« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Occam's Razor

  • 116 Replies
  • 19676 Views
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #90 on: November 06, 2007, 01:45:08 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 05, 2007, 02:15:55 PM
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 11:36:30 AM
Right.  Apparent.  There is no force.

I have been using the word "apparent" and "observed" for some time now. Gravity is the observed force.  There is no such phrase as "acceleration due to gravitation" in science.  You just made it up, because you do not understand how to use the word "gravity".

"Acceleration due to gravity" is a phenomenon caused by the curvature of space time, as theorised by Einstein.  I think that it what you are trying to say.

If FE is compatible with GR, what makes it stay flat when such a massive flat structure would be inclined to close in on itself, like all the other planets and stars?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2007, 01:46:59 AM by Moon squirter »
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #91 on: November 06, 2007, 02:37:07 AM »
Quote from: trig on November 05, 2007, 02:33:32 PM
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 05, 2007, 09:52:03 AM
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.

That is how science works I'm afraid.  I am not attempting to show off.  At the end of the day you have to make a judgement about the reliability of existing knowledge, then use what remains to make further advances.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #92 on: November 06, 2007, 03:25:50 AM »
I had forgotten how much of a moron trig was. Well done in your replies Agent.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #93 on: November 06, 2007, 03:27:24 AM »
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2007, 01:45:08 AM
I have been using the word "apparent" and "observed" for some time now. Gravity is the observed force.  There is no such phrase as "acceleration due to gravitation" in science.  You just made it up, because you do not understand how to use the word "gravity".

"Acceleration due to gravity" is a phenomenon caused by the curvature of space time, as theorised by Einstein.  I think that it what you are trying to say.

Um, LOL.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #94 on: November 06, 2007, 05:20:32 AM »
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2007, 01:45:08 AM
I have been using the word "apparent" and "observed" for some time now.
Apparent and observed are not the same thing.

Quote
Gravity is the observed force.
Perhaps you can give me an experiment where this force was seen.

Quote
"Acceleration due to gravity" is a phenomenon caused by the curvature of space time, as theorised by Einstein.  I think that it what you are trying to say.
No, acceleration due to gravitation is a phenomenon caused by the curvature of space time.  I told you already that gravity as a force does not exist.  Gravity is a pseudo force that arises by the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #95 on: November 06, 2007, 05:38:14 AM »
Occam's razor can never be used to prove anything. Evidence for this fact is the idea that TB keeps using it to prove FE.
Logged
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #96 on: November 06, 2007, 06:35:34 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 06, 2007, 05:20:32 AM
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2007, 01:45:08 AM
I have been using the word "apparent" and "observed" for some time now.
Apparent and observed are not the same thing.

Quote
Gravity is the observed force.
Perhaps you can give me an experiment where this force was seen.

Quote
"Acceleration due to gravity" is a phenomenon caused by the curvature of space time, as theorised by Einstein.  I think that it what you are trying to say.
No, acceleration due to gravitation is a phenomenon caused by the curvature of space time.  I told you already that gravity as a force does not exist.  Gravity is a pseudo force that arises by the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

Right, you clearly do no know the meaning of the word "observation" in its scientific context either.  Science uses the following methodology to gain knowledge:

   1. Observation.  -This is what is seen and measured, first-hand.  (e.g. The planets appear to move in the sky)
   2. Hypothesis:  - It could be due to "this" or "that"  (e.g. the planets orbit the sun due to Newtons Law of Gravitation)
   3. Prediction: - What would happen (e.g. The planets position in the future)
   4. Test the prediction - Yes they do appear in the right place at the right time.
   5. Analyse the results - Prediction may not work in certain circumstances.

So in the case of Cavendish, the "observation" is always going to be an attractive force, as in this case you cannot possibly see, or measure, the curvature of space-time.  So in this case the words "apparent" and "observed" both mean "able to be seen".

P.S.  "Acceleration due to gravitation".  Hits from Google: Zero.

Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 18043
  • +10/-8
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #97 on: November 06, 2007, 06:43:34 AM »
« Last Edit: November 06, 2007, 06:45:35 AM by Username »
Logged
"Once again the apostles of science are found to lack the scientific credentials for their faith. This not an indictment of science; it only shows again that the choice of science over other forms of life is not a scientific choice."
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #98 on: November 06, 2007, 06:46:15 AM »
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2007, 06:35:34 AM
always going to be an attractive force...the curvature of space-time.
You do realize that these two are not the same thing right?  Gravity is not a force.  There is no force acting between the masses used in his experiment.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #99 on: November 06, 2007, 07:20:05 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 06, 2007, 06:46:15 AM
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2007, 06:35:34 AM
always going to be an attractive force...the curvature of space-time.
You do realize that these two are not the same thing right?  Gravity is not a force.  There is no force acting between the masses used in his experiment.

The attractive force is the measurable "observation".  How are you going to measure space-time curvature?
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #100 on: November 06, 2007, 07:22:58 AM »
There is no need to measure it.  Using the Einstein Field Equations, you can have all the data you need.

Still, there is no force between the objects.  I don't know why you insist on saying there is...
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • +0/-0
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #101 on: November 06, 2007, 07:28:00 AM »
how slow are you moon squirter, even I know that gravity as a force doesn;t exist
Logged
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #102 on: November 06, 2007, 07:36:42 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 06, 2007, 07:22:58 AM
There is no need to measure it.  Using the Einstein Field Equations, you can have all the data you need.

Still, there is no force between the objects.  I don't know why you insist on saying there is...

If you refuse measure what is measurable because you don't think the observation is happening, then you are in denial!
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #103 on: November 06, 2007, 08:00:40 AM »
You are the one in denial.  Get out of the 1600's and join the modern world.  Gravity is not a force.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #104 on: November 06, 2007, 08:20:23 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 06, 2007, 08:00:40 AM
You are the one in denial.  Get out of the 1600's and join the modern world.  Gravity is not a force.

Acceleration due to gravity as an observation definitely does exist.  You can measure it if you dare!  This is what I have been saying all along.  I have never denied the mechanics of GR.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2007, 10:21:30 AM »
Quote from: Moon squirter on November 06, 2007, 08:20:23 AM
Acceleration due to gravity as an observation definitely does exist. 
Right, acceleration due to gravitation does exist, gravity as a force does not.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2007, 12:17:47 PM »
Jesus Christ...Engineer, you're a douchebag. :P


But a very, very funny douchebag.


Lemme help you out.

Gravity - The supposed force (i.e. pseudo-force) that was thought by some to cause gravitation (thought so only based on speculation and lack of knowledge).

Gravitation - The effect which causes the attraction of objects.

Basically, gravity (supposedly) is the force that would cause gravitation. Gravitation is the effect of the cause which COULD be gravity (but it's not), or it could be a myriad of other things, including acceleration (hence, the "g" forces you were talking about, which has nothing to do with "gravity," but "gravitation").


As a note to the OP, at first I laughed at your inanity, but honestly, you just need to read up on your science a bit more. The reason you're ridiculed is because you simply don't understand everything that you're talking about fully, whereas everyone else (contrary to what you may believe) does understand entirely. Just read up some more on scientific theory. Occam's Razor has been brought up many a time, and it gets the same response, because it's stupid and pointless. Occam can shove his razor up his ass. It's meaningless in science, and, actually, pretty much everywher else, too. Simplicity doesn't inhere correctness, ever.

~D-Draw
Logged
*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2007, 04:33:52 PM »
Deigo, although I don't exactly like TheEngineer, I find you to be horribly annoying on a scale yet to be conceived by the human mind. Your ignorance is matched only by your ability to do simple Google searches and speak condescendingly about them.
This is why you don't understand Occam's Razor.  ???

A storm passes over a forest. A big tree is found crushed to the side with splinters everywhere.

Theory 1 --- Lightning from the storm hit the tree.

Theory 2 --- The storm caused an alien ship to crash into the tree.

