Simple Truth

  • 48 Replies
  • 4466 Views
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2007, 07:24:51 AM »
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2007, 08:49:02 AM »
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

What about all the other topics?  In total, would Occam's Razor favor RE over FE?

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2007, 08:54:04 AM »
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

What about all the other topics?  In total, would Occam's Razor favor RE over FE?

Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2007, 08:57:52 AM »
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

What about all the other topics?  In total, would Occam's Razor favor RE over FE?

Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

Maybe.

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2007, 09:20:52 AM »


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2007, 09:24:30 AM »


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 

Then I dare say Occam's Razor has a biased perspective on the FE/RE debate on these forums.
Sounds pretty much like what I was aiming at anyway.

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2007, 09:32:01 AM »


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 

Then I dare say Occam's Razor has a biased perspective on the FE/RE debate on these forums.
Sounds pretty much like what I was aiming at anyway.

And I say you have to ignore all physics and all other knowledge to believe the Earth is flat.  You worship a giant Ice wall that no one has ever seen, yet if you fly south you will hit it.  You look up and see nothign but round bodies yet you still think the Earth has to be flat. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2007, 09:37:49 AM »


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 

Then I dare say Occam's Razor has a biased perspective on the FE/RE debate on these forums.
Sounds pretty much like what I was aiming at anyway.

And I say you have to ignore all physics and all other knowledge to believe the Earth is flat.  You worship a giant Ice wall that no one has ever seen, yet if you fly south you will hit it.  You look up and see nothign but round bodies yet you still think the Earth has to be flat. 

Well, I look up and I see a lot of bright burning objects called stars too, but then I noticed the earth wasn't on fire.
.. I also don't see any other life on other plants, does this mean the earth is devoid of life? ( I borrowed this one from someone in another thread. its a good one. )

Can you prove you went straight south, and never deviated, or did you never go, and its just the supposed inference of what will happen?

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2007, 09:41:52 AM »
So the noon is on fire?  As is mars, venus and all the other planets we have seen?
There is an asteroid that may or may not contain fossilized bacteria.  There is also going to be a new mars rover that is going to search for the remains of life on mars.  Since they already determined it had water on it. 
I could prove Iím going south using the stars or the GPS.  Some on here said the Icewall if full of GPs transmitters.  All I would have to do is fly right over one.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2007, 09:47:38 AM »
So the noon is on fire?  As is mars, venus and all the other planets we have seen?
There is an asteroid that may or may not contain fossilized bacteria.  There is also going to be a new mars rover that is going to search for the remains of life on mars.  Since they already determined it had water on it. 
I could prove Iím going south using the stars or the GPS.  Some on here said the Icewall if full of GPs transmitters.  All I would have to do is fly right over one.


go for it. make sure to document your trip well.

the fact the moon ISN'T on fire, or your "other" planets, should be proof enough that just because something else in the universe has a property, doesn't mean it all does.
As for an asteroid that MAY, or MAY NOT contain fossilized bacteria, doesn't really say anything at all.
and NASA is part of the conspiracy. they're enjoying some lavish parties with that money that supposedly went to that "mars rover."

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2007, 09:51:27 AM »
Ok what about space Imaging, the private company that owns a satellite?  You throw logic and knowledge right out the door in every one of your posts. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2007, 09:54:24 AM »
Ok what about space Imaging, the private company that owns a satellite?  You throw logic and knowledge right out the door in every one of your posts. 

Satellites don't exist, so ill go ahead with "Space Imaging" is a puppet company established by the government to lend credibility to the conspiracy.

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2007, 09:55:40 AM »
Of course it is, and all the employees keep the secret.  You do realize that sound ultra ridiculous?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2007, 10:02:19 AM »
About as ridiculous as the earth being round.

we can even go a level deeper.
Not everyone in the company would need to know the conspiracy. if your job is only to work on photos supplied to you, then you wouldn't actually KNOW where they came from, would you? you'd assume. if you didn't watch the Satellite go up, if there really was a satellite, would you actually know the difference?

