Here's The Thing About Dark Energy and Gravity...

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2009, 11:56:31 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 10, 2009, 11:36:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2009, 10:43:53 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 10, 2009, 09:45:57 PM

I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.

No he didn't.

Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.

Cavendish never measured the Earth's gravity.  Try doing some research before making such outrageous claims.  In fact, Cavendish's result purported to show the density of the Earth, but it was assuming that the Earth generates gravity in the first place.  Oooh, that bias!

I never said Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. Attacking a strawman is another poor debating technique.

Cavendish showed that mass from the Earth mutually exerted 'gravity' on another mass from the Earth, simply, elegantly, and for the time accurately. He made absolutely no assumption about the Earth generating 'gravity' in the first place in that famous experiment.

I wasn't attacking a strawman.  If I misunderstood what you were saying I apologize, but it looks an awful lot like you say Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity.  He didn't, nor did he measure the Earth's mass, so one way or another you were incorrect in what you stated.

His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 11, 2009, 12:11:44 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2009, 11:56:31 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 10, 2009, 11:36:24 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 10, 2009, 10:43:53 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 10, 2009, 09:45:57 PM

I see you've been told many times. Cavendish proved that Earth's mass generates 'gravity' and measured it very precisely for the time.

No he didn't.

Again, you're using that poor debate technique. Just denying the evidence or the conclusion fails you.

Cavendish never measured the Earth's gravity.  Try doing some research before making such outrageous claims.  In fact, Cavendish's result purported to show the density of the Earth, but it was assuming that the Earth generates gravity in the first place.  Oooh, that bias!

I never said Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity. Attacking a strawman is another poor debating technique.

Cavendish showed that mass from the Earth mutually exerted 'gravity' on another mass from the Earth, simply, elegantly, and for the time accurately. He made absolutely no assumption about the Earth generating 'gravity' in the first place in that famous experiment.

I wasn't attacking a strawman.  If I misunderstood what you were saying I apologize, but it looks an awful lot like you say Cavendish measured the Earth's gravity.  He didn't, nor did he measure the Earth's mass, so one way or another you were incorrect in what you stated.

His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".

I'm sorry, but I have to challenge you... Cavendish never made any assumption of the sort in the experiment. He simply showed the attraction and measured it. He made the conclusion, not assumption, that 'gravity' as seen in the Heavens, as seen in falling objects on Earth, as seen in the rising of the tides, and so forth, could be applied to his results with a simplicity of a genius.

His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.

So wouldn't that, bare minimum, put both theories on equal footing with regards to this specific issue, i.e. FE vs. RE concepts of Earthly gravitational pulls and its causes?

What might tip that balance is that the FE model does actually have the idea of a gravitational pull in its own model as well, just claiming it shouldn't really influence Earth because, since we don't currently have the means to detect whatever might cause this gravitational pull, it couldn't possibly exist here.

Keeping that in mind, shouldn't 'cold light' and 'Dark Energy' and 'gravitons' also be considered null and void? It seems to be the RE theory's undetected atomic or sub-atomic cause for a pull towards something, plus at least two other hypothetical models, and it also raises more questions about FE's own version of gravity like, again, the specifics as to why certain celestial bodies would generate gravity, or have gravitons, but Earth wouldn't.

If your guess is that they burn up in the atmosphere upon re-entry, you'd be suggesting that 1) a gravitational pull is somehow caused by matter, and matter large enough to generate heat from friction upon atmospheric re-entry, and 2) that gravitons, and so a gravitational pull, aren't generated by the celestial bodies themselves, and so should be present everywhere else in the universe, although God knows where they would be pulling.

Unless you're saying that the stars and moon would somehow generate or emit these particles, and they would just fail to reach the Earth, in which case I repeat; why not Earth? The idea that they burn up in the atmosphere would only be remotely viable if the assumption is that they would have to come from an outside source.

So the leap made here is that either the Earth couldn't just generate its own gravitons, or that gravitons are something found throughout the universe, that the moon and stars have absolutely nothing to do with them, so being pulled towards these objects might be pure coincidence. The tides might cast some doubt on that theory, since having water levels shift according to lunar cycles would seem to be a fairly colossal coincidence.

