The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:43:39 AM
-
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/missing-gravity.htm
How does UA explain this? It can't.
-
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/missing-gravity.htm
How does UA explain this? It can't.
From the same site.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/naked-alien.htm
If you first explain why aliens are naked, then we will look at these equally fanciful claims on the same site about gravity.
-
Hmm, since the site also posts stories that it describes as "outlandish", then everything else on it must be a lie. I'm sure Wilmore or chicken guy will be along to tell us the name of that particular logical fallacy, as I can't recall it right now.
-
I graduated as an Electrical Engineer in Brazil.
And most universities in Brazil give you 2 years of extensive background in all major areas of physics before they start to teach you the specialize aspects of your choice. In my case electronics.
Anyway, during the 2 years of general teaching, we did several types of experiments in multiple occasions. One of the most basic experiments we did was the measurement of gravity.
Anyway, all engineer students all over Brazil do this experiment as well, and in every city the gravity found is a bit different from the other cities. Gravity is never the same anywhere in the world. The difference most of the time is small, but it is in there, but sometimes the difference is so big that you cannot discard as a statistic error.
So I know by first hand this phenomena is real.
-
Thork, please bone up on logical fallacies, and then get back to us. What you posted there is like me saying that because the newspaper has a horoscope in it the headlines must be unreliable.
-
For this to be taken seriously, you must first explain what causes gravity and prove it's existence.
-
For this to be taken seriously, you must first explain what causes gravity and prove it's existence.
For this to be taken seriously, you must learn how to use apostrophes.
-
Thork, please bone up on logical fallacies, and then get back to us. What you posted there is like me saying that because the newspaper has a horoscope in it the headlines must be unreliable.
??? I am merely asking for more sources. I could just as easily claim that there are naked aliens flashing at the general public. I have just as much 'evidence'. You can understand why I might be sceptical when other stories from the same site in the science section are completely fabricated ... as I suspect this one to be.
-
For this to be taken seriously, you must first explain what causes gravity and prove it's existence.
For this to be taken seriously, you must learn how to use apostrophes.
Apostrophes on it's/its is stupid.
If it belongs to it, it ought to have an apostrophe. Not the other way around.
Whoever started that is an idiot.
-
Hmm, since the site also posts stories that it describes as "outlandish", then everything else on it must be a lie. I'm sure Wilmore or chicken guy will be along to tell us the name of that particular logical fallacy, as I can't recall it right now.
Are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a chicken and a turkey?
Anyway, this phenomenon doesn't exist. Sorry.
-
Hmm, since the site also posts stories that it describes as "outlandish", then everything else on it must be a lie. I'm sure Wilmore or chicken guy will be along to tell us the name of that particular logical fallacy, as I can't recall it right now.
Are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a chicken and a turkey?
Anyway, this phenomenon doesn't exist. Sorry.
The studies that indicates that this phenomena is real has been peer reviewed by the scientific community.
So as far scientific methodology goes, there is no question about the veracity of this phenomena.
FET apologists often claim that FET is a actual scientific theory, so if FEers want to prove this phenomena is not real, they must do inside of the scientific realm, using the proper methodology and have their results peer reviewed by the scientific community.
Unless they do that, all assertions made by the FE community regarding this phenomena, or anything else as far physics goes, is nothing but pseudoscience.
-
For this to be taken seriously, you must first explain what causes gravity and prove it's existence.
For this to be taken seriously, you must learn how to use apostrophes.
I'll take your pedantic attacks on my grammar as an admittance of your inability to explain the causes of gravity. Cool cool cool.
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it. We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it. We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
I agree with you.
We don't exactly know 100% of what atoms are made of, but this didn't stop us from discovering nuclear energy.
Same could be said about the brain, we don't fully understand, but this won't stop us from trying to find cure for the illnesses that inflict the brain.
We don't fully understand it, but we can draw conclusions based on the facts we know.
This same methodology is applied in every single scientific branch.
For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it.
Prediction is not explanation. I can predict that my light will turn on when I flip my light switch, I can predict how intense the light will be, I can observe that it is in operation, but I have not described the workings of electricity.
We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
Your example invalidates any claim that we know how mass works, because we don't know how it works. Likewise, ignorance over the workings of gravity invalidates claims that we know how gravity works.
-
For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.
Actually, Flemming discovered Penicillin by accident. It's an invalid example. Read up on your history. He didn't create it. He didn't use any particular method to discover it.
He left a petri dish containing deadly bacteria next to an open window and some mold blew in and started to dissolve the bacteria. That's how it was "discovered".
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it.
Prediction is not explanation. I can predict that my light will turn on when I flip my light switch, I can predict how intense the light will be, I can observe that it is in operation, but I have not described the workings of electricity.
At least scientists come up with their predictions with a strong mathematical basis, and are actively looking for experiments to prove their predictions are correct or not.
FE believers have yet to present evidence of their claims that have gone through scientific methodology, like having papers been peer reviewed.
-
The zetetic counsel reviews zetetic work performed.
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it.
