Ockham's Razor

I'm not going to argue physics, metaphysics and pseudoscience with you. I am approaching this from a general position of logic and philosophical thought in an effort to explain why I will not take the time to investigate/entertain FET, and why it makes no sense to.

The FET offers up dozens more uncertainties, assumptions and unproven scientific dynamics than the RET, relying on pseudoscientific and grandiose assumptions to justify it's skepticism of the generally accepted spherical earth. Therefore, by the Principle of Parsimony, it benefits us to accept the theory with the least number of these assumptions that also explains all aspects of the thing in question (the earth).

Now, Ockham's razor of course is no way to confirm or deny any scientific theory. What I am simply proposing is that, at this point in the development of scientific theory, to continue to support FET is debilitating. Marcus Hutter proved mathematically that shorter mathematical theories that compute the same result hold more weight in calculations, and when you carry this principle over to Earth science, it translates into the idea that developing further theories based on RET, the simpler theory with less variability and uncertainty, holds infinitely more weight and productivity than the use of FET.

You can continue to play devil's advocate with RET, but you have never refuted a single aspect of it. You simply challenge that there MAY be another explanation for the nature of things as explained by RET. Another post referenced aether as a possible explanation for the appearance of curvature of the horizon at higher heights.

If you subscribe to FET:
1. Aether is unproven and therefore, you must first prove aether's existence
2. Then you must prove aether's presence in or around our atmosphere
3. Then you must explain what properties of aether effect our perception of the flat earth to give it the appearance of curvature

Three steps involving not a single ounce of proven science. Any legitimate scientific proof you propose at any stage of this idea is refuted by the fact that aether is unproven; a scientific assumption with no legitimacy.

If you subscribe to RET, here is the proof for curvature:
1. The earth is round.

One step, with volumes of supportive science behind it.

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

That does not mean you should not propose an alternate theory as you have, or attempt to prove it. It does, however, mean that doing so is a waste of time when a simpler theory with less assumptions exists.

That is why I will never waste my time entertaining FET, and why doing so it counter-productive.

However, FET states that the basic irrevocable truth is "the earth is flat because it appears flat." (except when it doesn't)

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

Quote

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

Actually it doesn't. Referenced article doesn't provide actual data but just exaggerates RE side, leaves out things from FE side and plays on emotions.

Quote

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

It cuts both ways.
Quotes from the Tiki.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

Actually it is quite easy to think of it as an illusion.  We have all been on planes, trains and automobiles.  Whipping around at a few hundred km/h on a plane everything is stable.  If the windows where closed we could barely perceive are selves moving.  We really don't have to think about anything beyond our earth - it might be whipping around, but in my frame it is rock solid. 

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Why ever not?  We have aircraft that can exceed mach 3, passenger aircraft (or did) that could exceed mach 1.  Aircraft that can hold 300+ passengers, or 250,000 kg+ of cargo.  We have submersibles that have gone below 10,000+ metres, a pressure substantially more difficult to deal with that in space.
Heck - you can shell out 500 beans and build a rocket that can get you to the outer edges of space.
Look at the computer you are using.  With this technology how can you conceive that space travel is not attainable.

When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

Personally if feels more like I am falling that the earth coming towards me.  To me it is much simpler to think of things being pulled down than everything being pushed up.  When I throw a ball up - it comes back to me - I don't go up to it.

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

Don't think about the speed - just look, it goes lower and lower and lower and dips under the horizon.  The next day to rise up from the other side.  Doesn't prove the earth is round - but that the sky rotates under the earth and back around.

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, novas and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?

Better than nothing being out further.  Man has always attempted to reach further and look beyond his own borders.  I mean really - imagine if Christopher Columbus said - why bother it's not like there's anything of interest out there.

If you want to believe the Earth is Flat, and there is nothing out there or whatnot - the razor points in your direction.  But if you think about exploration and your experiences in the world - it points the other way.

Berny

Still no explanations about the stars though.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42781.0

Quote

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

Lol all that article does is show how apparently complicated, and yet founded in scientific data the components of RET are. Simply saying "Gravity is complicated, why not just say the earth is moving upwards at you? The sun looks like it's moving across the sky, so let's just say it is, even though the explanation that we revolve around the sun perfectly explains all aspects of the cosmos and our perception of the universe."

If we simply look at the sky or the things around us and take them at face value as you attempt to do, we restrict ourselves. We would never have discovered RET and the truth of the universe if people maintained your narrow minded, face value style postulation about the universe.

Also, if you place the flat earth at the center of the universe, you then need to explain why the sun goes around the flat earth, requiring what would be equally complex or even more complex scientific theorems when compared with the currently accepted view of the sun-centric galaxy.

Have you ever heard of Plato's cave story? There were men looking at reflections of statues on a cave wall. They saw these reflections of reflections of true things and were content to never look beyond what they saw with their naked eye and understand the true nature of things. These men were victims of a school of thought that would restrict their development and that of society. They never took the time to try to understand more complex, but more revealing things behind the simple reflections.

Some people soon looked beyond the images on the cave wall and turned around to see a fire and statues that were causing these images. The statues had dimensions and were closer in form to the true forms they were based on. This represents looking beyond the surface of something on 1-2 dimensions to see it on a 3 dimensional level and understand more of its meaning. The people that turned around and tried to understand the nature of the reflections were closer than those too closed-minded to try to understand their world.

Still, some men went even further and gazed up out of the cave into the true world above. They saw the true forms of things. The statues were based on the true forms, and the reflections were nothing more but less pure, less revealing reflections of the forms, having been reflected and reflected again.

Feel free to continue staring at the flat images on the wall.
FET = Images on the wall, the lowest form of understand of our universe
RET = The statues causing the reflections on the wall and the true form of things. The world is spherical, but we see it as flat to the naked eye. However, if we carefully measure the world around us it is unavoidable to realize that the world is flat. People who subscribe to RET have broken from the chains of staring at the wall and have the ability to understand things the men staring at the wall could never have dreamed of quantifying.

Before you go listening to Tom, you should know that his beliefs do not represent those of most Flat Earthers. Also, the Tiki was written almost entirely by him, so take it with a bit of skepticism when he refers you to it.

Quote

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

Actually it is quite easy to think of it as an illusion.  We have all been on planes, trains and automobiles.  Whipping around at a few hundred km/h on a plane everything is stable.  If the windows where closed we could barely perceive are selves moving.  We really don't have to think about anything beyond our earth - it might be whipping around, but in my frame it is rock solid.

The simplest explanation is that it is not an illusion.

Quote

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Why ever not?  We have aircraft that can exceed mach 3, passenger aircraft (or did) that could exceed mach 1.  Aircraft that can hold 300+ passengers, or 250,000 kg+ of cargo.  We have submersibles that have gone below 10,000+ metres, a pressure substantially more difficult to deal with that in space.
Heck - you can shell out 500 beans and build a rocket that can get you to the outer edges of space.
Look at the computer you are using.  With this technology how can you conceive that space travel is not attainable.

Looking a a computer does not make space travel physically possible.

The simplest explanation is that NASA does not have the technology to do all of the amazing never before done feats it claims to have done.

Quote

When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

Personally if feels more like I am falling that the earth coming towards me.  To me it is much simpler to think of things being pulled down than everything being pushed up.  When I throw a ball up - it comes back to me - I don't go up to it.

When I walk off the edge of a chair I see that the earth rises upwards towards me. Compared to sub-atomic puller particles no one has ever seen, the simplest explanation is that of an upwardly moving earth.

Quote

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

Don't think about the speed - just look, it goes lower and lower and lower and dips under the horizon.  The next day to rise up from the other side.  Doesn't prove the earth is round - but that the sky rotates under the earth and back around.

When one watches the sun move across the sky the simplest explanation is that the sun moves across the sky.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2010, 01:40:13 PM

Quote

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

Lol all that article does is show how apparently complicated, and yet founded in scientific data the components of RET are. Simply saying "Gravity is complicated, why not just say the earth is moving upwards at you? The sun looks like it's moving across the sky, so let's just say it is, even though the explanation that we revolve around the sun perfectly explains all aspects of the cosmos and our perception of the universe."

If we simply look at the sky or the things around us and take them at face value as you attempt to do, we restrict ourselves. We would never have discovered RET and the truth of the universe if people maintained your narrow minded, face value style postulation about the universe.

Also, if you place the flat earth at the center of the universe, you then need to explain why the sun goes around the flat earth, requiring what would be equally complex or even more complex scientific theorems when compared with the currently accepted view of the sun-centric galaxy.

Have you ever heard of Plato's cave story? There were men looking at reflections of statues on a cave wall. They saw these reflections of reflections of true things and were content to never look beyond what they saw with their naked eye and understand the true nature of things. These men were victims of a school of thought that would restrict their development and that of society. They never took the time to try to understand more complex, but more revealing things behind the simple reflections.