Only the top of the food chain who would actually work on the conspiracy would need to know. probably no more then a handful.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 10:11:18 AM by Solace »

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2007, 10:23:55 AM »
And none of the other 6.7 billion minus a handful have ever stumbled onto it? Alll those people that race around the oceans?  All the private pilots? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2007, 10:31:08 AM »
Guess not.
How many people actually travel to the outer ring ( south pole ) for fun and enjoyment? then hike across miles of ice to get to the icewall to begin with, that aren't part of some exploration team which could easily be controlled by the government?

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2007, 11:18:14 AM »
Tsk, now you've given them a chance to have a go at your intellectual capacity.

what's with them and always correcting people's spelling and grammar? This isn't an english class! Seems like anytime they can't answer a question, they look at your spelling errors, and point out how stupid we are.

Well, we might not be able to spell but at least we're not stupid enough to believe the earth is flat!

Ever stop to think english is not everybody's first language?

fo real, finally a post that i can understand and agree with
We correct people because we feel that this site is a place to have intelligent discussions, not show off our ability to lawlz0r. So please gtfo. Zomfg i m tlking n aimspeek lawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawl z0mgz0mgomfgomfg
I built the ice wall with my two bear hands.

*

sokarul

  • 18774
  • Extra Racist
Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2007, 01:11:15 PM »
Guess not.
How many people actually travel to the outer ring ( south pole ) for fun and enjoyment? then hike across miles of ice to get to the icewall to begin with, that aren't part of some exploration team which could easily be controlled by the government?

I don't know, how many?  You have all the answers.  You have single handedly uncovered a government conspiracy that goes back 500 years, in which not one person has slipped up and told someone else the Earth is flat.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Simple Truth
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2007, 01:50:42 PM »
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

If you take either theory at face value and compare them, as you have just done, then it is relative.

When you look at the complexity of each side's explanation, which are based on the same phenomena that we observe here on earth, then the FE side is far more complex.

Gravitational force, for example, is well documented, observable, and has fixed principles.  These principles are that the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. 

One huge assumption of the FE theory, on the other hand, is that there is a force called 'dark energy' (which has nothing to do with the dark energy referred to in the Big Bang theory) that has completely unknown properties.  It has been invented for the sole purpose of covering a gap in the theory. 

Tell me, which theory is based on fewer assumptions? (assumptions are based on faith, not observable evidence.)

Let me list some of the assumptions of the Flat Earth model:
1) 'Dark Energy'
2) Earth being an anomaly to every pattern we can observe in the universe
3) Every single picture of the earth from space, and everything else having to do with NASA has been an elaborate hoax.
4) The entire world set aside their differences to fool the masses.
5) Sun acting as a spotlight, when no other star we have observed acts in such a way.
6) An ice wall somehow encloses our atmosphere.
7) The sun, moon, and stars are also accelerating with the earth, even though earth supposedly doesn't act the same as them.
8)From the FAQ: "The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)"
9)Also from the FAQ regarding sunrises: "It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away." I just noticed that this completely contradicts evidence observable with the naked eye.  The sun does not shrink, it disappears behind the horizon.  So this assumption is not only made without evidence, it is made even in the presence of easily observable contradictory evidence.

There are many more, but no more are coming to me at the moment. 

Quote
Well, I look up and I see a lot of bright burning objects called stars too, but then I noticed the earth wasn't on fire.

Inherent in your argument is a ridiculous assumption.  You're assuming that you cannot categorize anything based on its properties.  That's like saying you've observed a cat, so when you see a monkey you don't understand why it isn't a cat.
(This analogy isn't perfect, but you understand what I mean.  I would elaborate but I have to go somewhere)

Objects have different properties, thus we categorize them and assign a name to them.  Earth happens to be a planet, whereas the sun happens to be a star.  This is based on their observable properties. 

Read up on abstraction, it might do you some good.

Quote
I also don't see any other life on other plants, does this mean the earth is devoid of life? ( I borrowed this one from someone in another thread. its a good one.

I addressed this in the post you're referring to.  The fact that we cannot observe something does not mean it is not there, nor does it mean that it is there.  It is simply unknown.