As for the former, that Earth is the exception to the 'Graviton' rule... why? Which of the experiments carried out by Flat Earth supporters proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a gravitational pull could not possibly influence the Earth, but was still viable for the other celestial bodies?

I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".

No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did.  It's a popular misconception.

Quote

His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.

I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists.  I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do).  These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc).  They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.

The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation.  I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public.  The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.

And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment.  Here's an example.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 11, 2009, 12:40:55 AM

I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".

No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did.  It's a popular misconception.

Quote from: Antaeus on March 11, 2009, 05:52:17 AM

Quote

His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.

I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists.  I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do).  These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc).  They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.

The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation.  I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public.  The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.

And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment.  Here's an example.

There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.

Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.

It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.

There is a difference.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 11, 2009, 12:40:55 AM

I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".

No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did.  It's a popular misconception.

Quote from: Antaeus on March 11, 2009, 05:52:17 AM

Quote

His assumption was that gravity was responsible for the apparent attraction between masses.  I know you'll argue the point but I think that was a leap of faith.

Isn't that exactly what Dark Energy is? And the spotlight sun and moon? And the Shadow Object? Maybe I misread our last exchange on the matter, but you yourself seemed to say that at least the first one was a 'it's probably because of...' placeholder.

I don't deny that all of these things are theoretical, and in fact I don't claim to know one way or another, for example, if the Shadow Object exists.  I also don't think the sun and moon are literally spotlights (I think they only act as spotlights due to the limits imposed by the atmosphere) or that the moon radiates "cold light" (I feel it just reflects the light of the sun, as you do).  These types of things are merely the best way we have of explaining the phenomena we observe (eclipses, day and night, gravitation, etc).  They may well be replaced by better theories later on, as has happened repeatedly in the past.

The Cavendish Experiment on the other hand purports to prove the existence of gravity; this result is accepted by modern scientists without reservation.  I just think the notion that something else might be influencing those weights has been completely overlooked by the general scientific community in favor of the bigger picture from their point of view, which is that their theories need all the support they can get if they are to be accepted by the general public.  The scientific community is not immune to the workings of politics.

And it's not only FE theorists who have reservations about the Cavendish Experiment.  Here's an example.

Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.

I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.

My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.

For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.

Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'

There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.

Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.

It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.

There is a difference.

Well, scientifically all theories start with a guess.  That's what a hypothesis is.  But as a zetetic I tend to reject what I can't see for my own eyes without further evidence.  Thus, I only accept the existence of the Shadow Object because it's the best explanation I've seen produced thus far; that doesn't mean I give any real weight to it.  If it's ever disproven, or a better, more accurate theory takes its place, I will accept that without reservation.  But that doesn't mean I can't speculate freely about its existence and properties.  That's what this forum is all about.

Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.

I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.

My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.

For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.

Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'

The thing is that if you can accept that it might be flawed in any way, you can argue that it may be flawed in every way.  Obviously something is causing the apparent attraction between the masses.  But there's no concrete evidence that that something is the same force that causes the sun to form in the shape of a ball, or Mercury to orbit the sun.  That's where the leap of faith comes in; over the past several centuries scientists have leaned toward the theory that everything in the universe exhibits the same basic properties, so Cavendish and heavenly bodies must be connected.  I feel this is short-sighted.  Why completely discount the possibility that the Earth is just different?  It's inherently every bit as irrational to assume it's not different from the other bodies in the observable universe as it is to assume it is.

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 01:12:37 PM

There's making a theory up and guessing what causes an effect. Then there's making a theory that encompasses past experimental results and proven theories. When a theory is put forward it stands on the shoulder of others.

Guessing about a theory is not the same as making an informed choice about one.

It's like computer modelling. We are guessing the answer to real life from equations of state and solver techniques.

There is a difference.

Well, scientifically all theories start with a guess.  That's what a hypothesis is.  But as a zetetic I tend to reject what I can't see for my own eyes without further evidence.  Thus, I only accept the existence of the Shadow Object because it's the best explanation I've seen produced thus far; that doesn't mean I give any real weight to it.  If it's ever disproven, or a better, more accurate theory takes its place, I will accept that without reservation.  But that doesn't mean I can't speculate freely about its existence and properties.  That's what this forum is all about.

Quote from: Antaeus on March 11, 2009, 01:26:03 PM

Fair enough, but typically theories have a reason for existing, some observation that casts doubt on a current theory, but also directly supports the theory you form to replace it. Otherwise you're pretty much grasping at straws, only this form results in one inevitably clinging jealously to a single straw and announcing that it is the finest of all the other straws, because it's their straw. While the article certainly would act to disprove the current theory as to the cause of gravity, (as you said, theories are meant to eventually be tossed aside; the reactions of the future head of Cavendish Laboratory do sound childish, as they're depicted, at least,) I can't find anything that states that any other celestial body would be the exception and possess a gravitational pull, for whatever reason. His argument seems to be that the current theory as to why an object draws in other objects is fundamentally flawed, not that the pull itself doesn't exist.

I say 'I can't find' because I fully admit that I needed to read through it at about a quarter of my usual speed to absorb it properly, and there's always the possibility I missed the appropriate passage anyway. Unfortunately, science isn't my background of choice, so I'm admittedly a layman trying to wrap my head around the theories provided. It's mostly the fact that I'm a Psych major and Political Sciences minor that makes the idea of a massive conspiracy more than a little hard to believe, and studies in Philosophy and Rationality minor help me at least hold my own in the terms of analyzing and breaking down a provided argument.

My primary trip-up with the FE theory is that they use the concept of a gravitational pull at all, and an even more vague version at that. This isn't helped by the fact that the way they explain why one can have gravity and the other cannot is that, again, 'Earth is Special,' (still quoted from the FAQ,) which almost looks like free license to insist that, any time one of the 'rules' look to be in danger of contradicting the Flat Earth theory, Earth is just the exception, and so the argument is completely invalid.

For example, to my 'wouldn't gravitons have to be matter of sufficient size to generate friction if they were to burn up in the atmosphere,' the answer could be 'Gravitons Are Special.' Since it's a theoretical discussion, the other side couldn't say, 'No They're Not,' because then the first side would just say 'Prove It,' and then sit back happily, even if they themselves couldn't prove that the Earth/Gravitons were special.

Still, I have to admit I'm slightly relieved that you don't believe in the 'cold light' theory. Some of the ideas seem so far beyond the bounds of any conventional science, it would be virtually impossible to debate them because there's little frame of reference to rely upon. Out of curiosity, specifically which person, or which group of people, do the answers in the FAQ reflect? I notice that a few times I've made points, based on stuff in the FAQ everyone wants newcomers to read, the answer is, 'well, I don't really believe that stuff.'

The thing is that if you can accept that it might be flawed in any way, you can argue that it may be flawed in every way.  Obviously something is causing the apparent attraction between the masses.  But there's no concrete evidence that that something is the same force that causes the sun to form in the shape of a ball, or Mercury to orbit the sun.  That's where the leap of faith comes in; over the past several centuries scientists have leaned toward the theory that everything in the universe exhibits the same basic properties, so Cavendish and heavenly bodies must be connected.  I feel this is short-sighted.  Why completely discount the possibility that the Earth is just different?  It's inherently every bit as irrational to assume it's not different from the other bodies in the observable universe as it is to assume it is.

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:49:29 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

The orbits of the heavenly bodies.

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:50:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:49:29 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

The orbits of the heavenly bodies.

Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.

So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?

I would argue that this goes beyond 'seeing is believing'. I have never seen a polar bear yet I believe they exist and I suspect that most people would agree with me. So am I insane? Probably, but not because I believe Polar bears exist, I have seen many pictures, many zoos claim to have them and presumably those zoos have many visitors. Not to mention there is a considerable amount of data on polar bears. Actually I never realized quite how much; I just did a quick literature search to see what is out there. I may know someone who has seen one for real, or at least a hair dyed Grizzly bear, I can't say I've asked. So on the balance of probability I decide that although I have not seen a polar bear they probably exist. This is a belief, one I assign a high degree of probability to.

