Occam's Razor

Quote

and now you claim that "dark energy" is making the ENTIRE UNIVERSE accelerate "down"? and you think THAT'S more plausible than einstein and newton?

No, I'm claiming it is accelerating everything IN the universe up.

Then you are choosing to reject centuries of observation, analyse and peer-reviewed knowledge in favour of a hunch.  That is your choice.

whoops! you got me, i misread the UA101 thread. so the earth is actually accelerating UP at 1G? in which case the North star should be Blue-shifted into ultra-violet.

Did you miss the part where I said that the north star is also accelerating?

you still haven't explained why the moon and sun don't fall off the edge.

They don't ever go near the edge.

Also, I have SEEN the shuttle take off.

So have I.  Three times, in fact.  Sadly, it did noting to prove the shape of the Earth...

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 08:44:13 AM

By "unify" we mean the General Relativity model includes all the predictions of Newtonian Gravitation

If, by 'includes' you mean 'does not agree with' then I agree with you.  General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation are mutually exclusive.

Quote

On the second point, again you are sadly misusing "gravity".

Gravity: A pseudo force that arises by the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.
That sure seems to be the way I am using it.

Quote

Gravity is an observed force. 

There is an experiment that observes gravity?  Please tell us about it.

Quote

See the following for a description of "g":

g:  The local acceleration due to gravitation. 
How is that going to help?

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.  General Relativity is mutually exclusive in terms of methodology.  However, GR includes the predictions of Newton and (terms of space-time) more accurately calculates them.  However GR breaks down on the quantum scale, which is why we need a further unifying theory.

Your definition appears to explain the action of gravity in terms space time.  Well done.

I assume you actually mean "The local acceleration due to gravity".  Don't be scared of the word "gravity" in the right context.

On the experiment side:  The Cavendish experiment?  -Proved centuries ago.  Planetary observation?  It all depends who who's part of the conspiracy I suppose.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.  General Relativity is mutually exclusive in terms of methodology.  However, GR includes the predictions of Newton and (terms of space-time) more accurately calculates them.

Newton: Gravity is a force that is transmitted at infinite speed.
GR:  Gravity as a force does not exist, and gravitation, is transmitted at or less than the speed of light.

Mutually exclusive.

Your definition appears to explain the action of gravity in terms space time.  Well done.

No.

I assume you actually mean "The local acceleration due to gravity".  Don't be scared of the word "gravity" in the right context.

When that context comes up, I will use it.  So far, it has not. 

On the experiment side:  The Cavendish experiment?  -Proved centuries ago.

The Cavendish Experiment proved gravity is a real force?  How did it do that?  I sure don't see gravity when I watch the experiment.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 10:27:00 AM

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.  General Relativity is mutually exclusive in terms of methodology.  However, GR includes the predictions of Newton and (terms of space-time) more accurately calculates them.

Newton: Gravity is a force that is transmitted at infinite speed.
GR:  Gravity as a force does not exist, and gravitation, is transmitted at or less than the speed of light.

Mutually exclusive.

Quote

Your definition appears to explain the action of gravity in terms space time.  Well done.

No.

Quote

I assume you actually mean "The local acceleration due to gravity".  Don't be scared of the word "gravity" in the right context.

When that context comes up, I will use it.  So far, it has not. 

Quote

On the experiment side:  The Cavendish experiment?  -Proved centuries ago.

The Cavendish Experiment proved gravity is a real force?  How did it do that?  I sure don't see gravity when I watch the experiment.

No no no!  How many more times.  Gravity is the apparent attractive force between two masses. "G" is used throughout the engineering world.  "Acceleration due to gravitation" is a phrase I have *never* heard of.  You did not observe an attraction in with the cavendish experiment?   General relativity will calculate this apparent force, as will Newton's.

What does G have to do with the definition of Gravity?

no, FErs are the ones rejecting centuries of observation in favor of hunches!

by "1G" i meant accellerating at 32feet/second every second, just like an object dropped off a building. (that's a common term used by fighter pilots and astronauts)

let me restate my last question: WHY does the FE sun NOT go near the edge? what is the FE explanation for it's circular path? THAT'S a question that is NOT explained in the FAQ. (so saying "read the FAQ again" would be a waste of time)

Where is that ignore function I've been asking for? ;-)

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 10:27:00 AM

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.  General Relativity is mutually exclusive in terms of methodology.  However, GR includes the predictions of Newton and (terms of space-time) more accurately calculates them.

