Occams Razor

  • 21 Replies
  • 3393 Views
Occams Razor
« on: August 12, 2008, 07:03:48 PM »

Earlier I tried to start a thread where an FEer could offer up a test that would falsify the FE conjecture. None were forthcoming.

I expect that every observation in the RE pov can be explained by something in the FE pov with the only difference between the 2 being in the amount of extra stuff that has to be invented to explain the observation. In otherwords, I conjecture that FEers simply do not believe in Occams Razor like the rest of us REers do.

For example, FEers invoke a conspiracy. They claim gravity doesn't work on the earth but does elsewhere in the universe and other posts here seem to be indicating that light behaves differently close to the earth than it does elsewhere in the universe.

So... can any FEers jump in on this? Do you indeed NOT believe in Occams Razor?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2008, 07:07:29 PM »
Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon, sending robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 07:25:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2008, 07:35:11 PM »
I don't need to invoke a vast conspiracy that's managed to keep itself going for hundreds of years.

I don't need to posit that gravity operates differently on the earth vs on the moon.

As far as "unimaginable vast" size goes... RE and FE are in the same boat here... with a constantly accelerating disk-earth we're covering a lot of territory here.

And when something new comes up at scales we're already familiar with, RE doesn't invent new physics to explain it. (I'm not really following the variable speed of light thing that's going on in other threads at all.)

Somewhat off topic... can you tell me if the moon (in FE) is an earth-like disk or a globe?

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2008, 07:42:32 PM »
Occam's Razor works in favour of the Round Earth Theory.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen conspiracy technologies from scratch which can fool 6 billion people and never have a single leak, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, deceive everyone, and constantly fool the nation by faking GPS signals, sattelite sightings, weightless videos, rocket launches in front of thousands of witnesses and press cameras, produce fake phots of mars and the moon, and never make a mistake in all this; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of flying in a planes between continents and seeing satellites in the sky, and stars that apear to move around hte south pole in the southern hemisphere due to the rotation of hte earth, that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at stars spinning the opposite way in the southern hemisphere, magical fake satelites and plane ourneys several times longer than they appear; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that that stuff is exactly as it appears?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move from one horizon to the other apearing the same size, even as it sets, that it is really a ball moving closer or further from me, defying perspective by some unknown means and never leaving my line of sight, just fading away into the atmosphere - despite it appearing to be going below the horizon and being the same distance away by some unknown and unexplained effect that no experiment has ever shown, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is the same distance away, and when it is out of sight it is because its on the other side of the planet?

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are tiny bodies that are as close as the next continent, yet there is no paralax effect or perspective effect as they move above me, and somehow the same stars can bee seen looking south from Australia and South America, despite them all being opposite sides of the earth and facing opposite directions, and these stars rotate around the north pole, yet somehow apear to rotate around a non existant southpole; or is the simplest explanation that the universe is really fucking big, that's why we don't notice all these perspective effects and why we can see the same stars from 2 different continents because there is a south pole that they both face towards?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2008, 07:43:10 PM »
Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?

And yet, when you look at the night sky with a telescope with sufficient power, may of these small points of light resolve themselves to be not stars, but galaxies containing countless stars.  How is that possible for a tiny mote of energy?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2008, 07:44:01 PM »
Can I play too?

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
Your eyes are constantly deceiving you. Light is refracted/reflected and the wave length of it shifts as in the doppler effect. The earth is most certainly not as it appears to you. And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon, sending robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
You don't believe in never before seen technologies? Your fingers are typing on pieces of plastic communicating with people all around the world. You are absolutely surrounded by technology that didn't exist when you were born. And it is a simpler explanation to believe they are doing that (along with the other countries in the world) then they are part of some world wide conspiracy.

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
So you believe everything you see is the way things are? You ever see a magic show? You ever see an optical illusion? And it's not accelerating, it's spinning at a relatively constant speed. That's why you don't feel acceleration.

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?
So your problem with the universe is that it's too big? The world is pretty huge in case you hadn't noticed. You've only seen a small fraction of a percent of it, so how do you know the rest of the world actually exists?
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2008, 07:45:43 PM »
Occam's Razor is meaningless.

/thread
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2008, 07:47:38 PM »
Quote
And yet, when you look at the night sky with a telescope with sufficient power, may of these small points of light resolve themselves to be not stars, but galaxies containing countless stars.  How is that possible for a tiny mote of energy?

I've never seen countless stars or worlds in a galaxy. Galaxies appear to be small fractal patterns of matter and energy.

Quote
The earth is most certainly not as it appears to you.

So you rather us trust the word of NASA than our own eyes?

Quote
And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

Relative to what?

Quote
You don't believe in never before seen technologies? Your fingers are typing on pieces of plastic communicating with people all around the world. You are absolutely surrounded by technology that didn't exist when you were born.

I've seen and tinkered with computer technologies from the inside out. I've taken them apart. I've written programs for them. I know they exist by first hand experience.

I've never tinkered with the Saturn V from the inside out, or have been to the moon, or have seen the earth as a globe. I've never experienced any of what NASA claims.

Quote
So you believe everything you see is the way things are? You ever see a magic show? You ever see an optical illusion? And it's not accelerating, it's spinning at a relatively constant speed.

Oh right, it's all an optical illusion. Great argument there.  ::)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 08:17:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2008, 07:50:39 PM »
Quote
And yet, when you look at the night sky with a telescope with sufficient power, may of these small points of light resolve themselves to be not stars, but galaxies containing countless stars.  How is that possible for a tiny mote of energy?

I've never seen countless stars or worlds in a galaxy. Galaxies appear to be small fractal patterns of matter and energy.

And I've never seen a telescope restore the hull of a sunken ship, so I guess that we're even.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2008, 08:10:02 PM »
So you rather us trust the word of NASA than our own eyes?

Quote
And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

Relative to what?

That seems to be the answer that everyone uses here. I was just bringing up speed because you mentioned that you don't believe the earth is spinning at a 1000 miles an hour.

Quote
You don't believe in never before seen technologies? Your fingers are typing on pieces of plastic communicating with people all around the world. You are absolutely surrounded by technology that didn't exist when you were born.

I've seen and tinkered with computer technologies from the inside out. That's first hand experience.

I've never seen the inside of a Saturn V space ship, or have been to the moon, or have seen the earth as a globe.
So you only believe in things you have experienced yourself? Have you seen the wall that keeps the oceans in?

Quote
So you believe everything you see is the way things are? You ever see a magic show? You ever see an optical illusion? And it's not accelerating, it's spinning at a relatively constant speed.

Oh right, it's all an optical illusion. Great argument there.  ::)
Just pointing out that our eyes lie to us all the time. And therefore to use what you see as the ultimate proof of anything is flawed.
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2008, 09:10:44 PM »
Quote
Relative to what?

Wow, you can't just answer the question without asking more before answering. Nobody has yet been able to answer the questio, and it keeps getting asked

Quote
And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2008, 10:01:48 PM »
Quote
Relative to what?

Wow, you can't just answer the question without asking more before answering. Nobody has yet been able to answer the questio, and it keeps getting asked

Quote
And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

Again, relative to what?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2008, 10:34:26 PM »
The "relative to what" is a valid question because there is no such thing as absolute speed.

FEers believe that all we can see is accelerating "upward" at 9.8 m/s/s. Earth, sun, moon, stars. All of it.

I find the FE argument of constant 9.8m/s/s acceleration to be as believable as merely postulating that the FE earth (and sun, moon, stars) is lying on top of another body that is providing 1g of gravitational attraction. The ice wall would prevent us from seeing this body and... we wouldn't have to bother with this pesky acceleration question.