Some people soon looked beyond the images on the cave wall and turned around to see a fire and statues that were causing these images. The statues had dimensions and were closer in form to the true forms they were based on. This represents looking beyond the surface of something on 1-2 dimensions to see it on a 3 dimensional level and understand more of its meaning. The people that turned around and tried to understand the nature of the reflections were closer than those too closed-minded to try to understand their world.

Still, some men went even further and gazed up out of the cave into the true world above. They saw the true forms of things. The statues were based on the true forms, and the reflections were nothing more but less pure, less revealing reflections of the forms, having been reflected and reflected again.

Feel free to continue staring at the flat images on the wall.
FET = Images on the wall, the lowest form of understand of our universe
RET = The statues causing the reflections on the wall and the true form of things. The world is spherical, but we see it as flat to the naked eye. However, if we carefully measure the world around us it is unavoidable to realize that the world is flat. People who subscribe to RET have broken from the chains of staring at the wall and have the ability to understand things the men staring at the wall could never have dreamed of quantifying.

Actually, in Plato's Cave Story the simplest explanation is that reality exists in two dimensions. It only exists as three dimensions once it is demonstrated to exist in three dimensions.

"Graviton Puller Particles," for example, have not been demonstrated. Ergo, the simplest explanation is that Gravitons do not exist. If someone someday discovers the Graviton particle it can be considered. Until then it must be tossed aside.

If we spend our lives looking at a 2-D wall and someone walks in and rants and raves that reality is 3-D, it's up to that somebody to prove their hypothesis. Reality might be 4-D or 5-D for all we know. Until that person demonstrates his hypothesis for a 3-D world, the world remains 2-D, as a 2-D world reflects all known observation and experience.

If you are claiming that gravitons exist, it must be demonstrated that gravitons exist.

If you are claiming that the fabric of space-time bends, it must be demonstrated that the fabric of space-time bends.

If you are claiming that the sun is stationary despite its observable movement it must be demonstrated that the sun is stationary.

If you are claiming that the stars are enormous bodies, despite all of our knowing of them is of being small bodies, it's up to you to demonstrate that they are large.

All we know of our universe is what we can see and touch. It is up to the fanatics to demonstrate the unknown and unobservable, lest their fantasies of the extraordinary be considered wrong and incorrect by antecedence.

When one watches the sun move across the sky the simplest explanation is that the sun moves across the sky.

When one watches the sun sink below the horizon, the simplest explanation is that the sun sinks below the horizon.

Tom, you're using OR wrong. We've explained this before. When two competing theories explain nature with the same predictive abilities (They tie.), then we fall back on OR as the tie breaker. The theory that requires the lesser amount of "fiat" wins.

1) It's not a tie. RET explains and predicts more events more accurately. There's no need to apply OR.
2) RET uses less "fiat" than FET. No need for UA, nexus lines, or conspiracy. OR would side with RET.

When I walk off the edge of a chair I see that the earth rises upwards towards me. Compared to sub-atomic puller particles no one has ever seen, the simplest explanation is that of an upwardly moving earth.

I thought you had to have those sub-atomic puller particles to explain Foucault's Pendulum. So if FET needs both gravity and UA and RET needs just gravity, then OR would select RET, right?

Quote

Quote

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

Actually it is quite easy to think of it as an illusion.  We have all been on planes, trains and automobiles.  Whipping around at a few hundred km/h on a plane everything is stable.  If the windows where closed we could barely perceive are selves moving.  We really don't have to think about anything beyond our earth - it might be whipping around, but in my frame it is rock solid.

The simplest explanation is that it is not an illusion.

And the curvature of the earth as seen from a plane?

Quote

Quote

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Why ever not?  We have aircraft that can exceed mach 3, passenger aircraft (or did) that could exceed mach 1.  Aircraft that can hold 300+ passengers, or 250,000 kg+ of cargo.  We have submersibles that have gone below 10,000+ metres, a pressure substantially more difficult to deal with that in space.
Heck - you can shell out 500 beans and build a rocket that can get you to the outer edges of space.
Look at the computer you are using.  With this technology how can you conceive that space travel is not attainable.

Looking a a computer does not make space travel physically possible.

The simplest explanation is that NASA does not have the technology to do all of the amazing never before done feats it claims to have done.

Why? We've been barely flying for a century, a century before that steam power, a century before that portable clocks, etc etc.
What technology is NASA missing?  We can keep people cooped up for months on submarines.  We can build things that withstand incredible pressures.  Missiles can reach across continents.  It is ALL there.  We have the technology - we can build it.  Err wait - we are!

