Striking another bow against FE

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 03:51:05 AM

Quote from: cbreiling on August 19, 2008, 03:46:21 AM

I have evidence a man murdered his wife:

• He took out a million-dollar policy on her the day before her murder.
• He recently bought a pistol, and this pistol was used to commit the murder.
• He had an affair with a hottie.

I have proof the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

So evidence is not the same as proof.

Everyone on this forum has evidence the earth is flat: all you have to do is open your eyes, especially if you live near the beach, or in an Iowa cornfield. Your eyes will tell you the truth: the earth is flat. Now about that proof... 

Umm yes it is the same, evidence and proof are interchangeable in those sentences

I have evidence the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

is not the same sentence.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Quote from: Mohnzh on August 18, 2008, 02:36:58 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 18, 2008, 02:31:42 PM

Fixed.  You're confusing your RETs and FETs again.

You are quite right. Thank you for fixing that. I must correct yours, however. I have not been posting long enough for the word "again" to be used. This could be marked up as my first confusion  .

Actually, your first confusion was in thinking that your post would change any body's mind.   

Quote from: markjo on August 18, 2008, 03:38:56 PM

Quote from: Mohnzh on August 18, 2008, 02:36:58 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 18, 2008, 02:31:42 PM

Fixed.  You're confusing your RETs and FETs again.

You are quite right. Thank you for fixing that. I must correct yours, however. I have not been posting long enough for the word "again" to be used. This could be marked up as my first confusion  .

Actually, your first confusion was in thinking that your post would change any body's mind.   

No confusion there. You must be confused in thinking that I thought that  .

Interstellarsphere, having some cases where proof and evidence can mean the same thing does not make them invariably interchangeable. Synonyms are words that can have the same meaning, but if they meant exactly the same all the time, there would be no point in having both words. Be my guest, ask any English teacher (as you suggest). Synonyms are not always interchangeable.

In my field of study (biochemistry) as in any field of science, the first thing that incoming students must be broken of is that proof and evidence are quite distinct. They may commonly be used interchangeably, but it is fallacy to do so. You cannot prove hardly anything in science. You cannot prove that yesterday even existed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it does. For all we know, all the particles of the universe cam together precisely so that the electrons firing in our brain contain the same memories of those that shared them with us, as well as randomly creating everything that we remember doing. Remembering doing something does not prove it happened. Otherwise all those people in asylums should be released, as they truly are George Washington and Joan of Arc - after all, they remember having always had that name. No, proof and evidence are quite distinct, as all REers and FEers have agreed against you.

As a side, I find it interesting that you referred to me as an FEer. In other threads I've been referred to as an REer. Can you not tell which it is?

In simple terms, the most common usage is as follows:

Proofs require a premise and an objective.

In a mathematical proof, the equations and logic process are used as evidence for the proof.
In a court, pieces of information and things collected are evidence used to prove the premise.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 18, 2008, 09:15:34 PM

Given the sun's known density

Ah, so now we know the density of the sun? Good to see you've accepted that my calculations are valid.

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 19, 2008, 06:36:10 AM

In simple terms, the most common usage is as follows:

Proofs require a premise and an objective.

In a mathematical proof, the equations and logic process are used as evidence for the proof.
In a court, pieces of information and things collected are evidence used to prove the premise.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 12:22:45 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 19, 2008, 06:36:10 AM

In simple terms, the most common usage is as follows:

Proofs require a premise and an objective.

In a mathematical proof, the equations and logic process are used as evidence for the proof.
In a court, pieces of information and things collected are evidence used to prove the premise.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

Yeah, yeah. You sound like an FEer. "Everybody else is wrong. I have my source. It doesn't matter that you provide contradictory evidence. I can provide evidence to back my claim. Even though your account can explain my evidence, I reject it as conspiracy."

It's simple. You are blinding yourself. Your arguments would be much stronger if you would concede this point. FEers have evidence the earth is flat. That is a fact. There evidence most frequently can be explained by the RE model. So if evidence is the same is proof, then we have actually proven that the earth is both flat and round simultaneously! Your misuse of the English language is causing fallacious thinking.

Quote from: Fletch on August 19, 2008, 04:39:11 AM

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 03:51:05 AM

Quote from: cbreiling on August 19, 2008, 03:46:21 AM

I have evidence a man murdered his wife:

• He took out a million-dollar policy on her the day before her murder.
• He recently bought a pistol, and this pistol was used to commit the murder.
• He had an affair with a hottie.

I have proof the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

So evidence is not the same as proof.

Everyone on this forum has evidence the earth is flat: all you have to do is open your eyes, especially if you live near the beach, or in an Iowa cornfield. Your eyes will tell you the truth: the earth is flat. Now about that proof... 

Umm yes it is the same, evidence and proof are interchangeable in those sentences

I have evidence the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

is not the same sentence.

