It could quickly zip under the earth.
It could quickly zip under the earth.
Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.It could quickly zip under the earth.
oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:
UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.
The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.
Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.It could quickly zip under the earth.
oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:
UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.
The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.
There really isn't an alternative.Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.It could quickly zip under the earth.
oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:
UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.
The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.
It is all false? You mean FE theory or?Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.It could quickly zip under the earth.
oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:
UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.
The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.
It doesn't matter who subscribes to what if it is all false.
Now now. Keep it nice.Not all of us subscribe to UA. Keep that in mind.It could quickly zip under the earth.
oooooh ok. So maybe it is like this:
UA pushes Earth up and the Sun as well.
The sun goes over the edge and since it doesn't have the Earth in the way anymore to block some part of the effects of UA anymore then the sun is forced to the other side. Sounds ridiculous enough.
It doesn't matter who subscribes to what if it is all false.
Actually, I do know for sure. Look around on these forums. Especially the stuff that has been brought up in the last 2 or 3 days. Not acknowledging it at this point is just laughable. This is a lunatic forum. ;) :) :D ;D :P ??? :( :'( >:( :o 8) :-X :-* ::) :-[ :-\ >o< :-BYou do have to admit that the quality of posts has gone seriously downhill lately. (Possibly EJ's fault?)
You do have to admit that the level of posting has gone seriously downhill lately. (Possibly EJ's fault?)
A lot of us FEers have retreated probably because this forum has quite a few noobs, some trolls, and it gets boring having the same questions/similar questions asked a lot.
That not my field. Sure, I can post in the upper fora, like I am now, but I am not to familiar with the math and science behind it all.A lot of us FEers have retreated probably because this forum has quite a few noobs, some trolls, and it gets boring having the same questions/similar questions asked a lot.
That's a convenient excuse. If that is true then attempt to contest one of the four newest posts in the debates section.
My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?First of all, the flat earth is a disc, not a globe. Secondly, some speculate that the higher dimensional aetherific warping of space-time near the edge of the disc causes the the rim to fold back onto itself in such a way that what seems like the western most point is actually connected to the eastern most point. Sort of like how Pac Man can warp from one side of the maze to the other. The 2D map looks flat, but a 5D or higher map would show the true nature of how the sun's path above earth is perfectly reasonable.
Hey, this question is for people who believe in / are working on the "Antarctica as a Continent (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)" model where the sun, at the equinox, 'shifts gears' from the north pole to the south.
I'm assuming this happens when the sun transitions across the equator--that is, it passes 0° 00' latitude. The vernal equinox of 2015 happens at 10:39 PM UTC on 20 March. However, at that time, the sun is just south of Hawaii at 158° 26' West. On your map, that'd be around here:(http://i.imgur.com/QWR4LY6.png)
Two hours later the sun is here:(http://i.imgur.com/H7IbndQ.png)
My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?
Hey, this question is for people who believe in / are working on the "Antarctica as a Continent (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)" model where the sun, at the equinox, 'shifts gears' from the north pole to the south.
I'm assuming this happens when the sun transitions across the equator--that is, it passes 0° 00' latitude. The vernal equinox of 2015 happens at 10:39 PM UTC on 20 March. However, at that time, the sun is just south of Hawaii at 158° 26' West. On your map, that'd be around here:(http://i.imgur.com/QWR4LY6.png)
Two hours later the sun is here:(http://i.imgur.com/H7IbndQ.png)
My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?
Why do you assume that there is only one sun? There is more than one planet.
Are you saying there is more than one sun?
Are you saying there is more than one sun?
No, but neither am I saying their isn't. I'm just wondering why you are assuming such. It's assumptions like these that plague round-earth science. In flat-earth science we look at the evidence and make conclusions based on the facts. We do not make assumptions then try and make the facts fit the conclusion.
We only see one sun so assuming that there are two is stupid.
You look out your window and see a flat earth. You won't accept that the earth could be round. But when you look out your window and you see one sun you think it is possible that there are two. It makes no sense.
You look out your window and see a flat earth. You won't accept that the earth could be round. But when you look out your window and you see one sun you think it is possible that there are two. It makes no sense.
You're putting words in my mouth. I can admit that the earth could be round. It's called having a falsifiable claim. If sufficient proof was presented to me I would have to change my views. You only assume that I cannot change because you think that I've reached my stance on the wings of delusion and myth likely steeped in dogmatic religion. The irony of course being that you're the one saturated with indoctrination so fully that you cannot even fathom the possibility of the world being anything but round. This is called having an unfalsifiable view and is as unscientific as Jesus was white.
Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons. First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory. Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.
It could quickly zip under the earth.
Why would it randomly speed up while traveling under the earth?
Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons. First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory. Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.
My main reason being here is not to promote RE but to show that the FE is nonsense. So if you accept that the earth is not flat, that's enough for me.
My main reason being here is not to promote RE but to show that the FE is nonsense. So if you accept that the earth is not flat, that's enough for me.
Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons. First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory. Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.
My main reason being here is not to promote RE but to show that the FE is nonsense. So if you accept that the earth is not flat, that's enough for me.
Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons. First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory. Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.
My main reason being here is not to promote RE but to show that the FE is nonsense. So if you accept that the earth is not flat, that's enough for me.
Then I suppose the next step is demonstrating that the earth isn't flat.
Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons. First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory. Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.
My main reason being here is not to promote RE but to show that the FE is nonsense. So if you accept that the earth is not flat, that's enough for me.
Then I suppose the next step is demonstrating that the earth isn't flat.
Many threads in debate section are about this (sinking ship effect, sun distance etc). Most, if not all, threads end up in being abandoned by the FE believers.
That list hasn't been updated in a long while! Someone should get on tha ... oh, that'd be me. Right. Be right back.Pongo, please view my Anelemma thread or either of Alex's threads debunking the flat earth models. I think all of those are a good start for proof.
You're anelemma thread failed to compel me for a couple reasons. First, I fail to see how the formation of an anelemma necessitates a round-earth and second, all you're doing is trying to poke holes in flat-earth theory. Even if tomorrow you demonstrated conclusively that the earth isn't flat, it does nothing to prove that it's round.
My main reason being here is not to promote RE but to show that the FE is nonsense. So if you accept that the earth is not flat, that's enough for me.
Then I suppose the next step is demonstrating that the earth isn't flat.
Many threads in debate section are about this (sinking ship effect, sun distance etc). Most, if not all, threads end up in being abandoned by the FE believers.
It is called "The Hung Threads List." ;D
Okay. Observation: A bright light in the sky we call "The sun" is, at one point in time, at the western edge of the Earth and moving west. Two hours later a bright light in the sky we call "The sun" is on the eastern edge of the Earth and moving west.Are you saying there is more than one sun?
No, but neither am I saying their isn't. I'm just wondering why you are assuming such. It's assumptions like these that plague round-earth science. In flat-earth science we look at the evidence and make conclusions based on the facts. We do not make assumptions then try and make the facts fit the conclusion.
3: The many and diverse ideas of what a FE looks like are a weakness rather than a strength.
4: FEers, in order to be taken seriously, must develop a thesis that all of them can accept.
In RET, there disagreements as to what exactly gravity is. Why it works on the scale of the Earth, but not on the scale of galaxies or molecules. There is disagreement on the age of the Earth, solar system, and Universe. There are disagreements on how, when, and why life started.
Why are we held to one standard, but RET is not held to the same standards? Oh, I see now. The bias is very strong in the RE'ers.
It is like knowing that Coors is better, yet challenging your friend to prove the Bud is better. You will not really listen to anything he has to say.
In RET, there disagreements as to what exactly gravity is. Why it works on the scale of the Earth, but not on the scale of galaxies or molecules. There is disagreement on the age of the Earth, solar system, and Universe. There are disagreements on how, when, and why life started.
Why are we held to one standard, but RET is not held to the same standards? Oh, I see now. The bias is very strong in the RE'ers.
It is like knowing that Coors is better, yet challenging your friend to prove the Bud is better. You will not really listen to anything he has to say.
In RET, there disagreements as to what exactly gravity is. Why it works on the scale of the Earth, but not on the scale of galaxies or molecules. There is disagreement on the age of the Earth, solar system, and Universe. There are disagreements on how, when, and why life started.
Why are we held to one standard, but RET is not held to the same standards? Oh, I see now. The bias is very strong in the RE'ers.
It is like knowing that Coors is better, yet challenging your friend to prove the Bud is better. You will not really listen to anything he has to say.
