Falsification

Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

Newton came up with that looong before I was born.

Newton was also a self-proclaimed alchemist. Not exactly the stablest of sources...

Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

How there is no reason to assume that massless graviton minions exicst, but there is reason to assume that magical "force" of dark energy is pushing the earth upwards. How is the darkenergy more believable than gravitons? Another huge hole in your logic.

The problem with you FE:rs is that you have double standards we always have to provide proof for our claims but you for some reason you do not. Another problem with you is that when we point a hole in your logic you often simply stop responding.

Newton was also a self-proclaimed alchemist. Not exactly the stablest of sources...

That hardly discredits him, considering that his equations can very closely predict the movement of planets, stars, and objects on earth.

Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

Again, you misunderstand the meaning of a falsifiable experiment.  The how and why are irrelevant, the fact is that the apple and the ground met each other as both theories predicted, therefore neither theory produced a negative result and both can be considered equally plausible explanations.  That is why it's so important for a theory to be able to predict something that competing theories can not expalin.

Quote from: avsfan987 on January 18, 2009, 11:38:42 AM

Newton came up with that looong before I was born.

Newton was also a self-proclaimed alchemist. Not exactly the stablest of sources...

Alchemy and chemistry are essentially the thing.  Are you calling modern chemists unstable?  (I'm not sure, but there may be a bad pun in there somewhere)

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 18, 2009, 11:44:32 AM

Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

How there is no reason to assume that massless graviton minions exicst, but there is reason to assume that magical "force" of dark energy is pushing the earth upwards. How is the darkenergy more believable than gravitons? Another huge hole in your logic.

How? When I step off the edge of a chair, I do not feel a bunch of tiny hands pulling me downward. I can see the earth moving upwards to meet me. Gravity is not experienced; the acceleration is obviously on the part of the earth.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 18, 2009, 11:44:32 AM

Newton was also a self-proclaimed alchemist. Not exactly the stablest of sources...

That hardly discredits him, considering that his equations can very closely predict the movement of planets, stars, and objects on earth.

Can the other round earthers please confirm that the Philosopher's Stone is part of RET? This certainly explains a great deal...

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 11:53:13 AM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 18, 2009, 11:44:32 AM

Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

How there is no reason to assume that massless graviton minions exicst, but there is reason to assume that magical "force" of dark energy is pushing the earth upwards. How is the darkenergy more believable than gravitons? Another huge hole in your logic.

How? When I step off the edge of a chair, I do not feel a bunch of tiny hands pulling me downward. I can see the earth moving upwards to meet me. Gravity is not experienced; the acceleration is obviously on the part of the earth.

You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.


Edit. If gravitons exicst they would be so tiny that you would not be able to feel effect of individual gravitons. Gravitons also exist in the FE since celestial objects have gravitational pull in the FE theory so you can't hide behind that fact without also debunking part of the FE theory.

Quote from: avsfan987 on January 18, 2009, 11:53:22 AM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 18, 2009, 11:44:32 AM

Newton was also a self-proclaimed alchemist. Not exactly the stablest of sources...

That hardly discredits him, considering that his equations can very closely predict the movement of planets, stars, and objects on earth.

Can the other round earthers please confirm that the Philosopher's Stone is part of RET? This certainly explains a great deal...

How could a magical stone be somehow be related to earth being flat or round?

You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.

I am not well-versed in RE mythology, but I suppose it would vary immensely depending on the theory of gravity to which you prescribe. Perhaps the friction generated by the countless gravitons enveloping and rubbing against one's body would create a pleasant warmth as you floated to the ground...or maybe the warping of space-time caused by existence itself would allow you to briefly see into the future. I'll leave this speculation to your theologians/"scientists".

As the earth is flat and gravity does not exist, it is irrelevant.

How could a magical stone be somehow be related to earth being flat or round?

Don't ask me. Your prophet Newton was the "expert".

As the earth is flat and gravity does not exist, it is irrelevant.

Well this proves it, it looks like there is life somewhere else in the universe. It seems this flat planet they live on is also called "Earth".

This must be true, because the Earth I live on is round. How far away is this flat planet you live on?

As the earth is flat and gravity does not exist, it is irrelevant.

Non sequitur.  The earth being flat does not automatically mean that gravity (or gravitation) does not exist.  Some FE models do create their own gravitational fields (Username's in particular).

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:08:57 PM

You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.

I am not well-versed in RE mythology, but I suppose it would vary immensely depending on the theory of gravity to which you prescribe. Perhaps the friction generated by the countless gravitons enveloping and rubbing against one's body would create a pleasant warmth as you floated to the ground...or maybe the warping of space-time caused by existence itself would allow you to briefly see into the future. "

In other words you can't name a single thing that you would surely feel different if were gravity pulling you down instead of earths acceleration so you have still failed to close those huge holes in your logic.