In a court of law it would have to be considered evidence, not proof - in this case the guy could be a lookalike, or twin, or some other form of deception. Proof in a legal sense refers to a case where there is sufficient evidence to convince a group of people (the jury) beyond a reasonable doubt. That is to say that claiming the guy giving the lecture was the man's twin, when there was no evidence for him having a twin, would be an unreasonable doubt - but that's not to say it is disproved. The distinction is important.

I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

 I skipped through thread and, Robosteve, there are things like libraries and universities out there. If you want some education and proofs then go out and read books, study, go some good labs and do experiments etc. There aren't any hard scientists here who can give all calculations and stuff on plate for you. And even if there were the mathematics and physic formulas can get quite difficult so that anyone here wouldn't understand these. My point is, there is thousands of proofs that earth is round out there, just go out and take a look, don't wait that others take them for you. But for your side of view. How many proofs there are that earth is flat? There is one book and some non scientist people who just visually observe things and speculate about results of their so called experiments. How do you expect to get some smart people in your rows when you don't have anything to show to back up your beliefs...

The distance to the sun and the moon can be calculated simply using radar/perspective from two or more points/infra red heat measurements etc. Universities all over the world frequently conduct experiments to find the distance to the moon. Neither of these two distances should be up for debate. Yes they change marginally from time to time, but only a small amount due to an elliptical orbit.
From these distances the size of each can be found using a pinhole camera at home.

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 12:31:30 PM

I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

If the FE sun is made of the same materials and is at roughly the same temperature as the RE sun, should it not have the same density?

No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.

Furthermore, hypothetically speaking if by some scientific fluke  of rareness a 32 mile diamter sun could sustain nuclear fusion (which it cant) it wouldnt have enough nuclear fuel to generate as much heat as the RE sun does

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 01:56:32 PM

No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.

And why does this mean that the density cannot be the same?

Because the FE sun is smaller thus have a smaller radius thus having lower volume thus having a lower weight (in newtons) thus having lower mass which when plugged into the equation for density yeilds a smaller density then the RE sun.

Because the FE sun is smaller thus have a smaller radius thus having lower volume thus having a lower weight (in newtons) thus having lower mass which when plugged into the equation for density yeilds a smaller density then the RE sun.

I've lost track of what's even being argued about here

Quote from: Robosteve on August 19, 2008, 12:58:28 PM

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 12:31:30 PM

I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

If the FE sun is made of the same materials and is at roughly the same temperature as the RE sun, should it not have the same density?

No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.
Furthermore, hypothetically speaking if by some scientific fluke  of rareness a 32 mile diamter sun could sustain nuclear fusion (which it cant) it wouldnt have enough nuclear fuel to generate as much heat as the RE sun does

also, Monhz, Im still waiting for you to give me a better source on word questions then dictionaries and thesauruses.

Quote from: Matrix on August 19, 2008, 02:34:55 PM

I've lost track of what's even being argued about here

Basically, interstellarsphere is an idiot who doesn't understand the implications of density being a ratio. That's all you need to know.

That seems like a pretty level-headed argument, although for the sake of precision it's a good idea to lay out some ground rules on what we all mean by certain terms.  How about for the purposes of debate we set the following definitions:

Proven - something that is supported by evidence to the point where it can be considered true to beyond a reasonable doubt. A 'reasonable doubt' is a rational (ie - evidence-based) argument against an idea or hypothesis.

Evidence - observed data or theoretical arguments that provide circumstantial support to an idea or hypothesis.

Something can be considered to be 'proven' only if it satisfies rational argument beyond a reasonable doubt. If something cannot be discussed rationally then people should be clear on that point before they start clawing each other's eyes out.

Sound reasonable?

PS - Robo, lol

Quote from: interstellarsphere on August 19, 2008, 02:28:07 PM

Because the FE sun is smaller thus have a smaller radius thus having lower volume thus having a lower weight (in newtons) thus having lower mass which when plugged into the equation for density yeilds a smaller density then the RE sun.

That doesn't explain anything.

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

OK, how about the fact that the fuel for the nuclear fusion of the sun is hydrogen.  Hydrogen is not naturally very dense, therefore you need a great deal of it in order to generate enough of a gravitational field to cause enough inward pressure to raise the density of the hydrogen to a level where sustained fusion would be possible.  I don't know the math to be able to show how much hydrogen mass must be crammed into a 32 mile sphere in order to achieve the density and pressure required to achieve fusion or how long that reaction would remain stable, but I would suspect that "a lot" and "not very long" would be reasonable guesses.

The sun is not powered by nuclear fusion.

The Sun's spectrum contains lines of ionized and neutral metals as well as very weak hydrogen lines. The V (Roman five) in the spectral class indicates that the Sun, like most stars, is a main sequence star. This means that it generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium.

Astronomers spend their entire careers studying stellar mechanics, so you're going to have to come up with something more substantial than "the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion."