Four vs. Hundreds!

Okay, I've got the ultimate Occam's Razor for you FE'ers. Here is premise one, what the RE'ers profess.

1. The earth is round
2. The earth rotates on a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

Guess what, that's all we need to explain every naturally occuring phenomana that is argued in this forum. And I mean everyone of them. If anybody can show me a natural phenomanon that RE'ers claim is not caused by one of these four things that is talked about here, please bring it forward. Now, here's premise two, what the FE'ers profess.

1. The earth is flat
2. There is a conspiracy
3. Tides are caused by a gentle swaying of the disc (this is the one I've heard the most, though I have heard a few others)
4. The seasons are caused because the sun slowly moves away from and closer to the earth cyclically (once again, I've heard other explanations but this is the most common one)
5. The cycle of the moon is caused because the spotlight is on a cyclical pattern where the light slowly moves across it (no explanation as to why)
6. Lunar eclipses are caused because the spotlight moon is sometimes blocked out (I have never heard the explanation as to why the spotlight sometimes fails)
7. The horizon is caused by small particles of water getting in the way towards the surface of the ocean (this remains untested, and it is not entirely agreed on by FE'ers, some have claimed refraction as well)
8. Anytime a curve is seen in the earth, it is because of an optical illusion, a geographical variance, or someone is purposely giving false information
9. Solar eclipses are caused by...? (I've never actually heard the explanation for solar eclipses. Lunar I've heard, but never solar)
10. We have not yet reached a conclusion on whether tectonic plates exist or not (at least not officially)
11. "Satelites" are just radio waves being broadcast by large towers (which must be invisible because I've never seen any of these large towers)
12. Following the above hypothesis, we don't know how these large towers remain invisible and unfound (so I kind of made this up, but it seems just about as logical as a flat earth does, besides, I haven't heard how no one sees these large radio towers that must rise into the stratosphere)
13. The moon landings are hoax only because of the fact that it contradicts our theory
14. We have no explanation for why HAM radios can recieve communications from other continents at night, but not during the day
15. Gravity is caused by a constant acceleration of the earth, in which case we would eventually pass the speed of light, also we have no reason to believe this other than the fact that gravity contradicts our theory but obviously things fall to the ground (the thread on this does not do a very good job explaining how this works, because I still don't understand it)
16. The reason the oceans don't fall off the side of the earth is because there is a 150 foot ice wall which no one has ever gotten a photograph of
17. To expand on above thought, the reason this is true is because members of a assumed world government creating this conspiracy have placed guards to protect this ice wall
18. Other celestial bodies may be round, but other celestial bodies are not the earth (some believe this, some don't)
19. To continue, we claim that the earth is a special planet and does not have to be flat, our justification for this is that there is life on earth, yet we fail to realize that this has nothing to do with the shape of our planet, but our position in conjunction to the sun (just the right temp, not too hot or cold for life)
20. All maps, globes, 3-D representations, and GPS units are wrong and part of the conspiracy because those distances are incorrect once you reach the southern hemisphere
21. The Coriolis effect is false, but we can't explain why (I've heard a few ridiculous ones, but no real reason as to why)
22. The ice wall is only 150 feet high, this should mean that we only have 150 feet of air, but somehow we have more. We can't explain it (once again, there are some ridiculous explanations, but nothing even slightly believable)
23. Gravity is not less the higher you are. That is something created by the conspiracy to make us think that gravity is real
24. When the moon librates, it is something that is either not real, or something we can't explain (only explanations I've heard for it)
25. The fact that the phases of the moon and the tides are in perfect tandem is pure coincidence
26. Some of us have such ridiculous beliefs that they lose any kind of credibility on anything, in fact, most of us who actually believe it and are not just playing devil's advocate have said riduclous beliefs (i.e. penguins were manufactured in the 60's to feed the guards at the ice wall, dinosaurs built boats for intercontinental travel, etc.)
27. Most of our beliefs are based on a man who lived in the 1800's before uniformitarianism (if you don't know what it is, google or wiki it, because I'm not explaining it) became popularly accepted by science, and in a time when it was much harder to collect evidence, and before we sent men into outer space
28. Our beliefs are also based on something known as ether, dark matter, or universal accelerator, which was disproved by the people who first thought of it and tested it, yet we still believe in it

These is just barely scratching the surface of the facets of the FE theory. I might add that pretty much the only three points that FE'ers can agree on is that the earth is flat, that there's a conspiracy, and that "gravity" is created by the constant acceleration of the earth. As you can see, the reasons FE'ers believe what they do quickly adds up, while the RE theory is based on the four points mentioned above. And nothing more. Now you apply Occam's Razor and it becomes quite obvious which is simpler, and based on the razor, probably right. But since all of our evidence has stood up the tests, it is obvious that the RE model is not a theory, but a fact.

umm... you realise that for (amost) every one of your points you need to explain why? I could sum the flat eart htheory up into 4 points, then make 28 points explaining why the earth is round very easily. Your argument holds no ground.

The argument holds plenty of ground. RE needs only a very few objects to work, and we have seen all these objects. Everything in RE follows from basic laws of the universe. FE needs tons of extra, never-observed objects and mechanisms, and has no uniting laws. Whenever an FEer questions an aspect of the RE model, they answer given always follows from long-understood natural laws, whereas whenever a new problem with the FE model arises it is solved by postulating yet another new, unobserved object or mechanism.

umm... you realise that for (amost) every one of your points you need to explain why? I could sum the flat eart htheory up into 4 points, then make 28 points explaining why the earth is round very easily. Your argument holds no ground.