I'll leave this speculation to your theologians/"scientists

Are you asking us to provide proof for your claims?

As the earth is flat and gravity does not exist, it is irrelevant.

You can not use that as an argument if we are debating about the fact if earth is flat or round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

With saying that you are also claiming that some of the RE models are incorrect.

Don't ask me. Your prophet Newton was the "expert". Roll Eyes

It was you who claimed that philosophers stone had something to do with RE.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 11:53:13 AM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 18, 2009, 11:44:32 AM

Once again, there is no reason to assume that your magical "force" is pulling the apple downwards with its massless graviton minions. The earth simply accelerates upwards to meet the apple. This can be observed with the naked eye.

How there is no reason to assume that massless graviton minions exicst, but there is reason to assume that magical "force" of dark energy is pushing the earth upwards. How is the darkenergy more believable than gravitons? Another huge hole in your logic.

How? When I step off the edge of a chair, I do not feel a bunch of tiny hands pulling me downward. I can see the earth moving upwards to meet me. Gravity is not experienced; the acceleration is obviously on the part of the earth.

Cheryl if I was standing at the base of a ladder and you  stepped off the top of the ladder from your perspective you might see the Earth rushing up to meet you, from mine however I would see you rushing towards me (and the ground) as if being pulled towards it. It is just a matter of perspective . That said this example does not meet the criteria for being falsifiable since regardless of the merits of the explanation in RET and FET both models can predict what happens when you step off a ladder or chair or whatever with total accuracy. For it to be falsifiable it needs to be something which only one model can explain (ie the models predict different things will occur). For example if we measured the distance between a number of points on the Earth there is a way to determine geometrically whether those points can be plotted on a plane or a sphere. This experiment would test the theory since the results on a Flat Earth (that the points can be plotted on a plane) would be different than on a Round Earth (the result cannot be plotted on a plane but only on a sphere. There I've provided a way to falsify both models.

An annoyed
Cinlef

In other words you can't name a single thing that you would feel different if were gravity pulling you down instead of earths acceleration so you have still failed to close those huge holes in your logic.

My logic? I was playing devil's advocate for RET. Far too difficult.

Are you asking us to provide proof for your claims?

Are you seriously asking me this after what you just asked me to do?

You can not use that as an argument if we are debating about the fact if earth is flat or round.

That was not my argument, that was my conclusion.

It was you who claimed that philosophers stone had something to do with RE.

If you take Newton's theories of gravity at face value, why not his theories of the occult?

You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.

I surely don't feel my own weight when I'm free-falling. Where is gravity now?

Neither there is any evidence that earth is accelerating upwards. If you jump off a chair from an outside observer it looks like you are accelerating towards earth so with your logic, you jumping of a chair can be used as a proof that earth has gravity and it is not accelerating upwards.

How do you know that you are accelerating downward in your frame of reference?

Earth accelerating upwards is just as unobservable and the unfalsifiable if your only source of information is that test.

So is downward acceleration. You basically can't tell the difference.

Step 1: Clear a space in the room.
Step 2: Pick up an apple
Step 3: Drop the apple

Does the apple accelerate towards the floor or does the floor accelerate towards the apple ?

Free-falling objects don't accelerate. In fact, according to General Relativity, free-fall is an inertial motion. Therefore, the floor accelerates up to meet the apple.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:49:35 PM

In other words you can't name a single thing that you would feel different if were gravity pulling you down instead of earths acceleration so you have still failed to close those huge holes in your logic.

My logic? I was playing devil's advocate for RET. Far too difficult.

You have claimed that you can feel the difference between gravity pulling you downward and earth accelerating upward. Yet you have failed to tell us what that difference is. There is the big hole in your logic.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:49:35 PM

Are you asking us to provide proof for your claims?

Are you seriously asking me this after what you just asked me to do?

What did I just asked you to do? Explain that huge hole in your logic?
If you decide to end this discussion at least answer this.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:49:35 PM

You can not use that as an argument if we are debating about the fact if earth is flat or round.

That was not my argument, that was my conclusion.

Very well so that does not make the existence of gravity irrelevant then at least in this discussion.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:49:35 PM

It was you who claimed that philosophers stone had something to do with RE.

If you take Newton's theories of gravity at face value, why not his theories of the occult?

RE is not Newtons theory.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:49:35 PM

It was you who claimed that philosophers stone had something to do with RE.

If you take Newton's theories of gravity at face value, why not his theories of the occult?

