How Do I Prove RE??

Actually, at any rate, Username, what do you think about that example with airline flights I made before? It seems to be fairly conclusive, and its interesting to see what FE'ers think about that. Tom decided there were superfast jet streams for that, and  Dogplatter reasoned that there must be faster planes that anyone lets on, but what do you think? You temporarily conceded the point before, but I'm wondering what you think now. I note that both explanations require a superfast plane, so if anyone took an accelerometer on board, it would be over.

I don't know yet.  I have a theory that could fit, but its a bit absurd.  So, no clue yet.

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

But you still think the Earth is flat, so you must have some form of a hunch.

On the scientific fact, we're just hand-waving on definitions, if you ask me. Seems like everyone has their own definition!

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not.  

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

One note I'd like to make here...why does a scientific fact need to be directly observed? Is inference banned from science? Do we have to directly observe the distance from an object to scientifically triangulate the distance? Are we not allowed to ping the moon by radio and infer? Is that no longer considered proof?

One note I'd like to make here...why does a scientific fact need to be directly observed? Is inference banned from science? Do we have to directly observe the distance from an object to scientifically triangulate the distance? Are we not allowed to ping the moon by radio and infer?

Inference is not banned from science.  However, thats the definition, it seems to me at least, of a scientific fact - that it is an observation.

One note I'd like to make here...why does a scientific fact need to be directly observed? Is inference banned from science? Do we have to directly observe the distance from an object to scientifically triangulate the distance? Are we not allowed to ping the moon by radio and infer? Is that no longer considered proof?

Well, this does not seem to fit into someone's notion of science on these forums. That is because they are adhering to subjective idealism or, at least, empiricism, as their standpoint.

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

But you had the opportunity to and were able to.  It was a matter of spending the time before hand.

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:02:57 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

But you had the opportunity to and were able to.  It was a matter of spending the time before hand.

But, you assume I will know when it rains. What is the need to verify something if I know it will happen beforehand.

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:02:57 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

But you had the opportunity to and were able to.  It was a matter of spending the time before hand.

But, you assume I will know when it rains.

No I don't...

Quote from: fshy94 on January 30, 2008, 10:03:39 AM

One note I'd like to make here...why does a scientific fact need to be directly observed? Is inference banned from science? Do we have to directly observe the distance from an object to scientifically triangulate the distance? Are we not allowed to ping the moon by radio and infer?

Inference is not banned from science.  However, thats the definition, it seems to me at least, of a scientific fact - that it is an observation.

Hmm...in that case, you deny alot of what is often considered facts that status. For example, evolution has not been directly observed in macroscopic animals, only inferred from skeletons. Same with Einsteinian relativity, we never directly observed it, we inferred it due to a few cool experiments, and calculation of perihelion of precession of so on... And don't say "just a theory", because that's mixing casual and scientific definitions. Casually, a theory is a scientific hypothesis. Scientifically, a theory has a good deal of evidence, and is commonly accepted as fact.

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:07:27 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:02:57 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

But you had the opportunity to and were able to.  It was a matter of spending the time before hand.

But, you assume I will know when it rains.

No I don't...

So how will I know when to start? First of all, I don't know how long it would take me to get to your town. Second, if I want to verify that for several times, I might want to spend a long time in your town.

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:05:20 AM

Quote from: fshy94 on January 30, 2008, 10:03:39 AM

One note I'd like to make here...why does a scientific fact need to be directly observed? Is inference banned from science? Do we have to directly observe the distance from an object to scientifically triangulate the distance? Are we not allowed to ping the moon by radio and infer?

Inference is not banned from science.  However, thats the definition, it seems to me at least, of a scientific fact - that it is an observation.

Hmm...in that case, you deny alot of what is often considered facts that status. For example, evolution has not been directly observed in macroscopic animals, only inferred from skeletons. Same with Einsteinian relativity, we never directly observed it, we inferred it due to a few cool experiments, and calculation of perihelion of precession of so on... And don't say "just a theory", because that's mixing casual and scientific definitions. Casually, a theory is a scientific hypothesis. Scientifically, a theory has a good deal of evidence, and is commonly accepted as fact.

I think there is a definite difference between a scientific fact and a theory.  To me, it seems, a scientific fact is an observation.  A theory explains observations.

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:07:49 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:07:27 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:02:57 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

But you had the opportunity to and were able to.  It was a matter of spending the time before hand.

But, you assume I will know when it rains.

No I don't...

So how will I know when to start? First of all, I don't know how long it would take me to get to your town. Second, if I want to verify that for several times, I might want to spend a long time in your town.

So let me get this straight.  You want to know if its raining outside, but you don't know ahead of time where or when you want to know this?

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:10:39 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:07:49 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:07:27 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:02:57 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 10:02:02 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 10:00:31 AM

Quote from: Username on January 30, 2008, 09:59:08 AM

Quote from: Bushido on January 30, 2008, 09:57:32 AM

Fair enough. But, as you said, scientific facts are objective and verifiable. So, the shape of the Earth, being a scientific fact, must be verifiable. So, if someone, supposedly, verifies that the Earth is spherical, then that would be a scientific fact, wouldn't it?

