you trying to show that the FE is unfounded. You are trying to disprove a FE.
To disprove a FE you need to do more than just show a claim isn't supported.

Even your appeal to the sky being dark at night isn't a disproof (alone).
That worked fine for the ancient FEers as their sun went below the FE.