Which is more likely? The one with the least number of assumptions is more likely (Theory 1). Now then, go ahead and earn a Darwin award.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.
*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2007, 04:35:38 PM »
Note --- the conspiracy is a rather large assumption. It's an assumption because there is no proof.
Conclusion ---> FE = FALIURRRR
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #109 on: November 06, 2007, 07:28:27 PM »
Quote from: Yiak on November 06, 2007, 04:33:52 PM
Which is more likely? The one with the least number of assumptions is more likely (Theory 1).
More likely, but not necessarily correct.  Which is the point.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

questions

  • 206
  • +0/-0
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #110 on: November 06, 2007, 10:38:40 PM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 06, 2007, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: Yiak on November 06, 2007, 04:33:52 PM
Which is more likely? The one with the least number of assumptions is more likely (Theory 1).
More likely, but not necessarily correct.  Which is the point.

Thing is, if there's such a huge conspiracy, why isn't there any evidence whatsoever?  A picture?  A single photo of the world beyond the ice wall?  One solitary person who believes he was part of the cover-up coming forward?

See, you are making huge assumptions that there is a conspiracy, with nothing to back it up.  Sure, if we could PROVE the world were flat, it would prove a conspiracy.  But there is very little "evidence," and no one willing to try and get more. 
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #111 on: November 07, 2007, 03:43:21 AM »
Quote from: questions on November 06, 2007, 10:38:40 PM
If there's such a huge conspiracy, why isn't there any evidence whatsoever?

It's a conspiracy.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

token

  • 501
  • +0/-0
  • Why don't you go fuck a rolling doughnut!
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #112 on: November 07, 2007, 06:06:37 AM »
You see, the problem with conspiracies is they are no longer conspiracies if there's proof of its existence outside of the conspiracy.

If the conspiracy is discovered, it's no longer a secret, and hence, no longer a conspiracy.

So now you see the genius of covering things up with "conspiracy". The difference is, you won't be able to use "conspiracy" as a legit reason anywhere else.

Also, Occam's Razor, hmm, you learn new things when you frequent this place. Mostly drivel, but there are gems amongst the shit.
Logged
Maybe I will!
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9074
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #113 on: November 07, 2007, 06:46:05 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 06, 2007, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: Yiak on November 06, 2007, 04:33:52 PM
Which is more likely? The one with the least number of assumptions is more likely (Theory 1).
More likely, but not necessarily correct.  Which is the point.

Yes, RE is millions of times more likely than FE. I wonder which one is probably right...

Quote from: token on November 07, 2007, 06:06:37 AM
If the conspiracy is discovered, it's no longer a secret, and hence, no longer a conspiracy.

By your definition, we know about the conspiracy so it doesn't exist anymore!  ::)
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

eric bloedow

Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #114 on: November 07, 2007, 08:12:18 AM »
everyone who talks about "mysterious conspiracies that control everything" always overlooks the problem of HOW it would TAKE control in the first place!

in every spy/revolution story i have ever read, simply recruiting new members without getting caught at it is EXTREMELY dangerous!

ever read "the moon is a harsh mistress" by Robert Heinlein? in it, 4 people plan a revolution, recruit thousands of  people, and eventually win. but one of those 4 happened to be a fictional SENTIENT computer, which happens to control all telephones on the moon, so the conspirators don't have to worry about having their phone calls traced. they would have had NO chance of winning without that advantage!

just how would you go about convincing ONE reporter to report a hoax without any reporters, INCLUDING him, finding out the truth and telling EVERYONE?

almost every day, the media tells about bad things the government has done. yet the SAME reporters cooperate with the SAME congressmen to cover up the shape of the earth? yeah, right.
not to mention the way the different nations are constantly arguing about iran and iraq, yet supposedly cooperate...
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #115 on: November 07, 2007, 08:19:34 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 07, 2007, 08:12:18 AM
but one of those 4 happened to be a fictional SENTIENT computer, which happens to control all telephones on the moon, so the conspirators don't have to worry about having their phone calls traced. they would have had NO chance of winning without that advantage!
I guess it was a good thing the French just happened to have one of those SENTIENT computers in the 1790's, otherwise, the French Revolution would never have happened! :o
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

eric bloedow

Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #116 on: November 07, 2007, 08:27:42 AM »
telephones hadn't been invented then, silly! that makes a BIG difference.

oh, and that reminds me: heinlein's book predates the INTERNET! that makes a difference too.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
« previous next »