What, if anything, would constitute proof?

  • 59 Replies
  • 8703 Views
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2008, 01:37:00 PM »
Make sense moar.

He meant that it is stupid to deny all the evidence that supports the round earth, because nothing can be proved with a certainty of 100% (except in mathematics), and to accept the flat earth hypothesis, because it cannot be 100% disproved.

As you said, there is always going to be a certain degree of uncertainty in everything, and that does not justify accepting the least plausible theory.

This is also why I react when you who believe in the FEH, when you completely dismiss the round earth and everything that points to a round earth, like a creationist dismisses evolution, even though the FEH is the obvious weakest one of the contradicting theories (even though the flat earth model isn't a theory, at least not yet).

I would like that you accept that the RET is the strongest of the two choices, and when you have accepted that, you can start working on your own hypothesis, and possibly, finding evidence for it, and improve it. The FEH really needs it if it ever is going to have even the slightest chance against the round earth theory.

I am being kind to FEH's position compared to the RET in this post. The difference in credibility is huge. FEH is barely a hypothesis, and RET is as close to fact as a theory can get. It has been proven again and again, beyond any and all reasonable (and even unreasonable) doubt.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2008, 01:39:29 PM »
If the Earth is round, it is not possible to prove it. If the Earth is flat, it is not possible to prove it.

You cannot prove anything 100% (except in mathematics). That doesn't mean that we can't prove anything, so it is true, or a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. Under this category (far beyond reasonable doubt) is where you find the RET

....


Actually, even in mathematics, you must first accept the bifurcation of truth values
You know what sucks... your doing all this but, its all a lie because your really not doing it because the earth is flat...

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2008, 01:42:45 PM »
I know. No one has in example mathematically ever proved that 1+1=2. 1+1 has been defined to be equal to 2, but never proven. So in mathematics, you have to "make" a few definitions or rules, and then continue working from that point.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2008, 03:07:22 PM »
Why will no one just answer the question???

What would consistute that proof of RE or FE???
it seems the question gets dodged by those who post considering themselves to have answered the question.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2008, 04:56:19 PM »
That is because what is generally accepted as evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, which supports the round earth model, will immediately be dismissed by the flat earth believers. They say it is either faked, or they make up an idea, or a hypothesis (an early stage theory, undeveloped and untested), to explain the hard evidence which speaks for RE, and against FE.

Here are some hard evidence which is only supported for real (supported on more than those early hypotheses of yours), and only fits for real (same reason) in the round earth model:

Variances in gravitational pull (lower gravitational pull near equator, due to centrifugal acceleration, and the bulging earth). Status: True. Predicted by theory and measured/observed

Space travel and stable orbits: Status: True, beyond any unreasonable doubt. There are several thousand satellites in various orbits around the spherical earth. You can pinpoint a large quantity of them with a simple directional radio signal reciever. You can also see the International Space Station with a cheap hobbytelescope, and you can follow every single space shuttle constantly from takeoff, and untill stable orbit, and see it completing its mission, also with a telescope.

Parallax: True, and proves the fact that earth moves around the sun. Parallax is a method used for measuring distance to stars up to 3000 light years from earth. Basically it works by taking two pictures of the same location, 6 months after one another. This means that the picture is taken from two perspectives, several million miles away from each other (because 6 months is a half rotation around the sun, so one picture from each side), and stars closer to earth, moves in the sky, relative to other stars nearby, but further away.

Coriolis effect: Proves that the earth is spherical, and that it rotates around its own axis. Also proven on earth (hurricanes cannot exist without it), and observed by satellites. There is also a countless number of wind systems which would not exist if it weren't for the Coriolis effect)

Analysis of the light spectrum from stars: This can (and are being) be used to collect information about stars. Temperature, size, energy output, distance from us, and what it is made of, can be read out of its EM-radiation. This proves that the stars are far more massive, larger in size, and farther away, than the FEH explains.

Satellite images of the earth: There is no possible way on this earth in this millennium (or the last one) that any one (or several, working together) organization or group could possibly fake every single image of the earth taken from a height higher than about 30-50 kilometers, which shows the bulging earth. Satellite images from both government and private satellites clearly shows a spherical earth, both on images, and on video.