But Newton's theories of gravity are not taken at face value.  They have been rigorously examined and tested for hundreds of years.  And guess what?  Although his predictions hold up for most common situations, they have been proven not to work in other situations.

You have claimed that you can feel the difference between gravity pulling you downward and earth accelerating upward. Yet you have failed to tell us what that difference is. There is the big hole in your logic.

I made no such claim.

What did I just asked you to do? Explain that huge hole in your logic?
If you decide to end this discussion at least answer this.

You asked me to tell you what the effects of gravity would feel like. How am I supposed to know that?

Very well so that does not make the existence of gravity irrelevant then at least in this discussion.

This discussion is irrelevant. You refuse to admit defeat over the mountains of evidence presented against you. You are just trolling now.

RE is not Newtons theory.

He is certainly a major prophet of your religion.

But Newton's theories of gravity are not taken at face value.  They have been rigorously examined and tested for hundreds of years.  And guess what?  Although his predictions hold up for most common situations, they have been proven not to work in other situations.

So you admit he was a crock?

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:08:57 PM

You don't feel your own weight? How would you be feeling different if it were gravity pulling you down instead of acceleration of earth?
If you fail to answer this question it is again another victory for RE.

I surely don't feel my own weight when I'm free-falling. Where is gravity now?

During free-fall you have mass but you don't weight anything.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 11:20:55 AM

Neither there is any evidence that earth is accelerating upwards. If you jump off a chair from an outside observer it looks like you are accelerating towards earth so with your logic, you jumping of a chair can be used as a proof that earth has gravity and it is not accelerating upwards.

How do you know that you are accelerating downward in your frame of reference?

I don't and that has been the whole point of this argument. There is no way to tell if gravity is pulling you downward or if earth is accelerating by jumping of a chair.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 11:20:55 AM

Earth accelerating upwards is just as unobservable and the unfalsifiable if your only source of information is that test.

So is downward acceleration. You basically can't tell the difference.

see before

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 11:23:55 AM

Step 1: Clear a space in the room.
Step 2: Pick up an apple
Step 3: Drop the apple

Does the apple accelerate towards the floor or does the floor accelerate towards the apple ?

Free-falling objects don't accelerate. In fact, according to General Relativity, free-fall is an inertial motion. Therefore, the floor accelerates up to meet the apple.

To observer it seems like the apple is accelerating towards the floor.

He is certainly a major prophet of your religion.

Newton is a prophet of Christianity?

Wow, the more you type, the more stupid we all realize you are.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 18, 2009, 01:13:57 PM

He is certainly a major prophet of your religion.

Newton is a prophet of Christianity?

Wow, the more you type, the more stupid we all realize you are.

It is clear that your faith in RET is stronger than any other. For what it's worth, the Bible supports a flat earth.

During free-fall you have mass but you don't weight anything.

Right, so where's gravity?

I don't and that has been the whole point of this argument. There is no way to tell if gravity is pulling you downward or if earth is accelerating by jumping of a chair.

Therefore, your argument, that we are accelerating downward, is meaningless.

Quote

Free-falling objects don't accelerate. In fact, according to General Relativity, free-fall is an inertial motion. Therefore, the floor accelerates up to meet the apple.

To observer it seems like the apple is accelerating towards the floor.

That's because the observer is non-inertial and the apple is inertial.

It is clear that your faith in RET is stronger than any other. For what it's worth, the Bible supports a flat earth.

I don't need faith to believe that the earth is round, there are plenty of pictures and experiments that show the earth is round, and that's plenty enough for me.

Cheryl, Einstein's Equivalence Principle clearly states that in a homogeneous gravitational environment, acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable, therefore your experiment proves nothing.  All you are arguing is arguing a moot point (which is pretty much the definition of a moot point, so whatever).

Besides, this argument has been done to death in other threads.  Why can't we move on to an experiment that is falsifiable?

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 01:07:45 PM

You have claimed that you can feel the difference between gravity pulling you downward and earth accelerating upward. Yet you have failed to tell us what that difference is. There is the big hole in your logic.

I made no such claim.

Then how can you tell if you are pulled down by gravity or if earth is accelerated upward by dark energy if you can't feel the difference?

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 01:07:45 PM

What did I just asked you to do? Explain that huge hole in your logic?
If you decide to end this discussion at least answer this.

You asked me to tell you what the effects of gravity would feel like. How am I supposed to know that?

I am sorry I misunderstood you.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 01:07:45 PM

Very well so that does not make the existence of gravity irrelevant then at least in this discussion.

This discussion is irrelevant. You refuse to admit defeat over the mountains of evidence presented against you. You are just trolling now.