What that thing is? It's turtles all the way down.  :)

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2008, 05:50:01 AM »
Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
The simplest explanation is that the earth is round, and goes in an orbit around the sun. This is because we have the evidence for it, and how you look at the world, is exactly how it should look, because the sphere is extremely large, and because there is a vacuum in space, the atmosphere is standing still (more or less), relative to the surface. We do feel the affect of the earth spinning, because the gravitational pull is a little lower at equator, than near the poles, so you do feel lighter near equator.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon, sending robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
Never before seen rocket technologies? Most of the modern rocket technology actually came from Germany, and a large quantity, from the German V2 Rocket program, which I believe was the first rocket engine that used liquid oxygen. They were also never meant for space travel, but long range missiles. And they have been developing everyday of the year for about 50 years. You also say yourself that you have been to a shuttle launch, so you have seen a shuttle reach at least 10-30 miles up in the air, and a live feed from the shuttle on big screen from before takeoff, and into space, with no interruptions. 7 miles a second isn't very hard if you yourself do the calculations on the thrust of the engine, weight of the shuttle and so on. And it's not illegal or impossible to invent new technologies. And please give me an example of the sort of "poof, HUGE leap in technology without explanation" inside NASA.

So, what is most likely, that there is a global conspiracy, involving several thousand workers, and has been active for about 50 years, faking EVERY single satellite picture, video, LIVE video, LIVE launches, moon rocks, every single satellite (many thousand), WITHOUT an explanation for even a quarter of those things I just listed?! Or that what we have been able to explain for so long, with evidence, which makes perfect sense if you do some research yourself into the matter, and actually can something about the topics?

Also, no satellites or rockets or shuttles ever moved stright up at 7 miles per second. They eventually flat out, to go into a stable orbit where the centripetal force is equal to the gravity of the earth.

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

As I said, you do experience a lower gravitational pull, but can you really feel the difference between 9.81 m/s^2 and 9.789 m/s^2 ?
The most plausible explanation is not the one that maybe make sense to someone like you who don't really understand the beauty of physics behind all these mechanisms you blindly deny, but it is the explanation that can be backed up by evidence and observations, which is a round earth. Also, we cannot feel constant speed (when you are flying at about 600 mph, do you feel like moving 600 mph, or do you only feel small bumps up and down, and acceleration and deceleration (takeoff and landing) and turning?, we can feel acceleration, but our senses are not super sensitive. Luckily we have simple tests which can show this difference in acceleration towards the earth, and advanced equipment that does it even more precise.

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?

If we were without evidence, we couldn't tell if the sun and moon were large and far away, or small and close, so yes, then the chance would be about 50/50. Luckily we do have the possibility to run those tests, measurements and observations, which all points to huge, and far away. So there is a much higher possibility for that the sun and moon are large spheres, far away.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2008, 06:12:33 AM »
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

The air through which the sound travels is also moving. Just as it moves upwards with the earth in FE. The centripetal acceleration is caused by mass cf. General Relativity.

Quote
...or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

Your argument doesn't prove a thing. A stone doesn't fly. I don't fly. So I'm a stone. Or as Donna2000 so beautifully pointed out, why don't do deny the very concept of atoms when  a given surface appears to be smooth?

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae,

Right!

Quote
or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?


How will you advance your FE theory when you only believe what your eyes see on macroscale?


Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2008, 11:05:14 AM »
Quote
And yet, when you look at the night sky with a telescope with sufficient power, may of these small points of light resolve themselves to be not stars, but galaxies containing countless stars.  How is that possible for a tiny mote of energy?

I've never seen countless stars or worlds in a galaxy. Galaxies appear to be small fractal patterns of matter and energy.
No they don't. Show me any source proving that they appear to be exactly that.

Quote
The earth is most certainly not as it appears to you.

So you rather us trust the word of NASA than our own eyes?
I would trust whatever that could be proved and given evidence for. Your eyes can play tricks on you. That is why ghosts, spirits, dragons or Shiva isn't generally accepted as being true. Again, the fact that the earth (then the closest area within your field of vision, probably 5 miles in radius) seems to be more or less flat to the naked eye) seems flat, does not prove it being flat.

Quote
And how fast is the earth currently moving upwards if we are kept on terra firma by the earth accelerating upwards constantly at 9.8m/s/s?