What about the shape of the Earth then. Well like Polar Bears i've not seen the whole Earth but also like Polar bears I have seen many pictures. So what do I see. I see the sky as blue, fairly uniformly. If the sun was close compared to the dimensions of the atmosphere then it should not be such a uniform colour. Also the size of the sun does not change throughout the day again implying it is far compared to any relative movement between me and the sun. Trivially from eclipses the sun is further than the moon and occupies the same solid angle in the sky. I would say I have happy that the distance to the sun is large compared to the day to day relative movements of the Earth without any precise scientific data. If the sun is far from the Earth then at night the Sun has to pass over the horizon, although obviously this could be round the back of a flat Earth. Though having flown for 12 hours on a plane and had it be lunch the entire time this view becomes less sustainable. From my own personal experience with no secondary evidence I would say that the inhabited surface is 3D. Though admittedly I would say I do not have enough personal experience to say that its spherical.

Theres a wealth of scientific data:
Spectral studies of the sun - Nuclear Fusion
Magnetic Poles - Souther Ocean - magnetic navigation in the southern hemisphere, while possible would not be the same
Field Generation - ? New physics required magnetohydrodynamics gives wrong answers.
Neutrinos - My personal favorite as the Earth is transparent to them.
All satellite based astrophysics and climate physics - Where does their data come from
Winds - Why do trade winds all go West to East?
Solar Wind - If the sun is so close why is there a large time delay between a solar flare being observed and the particles reaching the Earth.
Causal (not strictly) contact - Airliners between South America and Australia are not supersonic.
Gravitational - A disc has a different shaped field to a sphere, if one were to fall we would not quite fall vertically compared to the ground, don't know how sensitive you would have to be for this
High energy Cosmic Rays - One would not find life close to any body giving these off.

I would say that without inducing a conspiracy including much of the modern scientific community then the geometry of the world is now very well constrained. Without every having taken a photo of the Earth. I agree that it is not irrational to start with a hypothesis and then try to falsify it. What I think is irrational is to assume that centuries worth of data is part of a conspiracy just because you don't like the solution. If one is to assume that the Earth is a sphere with a mass of the same type as all other bodies then gravitation describes the situation well. All things considered I fundamentally disagree with your thesis you are not drawing a conclusion from data. You are making a decision and making data fit it or declaring things unique or conspiracies as necessary.

Finally the graviton is meaningless for this debate. The graviton is a hypothetical spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force. Its range would be infinite and it couples to the gravitational mass of a body. However while it may ultimately be responsible for gravitation it is not also important to note that for this discussion it is not important as we are working in the very low energy/mass regime. That was an addendum as there have been 9 new posts while I was ranting.

Finally the graviton is meaningless for this debate. The graviton is a hypothetical spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force. Its range would be infinite and it couples to the gravitational mass of a body. However while it may ultimately be responsible for gravitation it is not also important to note that for this discussion it is not important as we are working in the very low energy/mass regime. That was an addendum as there have been 9 new posts while I was ranting.

You're right which is why I'm trying to establish what truth roundysomething means by a graviton. He say's it can interact with the atmosphere and disintegrate

Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.

Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.

I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means

Be funny if we get hustled. Because I have to say not sure I can't go far past the basics on this one.

Be funny if we get hustled. Because I have to say not sure I can't go far past the basics on this one.

I like a challenge

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 11, 2009, 12:40:55 AM

I was precise. I said that he showed that Earth's mass produced 'gravity'. He measured "G", not "g".

No, he didn't, although I guess I can't fault you for thinking he did.  It's a popular misconception.

False charity is yet another poor debating technique. Just how many of these faulty tools do you have in your toolbox?

The Cavendish experiment, done in 1797 ? 1798 by Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory,[1] and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant and the mass of the Earth.[2][3]

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:50:42 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:50:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:49:29 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

The orbits of the heavenly bodies.

Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.

So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?

It's the name I gave to the substance causing the heavenly bodies to orbit like they do.  I feel like we're going around in circles.

Quote from: bowler on March 11, 2009, 04:11:46 PM

Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.

I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means

I know exactly what I mean when I talk about gravitons, and as pointed out, it's not the same as what you're talking about.

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:57:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:50:42 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:50:13 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:49:29 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:47:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:38:09 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:35:55 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 11, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 03:06:20 PM

There's making a guess and then there's making an informed judgement. The two are different. An hypothesis is not the same as a guess. It uses reasoned judgement.

We do use reasoned judgment.  We're certainly not blindly guessing.

Quote

Humanity believed the earth to be flat hundreds of years ago (that was an hypothesis since the earth was percieved to be flat in the local point of view).

Well, technically you have to go back thousands of years before you come to humanity in general believing the Earth to be flat.

Quote

Making something up without knowing the previous theories contains a great deal of scientific risk. Something that a good scientists knows how to assess.

For instance your guess about gravitons disintegrating in the atmosphere makes no sense based on our current scientific understanding of force mediating particles.

Considering that I'm proposing an entirely different kind of particle, I don't see how. 

Ok so what is this graviton you speak of?

How big is it?

We've never observed it, only its affects, so these questions remain unanswered.   

So you're making something up without any reasoned judgement to it's existance?

No...

Ok so what's your reasoned judgement to it's existance?

The orbits of the heavenly bodies.

Ok I can see this is going to take a long time.

So how did you come to the conclusion of a graviton from the orbits of the heavenly bodies?

It's the name I gave to the substance causing the heavenly bodies to orbit like they do.  I feel like we're going around in circles.

Quote from: MotherNature on March 11, 2009, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: bowler on March 11, 2009, 04:11:46 PM

Why would it do that? We're getting into pretty hardcore QFT here, potentially. Maybe optimistic.

I know which is why I don't think he knows what a graviton in the theoretical sense means

I know exactly what I mean when I talk about gravitons, and as pointed out, it's not the same as what you're talking about.

I don't think you realise.

I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?

I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.

In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.

Well then what does it interact with? How does it shower in the atmosphere? What different interactions are we expecting different energies at? Im an experimentalist give me something to look for. I suspect you will need to formalize your graviton field. Like so many I suspect you main problem will be to have a strongly interacting particle (showering in the atmosphere) while maintaining current observations and the weakness of the gravitational field.

I don't think you realise.

I'm trying to establish why you think this particle exists. What is the reasoning based on your deduction?

I've explained this already.

I'm trying to ascertain whether you've just made up 'your' version of the graviton.

Of course I did, to explain the apparent attraction of the heavenly bodies.

In simpler terms, I want to know where it comes from and why you think it comes from there. I also want to know what you think it does.

Well, I would imagine it's a direct result of the origin of the universe, but I can't say for sure.  I think it causes objects to warp spacetime around them to a degree relative to the object's mass.

Here's the thing. Scientists today don't even know what dark energy is. It's a very curious mystery, and it's not even proven to be real, although it's highly implied. The FET for some reason defines dark energy with no basis for the claim and just sounds stupid to hear.

Here's the thing. Scientists today don't even know what dark energy is. It's a very curious mystery, and it's not even proven to be real, although it's highly implied. The FET for some reason defines dark energy with no basis for the claim and just sounds stupid to hear.

Yes, that is correct.  Scientists today theorize the existence of a type of energy that they have never observed directly, only its effects.  Interesting that this is allowed in RE but I propose something similar in FE (not dark energy, the graviton) and I'm somehow just making shit up.

Dark energy in FET is acknowledgedly something different from dark energy in RET.  I apologize if this is confusing, but I didn't give it its name.  But we do have a basis for theorizing its existence: the upward acceleration of the Earth.  Unless you think that's just magic.

Quote from: The Flood on March 12, 2009, 11:20:39 AM

Here's the thing. Scientists today don't even know what dark energy is. It's a very curious mystery, and it's not even proven to be real, although it's highly implied. The FET for some reason defines dark energy with no basis for the claim and just sounds stupid to hear.

Yes, that is correct.  Scientists today theorize the existence of a type of energy that they have never observed directly, only its effects.  Interesting that this is allowed in RE but I propose something similar in FE (not dark energy, the graviton) and I'm somehow just making shit up.

Dark energy in FET is acknowledgedly something different from dark energy in RET.  I apologize if this is confusing, but I didn't give it its name.  But we do have a basis for theorizing its existence: the upward acceleration of the Earth.  Unless you think that's just magic.

No, I guess I didn't understand that you link the acceleration to dark energy just to give it a name (Which is highly unscientific and a bit silly when you think about it). Also, I don't think it's magic. I seriously doubt that there is a universal force acting upon the Earth alone and nothing else in the universe. I also know that the formation of a flat celestial body is incredibly unlikely, if it is even possible.