What mountain of evidence? You haven't presented any. There is still a big hole in your logic. You have claimed that you know that earth is accelerating upwards by jumping of a chair. Yet you have also claimed that you can't tell the difference if is actually gravity pulling you you downwards. That seems like pretty big hole in logic and victory for RE to me.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 01:07:45 PM

RE is not Newtons theory.

He is certainly a major prophet of your religion.

Wery well

Cheryl, Einstein's Equivalence Principle clearly states that in a homogeneous gravitational environment, acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable, therefore your experiment proves nothing.  All you are arguing is arguing a moot point (which is pretty much the definition of a moot point, so whatever).

It was an effective thread derail by 'cheryl' though. Too bad no FEr wanted to answer the question which was actually asked.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 01:18:24 PM

I don't and that has been the whole point of this argument. There is no way to tell if gravity is pulling you downward or if earth is accelerating by jumping of a chair.

Therefore, your argument, that we are accelerating downward, is meaningless.

I have not claimed that. I have only claimed that you can't tell the difference between the two by jumping of a chair. Do you agree with me on that?

I am not well-versed in RE mythology, but I suppose it would vary immensely depending on the theory of gravity to which you prescribe. Perhaps the friction generated by the countless gravitons enveloping and rubbing against one's body would create a pleasant warmth as you floated to the ground...or maybe the warping of space-time caused by existence itself would allow you to briefly see into the future. I'll leave this speculation to your theologians/"scientists".

Now that's just silly. None of the other fundamental forces spontaneously generate friction, so why are you suggesting that gravity would? Nothing in General relativity suggests that you can see into the future in gravitational fields, so why would you be able to?

But as I've said, gravity/acceleration seems to be a sore point here. All we want is something that the two models give differing results for.

I have not claimed that. I have only claimed that you can't tell the difference between the two by jumping of a chair. Do you agree with me on that?

Yes.

Now, do you agree that since free-fall is an inertial motion, the apple is in fact not accelerating, but the observer is (due to the Earth's acceleration)?

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 12:10:33 AM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 17, 2009, 08:55:53 PM

Step 1: Clear a space in the room.
Step 2: Place a chair in the center of this space.
Step 3: Climb up and stand on the seat of the chair.
Step 4: Walk off the edge.

FET predicts that the earth will accelerate upwards to meet you. Try these easy steps at home to verify the results for yourself.

You can not tell from that test that is earth accelerating upward or is gravity pulling you downward. I could just as well say that giant invicible toothferries are pulling me down and that theory would have just as much evidence that earth accelerating upwards has.

Cheryl directly observed that the earth was accelerating upwards. She did not observe that tiny graviton particles were pulling her down towards the surface.

I'm afraid that RE gravity is the "invisible toothfairy" in the scenario.

Cheryl and Tom give it up. This has been discussed to death many, many times.

Evidence is only good if it DISTINGUISHES between models. As you sate: Acceleration would be indistinguishable from gravity. So by your very own statements this is pointless as evidecne. It is actually a Red Herring arguemnt, and is a logical fallacy. Rowbotham directly admonished using logical fallacies to support an argument, so you are in direct violation of Rowbotham's method and therefore the Zetetic Method, of which you claim to be.

TO claim to use the Zetetic Method and to violate it is to paint yourself as a Hypocrite. This does not help your positions nor does it help those who hold similar views to you. All you are doing by using these: Look out your window" and "jump off a chair" experiments is to weaken the position of the Flat Earthers.

I for one would much prefer to discuss this with rational people that can martial at least a reasonable argument for their position. As someone who follows the Scientific method, I am always willing to consider that I might be wrong, but when you use these types of arguments, it really only confirms to me that the is absolutely no rational reason to accept a Flat Earth.

Isd that what you want? to Undermine acceptance of a Flat Earth? To bring down this site?

Because the way you are going about these arguments is probably one of the most efficient ways of doing so. Using illogical arguments to support FET only attracts people who are unable to analyse or form a logical argument. If you don't get people who can use logical arguments, then no one will be able to argue logically for a Flat Earth. This only mean that when you go, there will be no one who can keep the idea of a Flat Earth alive, and people will then only have RET and no other options.

Is this what you want? Because that is the way you are going with these kinds of arguments.

Quote from: jargo on January 18, 2009, 01:35:50 PM

I have not claimed that. I have only claimed that you can't tell the difference between the two by jumping of a chair. Do you agree with me on that?

Yes.

Now, do you agree that since free-fall is an inertial motion, the apple is in fact not accelerating, but the observer is (due to the Earth's acceleration)?

I could not find any proper explanation for that strange concept of inertial motion so I am just going to say that if the observer would also be accelerating in RE-model then I agree with you. If not then no unless you can provide me some proof that earth is actually accelerating upwards.