Moon

  • 37 Replies
  • 5856 Views
?

GeoGuy

Moon
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2006, 04:52:14 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"


I completely agree.  And as we have never observed this exception, it is safe to assume that this is a law applicable to the entire surface of the Earth.


It is mostly safe to assume that, but we cannot rule out the possibility, however remote, that our assumption is wrong.

Quote
We must make assumptions like this is science or we will never get anywhere.  I have to assume that when I drop an ice cube into a glass of water, it will float, and I have to assume that this principle will occur every time, with every ice cube, and every glass of water.  Otherwise, I will waste all my effort collecting unnecessary data points.  Repeated experimental observation is evidence of universal applicability.  It is a fundamental axiom of how we live our lives.


This is the major difference between science and Zetetisism. Although I agree that these sorts of assumptions are entirely necessary to making progress is science. But since I view the FE theory as a purely hypothetical situation I don't believe it's an issue.

Quote
And I have to agree with phaseshifter.  You are smart enough to know why your dish/moon analogy is inapplicable.


 The dish/Moon analogy is as applicable as your Moon/FE analogy because my plate is not a "planet", just as the FE is not a "planet", and thus cannot be assumed to share the same properties.

Moon
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2006, 06:12:26 PM »
Quote
The dish/Moon analogy is as applicable as your Moon/FE analogy because my plate is not a "planet", just as the FE is not a "planet", and thus cannot be assumed to share the same properties.


They are both celestial bodies. I think you're smart enough to realise that the earth and moon are more similary as entities then the moon and a plate. I don't know why you keep clinging to that argument.

Quote
but we cannot rule out the possibility, however remote, that our assumption is wrong.


We will consider that we might be wrong when we have reason to beleive that we might be wrong. Until then threre is no point in saying that the laws of physics may be different on some other planet or corner of the universe.

Quote
But since I view the FE theory as a purely hypothetical situation I don't believe it's an issue.


An Hypothesis still has to be logical. But FE does not present itself as a hypothesis but as a reality (hence the conspiracy). So what you are refering to is completely different from the views of this forum.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

GeoGuy

Moon
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2006, 06:18:38 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
They are both celestial bodies. I think you're smart enough to realise that the earth and moon are more similary as entities then the moon and a plate. I don't know why you keep clinging to that argument.


There are other celestial bodies besides planets, very few of them behave anything like a "planet".

Quote
We will consider that we might be wrong when we have reason to beleive that we might be wrong.


The FE's believe they do.

Quote
An Hypothesis still has to be logical. But FE does not present itself as a hypothesis but as a reality (hence the conspiracy). So what you are refering to is completely different from the views of this forum.


Actually, I should have said a "What if" situation.

Moon
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2006, 06:45:25 PM »
It seems like this debate has gone as far as it can go, so I will just make this last point.

Modern day telescopes can see billions of light years away, and by consequence, billions of years into the past.  Nowhere, in all that space and time, have we ever found anything to suggest that the laws of physics are not universal.  If matter attracts matter in one part of the universe, then the same is the case in the rest of the universe.  I will grant, it is possible we simply haven't been looking hard enough, but it seems fantastically improbable that the universe would choose to behave differently in our little corner of the universe.  If our planet is an exception to this rule, then it is the only exception we have ever found, and we've been looking for a long time.

Thus, we see that everything in the natural world, from the formation of planets to the composition of dinner plates, can be described according to certain laws which to the best of our knowledge, do not seem to change based on time or location.  And those laws, coupled with direct observation of other celestial bodies (The Moon, the Sun, other planets, and recently; extra-solar planets) tell us that large bodies like the Earth form spheres, not plates.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Moon
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2006, 07:11:49 PM »
Quote
There are other celestial bodies besides planets, very few of them behave anything like a "planet".


Fine keep playing dumb, I'm done here.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Moon
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2006, 08:38:50 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Exactly. We assume the laws of physics apply to everything in the universe because, from what we can see from our little corner, everything in the universe follows them.
But as you showed, all it takes is a single flip of the coin to land on tails, and poof, our entire "law" is blown to smithereens.


A million times, and no tails yet?  Jackass..

?

GeoGuy

Moon
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2006, 05:35:57 AM »
Quote from: "mbrooksay"


A million times, and no tails yet?  Jackass..


Tails in this case representing Earth's flatness.

*

midgard

  • 1300
Moon
« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2006, 08:37:27 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
This is the current state of science, we have reached the point where we can say, "The laws of science have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be universal.  We can safely assume that they are."

We have been flipping the scientific coins of the universe for hundreds of years.  And every time we make an observation, we find that it can be explained by universally applicable laws.  We are fully equipped to detect some breakdown in the laws of physics, yet none presents it self.  Powerful evidence that they exist unbroken throughout the universe.


The way you describe it, it almost sounds like the same laws have been around for hundreds of years and an agreed upon universal physics model has been achieved.

The Laws of Physics have been changing over the last hundred years. With every flip of "tails" the laws have been adjusted to try and fit the new results.

As for universal, the only physics that claims to be universal is string theory - and that is still commonly regarded as theory. You'll notice that before string theory there were two co-existing physics models: one for the big and one for the small, that's hardly universal is it?