Ockham's Razor

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 31, 2010, 09:10:47 AM

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.

If you are looking at the ocean from ground level, you are seeing the curvature of the earth. The fact that your field of vision stops is proof of this. But you are correct the higher you go, the easier it is to see.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 31, 2010, 12:10:39 PM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 31, 2010, 09:10:47 AM

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.

If you are looking at the ocean from ground level, you are seeing the curvature of the earth. The fact that your field of vision stops is proof of this. But you are correct the higher you go, the easier it is to see.

Well obviously I meant to the naked eye.

Well obviously I meant to the naked eye.

Thig is that the naked eye has a horizontal view of about 180 degrees.  Any camera lens with a similar field of view would show obvious distortion, however the human eye does not.  Interesting, don't you think?

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 31, 2010, 02:45:16 PM

Well obviously I meant to the naked eye.

Thig is that the naked eye has a horizontal view of about 180 degrees.  Any camera lens with a similar field of view would show obvious distortion, however the human eye does not.  Interesting, don't you think?

Hence my comments about windows vs mountains. No matter how big your field of view is, if you can't use it, it doesn't matter. A window will not give you 180º of view. You need a wide open view in order to visibly discern a curvature at Mt. Everest-like heights.

You could also just measure it through differential leveling over distances > 500m. Or you could continue ignoring the fact that most of the internet (probably even this site) is reaching most of us users from a satellite based transmission... which we all know isn't possible on a FE, especially since NASA has never put anything in space and is just lying to us. Oh and also orbital dynamics don't work in FET, so either way satellites are SOL... yet we can all still post online... curiouser and curiouser...

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.

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.

Quote

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

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.

When I drop a pen, I see a pen falling, not the earth rising.

I dare you to never say falling again.

THIS IS ridiculously funny.

SEriously though, Occam's Razor is used in situations where there is no further evidence to back up either side, and depends largely on logic and experience.
This is kind of like many of your examples... Ex. What is the simpler explanation, a beetle exists that can combine hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide to mix and create a self defense mechanism that involves spraying out this foul toxic blast at potential enemies? Or that the beetle doesn't exist?

Well, the simple explanation would be that such a beetle doesn't exist, but IT DOES. It's called the bombardier beetle.
Why? we have evidence of it existing, it's been observed, analyzed, closely examined, the chemical chambers have been observed by biologist, we have seen small animals being attacked by this beetle "straight out of science fiction".

When have scientists seen the tallest structures and mountains from hundreds/thousands of miles away? When have scientists been able to discern an "edge" of the earth? How many times has air traffic control FAILED on locating and getting to the designated areas that travellers wish to reach? Why would the entire WORLD, even countries opposed to the US, acknowledge space travel and moon landings/a round earth. How many of your "FE scientists" have even suggestive concrete evidence of an "anti-moon" or upwards acceleration?
Horrible misuse of Occam's razor,...I have to say..

When have scientists seen the tallest structures and mountains from hundreds/thousands of miles away?

Never; bendy light causes the view to be blocked.

When have scientists been able to discern an "edge" of the earth?

Never, that we know of; nobody's been there.

How many times has air traffic control FAILED on locating and getting to the designated areas that travellers wish to reach?

I don't have the data to answer this question.

Why would the entire WORLD, even countries opposed to the US, acknowledge space travel and moon landings/a round earth.

Outright ignorance, or collusion.

How many of your "FE scientists" have even suggestive concrete evidence of an "anti-moon" or upwards acceleration?

Both can be consistently observed; the anti-moon every time there's an eclipse, and upwards acceleration simply by dropping a ball.

Horrible misuse of Occam's razor,...I have to say..

I agree; if anything, it demonstrates that Occam's Razor really can't be used to prove anything at all (as your own eloquent example above did as well), and is completely useless in serious pursuits of scientific inquiry.

What could motivate somebody to try and apply the insights of theoretical mathematics to the unrelated field of Earth Science in the first place? From the start, this thread is wrought with systematic methodological folly.

Roundy, what is bendy light? had bendy light been peer reviewed by any of the millions of scientists and intellectuals around the world?

Roundy, I'm sure noone's been to the end of the earth because in a straight path, you end up where u started, it's called circumnavigation. And on a hypothetical flat earth, I'm sure the military, let alone NASA, has the technology to get us as far out as we need, as long as there's a good supply of fuel.

Collusion...that's a good one.

What about the anti-moon in the absence of an eclipse? No telescope has ever captured this so called "anti-moon" ZERO. No space craft has ever seen it. A round earth would produce an eclipse too, now what's more likely? a non identified, never seen before objects causing an eclipse, or those proposed by modern science all over the world.

Tell me you didn't read at all....my example was to show how you ppl used and misconstrued Occam's Razor. Occam's razor is used when there is no furthur evidence readily available and you predict BASED ON FACTS. The anti-moon is NOT a fact. The distance to the moon is a FACT. understand?


IF there was an offer to go to space, would you guys take the offer? If not, why not.