Prediction is not explanation. I can predict that my light will turn on when I flip my light switch, I can predict how intense the light will be, I can observe that it is in operation, but I have not described the workings of electricity.
We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
Your example invalidates any claim that we know how mass works, because we don't know how it works. Likewise, ignorance over the workings of gravity invalidates claims that we know how gravity works.
Does that prevent your lightbulb from working? No? Well then.
-
The zetetic counsel reviews zetetic work performed.
Zetetic methodology isn't scientific methodology.
If FET isn't science, it should not be discussed as one.
-
For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.
Actually, Flemming discovered Penicillin by accident. It's an invalid example. Read up on your history. He didn't create it. He didn't use any particular method to discover it.
He left a petri dish containing deadly bacteria next to an open window and some mold blew in and started to dissolve the bacteria. That's how it was "discovered".
Which proves the scientific method even more. He may not have intentionally been looking for it, but he did obseve, record, and investigate it, then others confirmed his findings. Zetetics would have stopped at the initial observation and allowed it to appear mystical.
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it.
Prediction is not explanation. I can predict that my light will turn on when I flip my light switch, I can predict how intense the light will be, I can observe that it is in operation, but I have not described the workings of electricity.
We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
Your example invalidates any claim that we know how mass works, because we don't know how it works. Likewise, ignorance over the workings of gravity invalidates claims that we know how gravity works.
Does that prevent your lightbulb from working? No? Well then.
No, but you can't definitively say that your light bulb works via electricity as opposed to, say, radiation.
-
The zetetic counsel reviews zetetic work performed.
What an ominous-sounding name.
Who's a member of this council? How are members chosen?
-
The zetetic counsel reviews zetetic work performed.
What an ominous-sounding name.
Who's a member of this council? How are members chosen?
The members of the counsel are the most distinguished proven flat Earthers in the world (well, that we know of, at least). For example, Daniel is a member as are James and Wilmore.
-
The zetetic counsel reviews zetetic work performed.
What an ominous-sounding name.
Who's a member of this council? How are members chosen?
The members of the counsel are the most distinguished proven flat Earthers in the world (well, that we know of, at least). For example, Daniel is a member as are James and Wilmore.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far I understood zetetic do not follow scientific methodology, they follow their own methodology.
Which means FET cannot be considered a science if its studies and experiments do not follow scientific methodology.
-
There is no specific scientific method. It's a myth. We don't actually work like that. It's kinda like writing a research paper. Your teacher gives you the six steps you should perform, but nobody actually checks them off as they go through. You just work the way that works best. If you don't believe me first hand, here you go: http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
The main difference between a scientifically performed study and a zetetically performed one is that zetetics do not create hypotheses. We consider the inherent bias they cause to be a con greater than the pros. It could still technically be considered science.
-
There is no specific scientific method. It's a myth. We don't actually work like that. It's kinda like writing a research paper. Your teacher gives you the six steps you should perform, but nobody actually checks them off as they go through. You just work the way that works best. If you don't believe me first hand, here you go: http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
The main difference between a scientifically performed study and a zetetically performed one is that zetetics do not create hypotheses. We consider the inherent bias they cause to be a con greater than the pros. It could still technically be considered science.
Science does have basic protocols, especially as far physics goes. You NEED to be able to predict a phenomena mathematically, you need to prove your predictions with experiments, and you need to submit your results to be peer reviewed.
If FET isn't science, the it shouldn't pretend to be one.
Zetetic clearly isn't anywhere close to science if it came to the conclusion the world is flat. If every single aspect of the human understanding point towards a round earth. The zetetics are working following their rules, that clearly aren't very accurate.
-
Biases in hypotheses? Hypotheses are created specifically so they can be tested with experiments. If what's predicted by the hypothesis doesn't match the results, it's thrown out.
Is testing ideas bad?
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it. We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
I agree with you.
We don't exactly know 100% of what atoms are made of, but this didn't stop us from discovering nuclear energy.
Same could be said about the brain, we don't fully understand, but this won't stop us from trying to find cure for the illnesses that inflict the brain.
We don't fully understand it, but we can draw conclusions based on the facts we know.
This same methodology is applied in every single scientific branch.
For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.
Why is it then that Round Earthers are always coming here demanding that we have a gap-less theory when they clearly don't hold RE science to the same standards?
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it. We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
I agree with you.
We don't exactly know 100% of what atoms are made of, but this didn't stop us from discovering nuclear energy.
Same could be said about the brain, we don't fully understand, but this won't stop us from trying to find cure for the illnesses that inflict the brain.
We don't fully understand it, but we can draw conclusions based on the facts we know.
This same methodology is applied in every single scientific branch.
For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.
Why is it then that Round Earthers are always coming here demanding that we have a gap-less theory when they clearly don't hold RE science to the same standards?
Physics is all about being able to predict a given phenomena mathematically, then prove the prediction with experiments, then having the results peer reviewed.
FE theories are unable to predict anything mathematically, and they are unable to prove any of their arguments to ANY degree with experiments.
RE science can explain a whole lot more than FE can explain the UA thing, and Re explain with a great deal of details and mathematical evidence. Even though sometimes it takes a whole lot of time to actually prove something with experimental data.