Newton: Gravity is a force that is transmitted at infinite speed.
GR:  Gravity as a force does not exist, and gravitation, is transmitted at or less than the speed of light.

Mutually exclusive.

Quote

Your definition appears to explain the action of gravity in terms space time.  Well done.

No.

Quote

I assume you actually mean "The local acceleration due to gravity".  Don't be scared of the word "gravity" in the right context.

When that context comes up, I will use it.  So far, it has not. 

Quote

On the experiment side:  The Cavendish experiment?  -Proved centuries ago.

The Cavendish Experiment proved gravity is a real force?  How did it do that?  I sure don't see gravity when I watch the experiment.

Extract from "A Brief History Of Time", S Hawking, page 13:

The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large scale structure of the universe, that is the is the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as 1 million million million million miles, the size of the observable universe.

That is the correct use of the term "gravity" in conduction with GR.  "Gravity" is sadly often misinterpreted you see, especially by some people on the forum.

"Acceleration due to gravitation" produces zero hits on Wikipedia.

A question for you:  How on earth can a flat earth possibly exist with either Einstein or Newton's theories, which you appear to loosely concur with?

Occam's Razor (TB Definition): The Earth is flat. All round-earth science is wrong. End of discussion.
*Lock thread*

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agency that endows objects with weight. It is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, for the formation of tides; for convection (by which hot fluids rise); for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena that we observe. Gravitation is also the reason for the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most macroscopic objects in the universe; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these large masses and life, as we know it, would not exist.

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in most cases.

In scientific usage gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are interchangeable in everyday use, in theories other than Newton's, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving objects to tend to accelerate towards each other. Another (discredited) example is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, in which massive objects are effectively pushed towards each other.

Hawking dumbed it down for his book.

ok, lets's see, how should i put it:

if an object is dropped (near sea level), then one second later, it would be traveling at a RATE of 32 feet per second. TWO seconds after being dropped, it would be moving at a RATE of 64 feet per second.
it would be constantly be speeding up, that is, ACCELLERATING, at the same rate.
THAT'S what i mean by "acceleration due to gravity".

this could be used to calculate how long it would take for an object fall 100 feet or 1000 feet. if i remember, this was the work of Isacc Newton.

Irrelevant. Force or not, gravity is the observed effect so to speak. Return to the topic "Occam's Razor" and stop with the semantics. I want to Hear FE's response to the original material and not get away with leading people off on pointless tangents.

BTW: Newton's models correctly modeled acceleration due to gravity for unextreme relativistic circumstances.

The original topic has been addressed.

All things are not equal.


Occam's Razor does not apply.

It is obvious that the flat earth theory is not yet as well developed as the round earth theory.  I am not asking people to just throw away the round earth theory - its very useful for many predictions.  However, further study and funding must go into flat earth science if we are to surpass many of the boundries in modern day science.

The original topic has been addressed.
All things are not equal.
Occam's Razor does not apply.

All things equal is a common paraphrase. It is inaccurate. For instance "All things equal" implies exact same theories. What were the conditions which Occam's Razor doesn't apply again?

It is obvious that the flat earth theory is not yet as well developed as the round earth theory.  I am not asking people to just throw away the round earth theory - its very useful for many predictions.  However, further study and funding must go into flat earth science if we are to surpass many of the boundries in modern day science.

Furthermore, there is no reason, unless I am missing something, one should follow Occam's Razor.

i see: the FE view and the RE view are "not equal"

let me summarize:

FE could only be true IF:
-"dark energy/universal acceleration" (which i never HEARD of before visiting this website) really exists
-the mysterious "conspiracy" really exists
-NASA really did falsify every single picture they ever produced, INCLUDING the satellite picture every single weatherman has been using to predict the weather for the last 20 or 30 years
einstein, copernicus, and EVERY scientist in history has been totally wrong
planes and ships can somehow travel 60,000 miles and fool all the passengers into thinking it was only 250 miles
the mysterious "shadow object (something else i never heard of before) really exists, and really can somehow block moonlight but not starlight yet not affect the moon's orbit

that's all i can recall off the top of my head.

for RE to be true:

no "shadow object" needed
no 60,000 miles in 250 miles magic needed
einstein and other scientists are right
NASA is telling the truth
no conspiracy needed
no DE/UA needed

NOW, which is simpler?
more to the point, which has fewer assumptions, fewer unknown qualities, fewer "unexplained phenemena"?

No no no!  How many more times. 

I don't know.  Perhaps one day you will understand.

Gravity is the apparent attractive force between two masses.

Right.  Apparent.  There is no force.

"G" is used throughout the engineering world.

G is the gravitational constant.  It has no bearing on our discussion.

You did not observe an attraction in with the cavendish experiment?

I sure did.  What I did not observe was gravity.  You claimed the experiment showed gravity.

That is the correct use of the term "gravity" in conduction with GR.  "Gravity" is sadly often misinterpreted you see, especially by some people on the forum.

It is often misrepresented, as is showcased by yourself and other RE'ers on this forum.  As was stated, Hawking dumbed down his book for the common reader.  I mean, look at the trouble you are having with the fact that gravity is not a force.

A question for you:  How on earth can a flat earth possibly exist with either Einstein or Newton's theories, which you appear to loosely concur with?

The FE is consistent with, at a minimum, Newton's three laws of motion, Einstein's Special Relativity and much of General Relativity.

if an object is dropped (near sea level), then one second later, it would be traveling at a RATE of 32 feet per second. TWO seconds after being dropped, it would be moving at a RATE of 64 feet per second.
it would be constantly be speeding up, that is, ACCELLERATING, at the same rate.
THAT'S what i mean by "acceleration due to gravity".

Acceleration due to objects moving inertially through non inertial frames of reference, yes.

this could be used to calculate how long it would take for an object fall 100 feet or 1000 feet. if i remember, this was the work of Isacc Newton.

Which is only valid at low speeds. 

Irrelevant. Force or not, gravity is the observed effect so to speak. Return to the topic "Occam's Razor" and stop with the semantics. I want to Hear FE's response to the original material and not get away with leading people off on pointless tangents.

1. Occam's razor requires the theories to be equal in every aspect. They are not; FE theory has not had as much development as RE theory. So Occam's razor cannot apply.

2. As we can see throughout this thread, either theory can be phrased so that it sounds simpler than the other. So Occam's razor cannot apply.

3. Most importantly, Occam's razor is a statement of probability. The simpler entity may be more likely to exist, but the razor does not rule out the more complex entity. It especially does not prove the simpler theory is correct. It's a philosophical declaration, not a scientific argument. So Occam's razor DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.

Also, dongs.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 05, 2007, 09:45:33 AM

Quote

and now you claim that "dark energy" is making the ENTIRE UNIVERSE accelerate "down"? and you think THAT'S more plausible than einstein and newton?

No, I'm claiming it is accelerating everything IN the universe up.

Then you are choosing to reject centuries of observation, analyse and peer-reviewed knowledge in favour of a hunch.  That is your choice.

Oh, good grief! And TheEngineer has said many times that we, the dumb RE'rs are the ones that are assuming he is a Flat Earth proponent!

Fact is, you will say anything that, in your own opinion, shows off your mighty debating talents. That is not good debating technique, and by any standard is not acceptable in a scientific discussion.

1. Occam's razor requires the theories to be equal in every aspect. They are not; FE theory has not had as much development as RE theory. So Occam's razor cannot apply.

2. As we can see throughout this thread, either theory can be phrased so that it sounds simpler than the other. So Occam's razor cannot apply.

3. Most importantly, Occam's razor is a statement of probability. The simpler entity may be more likely to exist, but the razor does not rule out the more complex entity. It especially does not prove the simpler theory is correct. It's a philosophical declaration, not a scientific argument. So Occam's razor DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.

Also, dongs.

