Biggest evidence for flat earth

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 11:58:15 AM

And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.

No, because "Hand of God" is not testable, replicable or predictable, which proper scientific theories are. Gravity is entirely testable, replicable and predictable. Its predictions work for all matter that we see everywhere, on earth or for celestial objects. The same can not be said for the comedy accelerator, which picks and chooses what it affects according to no discernable guidelines.

I've tried to get that out of Bishop, but he clammed up.

How can a universal constant be inconsistent?  It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force.  It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me.  It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s² accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it.  It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 11, 2009, 12:32:11 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 11:58:15 AM

And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.

No, because "Hand of God" is not testable, replicable or predictable, which proper scientific theories are. Gravity is entirely testable, replicable and predictable. Its predictions work for all matter that we see everywhere, on earth or for celestial objects. The same can not be said for the comedy accelerator, which picks and chooses what it affects according to no discernable guidelines.

I've tried to get that out of Bishop, but he clammed up.

Quote

How can a universal constant be inconsistent?  It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force.  It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me.  It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s² accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it.  It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.

Who said that the UA was an omnipresent magic like gravity?

Who said that the UA was an omnipresent magic like gravity?

How ironic that it came from this thread too.

Regarding the question:

I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?

A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.

It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).

A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.

With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 01:31:24 PM

Who said that the UA was an omnipresent magic like gravity?

How ironic that it came from this thread too.

Regarding the question:

Quote

I'm sorry, why is the UA a better theory?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2009, 11:30:27 PM

A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.

It's also a little more convincing than the entire fabric of space-time "bending" for some reason (it obviously has nothing to do with mass due to the photon example).

A Universal Constant is more convincing because we already know that things can accelerate, and that a mechanical upwards acceleration can keep things pinned to the earth. The elements for a mechanism for "gravity" is already in place. Something just needs to push the earth upwards. We already know that things can push and accelerate matter (an explosion, for example). We already know that it's physically possible with our current understanding.

With those "other theories" entirely odd and new branches of physics need to be created for anything to be possible. Puller particles? No evidence what-so-ever. Bending of space? Unexplained and ridiculous.

Wait, I have to agree with Tom?

Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.

I can't even begin to fathom how wrong that is.

Ok, pick something up. Anything. Now let go. See how it moves downward at an increasing speed? That's called gravity.

Wait, I have to agree with Tom?

You do if you want to graduate from his accredited FE college.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 01:59:03 PM

Wait, I have to agree with Tom?

You do if you want to graduate from his accredited FE college.

I could just give him some money.

Quote from: markjo on December 11, 2009, 02:46:27 PM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 01:59:03 PM

Wait, I have to agree with Tom?

You do if you want to graduate from his accredited FE college.

I could just give him some money.

He claims that it's not a diploma mill, so you're at least going to have score in the 80th percentile or better on the GRE before he can grant you a diploma.

The GRE isn't necessary for a Bachelor's, unless that's been changed.  I just want a BZS to start with.  

*And I can agree with:

A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.

*

Gravity is not exactly hypothetical puller particles, it's the force of attraction between mass, (although we may see the particles of attraction sometime with the LHC) and your form of gravitation is as inconsistent as it gets...

Gravity is not exactly hypothetical puller particles, it's the force of attraction between mass, (although we may see the particles of attraction sometime with the LHC) and your form of gravitation is as inconsistent as it gets...

So in spherical earth theory, gravity is a force?

Yes, as far as I know.

The GRE isn't necessary for a Bachelor's, unless that's been changed.  I just want a BZS to start with. 

Actually, the GRE is an entrance exam for admission to grad school, roughly equivalent to the SAT.  Apparently, high percentile scores can be used to obtain waivers for a number of credit hours towards a bachelors degree from some schools.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on December 11, 2009, 04:06:33 PM

The GRE isn't necessary for a Bachelor's, unless that's been changed.  I just want a BZS to start with.  

Actually, the GRE is an entrance exam for admission to grad school, roughly equivalent to the SAT.  Apparently, high percentile scores can be used to obtain waivers for a number of credit hours towards a bachelors degree from some schools.

More like the GRE can be used to acquire an entire degree.

More like the GRE can be used to acquire an entire degree.

That would depend on the degree.

The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is generally the standard admissions test for students seeking admission to graduate school. However, the GRE is sometimes also used to assess student's learning at the undergraduate level. There are two types of GRE examinations: general testing and subject (discipline) specific. Credit for these exams can go up to 30 credits. These tests score undergraduate achievement in eight disciplines.

Quote from: Johannes on November 14, 2009, 02:25:49 PM

Newton's "law" of gravitation is false. There is no conclusive proof of general relativity either.

I can't even begin to fathom how wrong that is.

Ok, pick something up. Anything. Now let go. See how it moves downward at an increasing speed? That's called gravity.

While you are right in the sense that newton's law of gravitation is more or less true, your proof falls short(though there is plenty of proof out there that doesn't).  the best way I can explain this is with Einstein's thought experiment.  lets say you are in a room with no windows and no doors.  you stand on the floor without floating off.  are you experiencing the effects of earth's gravity, or are you on a rocket that is accelerating.  in this senario, you can't prove either. 

this is why your proof is insufficient, and why the chair experiment is the same.

It is also a great metaphor for FEers living in a room with no windows refusing to look outside of it and see that there is proof of gravity outside that room.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but umm... Christopher Columbus disregarded that the Earth is flat some 500 years ago, so unless you people want to be under power of some fat ass king and be forced to pray 6 hours a day, you can't say the Earth is flat.

The greeks proved the earth was round long before columbus' failure to circumnavigate the globe.  with all the evidence out there of a spherical earth why would you pick finding another continent?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but umm... Christopher Columbus disregarded that the Earth is flat some 500 years ago, so unless you people want to be under power of some fat ass king and be forced to pray 6 hours a day, you can't say the Earth is flat.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it was already well known that the earth was round in the time of Columbus.  However, Columbus did not agree with the accepted circumference of the RE (witch was pretty close to Eratosthenes's figure).  Not knowing about the Americas, Columbus arbitrarily shortened the distance by several thousand miles in order to make the trip easier to sell to the Queen.

Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[10] In fact, the primitive maritime navigation of the time relied on the stars and the curvature of the spherical Earth. The knowledge that the Earth was spherical was widespread, and the means of calculating its diameter using an astrolabe was known to both scholars and navigators.[11] A spherical Earth had been the general opinion of Ancient Greek science, and this view continued through the Middle Ages (for example, Bede mentions it in The Reckoning of Time). In fact Eratosthenes had measured the diameter of the Earth with good precision in the second century BC.[12] Where Columbus did differ from the generally accepted view of his time is his (incorrect) arguments that assumed a significantly smaller diameter for the Earth, claiming that Asia could be easily reached by sailing west across the Atlantic. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's correct assessment that the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, and dismissed Columbus's claim that the Earth was much smaller, and that Asia was only a few thousand nautical miles to the west of Europe. Columbus's error was put down to his lack of experience in navigation at sea.

A Universal Constant happens to be a little more convincing than hypothetical puller particles riding out of the earth and pulling me towards its surface.

So then how do you account for the inconsistency of that universal constant?

How can a universal constant be inconsistent?  It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force.  It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me.  It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it.  It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth

Wait, I have to agree with Tom?

You wanted to know who said that, I told you.  I said nothing about you having to agree with it.

So in spherical earth theory, gravity is a force?

According to Newton it is, especially since gravity is neither a mass, nor an accleleration.