FE theories simply cannot mathematically predict any phenomena of any kind.
-
The main difference between a scientifically performed study and a zetetically performed one is that zetetics do not create hypotheses.
That is absolute codswallop: Boat-building Dinosaurs, infiniate plane, UA, celestial gears, shadow objects, anti-moons, moonshrimps. All are proposed untested solutions and therefore hypotheses.
When Robotham talks about the moon giving off its own light (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/), he's suggesting an alternative explanation without any supporting evidence. He presents it in an assertive, arrogant way, but it's a hypothesis.
Zetetics, please practice what you preach for once. If you don't know how something works, then you have to keep quiet about any possible explanation until you have amassed evidence that covers all eventualities.
-
Why is it then that Round Earthers are always coming here demanding that we have a gap-less theory when they clearly don't hold RE science to the same standards?
In that regard I do agree with you. Anyone that expects FET to be a completely bulletproof description of the shape of the earth is certainly being disingenuous. However, science generally plays "small ball". In other words, science tackles smaller, testable problems, the answers of which naturally build towards larger, demonstrable conclusions. This is the exact opposite of how FET seems to operate, namely by starting with a conclusion and then trying to fit the observations to meet that model.
-
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science. Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it. We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.
I agree with you.
We don't exactly know 100% of what atoms are made of, but this didn't stop us from discovering nuclear energy.
Same could be said about the brain, we don't fully understand, but this won't stop us from trying to find cure for the illnesses that inflict the brain.
We don't fully understand it, but we can draw conclusions based on the facts we know.
This same methodology is applied in every single scientific branch.
For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.
Why is it then that Round Earthers are always coming here demanding that we have a gap-less theory when they clearly don't hold RE science to the same standards?
There are a couple of paints that id like to make regarding to the statement.
1.) Many times RE'ers do hold FE to to high of a standard. BUT,
2.) We do hold Science to extreme standards, testing and retesting experiments until we are absolutely sure that they are showing accurate results.
3.) The gaps in FE are much, much larger than RE. There is not a single thing that FE explains that RE does, and there are many things that RE explains that FE does not.
-
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
-
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
Not this again. Do you have any evidence that science suggest gravitation is caused by magic?
All i have found is that science suggests that it is caused by the bending of space time, or by a possible particle.
I see no reference to magic. Further research is being conducted, but no one is giving up and claiming magic.
And so my points still stand, There is not a single thing explained by FE that is not better explained by RE. And there are many things that RE explains that FE cannot or does not.
Furthermore, that is a hole that is just as present if not more so in FE.
-
Then all four (three if you do electroweak) of the fundamental forces are mysterious and magical. Knowing the force carrier of the other three doesn't make their existence make any more sense, if you think like that.
-
Then all four (three if you do electroweak) of the fundamental forces are mysterious and magical. Knowing the force carrier of the other three doesn't make their existence make any more sense, if you think like that.
Exactly, you can dissect anything until it no longer makes any sense.
-
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
-
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
I never said it is, but it seems unreasonable to demand an explanation of the UA if one for gravity cannot be given.
-
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
I never said it is, but it seems unreasonable to demand an explanation of the UA if one for gravity cannot be given.
With our current gravity knowledge we can calculate the force of gravity at any given height in our planet. In fact with that knowledge, I can calculate what is the potential gravitational energy of a given body, and with that potential gravitational energy I can calculate how much of that energy I can transform in kinetic energy.
That is exactly how we can create and harvest the energy from water by building Dams. Because we know exactly how much potential GRAVITATIONAL energy that body of water holds. And what is the percentage of that energy we can actually concert in electricity.
That is how much understanding of gravity we have. Stating we don't understand gravity is ignorance.
Now, is it possible to calculate how much potential energy a Dam has using the UA mathematics?
Do the FE apologists have any understanding of how UA works in a basic mathematical level?
Are there any UA math that can predict the behavior of a given body at a certain height?
Well, I don't think so.
Unless UA can be explained mathematically, we can certainly conclude FEers have no understanding of what UA actually is.
-
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
I never said it is, but it seems unreasonable to demand an explanation of the UA if one for gravity cannot be given.
It's irrelevant, because predictions for UA don't match reality. Predictions for gravity do. UA says the force should be uniform all over the plane. It isn't. Predictions for gravity say there should be slight variability from place to place.
-
Biases in hypotheses? Hypotheses are created specifically so they can be tested with experiments. If what's predicted by the hypothesis doesn't match the results, it's thrown out.
Is testing ideas bad?
Unintentional bias. You naturally want your hypothesis to be correct and may subconsciously adjust the experiment accordingly. I've been a victim of this myself.
-
Unintentional bias. You naturally want your hypothesis to be correct and may subconsciously adjust the experiment accordingly. I've been a victim of this myself.
Which is why things are peer-reviewed, carefully controlled, and repeated.
I'd love to know what mechanism in zeteticism prevents this from happening. You're going to form ideas based on what you see. What's stopping you from misinterpreting new observations to fit with your ideas better?