« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Occam's Razor

  • 15 Replies
  • 4012 Views
?

Scienceman123

Occam's Razor
« on: August 06, 2006, 04:19:22 PM »
Doesn't the earth being round, and orbiting the sun require fewer assumptions than a flat earth? Wall of ice? Why not an oblate spheroid? I don't know about others, but it makes more sense to me.
Logged
?

CrimsonKing

  • 1621
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2006, 04:31:56 PM »
Weve been over it, many many times, occams razor is now sickening from hearing about it so much, so ill go right for the nuts, as it were.

Gravity is much more complicated in RE, explain why it happens.  In FE its simple, acceleration.  RE noone can explain why masses attract each other.
Logged
he man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Advocatus Diaboli
?

qwerty789

  • 329
  • +0/-0
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2006, 04:31:56 PM »
Quote from: "Scienceman123"
Doesn't the earth being round, and orbiting the sun require fewer assumptions than a flat earth? Wall of ice? Why not an oblate spheroid? I don't know about others, but it makes more sense to me.


And your opinions on the 26 dimensions required for string theory to work?
Logged
?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Occam's Razor
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2006, 04:42:13 PM »
Occam's Razor < Messerschmidt's Reaver :D
Logged
?

quixotic

  • 1607
  • +0/-0
  • Im a mushroomcloudlayin motherfucker, motherfucker
Occam's Razor
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2006, 05:00:43 PM »
ROFL!!!!

pwned!
Logged

Like...O M G ! ! ! He is, like, totally using the gun as like some kind of sexual weapon. O M G ! ! That is like, totally awesome! ! !
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2006, 05:01:24 PM »
Quote from: "Scienceman123"
Doesn't the earth being round, and orbiting the sun require fewer assumptions than a flat earth? Wall of ice? Why not an oblate spheroid? I don't know about others, but it makes more sense to me.


Not at all. For starters, the Earth appears flat. The simplest adequate explanation is that it is, indeed flat. What's more, gravitational heliocentricism requires complex laws of gravity, and a lot of unexplained/unexplainable phenomena (apparently there's a black hole at the center of the galaxy. How do we know? Why do we know so little about it?).
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

DrQuak

  • 256
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2006, 05:07:10 PM »
well for explaining for why masses attract, if you look at the hydrophobic force - basically why water will form "droplets" on a greasy surfce, like water proof clothing, polar atoms (like water) tend to group with other polar atoms, and non polar with non polar - therefore masses attract because, like polar atoms, mass wants to tend towards other masses.


Also your FE world is hardly simple, WHY is the earth moving up the ways? How does the sun magically float above us, and how does it give out so much energy being the size that it is? (there is also things like the corealis effect on pendullii, etc)
Logged
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2006, 05:15:25 PM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"

Also your FE world is hardly simple, WHY is the earth moving up the ways?


There's a blanket of dark matter beneath us, which is expanding and pushing upwards. This is no more contrived than the RE claim of both space and time themselves expanding and contracting (a concept which is almost inconcievable).

Quote from: "DrQuak"

How does the sun magically float above us


Simple magnetism.

Quote from: "DrQuak"
and how does it give out so much energy being the size that it is?


Nuclear fusion. RE uses the same level of complexity on that issue.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

DrQuak

  • 256
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2006, 05:29:47 PM »
ok... err.... magnetism? surely the sun should be crashing towards the ground?


also on the fusion thing: The RE sun, has a fusion reaction, causing the a massive amount of energy "seperating"  the mass apart, then gravity pulls it back together (there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, and i'll get into it if i have to ;-) )


what in the FE is holding the sun together if it is under a fusion reaction?
Logged
?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Occam's Razor
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2006, 05:37:00 PM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
ok... err.... magnetism? surely the sun should be crashing towards the ground?


also on the fusion thing: The RE sun, has a fusion reaction, causing the a massive amount of energy "seperating"  the mass apart, then gravity pulls it back together (there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, and i'll get into it if i have to ;-) )


what in the FE is holding the sun together if it is under a fusion reaction?


Yeah, of course! Didnt you know magentism makes an object trace a set path a set distance away from an object constantly moving upwards?
Logged
?

DrQuak

  • 256
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2006, 05:41:18 PM »
hmm you know it would if the entire earth were a superconductor!!!


it ain't though.
Logged
?

cyclosarin

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2006, 12:59:10 AM »
Gravity is simple! It doesn't require constant energy and is an attractive force between mass that decreases in strength with distance. That's it.

Gravity is just a force, explaining why would be the same for magnetism.

Explaining what is impossible for FE, since F = ma, then what is providing the force? why does it work in only one direction and where is the reaction force?
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Occam's Razor
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2006, 01:04:29 AM »
Quote from: "cyclosarin"
Gravity is simple! It doesn't require constant energy and is an attractive force between mass that decreases in strength with distance. That's it.

Gravity is just a force, explaining why would be the same for magnetism.


Gravity is a fictitious force.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Benjamin1986

  • 21
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2006, 09:10:55 AM »
Good point, but force gravity is the simplest way to understand an incredibly complex mechanism.  For all practical purposes, Fg = G*m1*m2/r^2 for masses smaller than the moon at speeds significantly less than light.  

The source of gravity is mysterious, but it's effects are real.  How else would we have been able to measure the constant G by experiments concerning the attraction between lead balls?  Is this any less believable than dark matter accelerating the Earth up ad infinitum while the sun, moon, planets, and stars are held up by some sort of mechanism.  Where does the energy come from?  What is it that holds up the sun?  The Electro-weak force might work if it didn't rely on the Earth's magnetic field to be immensely more powerful than has ever been measured.  The strong nuclear force decreases over far too short a distance to explain the sun not falling into the Earth.  And we're out of forces.
Logged
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
  • +0/-0
Re: Occam's Razor
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2006, 09:17:36 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
a lot of unexplained/unexplainable phenomena (apparently there's a black hole at the center of the galaxy. How do we know? Why do we know so little about it?).


This isn't something RE requires, it's simply an observed phenomenon. We can detect its existence through gravitational lensing.
Logged
the cake is a lie
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Occam's Razor
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2006, 09:25:16 AM »
STOP!!!!

I am sick of hearing about Occams Razor in the discussion about FE vs. RE.

Let me make this perfectly clear, Occams Razor is not applicable to this debate.

People seem to be deluded about what the principle of Occams Razor actually says; it does not say that the simplest theory is likely the correct one.  If that were true, we could have figured out all the workings of the universe by now.

Occams Razor states that the simplest explanation is likely the correct one, if both theories are equally good at explaining observation.

In the debate of RE vs. FE, this is not the case.  FE does not provide a working mathematical model whereby something like the positions of the planets can be predicted.

Occams Razor is a useful tool in science, but it must be properly applied.
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »