Gravitation, Relativity and Other Bad Ideas

Scientists prefer theories which comport with Occam's Razor. The simpler and more elegant the theory, the more likely it is to be true. But why do scientists believe this to be the case? For obvious reasons: it is useful.

Currently accepted science is all about Occam's Razor. Elegance is compelling. But is elegance proof? Is it necessarily true that the truth be simple?

As we all know, Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. Dead wrong. Dead wrong? But wasn't it very, very close to being right? Like horseshoes and hand grenades, does close count in physics? Of course it does. Horseshoes and hand grenades are about physics.

But Newton's theory was wrong. How do we reconcile this with the facts, which just, just almost reconcile with the theory? Do we dismiss the theory altogether because it doesn't quite match the facts perfectly?

REers often think in terms of the theory of gravity or relativity when they attack FET. Yet they know well that their own theories are wrong or at least incomplete in describing the true movement of objects. The arguments they tend to make is: RE theory is very good at predicting, for instance, eclipses. True. But no cigar. None of your theories hold up under microscopic scrutiny. Newton is a bit off; Einstein doesn't reconcile quantum physics, etc.

I agree that RE theory, as it presently stands, is much more elegant than FET. But does that make it truer? Again, we are biased toward more elegant theories because they are useful, because they are practical. Our brains deal better with simple theories than they deal with complex ones. I don't understand why we should expect that a human brain is capable of understanding the universe in the first place. Do we think a chimp could understand the universe? Surely not, because their brains aren't big enough. But why should we think our brains are big enough to understand the universe? The universe is probably much too complex for our little mammal brains to grasp. So, in practice, we tend to believe that the simple, elegant theories are true -- because it is useful for us to believe so. Newtonian physics works good enough for most things. We can engineer a lot of technology based upon theories which we know are probably imperfect simplifications of reality.

What is the main refutation of FET? That it is too complex. That too many theories are required to explain things. But don't you see that this is a cultural bias? We like theories that are practical, truth be damned. The RE scientists here have a problem with the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon. Why? Because those theories aren't as simple as, say, a RE and relativity. But we have absolutely no evidence that simple theories are BETTER theories. We prefer them only because they are more useful for our simple brains to deal with.

There is an old, old Jewish expression: "Man thinks, God laughs." The idea is that Man's brain can't comprehend God's creation. RE theorists, with all their confidence, make God laugh an awful lot.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." --Isaac Asimov

We believe the Earth is round, not because that theory is simpler than the theory the Earth is flat, but because the theory that the Earth is round is consistent with the observed data, and the theory that the Earth is flat is inconsistent with observations such as the positions of sunrises and sunsets, lunar eclipses, the existence of a north and a south celestial pole, Coriolis force (as measured by Foucault pendulums at different latitudes), and so on and so forth.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." --Isaac Asimov

We believe the Earth is round, not because that theory is simpler than the theory the Earth is flat, but because the theory that the Earth is round is consistent with the observed data, and the theory that the Earth is flat is inconsistent with observations such as the positions of sunrises and sunsets, lunar eclipses, the existence of a north and a south celestial pole, Coriolis force (as measured by Foucault pendulums at different latitudes), and so on and so forth.

I disagree. For example, the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon are consistent with observation.
 

How do they explain a) the south celestial pole and b) the motion of a Foucault pendulum (in particular how its rate of revolution shows a simple dependence on the angle between the north star and the horizon)?

How do they explain a) the south celestial pole and b) the motion of a Foucault pendulum (in particular how its rate of revolution shows a simple dependence on the angle between the north star and the horizon)?

a) There is no celestial south pole.

b) I suspect that the rate of revolution may be a function of the changing speed of time from north to south. Keep in mind that the speed of time change with southerliness may not be a linear function, so the ROR could have a direct dependence with the slope of this function. I suspect its slope makes 2 sine waves, with a minimum right at the "equator". Or it could be the the ethereal wind. Or it could be explained by Wobbly Earth Theory, though I am not a big proponent of this theory. It is a fascinating phenomenon, just one of the many wonders of the earth!

EDIT: No, I guess it would need to be one inverse sine wave with a minimum at the "equator".

a) There is no celestial south pole.

So how do you explain the appearance of long exposure photographs of the night sky taken south of the equator (like the one I use as my avatar)?

EDIT: No, I guess it would need to be one inverse sine wave with a minimum at the "equator".

Where does this shape come from? Can you derive the inverse sine dependence from flat-Earth theory?

Quote from: Dino on December 25, 2009, 06:19:10 PM

a) There is no celestial south pole.

So how do you explain the appearance of long exposure photographs of the night sky taken south of the equator (like the one I use as my avatar)?

Quote from: Dino on December 25, 2009, 06:19:10 PM

EDIT: No, I guess it would need to be one inverse sine wave with a minimum at the "equator".

Where does this shape come from? Can you derive the inverse sine dependence from flat-Earth theory?

a) I don't really get your point here. The stars spin, both north of the "equator" and south of it.

b) Can I derive the inverse sine dependence from FET? Perhaps you have noticed I don't buy into a lot of the general FET stuff. I don't believe in DE or UA or the ice wall. I'm not sure any of the other FEers on this site believe in my theory that TISITS (Time Is Slower In The South). If I were to derive it, of course I would just back into it based upon Foucalt's Pendulum. This wouldn't really prove anything because you could argue that I simply backed into the equation. I do have a math background, but I don't really have the ambition or energy that say Parsec has for actually working out the math. When I was younger I could do it, but it has been too long for me to get back in the habit of it. The point is that I can make any theory up to explain the phenomenon, and the math could work if one were to work it out. An ethereal wind with an inverse sine equation could easily explain Foucalt's Pendulum without resorting to earth rotation.

a) I don't really get your point here. The stars spin, both north of the "equator" and south of it.

North of the equator, the stars circle about the North Star, which is at the north celestial pole. South of the equator, the stars circle about another point, referred to as the south celestial pole. (This is the point which is the center of all the circles whose arcs appear in the photograph which is my avatar.) Do you accept that this point in the sky exists, and the stars rotate around it as I have described, and as is shown in my avatar? If so, how do you explain its existence?

Quote from: Dino on December 26, 2009, 01:16:43 AM

a) I don't really get your point here. The stars spin, both north of the "equator" and south of it.

North of the equator, the stars circle about the North Star, which is at the north celestial pole. South of the equator, the stars circle about another point, referred to as the south celestial pole. (This is the point which is the center of all the circles whose arcs appear in the photograph which is my avatar.) Do you accept that this point in the sky exists, and the stars rotate around it as I have described, and as is shown in my avatar? If so, how do you explain its existence?

No, the south celestial pole does not exist. See the antarctica thread for my question about why a bunch of countries want to drill for oil on the north pole but not the south "pole".

I'm not sure if you are understanding the distinction between the north/south poles and the north/south celestial poles. The north pole is the point on the Earth's surface which is north of every point on the Earth. The north celestial pole is the point in the sky marked by the north star, about which all the other stars appear to circle, when viewed from locations north of the equator. The south celestial pole is the point in the sky about which all the other stars appear to circle, when viewed from locations south of the equator.

Do you agree that this point in the sky exists? If so, how do you explain its existence? If not, how do you explain pictures such as the one in my avatar?

(Photos of this phenomenon can be made quite easily - instructions may be found here. It's also possible to verify the existence of the south celestial pole by taking several separate photographs of the stars every hour over the course of the night, but the photographs showing star trails are infinitely cooler.)

I'm not sure if you are understanding the distinction between the north/south poles and the north/south celestial poles. The north pole is the point on the Earth's surface which is north of every point on the Earth. The north celestial pole is the point in the sky marked by the north star, about which all the other stars appear to circle, when viewed from locations north of the equator. The south celestial pole is the point in the sky about which all the other stars appear to circle, when viewed from locations south of the equator.

Do you agree that this point in the sky exists? If so, how do you explain its existence? If not, how do you explain pictures such as the one in my avatar?

(Photos of this phenomenon can be made quite easily - instructions may be found here. It's also possible to verify the existence of the south celestial pole by taking several separate photographs of the stars every hour over the course of the night, but the photographs showing star trails are infinitely cooler.)

I have been in both the north and south and have seen the stars circle. The stars circle in the opposite direction in the south. Is this your point?

You are taking a simplistic view of the movement of the stars. The stars move according to a very complicated algorithm. In the north, the visible stars will spin in one direction while in the south the visible stars will spin in another. The problem here, I think, is that atheists assume that the stars are more or less randomly located, whereas in reality God positioned them and moves them according to a very complicated and carefully designed algorithm. There is the APPEARANCE of a celestial south pole - which is I guess what is meant by the term celestial pole -- yes. I agree.

Ok, so you agree with the appearance of the south celestial pole, which appears in the sky to any observer in the southern hemisphere. Do you agree that it also appears identical to all of them, and that it appears to all of them to be directly above the point due south on the horizon?

Game over.

You know, winning the game as a round-Earther is so much less satisfying than winning as a flat-Earther. 

Quote from: skeptical scientist on December 26, 2009, 02:03:35 PM

Quote from: Dino on December 26, 2009, 01:23:13 PM

Game over.

You know, winning the game as a round-Earther is so much less satisfying than winning as a flat-Earther. 

Yeah, I know. So why did you decide to play for the wrong team. Makes me think of the great Cervantes question. Who is crazier? Don Quixote or Sancho Panza? Don Quixote thinks the windmills are giants. But Sancho realizes they are windmills but fights them anyway.

I prefer to only make correct arguments and only rebut incorrect arguments, which saves me from having to say I'm wrong, and is less confusing. I'll happily rebut incorrect arguments used be round-Earthers, and have done so many times, but there are no correct arguments in favor of a flat Earth.

Anyway, dont worry. I just had an idea which might lead to a theory about this whole celestial pole business. Whats the name of the effect when you look at a fan and it gives the illusion of rotating in the opposite direction?

That won't help, because they still spin around the same point, even if we perceive them spinning in the opposite direction from how they actually spin. It's also an artifact of the rate at which our eyes process information (or a movie camera records it), which wouldn't affect long-exposure photographs of star trails, so you could use those to confirm that such an effect is not taking place.

But is time really continuous? I've read some papers by physicists arguing it might move in tiny, discrete intervals. If that were the case, couldnt there be a doppler effect even for a long exposure camera? At least, assuming an extreme case?

The strobe effects comes from seeing the positions at discrete timesteps and not seeing the positions in between the time steps. If time is truly discrete, this won't lead to a strobe effect, because there are no positions in between the discrete time steps. How could there be, with no time between the discrete time steps?

...,Einstein doesn't reconcile quantum physics,...

just throwing in, special relativity and qm work together quite well. only general relativity and qm cause trouble

What if your religion is wrong? Religion is unprovable so you can't use it in science. If there was a machine that did all of this, fine acceptable. But give me a theory of something other than god of how southern poles work.

I disagree. For example, the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon are consistent with observation.
 

Utterly wrong. The theory of bendy light is not consistent with observation without using a non-proven constant (a flat shaped earth's surface) as a reference. There are no observations or experiments that show any evidence of bendy light that do not use the earth's surface as a reference. However, every single test or experiment of the properties of light that do not use the earth's surface as a reference show it travels in a straight line. So the only way you can demonstrate bendy light is to take the flatness of earth as a prerequisite. And the flatness of earth has not been proven. Therefore you cannot use it as a component of proving bendy light. Since every observation of light with known variables under controlled conditions shows it travels straight, then until you can do an experiment with known variables under controlled conditions that shows it bending, straight light remains the superior theory on the grounds that there is more evidence for it.

I used to think Levee was the craziest FEer. Dino is really giving him a run for his money.

I used to think Levee was the craziest FEer. Dino is really giving him a run for his money.

Meh. Dino, like just about every other crazy FEer on these boards, is neither crazy nor an FEer. He just plays one on TV.

I used to think Levee was the craziest FEer. Dino is really giving him a run for his money.

Dino is a genius.

Quote from: onetwothreefour on December 28, 2009, 10:00:03 AM

I used to think Levee was the craziest FEer. Dino is really giving him a run for his money.

Dino is a genius.

Yeah, well you are well known as a Fake Earther and a pedantic liar.

Scientists prefer theories which comport with Occam's Razor. The simpler and more elegant the theory, the more likely it is to be true. But why do scientists believe this to be the case? For obvious reasons: it is useful.

Currently accepted science is all about Occam's Razor. Elegance is compelling. But is elegance proof? Is it necessarily true that the truth be simple?

As we all know, Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. Dead wrong. Dead wrong? But wasn't it very, very close to being right? Like horseshoes and hand grenades, does close count in physics? Of course it does. Horseshoes and hand grenades are about physics.

But Newton's theory was wrong. How do we reconcile this with the facts, which just, just almost reconcile with the theory? Do we dismiss the theory altogether because it doesn't quite match the facts perfectly?

REers often think in terms of the theory of gravity or relativity when they attack FET. Yet they know well that their own theories are wrong or at least incomplete in describing the true movement of objects. The arguments they tend to make is: RE theory is very good at predicting, for instance, eclipses. True. But no cigar. None of your theories hold up under microscopic scrutiny. Newton is a bit off; Einstein doesn't reconcile quantum physics, etc.

I agree that RE theory, as it presently stands, is much more elegant than FET. But does that make it truer? Again, we are biased toward more elegant theories because they are useful, because they are practical. Our brains deal better with simple theories than they deal with complex ones. I don't understand why we should expect that a human brain is capable of understanding the universe in the first place. Do we think a chimp could understand the universe? Surely not, because their brains aren't big enough. But why should we think our brains are big enough to understand the universe? The universe is probably much too complex for our little mammal brains to grasp. So, in practice, we tend to believe that the simple, elegant theories are true -- because it is useful for us to believe so. Newtonian physics works good enough for most things. We can engineer a lot of technology based upon theories which we know are probably imperfect simplifications of reality.

What is the main refutation of FET? That it is too complex. That too many theories are required to explain things. But don't you see that this is a cultural bias? We like theories that are practical, truth be damned. The RE scientists here have a problem with the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon. Why? Because those theories aren't as simple as, say, a RE and relativity. But we have absolutely no evidence that simple theories are BETTER theories. We prefer them only because they are more useful for our simple brains to deal with.

There is an old, old Jewish expression: "Man thinks, God laughs." The idea is that Man's brain can't comprehend God's creation. RE theorists, with all their confidence, make God laugh an awful lot.

WOAH WOAH WOAH... back up. SCIENTISTS don't use occam's razor to prove anything. Accepted, simple theories have more proof than the more complex theories for the same things. Correlation != causation.

Quote from: Dino on December 25, 2009, 01:06:15 AM

Scientists prefer theories which comport with Occam's Razor. The simpler and more elegant the theory, the more likely it is to be true. But why do scientists believe this to be the case? For obvious reasons: it is useful.

Currently accepted science is all about Occam's Razor. Elegance is compelling. But is elegance proof? Is it necessarily true that the truth be simple?

As we all know, Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. Dead wrong. Dead wrong? But wasn't it very, very close to being right? Like horseshoes and hand grenades, does close count in physics? Of course it does. Horseshoes and hand grenades are about physics.

But Newton's theory was wrong. How do we reconcile this with the facts, which just, just almost reconcile with the theory? Do we dismiss the theory altogether because it doesn't quite match the facts perfectly?

REers often think in terms of the theory of gravity or relativity when they attack FET. Yet they know well that their own theories are wrong or at least incomplete in describing the true movement of objects. The arguments they tend to make is: RE theory is very good at predicting, for instance, eclipses. True. But no cigar. None of your theories hold up under microscopic scrutiny. Newton is a bit off; Einstein doesn't reconcile quantum physics, etc.

I agree that RE theory, as it presently stands, is much more elegant than FET. But does that make it truer? Again, we are biased toward more elegant theories because they are useful, because they are practical. Our brains deal better with simple theories than they deal with complex ones. I don't understand why we should expect that a human brain is capable of understanding the universe in the first place. Do we think a chimp could understand the universe? Surely not, because their brains aren't big enough. But why should we think our brains are big enough to understand the universe? The universe is probably much too complex for our little mammal brains to grasp. So, in practice, we tend to believe that the simple, elegant theories are true -- because it is useful for us to believe so. Newtonian physics works good enough for most things. We can engineer a lot of technology based upon theories which we know are probably imperfect simplifications of reality.

What is the main refutation of FET? That it is too complex. That too many theories are required to explain things. But don't you see that this is a cultural bias? We like theories that are practical, truth be damned. The RE scientists here have a problem with the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon. Why? Because those theories aren't as simple as, say, a RE and relativity. But we have absolutely no evidence that simple theories are BETTER theories. We prefer them only because they are more useful for our simple brains to deal with.

There is an old, old Jewish expression: "Man thinks, God laughs." The idea is that Man's brain can't comprehend God's creation. RE theorists, with all their confidence, make God laugh an awful lot.

WOAH WOAH WOAH... back up. SCIENTISTS don't use occam's razor to prove anything. Accepted, simple theories have more proof than the more complex theories for the same things. Correlation != causation.

All I said was that scientists PREFER theories which comport with Occam's razor. That was the whole point of everything I wrote above.

Evidence man. Just cause theories are simple doesn't mean that they follow occam's razor. As said before, correlation != causation.

Evidence man. Just cause theories are simple doesn't mean that they follow occam's razor. As said before, correlation != causation.

Am I misunderstanding Occam's razor? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Does everyone follow rules of thumb? Do most smart people understand that they are only guides? That link just backs me up.

Does everyone follow rules of thumb? Do most smart people understand that they are only guides? That link just backs me up.

You completely miss the gist of my post. Completely.

>_< Why post a message that's only meant to demean me. Do tell your point of your message. I can't read minds.

>_< Why post a message that's only meant to demean me. Do tell your point of your message. I can't read minds.

What I meant in my message, is this:

Scientists prefer theories which comport with Occam's Razor. The simpler and more elegant the theory, the more likely it is to be true. But why do scientists believe this to be the case? For obvious reasons: it is useful.

Currently accepted science is all about Occam's Razor. Elegance is compelling. But is elegance proof? Is it necessarily true that the truth be simple?

As we all know, Newton's theory of gravity was wrong. Dead wrong. Dead wrong? But wasn't it very, very close to being right? Like horseshoes and hand grenades, does close count in physics? Of course it does. Horseshoes and hand grenades are about physics.

But Newton's theory was wrong. How do we reconcile this with the facts, which just, just almost reconcile with the theory? Do we dismiss the theory altogether because it doesn't quite match the facts perfectly?

REers often think in terms of the theory of gravity or relativity when they attack FET. Yet they know well that their own theories are wrong or at least incomplete in describing the true movement of objects. The arguments they tend to make is: RE theory is very good at predicting, for instance, eclipses. True. But no cigar. None of your theories hold up under microscopic scrutiny. Newton is a bit off; Einstein doesn't reconcile quantum physics, etc.

I agree that RE theory, as it presently stands, is much more elegant than FET. But does that make it truer? Again, we are biased toward more elegant theories because they are useful, because they are practical. Our brains deal better with simple theories than they deal with complex ones. I don't understand why we should expect that a human brain is capable of understanding the universe in the first place. Do we think a chimp could understand the universe? Surely not, because their brains aren't big enough. But why should we think our brains are big enough to understand the universe? The universe is probably much too complex for our little mammal brains to grasp. So, in practice, we tend to believe that the simple, elegant theories are true -- because it is useful for us to believe so. Newtonian physics works good enough for most things. We can engineer a lot of technology based upon theories which we know are probably imperfect simplifications of reality.

What is the main refutation of FET? That it is too complex. That too many theories are required to explain things. But don't you see that this is a cultural bias? We like theories that are practical, truth be damned. The RE scientists here have a problem with the theory of bendy light and the anti-moon. Why? Because those theories aren't as simple as, say, a RE and relativity. But we have absolutely no evidence that simple theories are BETTER theories. We prefer them only because they are more useful for our simple brains to deal with.

There is an old, old Jewish expression: "Man thinks, God laughs." The idea is that Man's brain can't comprehend God's creation. RE theorists, with all their confidence, make God laugh an awful lot.

EDIT: I am not suggesting that scientists prefer theories which do not fit evidence.