Quote

When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

Since I have rarely experienced "freefall" especially from a chair I do not know how to comment.  Hypothetical Graviton Puller?  As opposed to a Hypothetical pusher of "aether" which means are planet is slowly encountering the speed of light?  From my fixed position things fall.  I don't move.

Quote

Quote

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

Don't think about the speed - just look, it goes lower and lower and lower and dips under the horizon.  The next day to rise up from the other side.  Doesn't prove the earth is round - but that the sky rotates under the earth and back around.

When one watches the sun move across the sky the simplest explanation is that the sun moves across the sky.

It might move across but I can easily see it rise go higher and then lower and set.  It does not look like a plane crossing the horizon.  And still nobody has explained how the rotation of the stars do not work in the southern Hemiplane.  They rotate around a single southern point, like in the northern Hemiplane the stars rotate around Polaris.  This is not possible on a Flat Earth.  Or I should say a sky that revolves around a central point.

Berny

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2010, 03:13:41 PM

When one watches the sun move across the sky the simplest explanation is that the sun moves across the sky.

When one watches the sun sink below the horizon, the simplest explanation is that the sun sinks below the horizon.

I've never seen the sun below the horizon, thus I cannot conclude that the sun goes below it.

I have seen the sun set into the horizon, however.

And the curvature of the earth as seen from a plane?

I have been on many planes. I have never seen curvature to the earth's surface.

Neither has TheEngineer, a pilot on this forum:

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Why? We've been barely flying for a century, a century before that steam power, a century before that portable clocks, etc etc.

A plane is not a rocket ship.

Nor is a steam engine or a portable clock.

What technology is NASA missing?

The part which overcomes the inherent impossibility of space travel on a flat, upwardly accelerating earth.

Since I have rarely experienced "freefall" especially from a chair I do not know how to comment. Hypothetical Graviton Puller?  As opposed to a Hypothetical pusher of "aether" which means are planet is slowly encountering the speed of light?  From my fixed position things fall.  I don't move.

The chair experiment is easily repeatable. It is trivial to walk off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards.

One can see, visually, that the earth rises upwards. The same cannot be said about "Gravitons" or any such nonsense.

Hence, FET provides the most observable explanation.

The chair experiment is easily repeatable. It is trivial to walk off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards.

I let my kid step on the chair and jump down from there. All I saw was my kid falling to the ground not the ground rushing up to kid. Henceforth, RET provides more observable explanation.

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

That does not mean you should not propose an alternate theory as you have, or attempt to prove it. It does, however, mean that doing so is a waste of time when a simpler theory with less assumptions exists.

It is a common misconception that Occam's Razor is applicable in general situations.

The real argument in Occam's Razor is that when you have two theories of equal predicting power the one which makes the least assumptions is most probably the right one.

In this case, since none of the "flat Earth theories" has almost any predicting power at all, it is not comparable to real science with the Occam's Razor, which only compares theories of equal predicting power.

It is like when I say my pick-up is the best monster truck ever constructed. My pick-up is not even a monster truck, so even comparing it to monster trucks has no sense at all.

I have never liked the Occam's Razor argument, I've always taken it as a mental experiment, or philosophical, than valid for everything.
I have no time now to read this, but when I'm back I'll read the thread, seems interesting.

The simplest explanation is that all the data and conclusions collected over the last 1,000 years or so regarding the shape of the Earth is accurate.

I found the analogy I really wanted to post:

I can predict the speed at which a ball rolls down a ramp with both a Ouija board and the laws of Newton. It is clear that the Ouija board method is, hands down, the easiest of the two, and it is evident that I can give you the instructions in 100 words or less. On the other hand, you have to go through Primary and half of Secondary School to even understand simple uses of Newton's laws.

Therefore I declare that the Ouija board method is superior according to Occam's Razor. But I am wrong. The two methods are not of the same predicting power.

Quote

What technology is NASA missing?

The part which overcomes the inherent impossibility of space travel on a flat, upwardly accelerating earth.

That is because you believe that is in impossible.  People believed that man would never fly either.  I will point you to the Stratos Project https://sites.google.com/site/stratosprojectgroup/ because they have many many excellent youtube videos as well as well as the Icarus Project http://space.1337arts.com/.  Both these groups are going near space for the costs of a few hundred dollars.  Now if Flat Earth is more of a religious viewpoint I cannot change that view.  But it is very clear that the technology out there exists.  Both government, military and Civilian.

And with your point with Gravity and the chair.  You see flat earth or not - I do not have to believe in gravity in either form.  Whatever I believe in - I still do not float away.  I do see the stars, and have seen them from various points on the earth including the Southern Hemisphere and no Falt Earth theory has explained it.

Berny

Now if Flat Earth is more of a religious viewpoint I cannot change that view. 

This is correct.

Quote

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

Well, let's see.  On the one hand, we have one theory that requires only gravity/gravitation to explain the motions of the heavens, sunrise, sunset, solar and lunar eclipses, transits and retrograde motion of the planets, the tides (high, low, spring and neap).  On the other hand, we have a theory that requires light to bend in previously unknown ways, the existence of undetectable sub-heavens and a mysterious shadow object and a universal accelerator that accelerates the earth and heavens but nothing in between?  So, which is the simpler theory, Tom?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2010, 01:40:13 PM

Quote

RET explains these things with scientific plausibility and certainty, so according to Ockham's razor, why delve into the uncertain and risk inaccuracy?

Actually, Occam's Razor supports Flat Earth Theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams+Razor

Well, let's see.  On the one hand, we have one theory that requires only gravity/gravitation to explain the motions of the heavens, sunrise, sunset, solar and lunar eclipses, transits and retrograde motion of the planets, the tides (high, low, spring and neap).  On the other hand, we have a theory that requires light to bend in previously unknown ways, the existence of undetectable sub-heavens and a mysterious shadow object and a universal accelerator that accelerates the earth and heavens but nothing in between?  So, which is the simpler theory, Tom?

Anyhow, the question of simplicity is irrelevant when you do not even have two theories with equal predicting power. Tom Bishop likes to play with the simplicity question (even though I also think it is totally lost for the FE models) but the much more objective predictive power issue is impossible for him to tackle.

I found the analogy I really wanted to post:

I can predict the speed at which a ball rolls down a ramp with both a Ouija board and the laws of Newton. It is clear that the Ouija board method is, hands down, the easiest of the two, and it is evident that I can give you the instructions in 100 words or less. On the other hand, you have to go through Primary and half of Secondary School to even understand simple uses of Newton's laws.

Therefore I declare that the Ouija board method is superior according to Occam's Razor. But I am wrong. The two methods are not of the same predicting power.

Nicely explained.

Quote from: General Disarray on October 02, 2010, 03:31:03 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 02, 2010, 03:13:41 PM

When one watches the sun move across the sky the simplest explanation is that the sun moves across the sky.

When one watches the sun sink below the horizon, the simplest explanation is that the sun sinks below the horizon.

I've never seen the sun below the horizon, thus I cannot conclude that the sun goes below it.

I have seen the sun set into the horizon, however.

While flying to Alaska from Detroit, I saw two sunsets. Going into Seattle there was a sunset. After refueling and taking off in the dark heading towards Anchorage, there was another sunset. How would this be possible under the FE theory?

I mean I could argue under the RE way of thinking that I was going faster, relatively speaking, than the rotation of the earth and thus had an opportunity to see the sun set again.

The play on simplicity is the same religious dogma that states science is to complicated so "God done it". Tom's arguments are nearly identical in this kind of nature to which can also be found in the Banana man videos. And I don't think Tom realizes that under Ockham's Razor there can be any reality to which include the invalidation of his own reality. Or I can simply claim Solipsism and the Fact that Tom doesn't really exist, and that his reality doesn't exist either because I only imagine them for the sake of amusement. So in the End, I assure that the Earth is round because it is.. After all that's the typical FE argument.

fet makes up facts to fit theories rather than theories to fit facts

kthxstfu

I have seen the curvature of the earth, there for the earth is round. If you haven't seen the curvature then you don't know what to look for. (Bendy light isn't real just to nip that bud)

I have seen the curvature of the earth, there for the earth is round. If you haven't seen the curvature then you don't know what to look for. (Bendy light isn't real just to nip that bud)

You cannot see a distinguishable curvature until about 35,000 feet, and that is if you have a wide field of view. For example, if you are on a mountain, it is easy to be able to see a wide panorama of the surroundings. Looking out a airplane window, however, will not allow you to see to such an extent. If all you've been looking out of is an airplane window, you have to go higher than normal cruising altitude for curvature to appear to the naked eye.

Also, if you are looking at pictures, you have to be careful of distortion from the camera.