This is incorrect. FE likes to scrutinize Newtonian gravity even though it is well known that the commonly accepted view of how gravity works is Einsteins which works on the molecular and galactic scale. The only reason why Newton's gravitational laws are still widely used is for simplicities sake. Because they do work on the earth scale and they are far easier to work with than Einstein's.
To JRoa, greeting! Touché, my good man! You are correct. What's good for the Goose ought to be good for the Gander. REers, any response to JRoa's valid point? If the REer insists that FEers agree on theory, then the FEer has the right to insist that Rounders also agree with themselves. Next point, what can FEers tell me about the Aetheric Wind? Please note that, at present, I am neither a REer or a FEer. I am weighing both theories before siding with either.
To JRoa, greeting! Touché, my good man! You are correct. What's good for the Goose ought to be good for the Gander. REers, any response to JRoa's valid point? If the REer insists that FEers agree on theory, then the FEer has the right to insist that Rounders also agree with themselves. Next point, what can FEers tell me about the Aetheric Wind? Please note that, at present, I am neither a REer or a FEer. I am weighing both theories before siding with either.
There is no disagreement among RE'rs that have taken the time to understand gravity past the Newtonian explanation. Just because a normal, everyday, non-FES visiting round earther doesn't understand gravity doesn't mean that the scientific community doesn't agree about it.
There is no disagreement among RE'rs that have taken the time to understand gravity past the Newtonian explanation. Just because a normal, everyday, non-FES visiting round earther doesn't understand gravity doesn't mean that the scientific community doesn't agree about it.
Would you kindly point me to the unified theory of gravity so that I may review it with joyous heart? It would certainly be news to me (and a great deal of theoretical physicists).
There is no disagreement among RE'rs that have taken the time to understand gravity past the Newtonian explanation. Just because a normal, everyday, non-FES visiting round earther doesn't understand gravity doesn't mean that the scientific community doesn't agree about it.
Would you kindly point me to the unified theory of gravity so that I may review it with joyous heart? It would certainly be news to me (and a great deal of theoretical physicists).
I'm not saying that there is a unified theory of gravity. I'm saying that the FES tends to complain about the Newtonian model when that isn't even the accepted model.
Just out of curiosity, which of the scores of RET gravity models is the real, true one?
Yes, we all agree that the Earth is flat.
Yes, we all agree that the Earth is flat.
Just out of curiosity, which of the scores of RET gravity models is the real, true one?
Greetings:
I would like to make two points. Point One, can anyone explain the concept of the Aetheric Wind? I am completely ignorant of the concept and would like to understand what it is, what it does, and why it exists. Point Two, perhaps a Rounder could explain to me, in bullet point fashion (or some equally understandable method), the concepts of both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity theories. Then perhaps they could explain how to two are similar, and how they are different one from the other. And furthermore, which theory are we using and why? If we are expected to use both, why is that? To be blunt, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that we have to use Newton's theory to a point, but after that we have to use Einstein's. One theory should be good enough to explain gravity at the level of our Earth and Solar System, as well as on the Galactic scale. It makes no sense to have a mishmash of both theories. How are we to know where to start with one and where to leave off with it? Rounders, its only fair to ask that you be as logical in your theories as you are asking the Flatters to be.
perhaps a Rounder could explain to me, in bullet point fashion (or some equally understandable method), the concepts of both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity theories.
perhaps a Rounder could explain to me, in bullet point fashion (or some equally understandable method), the concepts of both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity theories.
I can try to explain this to you. As far as I know, although RE model is happy with Netwtonian/Kepler gravity theory to explain how objects interact among them at least up to the solar system scale, there are still some mysteries surrounding how stars orbit around the centre of the galaxy. Something beyond your or my day to day life. But some RE scientists still try to explain this by introducing dark matters whereas others introduce other theories such as modified Netwtonian dynamics etc. Maybe Newtonian theory of gravity is not perfect yet for a scale beyond this solar system and needs some refinements to be able to work elsewhere but FEers always use this fact to blame the entire theory although they don't even have a single theory that works on the surface of the earth at all.
If you don't know an answer, just say so. Your theory makes up all kinds of crap to explain away why it should not, but does work. If it does not work, then come up with a new theory that is based on reality. Don't just say, "fairies and magic and black stuff you can't see did it."
If you don't know an answer, just say so. Your theory makes up all kinds of crap to explain away why it should not, but does work. If it does not work, then come up with a new theory that is based on reality. Don't just say, "fairies and magic and black stuff you can't see did it."