Relative to what?
Nothing to say here. The earth is (in your model) moving a lot faster than when it started to accelerate, but because of relativity and the fact that there is no absolute speed in the universe, it can go on accelerating for eternity. The problem I have, is that no one is able to explain this with any more details than "it has something to do with dark energy, we think".

Quote
You don't believe in never before seen technologies? Your fingers are typing on pieces of plastic communicating with people all around the world. You are absolutely surrounded by technology that didn't exist when you were born.

I've seen and tinkered with computer technologies from the inside out. I've taken them apart. I've written programs for them. I know they exist by first hand experience.

I've never tinkered with the Saturn V from the inside out, or have been to the moon, or have seen the earth as a globe. I've never experienced any of what NASA claims.
So basically, you don't believe anything NASA has to say, because you don't understand how it is possible, and because you have not experienced their technologies, hardware and software at first hand. You do, however, have seen a space shuttle launch, but because you couldn't with your naked eyes, see when it went from earth's atmosphere, into space and in an orbit. Sounds kinda stupid to me. Also, usually at those launches, there is a big (huge) display, showing camera(s) on the ground, and on the shuttle itself which are constantly broadcasting without any cutting. How can they fake this in real time with CGI (Computer Generated Image) effects that ar indistinguishable from reality? And what about the ones on the ground with their own telescopes, which follow the shuttles all the way into space, and they can also see when the shuttle is disengaging its booster rockets, and fuel tank.

Also, when it comes to the booster rockets and the fuel tank. You say it is (seemingly) impossible to accelerate several hundred tons up to the speed needed for a stable orbit. How is it then, that you can with some very simple formulas (NOT invented by the US, they were created/invented long before there even was a United States) calculate the speed, length and acceleration the craft has had, based on where the fuel tank and booster rockets land, and they show that it is traveling at those speeds you say are impossible.

Quote
So you believe everything you see is the way things are? You ever see a magic show? You ever see an optical illusion? And it's not accelerating, it's spinning at a relatively constant speed.

Oh right, it's all an optical illusion. Great argument there.  ::)

I think you are talking about what the earth looks like from the ground with the naked eye. There isn't even an optical illusion. The fact is that the earth is very big (radius over 6000 kilometers), and even when you look 6 miles away, the drop in angle isn't more than 0.09 degrees (simple trigonometry). If you usually can see a drop of 0.09 degrees, and don't see it on a clear day over a perfectly still ocean, then yes, we have a problem. If not?, then no.

Also, you are the ones talking about optical illusions. You actually go against one another. Some say that because the world is seemingly flat, it has to be flat all over, and some say that there is an optical illusion that (even though it is flat) makes it look like it's spherical.

I will be awaiting your replies to my latest two posts in this topic.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2008, 11:11:28 AM »
I will be awaiting your replies to my latest two posts in this topic.

Wow, there's no way he can refuse big, bold, red text. It's just so intimidating.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2008, 11:40:07 AM »
You always has to go offtopic when replying to my posts, NEEMAN. Is it because you cant disprove what I am writing?

And yes, I have experienced that many of the FE-believers on this forum tend not to reply to my posts when I argument for why I'm critical.

?

Crudblud

  • 2427
  • Scone Advocate
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2008, 12:00:17 PM »
I was hoping this thread would be about Frank Zappa guitar solos, alas, back to lurking.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2008, 11:54:01 PM »
No response from Tom Bishop?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #20 on: August 16, 2008, 12:47:15 AM »
This whole thread fails due to an error in the definition of Occams Razor.

Occams Razor is not about explanations. It is about predicting power. If two hypothesis or theories have comparable prediction power the simpler one should be preferred.

There are always very simple explanations for anything. If I have a different explanation for every observation, every single explanation might even be a three word phrase. But the prediction power of a million new explanations is nil.

"I see it flat" is a perfect explanation for a lot of things, but it leads to absolutely no predicting power when you have to get to the other side of an ocean. The notion of a round earth with 60 nautical miles separating each degree of latitude will help you predict the location of your destination on the other side of an ocean.

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2008, 10:55:06 AM »
Guess he learned something then. ;)