If anyone can and come up with the same conclusion.  Just like anyone can view whether it is raining or not. 

Well, if I live in another town, I cannot verify whether it is raining in your town. And, by the time I get there, the rain might be over. So, that means that "It is raining outside" is a scientific fact for you, but not for me.

Surely you see why travelling to another city is different from space travel.

And yet, if you live far from me, and the rain lasts shortly, I would not be able to verify it on my own.

But you had the opportunity to and were able to.  It was a matter of spending the time before hand.

But, you assume I will know when it rains.

No I don't...

So how will I know when to start? First of all, I don't know how long it would take me to get to your town. Second, if I want to verify that for several times, I might want to spend a long time in your town.

So let me get this straight.  You want to know if its raining outside, but you don't know ahead of time where or when you want to know this?

No, I don't know how long will I have to travel to a definite position - your town to verify whether it is raining. So, even if I knew at what time I wanted to verify this, I wouldn't know when to start.

No, I don't know how long will I have to travel to a definite position - your town to verify whether it is raining. So, even if I knew at what time I wanted to verify this, I wouldn't know when to start.

I'm sorry, I see what you mean, and have the last 2 or so pages, but I disagree.

However, if you wish, then "it is raining outside" is not a scientific fact.

Some I can think of off the top of my head would be:
Gravitation (at least towards the earth)
Coriolis Effect

So, in essence, a direct or indirect observation, as long as it is objective, is a fact, while a theory is an set of ideas which explain said facts? OK, that's the commonly accepted definition, IIRC. That's fine. Out of curiosity, your theory as for the distances...can you PM me the general idea or post it, or is it not ready yet?

RE is unprovable, because any proof is fabricated by the conspiracy.

So, in essence, a direct or indirect observation, as long as it is objective, is a fact, while a theory is an set of ideas which explain said facts? OK, that's the commonly accepted definition, IIRC. That's fine. Out of curiosity, your theory as for the distances...can you PM me the general idea or post it, or is it not ready yet?

Its pretty rediculous.  I'll pm it though later today, I'm at work and they are actually having me work heh.

i really wish i could find this thread again...

someone re-did the "solar angle" experiment, which RErs say proves earth is round and FErs say proves the sun is only 3,000 miles away.

but the author of the article pointed out something all FErs overlook-especially Tom, who LINKED to this article on that thread:
if the sun and moon were really only 3,000 miles away, then they should appear 30% larger when directly overhead than when seen at a 45 degree angle! so since they always appear the same size, they must be a LOT farther away than 3,000 miles!

i consider this pretty decisive proof-especially since anyone can look at the sun and moon half of any day!

i really wish i could find this thread again...

someone re-did the "solar angle" experiment, which RErs say proves earth is round and FErs say proves the sun is only 3,000 miles away.

but the author of the article pointed out something all FErs overlook-especially Tom, who LINKED to this article on that thread:
if the sun and moon were really only 3,000 miles away, then they should appear 30% larger when directly overhead than when seen at a 45 degree angle! so since they always appear the same size, they must be a LOT farther away than 3,000 miles!

i consider this pretty decisive proof-especially since anyone can look at the sun and moon half of any day!

Eric raises a good point, even if he isn't totally correct.

If the sun were just flying by overhead at an altitude of 3000 miles (constant) then it would seem at least marginally bigger in diameter when it is at its zenith.  As far as I know, this has not been observed, so this would lead one to believe that the sun is following some other path.  Since it looks like an arching path from east to west, I'm gonna go with that for now.

To put it in a way Tom might:

When i see the sun arching from east to west, what's easier to believe?  That it is some optical illusion and the sun is really remaining at a specified distance overhead acting like a spotlight and making me think that it's arching due to the bending of light?  Or that it is actually following and arching path like what I see?

The proof for RE rests in the fact that FE depends on there being a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth. And the fact is there would be no reason for a conspiracy it would be a huge waste of money that would benefit no one. What possible reason could there be for a massive conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth is flat?

The proof for RE rests in the fact that FE depends on there being a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth. And the fact is there would be no reason for a conspiracy it would be a huge waste of money that would benefit no one. What possible reason could there be for a massive conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth is flat?

I broke a lamp one time and hid it, hoping my parents wouldn't find out. Maybe the governments would be too embarrassed to admit such a colossal blunder? I believe RE but I am just throwing ideas out there,

Ya but it has nothing to do with the governments of the world it is the scientific establishment.

Do you really think a scientist would speak out against the Governments with such a crazy idea and think that people will rally behind him? Come on. If you saw a story in the newspaper tomorrow about some Scientist that claims the world is flat would you believe him? He would lose all credibility and become a laughing stock of the scientific community. It's the mob mentality that they would have to overcome.

and yet, a handful of people DID succeed in convincing almost everyone that the earth is round, when everyone used to think it was flat...

now imagine someone bugging a "conspiracy meeting" where the leaders were planning their next move, then posting that recording on the internet...that would certainly ruin them!

True, but things are different today. Back then Scientists were Men. Now they are pansies.

I guess the bug thing would work. But if I was about to go into a meeting discussing FE (assuming it's real and there is a conspiracy) I would think that the room would be very secure.