If you don't know an answer, just say so. Your theory makes up all kinds of crap to explain away why it should not, but does work. If it does not work, then come up with a new theory that is based on reality. Don't just say, "fairies and magic and black stuff you can't see did it."
We know the answer up to solar system scale. Do you even have one for the surface of the earth?
Before I accept that Flatters don't have a theory that explains gravitation, I shall ask them first. So, to you FEers, how is the affect of gravitation explained? Please tell me about the Aetheric Wind and UA. How do they work? And what, if any connection does the upward acceleration of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared have to do with Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 meters per second squared? Granted, the latter is explained through Newtonian gravity, but is there any connection between the two? And Rounders, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you have Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian physics. I don't see how two different theories of gravitation can BOTH be correct. If they can be, please explain.
Before I accept that Flatters don't have a theory that explains gravitation, I shall ask them first. So, to you FEers, how is the affect of gravitation explained? Please tell me about the Aetheric Wind and UA. How do they work? And what, if any connection does the upward acceleration of the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared have to do with Terminal Velocity, which is also 9.8 meters per second squared? Granted, the latter is explained through Newtonian gravity, but is there any connection between the two? And Rounders, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you have Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian physics. I don't see how two different theories of gravitation can BOTH be correct. If they can be, please explain.
Yes, we do. UA provides us with this force, and it accelerates us at 9.8 m/s/s.
I doubt that is true. The discrepancies are likely do to either the moon or other celestial objects having an affect on the local force.
I doubt that is true. The discrepancies are likely do to either the moon or other celestial objects having an affect on the local force.
I did not say "Gravity", you disingenuous little gits. I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.
I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.
Fair enough. Let's not argue about what this energy is. Some may claim celestial gravity, some claim magnetism, and some say they are not sure. However, all we know is that the Heavens likely affect the Earth as we know it.I did not say "Gravity", you disingenuous little gits. I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.
Hey, it's not like I've never heard a flat earth say "celestial gravity".
Well, lets make sure that what we say JRoa said, he actually DID say. It is unfair to him (or her, gender uncertain) to accuse him/her of saying things that he/she did not say. So, to be clear, what is gravity according to Rounders? Do we have proof of it? According to Flatters, what is UA? What is Aetheric Wind? do we have proof of either?
I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.
What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?
Fair enough. Let's not argue about what this energy is. Some may claim celestial gravity, some claim magnetism, and some say they are not sure. However, all we know is that the Heavens likely affect the Earth as we know it.
3: The many and diverse ideas of what a FE looks like are a weakness rather than a strength.
4: FEers, in order to be taken seriously, must develop a thesis that all of them can accept.
I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.
What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?
Please explain to me the exact way a Higgs Boson field works. It could not possibly be real if you can not explain every little detail. If you can not explain that, then your whole theory just goes to shit, no does it not?
I am saying this in a rhetorical way. I don't give a shit for you to copy and past wikipedia crap here. I am just proving a point.
I described a force, whether it is electromagnetic, gravitational, or just describes an unknown energy.
What is this unknown force jroa? Do you need the equivalent of dark matter to explain what's going on even on Earth?
Please explain to me the exact way a Higgs Boson field works. It could not possibly be real if you can not explain every little detail. If you can not explain that, then your whole theory just goes to shit, no does it not?
I am saying this in a rhetorical way. I don't give a shit for you to copy and past wikipedia crap here. I am just proving a point.
Not until at least you have a unified theory that is working on the surface of the earth as good as Newtonian gravity on RE model.
We have Newtonian gravity that works fine not only on Earth but up to the scale of our solar system.
Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far. It is the Three Bears story of science. It only works when it is just right.
It seems to me that both Rounders and Flatters have some trouble with being Zetetic. According to Rowbotham, the goal of Zeteticism was to only accept beliefs that could be verified by experiments. He argued that theoreticals were just that, theoreticals, and had no value for actual belief. And yet, in his book ENaG, he posits a lot of ideas based on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. That, at least to me, is NOT being Zetetic. As a Traditional Jew, I do not accept the New Testament as having any value in terms of religious truth, though I shall accept it for its historical value. But Rowbotham's attempt to explain everything he could not explain by experiments by using the Christian Bible seems to me to be a copout.