1. Totally wrong. The theories must be different, otherwise comparing them against the other is meaningless. The predictions made from both theories must coincide, and that does not happen, so Occam's razor can only be used in specific details of both theories, or, to be exact, the RE theories and the FE hypothesis.
2. Long phrases are not what Occam's razor is about. A simple explanation that does not agree with observations and results of experiments is useless to Occam's Razor and to Science.
3. I agree with you that in the cases where two theories have exactly the same predicting power its application is murky. But in practice, things are simpler.

as i stated in a different thread, the FE model of the SUN violates newton and all versions of gravity.

and the SECOND part of occam's razor, the part about "the theory with fewer unknowns"...
that certainly applies here.

let's make an anology: pro-FE arguments on one side of a scale, pro-RE arguments on the other side.

if we leave out things that have NO PROOF, like the shadow object, the scale would DEFINITELY lean toward RE.

on course, FE'rs claim the RE side of the scale is TOTALLY EMPTY, because they can't tell the difference between THEORY and FACT.

fact: if you toss an object into the air, it will come back down.
UA/DE is a THEORY about why it comes down. i believe einstein's theory is better.

1. Totally wrong. The theories must be different, otherwise comparing them against the other is meaningless. The predictions made from both theories must coincide, and that does not happen, so Occam's razor can only be used in specific details of both theories, or, to be exact, the RE theories and the FE hypothesis.

Sorry, let me rephrase. Occam's razor only works if the two theories have equivilent support. FE has had little research performed on the theory, so it is not yet fully developed and can't be Occamed with RE.

2. Long phrases are not what Occam's razor is about. A simple explanation that does not agree with observations and results of experiments is useless to Occam's Razor and to Science.

I not talking about the length of the phrases, I'm talking about who is doing the phrasing. The "simpler" side is effectively a matter of opinion, because the poster, OP included, always words their side to seem less complex. There is no science going on here, only semantics. Occam is useless if neither side can be conclusively defined as simpler.

3. I agree with you that in the cases where two theories have exactly the same predicting power its application is murky. But in practice, things are simpler.

You missed the point entirely. The OP is trying to use Occam to prove the earth is round. Occam cannot "prove" anything, so the whole thread is a non sequiter.

Anything else?

fact: if you toss an object into the air, it will come back down.
UA/DE is a THEORY about why it comes down. i believe einstein's theory is better.

I would most definitely say the DE is much simpler than Einstein's theory...

hm, let's see...
the DE/UA theory postulates that the bottom of the FE is covered with dark matter, which supposedly PUSHES the FE up, even though the defintion of dark matter is "theoretical matter invisible to electromagetic radiation" which neverthless has NORMAL GRAVITY RESULTS.

whoops! a CONTRADICTION!

oh, on top of that, dark matter itself is THEORETICAL, and the theory still has holes in it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter

and you consider this doubly unproven theory to be more PLAUSABLE, more REALISTIC, than gravity?
(never mind simpler, i'll let that go for now)

Perhaps you should learn to read.  Dark Energy is not Dark Matter.

As for your example:

RE:
Throw something in the air.
It follows a geodesic through spacetime, eventually reversing direction to follow the same geodesic back to the non inertial thrower where he intersects said geodesic.

FE:
Throw something in the air.
The object follows Newton's first law and maintains its velocity. 
The earth and the thrower catch up with the object.


 

What is the Universal Accelerator?
The Universal Accelerator is a huge body of accelerating dark matter which lies underneath most of the physical matter of the universe.

that's a direct quote from the FAQ thread.

it's even weirder than i remembered: this large piece of dark matter, which supposedly lines the bottom of the FE, perfectly distributed (any large lumps would rip earth apart) somehow PUSHES the FE in a PERFECTLY upward direction, yet somehow does not push FE into the sun or moon, or push the earth clear out of the solar system, and somehow accelerates upward without anything to push or pull on except the earth itself, violating Newton's laws...

there's just so many holes in that THEORY, i don't know where to begin...
as i said in my LAST thread, dark matter is an UNPROVEN theory also full of holes, and even scientists who believe in it say it follows Einstein's gravity laws.

so, how does an FEr explain STARS rising and setting?

What is the Universal Accelerator?
The Universal Accelerator is a huge body of accelerating dark matter which lies underneath most of the physical matter of the universe.

that's a direct quote from the FAQ thread.

That is a direct quote from the FAQ?  How about you link to it?  I'm pretty sure only Dogplatter's model even mentions Dark Matter.  Which, by the way, is not the same thing as the RE's Dark Matter.

As for what I've been saying:
Dark Energy is not the same thing as Dark Matter.