I know Occham's Razor doesn't prove anything at all, but the possibility of the earth being flat, based on objective, empirical evidence is so small, it is not even worth trying to compare it to the fact that the earth is round. Yes, I know that nothing can be proved 100%, but as I have said before, we can get close, beyond any and all reasonable, and unreasonable doubt, and this is exactly what the RET has done. The Earth is round, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, except, coming up with some hard, objective, empirical evidence, proving the Earth is in fact flat, and for doing this, you need evidence which is as close as possible to 100% conclusive, and that is something I seriously doubt exists, but just keep looking. ;)

I could continue the list, but here in Norway, it is almost 2 am., so I have to go to sleep, to be able to get up and go to work in the morning.


?

Ansable

  • 6
  • Ex Conspiritor
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2008, 10:17:22 PM »
I would be convinced by:
Admission by major figures in the conspiracy of it's existence

Admission by NASA that it is bogus

Demonstration of the non-existence of the south pole

An experiment with radio waves that demonstrates that overland distance = Underground distance.

A demonstration of the light-bending related to Quantum Bogodynamics.

?

6 miles and no drop

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2008, 10:26:06 PM »
I'm a surveyor and I can tell you without a doubt the earth is round (or at a minimum extremely curved).


I agree, curved lines East and West to stay East and West but not North and South.
By the way, how do you like those laser theodolites that measure 6 miles without a drop of the mandatory 25 feet. 
Amazing how they can keep a level for that long.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2008, 10:45:38 PM »
The numbers in ENOG are off.  At 6 miles the amount of curvature should be 7.63 feet, but the principle still stands.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2008, 11:48:11 PM »
Of course, nothing is impossible, except that it is impossible to prove anything in any absolute sense. It all comes down to a question of probability.


I do not discount the possibility of anything. It is possible that the earth is round. But I think it far more probable that the earth is flat.
Why, if you don't mind me asking? I have read the FAQs and a fair bit of this forum (actually with more than 200 000 posts I've read an incredibly small percentage), but there seems to be a fair bit that even FEHs don't agree on, so I thought I should probably just pick one member, and engage them one on one.

So if you're up for it, specifically what about the RE theory doesn't make sense for you, and what about the FE theory seems to fit with your observations of the world better?

PM if you prefer.
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2008, 02:56:41 AM »
It's ok, I don't mind replying in here.


I simply think that to believe in RET, too many unlikely assumptions have to be made. "There is an imperceptable curvature of the earth. It looks flat, no matter where you are on earth. Matter magically warps something called space-time so that matter appears to cause gravitation, and the universe is held together by magical forces and mathematical slight of hand like the 'cosmological constant' along with a number of ficticious forces."

I simply find FET much more elegant and plausible.
"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: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2008, 03:58:11 AM »
While parts of it may be more elegantly explained than RET, don't you find that there are other parts that are more plausibly explained in RET? Such as the movement of the sun, moon & stars across the sky? That there doesn't have to be an enormous conspiracy covering up the basic geography of the planet and the entire work of NASA? That Antartica, a place visited by 1000s is not at all how it seems, and can never experience 24 hours of continuous daylight, although many claim to have experienced exactly that?

And I guess I am asking isn't there more that is unexplained in the FE model?
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: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2008, 04:52:55 AM »
The numbers in ENOG are off.  At 6 miles the amount of curvature should be 7.63 feet, but the principle still stands.

I haven't done the calculations myself, but I see no reason for this not being correct. However, this only goes for a mathematical perfect sphere, and the earth is not a perfect sphere. The land masses has huge differences in altitude, it is bulging at the equator, due to the fact that the earth is spinning, and even the oceans isn't perfectly flat, due to the moon and the suns gravitational pull.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2008, 05:07:26 AM »
While parts of it may be more elegantly explained than RET, don't you find that there are other parts that are more plausibly explained in RET? Such as the movement of the sun, moon & stars across the sky? That there doesn't have to be an enormous conspiracy covering up the basic geography of the planet and the entire work of NASA? That Antartica, a place visited by 1000s is not at all how it seems, and can never experience 24 hours of continuous daylight, although many claim to have experienced exactly that?

And I guess I am asking isn't there more that is unexplained in the FE model?

Cosmology is a massive issue for FET, and I have stated as much on many occasions. That we do not have a working model for this reflects our power in terms of research/finance, rather than the validity of our theory.


And the conspiracy I find highly plausible. NASA lying to us for money seems a lot more likely than an organisation spending the amounts it does on going to space in the interest of knowledge, science and a fluffy-bunny future for all humanity.
"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: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2008, 06:00:12 AM »
Cosmology is a massive issue for FET, and I have stated as much on many occasions. That we do not have a working model for this reflects our power in terms of research/finance, rather than the validity of our theory.
Oh absolutely. I understand that you are severely under manned compared to the RET side. I'm just wondering if there is anything about the RE model regarding day & night, how the seasons work, Lunar and Solar eclipses, etc that lead you to believe that there is a problem with it?

And the conspiracy I find highly plausible. NASA lying to us for money seems a lot more likely than an organisation spending the amounts it does on going to space in the interest of knowledge, science and a fluffy-bunny future for all humanity.
Wihtout a doubt most peoples motivations are selfish ones. The Americans wanted to get to the moon before the Russians to claim it as their own. I find that a plausible reason that NASA got the kick start it did, and then stopped spending the cash on that side of things after they'd done it. And I believe their excusions into space are more of the same, putting a US logo on everything they can possibly touch, rather than anything ultruistic. I just don't think a small group of people can keep a secret let alone the numbers required in that conspiracy, and certainly not from opposing countries of the world. I just can't see the Russians, in the middle of the cold war, saying, "Okay we'll get the first man in space, but you can have the first man on the moon."
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2008, 06:41:47 AM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round. I just find it all a bit implausible (though I don't discount it's possiblity).
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 07:54:19 AM by NEEMAN »
"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

?

starbrightlove

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #45 on: August 15, 2008, 06:57:30 AM »
it sounds to me like some people are just in complete and total denial.

my cousin once told me the Great Wall of China was made out of rice.  i believed him for the longest time, and people laughed at me when i told them.  i thought it was a silly joke to pretend to believe, up until i discoved that the wall really is made out of a paste based on rice.

or we could say that the wall isnt really there and everyone is just dreaming it.

like the Matrix.

its all the Matrix....

  :P


what about Scientology?

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #46 on: August 15, 2008, 07:51:28 AM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2008, 08:01:36 AM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?

I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.
"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: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2008, 08:05:07 AM »
LOL

?

hm_murdock2001

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2008, 08:32:51 AM »
There is one really simple thing that I can't believe nobody has brought up yet.  If the Earth is flat, then it is impossible for it to be daytime in one place and nighttime in another.  If anybody can refute this statement I'd love to know about it.  Anybody who has experienced jet lag knows the sun doesn't set at the same time everywhere.  If you don't even believe it can be nighttime in one place and daytime in another, call somebody a few timezones to the west just after you have experienced sunset and ask them if the sun is shining (provided its not cloudy of course).  If you can't do that, turn on the olympics tonight and explain why its morning in Beijing.

Another way you can see for yourself that the Earth is round requires you to go to the ocean and look at the horizon.  The mere presence of a horizon proves the earth is round, but the argument doesn't end there.  There is a term in navigation that would not exist with a flat earth.  That term is "beyond the horizon."  Something is described as beyond the horizon when it is so far away that the curve of the earth blocks the view of the bottom portion of some object.  I've seen this myself.  With a good pair of binoculars you can see this easily.  A ship will look like it's sinking when it is not.  Or, only the tallest skyscrapers of a large city will be visible.  The curve of the earth also explains why the horizon is so far away when you fly.

The Greeks discovered the Earth was round when they noticed that shadows are always shorter in Egypt than in Greece.  I've also seen this myself.  I'm from the Detroit area (about 42 degrees north) and I was recently in San Diego (about 32 degrees north).  I was actually surprised when I noticed that at noon my shadow was almost entirely under me.  At noon in Michigan, my shadow is still at least a couple feet long.

Lastly, the Germans observed the curve of the earth during WWII, about 15 years before NASA was created in the US.  As part of their missile program, they attached cameras  to some experimental long range missiles.  The video showed (in black and white that was a little fuzzy) an easily observable curve.

Because of these simple, somewhat easily observable phenomanons, I find it hard to believe the "flat earth society" is serious.  Maybe it just goes to show people will believe anything.  And here's my question for the flat-earthers:  If the round earth "theory" is a conspiracy, what is its motive?  What can governments accomplish by making people think the earth is round rather than flat?

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #50 on: August 15, 2008, 08:33:01 AM »
I know. No one has in example mathematically ever proved that 1+1=2. 1+1 has been defined to be equal to 2, but never proven. So in mathematics, you have to "make" a few definitions or rules, and then continue working from that point.

False.. sry, but Bertrand Russell did prove just that.. It took him a full A4 paper of equations.. I could scan it in snd show you (got a pic in a book) but I'd rather not.. Mainly cuz I don't understand squat of it.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2008, 10:08:42 AM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?

I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.
I REALLY LOVE THIS "sub-thread"!!! Keep it up!

Neeman... it sounds like you don't like RE because of some relatively recent developments in RE cosmology. dark matter, dark energy, cosmological constant and etc all came about in the last 100 years. Furthermore, as you said, there are significant cosmological issues in FE, so ... you haven't (yet) found an answer there. Sounds like you would be happier with 1800s cosmology, and yet RE was well established at that time too. So... what gives?

Additionally, your previous comment...
Quote
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round. I just find it all a bit implausible (though I don't discount it's possiblity).
but this is exactly the point of science. Make as few basic assumptions as possible and explain as much as you can from there. Yea... even if those basic assumptions are utterly bizarre, if their consequences can explain all that you see then science believes them to be true. This is a huge leap for humanity to make, but IMHO it is the correct leap. The only other choice is to require that not only do the basic assumptions explain all we can see but that those basic assumptions also make sense in and of themselves.


Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #52 on: August 15, 2008, 12:56:02 PM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?

I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.

Swap "RET" with "FEH", and your post makes sense. ;)

The earth would still be round, without dark energy or dark matter, because the reason the earth is round, is because of its own gravitation.

It is you who have to rely on dark energy, to accelerate the earth, because you refuse to accept gravity (because that would crush the earth into a ball).

I would also like to add the fact that dark matter has been observed (so it's not hypothetical), and I have seen a picture of it (it was actually an image which was rendered from many observations of an area in space where the dark matter was bending light). The only thing I can think of which requires dark matter, is the milky way. Without it, the outer stars would have been thrown out of the galaxy, because the gravity from the "light matter" of the Milky way is not strong enough to hold on to those stars. This is also why dark matter was predicted. The sun is not amongst the very outer stars, but it is fairly far out, so I'm not sure if it relies on the mass of the dark matter. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it wouldn't have any affect on the earth form, or the fate of our solar system, if we were outside the galaxy, or inside the galaxy.

Dark energy is required to explain the expansion of the universe. This does not either affect our solar system in any way worth mentioning.

If you actually would pay attention to your own hypotheses, you would see how many "constants" which has to be exactly right, or exactly wrong, because they have been measured and observed to be what they are. It relies on dark energy accelerating the earth, which again relies on the earth existing of some form of weird matter which absorbs dark energy, but do not interact, or produce gravity. It relies on every single image from high altitude being wrong, or every measurement, image, video, rocket launch, ISS, MIR, and every single satellite being wrong. And about 100 other, well established and proven facts to be dismissed.

And you complain over the RE-view for relying on too many unknowns?

*

sokarul

  • 18805
  • Extra Racist
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2008, 02:25:51 PM »
It's ok, I don't mind replying in here.


I simply think that to believe in RET, too many unlikely assumptions have to be made. "There is an imperceptable curvature of the earth. It looks flat, no matter where you are on earth. Matter magically warps something called space-time so that matter appears to cause gravitation, and the universe is held together by magical forces and mathematical slight of hand like the 'cosmological constant' along with a number of ficticious forces."

I simply find FET much more elegant and plausible.
You believe
There is a magical shadow object
A magical UA
The sun feels a magical force to changes its radius to cause seasons.
I could go on.  Don't even try to say RET is based on assumptions when all the FET has is assumptions.  Also you are using boarder line theoretical physics to try and prove your point.  Bent spacetime can be seen. I have claimed before astronomy single handedly disproves the FET.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2008, 04:34:42 PM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?

I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.


Swap "RET" with "FEH", and your post makes sense. ;)

The earth would still be round, without dark energy or dark matter, because the reason the earth is round, is because of its own gravitation.

It is you who have to rely on dark energy, to accelerate the earth, because you refuse to accept gravity (because that would crush the earth into a ball).

I would also like to add the fact that dark matter has been observed (so it's not hypothetical), and I have seen a picture of it (it was actually an image which was rendered from many observations of an area in space where the dark matter was bending light). The only thing I can think of which requires dark matter, is the milky way. Without it, the outer stars would have been thrown out of the galaxy, because the gravity from the "light matter" of the Milky way is not strong enough to hold on to those stars. This is also why dark matter was predicted. The sun is not amongst the very outer stars, but it is fairly far out, so I'm not sure if it relies on the mass of the dark matter. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it wouldn't have any affect on the earth form, or the fate of our solar system, if we were outside the galaxy, or inside the galaxy.

Dark energy is required to explain the expansion of the universe. This does not either affect our solar system in any way worth mentioning.

If you actually would pay attention to your own hypotheses, you would see how many "constants" which has to be exactly right, or exactly wrong, because they have been measured and observed to be what they are. It relies on dark energy accelerating the earth, which again relies on the earth existing of some form of weird matter which absorbs dark energy, but do not interact, or produce gravity. It relies on every single image from high altitude being wrong, or every measurement, image, video, rocket launch, ISS, MIR, and every single satellite being wrong. And about 100 other, well established and proven facts to be dismissed.

And you complain over the RE-view for relying on too many unknowns?

It's not dark matter that holds the galaxy(ies) together, it's the Black Hole that's in the centrum of a galaxy.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2008, 06:10:34 PM »
I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.
Maybe it's because I'm coming at this from a place of "ignorance" with regard to the complicated aspects of the RE model ... I don't have any idea how those things are supposed to work in the RE theory, and what they are supposed to do, or why they are important. But I have an understanding of the RE Solar System at a most basic level. My daughter asked me about the phases of the moon last week, and I was able to set up a torch and a ball and illustrate how the moon revolving around us, and us revolving around the sun, puts part of the moon in shadow from our perspective. This seems a pretty elegant solution to the question. I realise that doesn't constitute proof ...

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: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #56 on: August 15, 2008, 06:14:14 PM »
There is one really simple thing that I can't believe nobody has brought up yet.
I can't believe nobody has bought it up either? Oh wait. They did. Read the FAQ.
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: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #57 on: August 15, 2008, 11:53:00 PM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?

I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.


Swap "RET" with "FEH", and your post makes sense. ;)

The earth would still be round, without dark energy or dark matter, because the reason the earth is round, is because of its own gravitation.

It is you who have to rely on dark energy, to accelerate the earth, because you refuse to accept gravity (because that would crush the earth into a ball).

I would also like to add the fact that dark matter has been observed (so it's not hypothetical), and I have seen a picture of it (it was actually an image which was rendered from many observations of an area in space where the dark matter was bending light). The only thing I can think of which requires dark matter, is the milky way. Without it, the outer stars would have been thrown out of the galaxy, because the gravity from the "light matter" of the Milky way is not strong enough to hold on to those stars. This is also why dark matter was predicted. The sun is not amongst the very outer stars, but it is fairly far out, so I'm not sure if it relies on the mass of the dark matter. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because it wouldn't have any affect on the earth form, or the fate of our solar system, if we were outside the galaxy, or inside the galaxy.

Dark energy is required to explain the expansion of the universe. This does not either affect our solar system in any way worth mentioning.

If you actually would pay attention to your own hypotheses, you would see how many "constants" which has to be exactly right, or exactly wrong, because they have been measured and observed to be what they are. It relies on dark energy accelerating the earth, which again relies on the earth existing of some form of weird matter which absorbs dark energy, but do not interact, or produce gravity. It relies on every single image from high altitude being wrong, or every measurement, image, video, rocket launch, ISS, MIR, and every single satellite being wrong. And about 100 other, well established and proven facts to be dismissed.

And you complain over the RE-view for relying on too many unknowns?

It's not dark matter that holds the galaxy(ies) together, it's the Black Hole that's in the centrum of a galaxy.

No, it's the combined mass. The super massive black hole, together with the millions of stars and other stellar objects, are not massive enough to keep the outer stars in orbit. This is, as I said, why dark matter was predicted, and also required. And now we have found it.

Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2008, 03:12:22 AM »
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round.
Sorry, could you expand on that at all?

I just find it strange that RET cannot create a consistent theory without adding place holders. 'Dark energy', 'dark matter', the 'cosmological constant'- all these hypothetical forces have to be invented to create a consistent universe in which our senses deceive us and the earth is round.
I REALLY LOVE THIS "sub-thread"!!! Keep it up!

Neeman... it sounds like you don't like RE because of some relatively recent developments in RE cosmology. dark matter, dark energy, cosmological constant and etc all came about in the last 100 years. Furthermore, as you said, there are significant cosmological issues in FE, so ... you haven't (yet) found an answer there. Sounds like you would be happier with 1800s cosmology, and yet RE was well established at that time too. So... what gives?

Additionally, your previous comment...
Quote
I think my main problem with the RE model for the sun, moon and stars is simply that it is based on the same sort of hypothesis that is used to infer that the earth is round. I just find it all a bit implausible (though I don't discount it's possiblity).
but this is exactly the point of science. Make as few basic assumptions as possible and explain as much as you can from there. Yea... even if those basic assumptions are utterly bizarre, if their consequences can explain all that you see then science believes them to be true. This is a huge leap for humanity to make, but IMHO it is the correct leap. The only other choice is to require that not only do the basic assumptions explain all we can see but that those basic assumptions also make sense in and of themselves.


His proof is not generally accepted by other mathematicians by the way.

?

Dr Eon Phlatamus

  • 19
  • Had a bad day in the lab
Re: What, if anything, would constitute proof?
« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2008, 01:19:07 PM »
Well I'd like to start by saying "Hello" im new to this whole internet forum thing, And Im glad to see there are still a few people out there with a firm grip on reality. (Reality is only agreed upon perception)
Lets first start with , The use of math in favor for FE theory.
This theory has been believed for much longer than this new fangled RE theory, and I might add they are both theories.
But the FET has a longer track record than the RET , therfore with simple math logic , it is much more believable.
Now when the RET has as many years under its belt as the FET , Then and only then will it be on equal ground with FET.
And I know what some of you are going to say , That the number of people on the earth since the RET was more widely accepted is greater than the number that have believed in the FET since the dawn of time.
To that question , I would pose another question , How many people have been under the influence of synthentic substances during the RET golden years , compared to the number of people during the FET golden years?
The theory that a conspiracy of this size and magnitude is virtually impossible , Is merley flawed thinking of those who have been programed by the conspirators.
How is this programing taking place you might add .
Well the awnser would be in the question in that case (PROGRAMING ADDS)
You have but to take a step back and look around you , to see all the untruths being fed into the human mind today.
Who is in charge of this conspiracy you might say.
Well that my friends is still to be discoverd , But I do have a theory ...

None other than the Pharmaceutical companies ... And its inside of this theory , that we can conclude the earth is Flat.
How you ask?
First lets make a model of what is happening when a scientist is working.
They are playing god to some degree ... yes?
They are working in a laboratory  ... the known universe.
They'er attention is focused through a microscope (not always though)
They are observing a world of organisms wich is on petri dish.
And what shape is that petri dish?

Its true there are many more things to discuss in this theory , But I feel it is best saved for the serious discussion forum.
Thinking outside the box , Doesnt include Believing the earth is round.