Rounders, on the other hand, seem to have just as much trouble. When they do experiments, they get results that they do not understand, so they create theories that explain the experiments. For example, the traditional apple falling from the tree which Newton observed, he could not understand. So he said it was gravity. Is there any proof that gravity exists? It seems to me that there is as much proof for gravity as there is for UA and the Aetheric Wind, namely, very little. Furthermore, it seems to me that attempting to categorically prove either idea is bound to fail, at least in the literal sense. It further seems that Rounders and Flatters are both rather "stuck" in their own framework of reference, and thus have a hard time getting out of that in order to see the other framework of reference employed by the other side.
This post is not designed to poke fun at either Rounders or Flatters. Rather, it is intended to make clear that both sides use theories that cannot be proven empirically. I think its only fair to say that, given that both sides accuse the other of using off-the-wall ideas that are unprovable. I don't know if you all get the hang of what I'm saying. I seem to be saying it rather badly, so I'll just shut up now. Any thoughts on what I just wrote?
PS. What does OP mean?
Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far. It is the Three Bears story of science. It only works when it is just right.
What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?
Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far. It is the Three Bears story of science. It only works when it is just right.
What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?
Uh, everything move at the same speed? Yes, that would be my answer.
Well, if Einstein was able to give an account that worked in BOTH systems, then it seems silly to invoke Newton. I would think that he would be passe, once Einstein had spoken, if indeed Einstein's theory is superior. It may be hard to explain, but if it can account for all observed phenomena both local and galactic, it seems that it would be worth explaining. Does that make sense? And WHAT does OP mean?
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit can not be explained by Newtonian gravity. However, it was one of the first successful tests of Einstein's General Relativity.Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far. It is the Three Bears story of science. It only works when it is just right.
What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?
WHAT DOES OP MEAN?????????!!!!!!!!! >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o< >o<OP = Original Post
Thank you for answering that question. I shall attempt to refrain from asking less intelligent questions in future. I must admit, this whole FE/RE debate is utterly fascinating to me. I could bury myself in it, I think. I wish I could get "The Inconsistency of Modern Astronomy" on my Nook, but as it was only a pamphlet, it hasn't been published there. I am still uncertain of which theory I believe. Both sides seem to have valid points. However, there is one thing I should say. Rounders do have one leg up on Flatters. This leg up is the fact that if you assume a RE, that explains the movement of the stars, the other planets, the Earth, and everything else. Flatters have to go to a lot more trouble, it seems, to come up with reasons for things happening the way they do. If we apply Occam's Razor, the Rounders would seem to win simply based on the statement that "the simplest answer is usually the truth." However, in science, as we have seen, nothing is simple. So Occam's Razor may not even be appropriate to invoke here. What say you all?
Thank you for answering that question. I shall attempt to refrain from asking less intelligent questions in future. I must admit, this whole FE/RE debate is utterly fascinating to me. I could bury myself in it, I think. I wish I could get "The Inconsistency of Modern Astronomy" on my Nook, but as it was only a pamphlet, it hasn't been published there. I am still uncertain of which theory I believe. Both sides seem to have valid points. However, there is one thing I should say. Rounders do have one leg up on Flatters. This leg up is the fact that if you assume a RE, that explains the movement of the stars, the other planets, the Earth, and everything else. Flatters have to go to a lot more trouble, it seems, to come up with reasons for things happening the way they do. If we apply Occam's Razor, the Rounders would seem to win simply based on the statement that "the simplest answer is usually the truth." However, in science, as we have seen, nothing is simple. So Occam's Razor may not even be appropriate to invoke here. What say you all?
I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor)
Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.
The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, a simpler but less correct theory should not be always preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one. "Preferred" doesn't necessarily mean "correct".
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit can not be explained by Newtonian gravity. However, it was one of the first successful tests of Einstein's General Relativity.Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far. It is the Three Bears story of science. It only works when it is just right.
What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?
I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor)
Then it is biased isn't it?
I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor)
FES wiki doesn't count unless it is peer reviewed. Can I be a contributor to FES wiki?
What I meant by being a contributor was obviously an intention to become a peer. Can I be a peer? Do you have an RE peer?
What I meant by being a contributor was obviously an intention to become a peer. Can I be a peer? Do you have an RE peer?
Markjo is a peer, and an RE'er. I trust him not to destroy the Wiki. As a non-peer, if you would like to see changes made to the wiki I would suggest making threads which put article in it up for discussion and we can all make changes as a group consensus.
I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor)