Occam's Razor

ok, that last picture was a lousy choice, i'll admit.
so check out this one:
http://astropaul.com/myhome/space/earth/apollo/originals/10075297-11.jpg
or this video:

ok, that last picture was a lousy choice, i'll admit.
so check out this one:
http://astropaul.com/myhome/space/earth/apollo/originals/10075297-11.jpg
or this video:

I don't exactly get what that picture is supposed to prove. 

"Gravity" is SIMPLER on FE.  They don't need a theoretical particle or folding of space-time.

How would the mechanics of gravity differ on FE or RE? They would both work the exact same way...

also modern string theories dispose of the "graviton".

How would the mechanics of gravity differ on FE or RE? They would both work the exact same way...

According to FE theory, gravity does not actually exist. 

Yes I see now.

I wonder what I can dig out of my physics textbooks to refute the claim that Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g?

Yes I see now.

I wonder what I can dig out of my physics textbooks to refute the claim that Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g?

When you dig something up, post a whole new topic about it.  This one was meant to be about Occam's Razor and burden of proof, and your breakthrough deserves its own thread.   

EDIT: Actually, in the interest of not spamming, you should probably post your breakthrough on the UA101 pinned topic.

Gravity not existing has nothing to do with FET.

Gravity not existing has nothing to do with FET.

It is one of the main contentions of The FET hence the accelerating earth to simulate the effects of gravity

It is one of the main contentions of The FET hence the accelerating earth to simulate the effects of gravity

Yes, but it still has nothing to do with the FET. We've been over it 1000 times.

Yes, they have made it clear that they welcome opposing viewpoints from any members of the scientific community. No, they have not claimed to have undeniable proof.  You say they came to you by confronting mainstream science.  I say they expressed their opinion in a controlled environment and then you came to tell them they're wrong.  You (the REers in general) are the evangelists.  You are knocking on the door.

Well I resent being grouped in with all REers. You shouldn't do so because your counterpoint does not apply to me at all. You say that I "came to tell them they're wrong" which is exactly what I have not been doing (at least more recently). I, unlike many REers, realize that I don't need to come and prove the FES wrong. Why? Because the Flat Earth Society are the ones with burden of proof! That's why I've been starting all of these threads challenging the FEers to demonstrate the validity of their own theory rather than saying over and over and over again "there isn't actually evidence for RET", "all of the evidence for RET is fake", "how do you know that the Earth is round?" You get it? You're arguing for my position, Mongrelman!

And as far as contrary evidence goes, I refer you to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

Though Russell is addressing religion, the parable applies just as well to FET. Even though there is no contrary evidence for FET (that is, any evidence that an FEer will accept) it still has the burden of proof. As I have stated before, only once FET exceeds RET in its explanation of reality will the burden of proof shift. So long as FET inadequately explains reality or even explains reality just as much as RET, the currently accepted view will be held.

Though Russell is addressing religion, the parable applies just as well to FET. Even though there is no contrary evidence for FET (that is, any evidence that an FEer will accept) it still has the burden of proof. As I have stated before, only once FET exceeds RET in its explanation of reality will the burden of proof shift. So long as FET inadequately explains reality or even explains reality just as much as RET, the currently accepted view will be held.

Russell's Teapot actually works against the RE model:

Since no one can go outside and observe a teapot orbiting around Mars we can sufficiently conclude that there is no teapot in orbit around Mars until proven otherwise.

Therefore, when we go outside and observe a Flat Earth, we can sufficiently conclude that the earth is flat. The earth is flat until proven otherwise.

The Round Earth model seems to be the pseudoscience here. Since the earth appears flat by all accounts, the onus is on the RE'ers to prove that the earth is actually a globe. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

Personally I would say that the burden of proof is upon you, since it is you who says that what the world belives as fact is wrong and that photographic evidence showing a round Earth are fake, or those invloved in space exploration are liars.  They're pretty bold claims. 

Oh, so you went outside and observed a flat earth, how amazing. If only we all shared your tremendous insight.  Now, we have, the coriolis effect, sinking ship, gravitational questions, etc. Not to mention pictures from space, which you casually dismiss as conspiracy... You are the ones who need to prove your theory, with peer reviewed, logical arguments according to science, not us. Until then, you remain...pseudoscience...

yeah, right, Tom Bishop

RE has been repeadly proven, by thousands of people, and all you can say is "conspiracy" over and over!

you have repeatedly denounced all RE proofs and evidence as frauds, without the slightest reason or logic on your part!

you can't even produce a picture of your "beach experiment", but you claim all pictures by NASA are fake, and you can't even coherently explain why!

FErs are a very tiny minority, so unless you come up with some extremely convincing proof, you will continue to be dismissed as the crackpot you really are!

whoever tries to CHANGE an existing belief has the burden of proof!

you have referred to an old book, "zeigetic" something, as an excuse to avoid giving proof, but even that disagrees. a i interpreted it:

saying "earth is not round" does not require proof...
saying "earth is actually flat" DOES require proof!

so the burden of proof is entirely on YOU, Tom, and you know it!

whoever tries to CHANGE an existing belief has the burden of proof!

Right, so if I went to a school and tried to convince them that FET is correct, I'd have the burden.  But here, FET is the existing belief.

in other words, agree with FE or get kicked off the site.

what wonderful "logic"!

since Tom has rejected every single book ever written with the sole exception of the "prophet robotham", apparently the ONLY book he has EVER READ...

apparently FErs would rather believe that every single person they have ever met is conspiring against them than consider the possibility they are wrong.

in other words, agree with FE or get kicked off the site.

apparently FErs would rather believe that every single person they have ever met is conspiring against them than consider the possibility they are wrong.

No, in other words, the burden of proof is on you here, because by your own admission it falls on whoever is challenging existing belief, and here that existing belief is FET.

It's possible that I'm wrong about the shape of the Earth. 

in other words, agree with FE or get kicked off the site.

what wonderful "logic"!

Indeed.  It makes so much sense that you're still here if you honestly believe this. 

after looking over this thread, i am amazed at the closemindedness of the Re'rs, considering, as has been previously said, this site is about a flat earth
e.g.

saying "earth is not round" does not require proof...
saying "earth is actually flat" DOES require proof!

rather selfish view wouldn't you say?
i don't see any reason why the round earth doesn't need proof but the flat earth does, even if most people believe in a round earth.

existing belief?! this is the only website in the world where FErs EXIST! the other 5 BILLION people are RErs, and most of them have never even HEARD of you!

so the whole point of this website is for FErs to say how wonderful they are and how foolish and gullible the other 99.9999% of the human race is?

and you call that DEBATE and DISCUSSION?!

you FErs have done nothing but fling insults, call everyone at NASA frauds, babble endlessly about "conspiracy", and now YOU are calling ME "closeminded"?!

there is endless evidence that earth is round, ZERO proof that earth is flat, and you claim the "burden of proof" is on RE, AFTER rejecting all, and i mean ALL proof?!

frankly, the only reason i stick around is: if i left, you would LIE and say i AGREED that earth is FLAT! you think driving the other people away is WINNING the debate!

So why is it so important to you to attempt to wipe out a very small peep from a very few iconoclasts?  That's the real question. 

Lol. Burden of Proof is one of the funniest argument we ever invented.


~D-Draw


lol.