A question for the REers.

Please, all of you, read the posts completely! I said that if a theory is an idea with a corroborating experiment, then anybody can create a crackpot theory!

In science a theory is the highest level of knowledge. It is the same as a law, except that now scientists are much more open to throw away a law or theory if a better one is proposed.

General Douchebag diluted the notion to "a theory is an idea with evidence and experiments to back it up", which is perfect for his lackluster grasp of science. If you want to know what a theory is you have to learn what the scientific method is, not like General Douchebag, who is content with his made up definitions!

Jump off of a cliff. Then come back and tell us whether you felt a force acting upon you when you were in freefall. As if you were weightless? Or as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate while the Earth accelerated up to meet you? And in my model at least, the force pushing us forwards is the same force accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe, as is observed by both FE and RE believers, proper scientists no less, with a journal and everything.

This is as great an example of bogus science as you will ever get. The result of the experiment is whether you "felt a force". Or whether you felt "as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate".  There is nothing to measure, no models or theories to predict the possible result and then compare it with the experimental result. Using the same logic you would have to say that atmospheric pressure does not exist, because you do not "feel it".

If you do not do anything else in your life, at least learn the scientific method!

Saying that atmospheric pressure does not exist because you don't feel it is stupid because the pressure inside our bodies is equal, while there is no such thing with gravity. Stop using analogies, or get better ones, I don't care which. And as to my "lackluster grasp of science" that was a quote from a link you posted, and as for "scientific method", have you ever heard of a thing called zetetic science, based on our own experiences? It's a far better method than yours, (I'm not referring to scientific method) which is that whoever came up with the theory was completely right, so if such a situation where their law was to be broken, it would be the Universe at fault. Here's an analogy, watch and learn. Assuming an RE, so you don't get bitchy, if a zeteticist (not necessarily an FEer) and a traditional scientist (not necessarily an REer) both began to float away for no apparent reason, the zeteticist would assume that there was a flaw in whichever method  of remaining on the ground they previously believed, while the traditionalist would assume he was somehow being tricked. Have you seen the episode of The Simpsons when they got a free safari holiday? They saw a rhino hatch from an egg, and Lisa (traditionalist) said "That's impossible, rhinos don't hatch from eggs" and Homer (our zetetic friend) said "What did you just see, Lisa? What did you just see?"

At this point it might be worth considering posting in this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22424.0

I think it could be quite a good starting point for a more meaningful debate (admittedly probably not as entertaining as a spectator sport, however).

Jump off of a cliff. Then come back and tell us whether you felt a force acting upon you when you were in freefall. As if you were weightless? Or as if you were traveling upwards at a constant rate while the Earth accelerated up to meet you? And in my model at least, the force pushing us forwards is the same force accelerating all matter away from the center of the Universe, as is observed by both FE and RE believers, proper scientists no less, with a journal and everything.

The experiment would be,  use two parachutes, different sizes and see if the earth catches up with you at the same amount of time.

Don't put words in my mouth, that wouldn't work.

Saying that atmospheric pressure does not exist because you don't feel it is stupid because the pressure inside our bodies is equal, while there is no such thing with gravity. Stop using analogies, or get better ones, I don't care which. And as to my "lackluster grasp of science" that was a quote from a link you posted, and as for "scientific method", have you ever heard of a thing called zetetic science, based on our own experiences? It's a far better method than yours, (I'm not referring to scientific method) which is that whoever came up with the theory was completely right, so if such a situation where their law was to be broken, it would be the Universe at fault. Here's an analogy, watch and learn. Assuming an RE, so you don't get bitchy, if a zeteticist (not necessarily an FEer) and a traditional scientist (not necessarily an REer) both began to float away for no apparent reason, the zeteticist would assume that there was a flaw in whichever method  of remaining on the ground they previously believed, while the traditionalist would assume he was somehow being tricked. Have you seen the episode of The Simpsons when they got a free safari holiday? They saw a rhino hatch from an egg, and Lisa (traditionalist) said "That's impossible, rhinos don't hatch from eggs" and Homer (our zetetic friend) said "What did you just see, Lisa? What did you just see?"

And the quote where I said that science is having an idea and having some evidence and making an experiment... you are saying that is my quote?

With analogies, explanations, quotes, and everything I can imagine I have tried to transmit a simple message: Science is not about explanations: science is about predictions. You follow the scientific method, you make predictions based your theories and hypothesis, and you are making science. You are welcome to being a "zetetic scientist", so long as you are clear that you are not a scientist. You show any train of thought that is compatible with science, and then you can say you have a theory.

Those "analogies" that enrage you so much are just examples of an idea, an experiment and some evidence that lead to a completely absurd conclusion. That is why the scientific method has to be carried out completely, not just half of it. When your idea is good only to explain or predict the results of your original experiment, you are doing nothing.

At this point it might be worth considering posting in this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22424.0

I think it could be quite a good starting point for a more meaningful debate (admittedly probably not as entertaining as a spectator sport, however).

Yes, that thread is interesting, since I have read proponents and opponents of the notion of falsifiability. In this thread I would be happy enough if somebody could understand that science is not about getting people to say "oh, now I understand".

