Some Inconsistencies that cannot be resolved.

If there were so much true photographic proof for a flat earth, I don't think 99.9999% of the civilized population of the Earth would be convinced that it is round.

This is a diagram of the Earth with an approximate scale of 1px=20km. The red pixel you see on the top edge could be you on the ground, or even a commercial airliner in 10km height, since the pixel represents roughly 20km. From that vantage point, even with a view distance of ~200km in any direction (blue circle) the portion of the Earth that you can see would appear to be flat.

The mere fact that a majority believes something does not make it true. Only six hundred years ago the greatest scientific minds of the day and the majority of civilization believed that witches were the cause for disease, crop failures, and natural disasters.

You're going to have to prove to us that it's an illusion. A diagram isn't proof of the earth's rotundity.

I thought I just did, mathematically. Unless you can come up with a FE model that isn't susceptible to a perpetually shown sun, and give me a good mathematical reason (you can't use "conspiracy" in math) that what I said was wrong, I accept my calculations as a fatal blow to FET.

1.) Read my post again. I did not say: "Everyone believes that the Earth is round, therefore it is round." - which would indeed be the ad populum fallacy. What I said was essentially: "If there were so much proof that the Earth is flat, people would believe it is flat."

2.) I provided my diagram to show that anyone who has ever taken a photo from the ground, from a mountain or from a plane can never truly prove whether the Earth is flat or round, because of their limited perspective. Once again you're constructing a strawman. The diagram was not intended as evidence that the Earth is round, and I never said it could be.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 03:52:47 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 01, 2008, 03:43:23 PM

1) String theory is doing very well thank you.

It's the one scientists are throwing their weight behind because it lloks like the only hope, but to my knowledge it has yet to conclusively (i.e. to any real degree) reconcile the diverging models of 'accepted' theoretical physics.

Well, yes, there can only be one theory of everything, so how can there be more than one hope? And to your knowledge, you are wrong. It is supposed to unite relativity with quantum mechanics, and that is exactly what it is doing.

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 01, 2008, 03:59:30 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 03:52:47 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 01, 2008, 03:43:23 PM

1) String theory is doing very well thank you.

It's the one scientists are throwing their weight behind because it lloks like the only hope, but to my knowledge it has yet to conclusively (i.e. to any real degree) reconcile the diverging models of 'accepted' theoretical physics.

Well, yes, there can only be one theory of everything, so how can there be more than one hope? And to your knowledge, you are wrong. It is supposed to unite relativity with quantum mechanics, and that is exactly what it is doing.

I have read a great deal about string theory, but there is a reason scientists still use GR and QM to make predictions- it has not been developed sufficiently to do so, and more to the point, it's unlikely we would be able to test in any time in the near future. Put simply, ST shows the potential to reconcile the various theories we currently use, but it has not done so yet.

But not only is it not complete, it may never be verifiable. Most scientists agree that ST may never be testable, ever.

But I think there's a problem in trying to knock down ST. As I said, it's something in favour of RE, and still being worked on. FE doesn't have anything.

Quote

FE doesn't have anything.

I'm sure if we had five thousand years, billions of dollars of funding, and countless scientific minds at our disposal we could make up a few hypothetical undiscovered particles/strings for our model too.

Quote

But I think there's a problem in trying to knock down ST. As I said, it's something in favour of RE, and still being worked on. FE doesn't have anything.

I'm sure if we had five thousand years, billions of dollars of funding, and countless scientific minds at our disposal we could make up a few invisible hypothetical particles/strings for our model too.

But I think there's a problem in trying to knock down ST. As I said, it's something in favour of RE, and still being worked on. FE doesn't have anything.

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 02, 2008, 02:50:04 AM

But I think there's a problem in trying to knock down ST. As I said, it's something in favour of RE, and still being worked on. FE doesn't have anything.

Something you can't test or verify is exactly that- just a theory.

No, it simply seems likely that it will. It has yet to do so.


Are you aware of how much skepticism ST is greeted with in scientific community as a whole? Many view it as a frame-work at best, and some don't even consider it scientific. A theory that cannot be tested is essentially worthless. All it serves to do is give globularist physicists peace of mind.

But it's a theory that works for other theories. It's just a way to tie two previously incompatible theories together. Are you saying it really doesn't matter if it reflects reality?

But you can't test ST. That's the point.

And also completely worthless as anything other than a conceptual framework incapable of providing any sort of predictions.


Like I said, an elaborate theory constructed so that physicists can stop losing sleep at night over the mutually incompatible theories they currently use.

And also completely worthless as anything other than a conceptual framework incapable of providing any sort of predictions.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 04:17:14 AM

And also completely worthless as anything other than a conceptual framework incapable of providing any sort of predictions.

The whole point of a theory is to provide predictions. What gives you the authority to claim that string theory doesn't? I mean obviously ST has something to it, otherwise it would have been abandoned long ago.

It's just like FE'ers claiming that the RE / solar system model does not accurately predict the movements of planets and stars. If it didn't, it wouldn't be the universally accepted model would it? And don't strawman me here by quoting that as an ad populum fallacy. The correlation is the other way around. If the system didn't work, it would not be universally accepted. Period.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 04:17:14 AM

And also completely worthless as anything other than a conceptual framework incapable of providing any sort of predictions.

The whole point of a theory is to provide predictions. What gives you the authority to claim that string theory doesn't?

Quote from: MadDogX on July 02, 2008, 04:29:43 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 04:17:14 AM

And also completely worthless as anything other than a conceptual framework incapable of providing any sort of predictions.

The whole point of a theory is to provide predictions. What gives you the authority to claim that string theory doesn't?

Because no-one has tested it yet and most scientists agree it probably never will be tested. This is accepted scientific thinking. Both of you need to do more  reading on ST, because clearly you have a severe misunderstanding of where the theory is in terms of development and what it can/can't do.