How can you, without knowing the mechanism of gravity, make an accurate prediction?

How can you, without knowing the mechanism of gravity, make an accurate prediction?

Observe, test, repeat.

I can make an accurate prediction about what will happen if I jump off a cliff without having to know the mechanism - the trick is finding things that your model predicts that others disagree with.  This is why GR is so successful, not because Einstein climbed the mountain and came back down with the stress energy tensor engraved on a stone tablet.

How can you, without knowing the mechanism of gravity, make an accurate prediction?

Predictions based on gravity have been done for more than 200 years, with better precision than other branches of science will ever see. In quantum mechanics almost everything is impossible to understand, and yet you and I use computers that work through the mechanisms of quantum mechanics, every day. And the predictable results of your computer are unimaginable in any other area of your life.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22645.0

about ur first post, there's a RE FAQ.. thread got locked (even though it was approved by a moderator) so you will have to comment here.

I just love the ridiculous threads that get started on here.

Analogy time, can anyone explain how magnets attract metals? No? Oh well that must proove that magnetism doesn't exist and is therefore a conspiracy against flat earthers!

Analogy time, can anyone explain how magnets attract metals? No? Oh well that must proove that magnetism doesn't exist and is therefore a conspiracy against flat earthers!

...exchange of virtual photons? Sorry... 

@trig I don't actually want an explanation of gravity, I know there isn't one, I just wanted to see how hypocritical you are. And you really are. 7 pages, one admission, and a whole lot of bullshit. You all go "How does the UA work lol win 4 RE!" then when I ask the same about gravity, you start screaming "science isn't about explanations, it's about predictions!" I predict that if something doesn't have enough support to keep it up, it will stop accelerating as fast as the Earth, the Earth will accelerate up to meet it, hey presto, shit just fell. Am I a scientist now? Now that I made a prediction you can test (and I greatly encourage you to) by dropping your computer out of your window. The reason I'm pissed off is that I said this 2 pages ago and you have the fucking nerve to complain I'm not reading your whole posts when I am?!

@matrix. You just won science. I wish to sig that.

@General:

@Hammond:  You LOSE!

Sorry, too many characters with both quotes, and it isn't funny at all out of context.

That's OK Gen., it's the thought that counts...





 

@General:

@Hammond:  You LOSE!

Oh well that prooves it for me.
Shame you can't actually read, look at my username carefully!
Mind you FE belief does require IQ < 10.

We figured it was a typo. Sorry if you're just thick.

Yes, mistyping an 'n' to make your username an actual name means I have an IQ < 10... hmm... This from the man who still think science views magnetism as a mystery. It's called the STANDARD MODEL.

n00b.

Yes, mistyping an 'n' to make your username an actual name means I have an IQ < 10... hmm... This from the man who still think science views magnetism as a mystery. It's called the STANDARD MODEL.

n00b.

Your appaling knowledge of anything is quite entertaining. Perhaps you should actually do some research on a subject before you criticise, Hammod is a real name, if you had done any research you would know that. But since the fact that you believe in flat earth, we know you are incapable of research or indeed rational thought.

OK, yes, you have me.  I fail abysmally. My lack of knowledge of all possible names renders my knowledge of physics obsolete. Please, just kill me now and end my suffering.

Of course, that is if don't die of colossal irony first. Do a quick search - go on, I know it's a complex task, but try - where I assert that I believe in a flat earth.  That's what epic fail feels like.

OK, yes, you have me.  I fail abysmally. My lack of knowledge of all possible names renders my knowledge of physics obsolete. Please, just kill me now and end my suffering.

Of course, that is if don't die of colossal irony first. Do a quick search - go on, I know it's a complex task, but try - where I assert that I believe in a flat earth.  That's what epic fail feels like.

I see, so by arguing with me about a round earth, you are agreeing - it is all so obvious to me now.

Sure, why not? You win, hooray! Now you have a great anecdote to dine out on and can leave before we contract your servere retardness!

Yes, mistyping an 'n' to make your username an actual name means I have an IQ < 10... hmm... This from the man who still think science views magnetism as a mystery. It's called the STANDARD MODEL.

n00b.

Uh, the mechanism for magnetism is still a mystery to modern science.

Who discovered the theoretical messenger particle, the magnetic photon?

Uh, the mechanism for magnetism is still a mystery to modern science.

Who discovered the theoretical messenger particle, the magnetic photon?

By implying that the mystery was solved, I was not implying we have a fully functional theory of everything. I should have been more restrained in my enthusiasm for the standard model (it is broken, after all). Still, the exchange of virtual photons works pretty well in explaining electrostatics and magnetism, insofar as the predictions of QED match up with observations to an incredible level of precision.

But yes, lest I incur the wrath of Bishop, I freely admit that nature is still a mystery - we just happen to have a vague sketch map to show us where the landmarks are.

Should I just lock this? My experiment is over, RE failed, do you want to keep arguing with this noob over semantics or should I?

Should I just lock this? My experiment is over, RE failed, do you want to keep arguing with this noob over semantics or should I?

Sure knock yourself out, you are making yourself look real stoopid, so by all means carry on.