Alright, I'll explain why. And I'll tackle every single one of the points I made about the FE model.

1. Tides - gravity from the moon
2. Seasons - 23.5 degree axis tilts away from the sun
3. Light from the moon - how the moon and earth orbit
4. Lunar eclipses - once again, the orbits, and the conflicts thereof
5. Horizon - the earth is round and the boats are dipping "under" the curvature of the earth
6. Solar eclipses - same as lunar eclipses, conflicts in the orbit
7. Satelites - there is gravity, therefore satelites can exist, and we don't need any of this "large radio towers" rubbish
8. HAM radios - the earth is round (to expand, they take advantage of ionospheric skip propagation caused by the roundness of the earth, which is more notable during the night rather than the day on most shortwave frequencies)
9. Gravity - well, we believe in its existence (this has in fact been tested and is a fact. If you wish to know how to observe gravity other than things falling to the earth, I'm sure you can Google it and come up with some kind of at-home experiment)
10. Other celestial bodies being round - well, this is caused by gravity, which is observable, so, gravity is why we know that the earth and other planets and whatnot are round, or at least spheroid
11. Conflict in distances south of the equator - there are none, because the earth is round, whereas there would be if the earth were flat
12. Coriolis effect - the earth is round
13. More than 150 feet of atmosphere - the earth is round, and gravity is holding the atmosphere at the good 500 or so kilometers that the atmosphere is currently at
14. Gravity being less - well, gravity for one, and the earth being round (the further you are from the point of origin [i.e. the center of the earth] the less you feel its effect. Only slightly of course)
15. Moon librations - the earth and all other celestial bodies are round
16. As for the rest of it (i.e. conspiracy, lack of discrepancies between distances on maps, etc.) there is no evidence for, and I therefore do not have to disprove it. Those who make the claim must prove its existence. It is not up to others to disprove it, so once you can actually prove the conspiracy, bring it to my attention and I'll address it.

ah, but you see you proved my point with that post.

No, actually, I think you'll find that all of the phenomana I mentioned in the above post fall under the 4 facts that the RE model is based upon.

Yes, and, assume the Earth to be flat and you can conclude quite a lot as well from that one assumption, for example, that there must be a conspiracy because the government claims to have evidence that the opposite is the case.  Easy.  Just one basic assumption.

Once again, you have outsmarted yourself. An assumption, Erasmus, is not a scientific approach. You conclude that the earth is flat, and then work your way backwards, sometimes making some pretty far stretches to get back to the beginning. I start by looking at the evidence and then coming to a conclusion, then going back to the evidence and making sure that they all fit and that there are no holes in it. There is not a single hole in any of the RE proofs. We may not fully understand some of them (gravity for instance, is still not fully grasped by man) but we do know that it is true. Conspiracy is only necessary if you start with a conclusion, not a hypothesis.

In the one or two decades, space travel is bound to become more common. Then allthese dinosaurs will be able to see..

think of it this way:
you made 4 points of why the earth is round
then you made 28 points explaining why its flat

well, I'm saying that you could just as easily make 4 points saying its flat,  (and make your 28 fall into one of each category) and 28 saying its round.

@Aralith:
now your saying that just because the RE theory involves a conspiracy, and the RE doesn't; that make the RE theory right.
well, IT DOESNT

think of it this way:
you made 4 points of why the earth is round
then you made 28 points explaining why its flat

well, I'm saying that you could just as easily make 4 points saying its flat,  (and make your 28 fall into one of each category) and 28 saying its round.

The difference is that all of the RE model follows from a few basic principles, whereas FE has to postulate all kinds of new mechanisms and objects that have never been observed.

Now my point is being skewed (as it always is on this forum). I never said that's the only reason that RE theory is right, but it gives it a bit more plausibility, because as far as I can remember, they have never uncovered any kind of worldwide conspiracy. A lot of conspiracies have been unveiled, but there is no evidence that would suggest that mankind even has the capability for a worldwide conspiracy.

The_Earth_Does_Not_Exist: You are failing to realize what I'm saying. The point in my original post was that the FE'ers say that the earth is flat, but that's not what causes the phenomana that we witness. Even if there was little bits of ocean spray that hovered near the surface, this could happen on a flat or round earth. However, most of the phenomana that we talk about on this forum happens because of the four points that I mentioned. Alright, I'll give you four points, and then you see if you can explain everything in the FE model based on those four points.

1. The earth is flat
2. There is a worldwide conspiracy
3. The sun and moon are 3000 mi. away and 30 mi. in diameter
4. The earth and the universe are constantly accelerating through space at 9.8 m/s^2

If you want to change any of those four points go ahead, but if you really want to disprove me, please address all the points that I addressed and use only these four reasons (or trade them out for whichever reasons you see fit) to prove that the earth is flat.

@Aralith:
now your saying that just because the RE theory involves a conspiracy, and the RE doesn't; that make the RE theory right.
well, IT DOESNT

Actually, according to Occam's Razor, it does. Sort of, anyway. The more 'entities', such as a conspiracy, in a theory, the weaker it becomes. Every time you add something new, your theory weakens. What constitutes adding a new entity is difficult, but a clear example of it is dark matter, the matter that supposedly makes up around 70% (am I right on this?) of the universe. They need to add dark matter to the theory, because otherwise the calculation for the mass of the universe are wrong. Now, Occam's Razor states that if there are two (or three, or any number, actually) theories that both adequatly explain all phenomena, the one with the least amount of entities is the correct one. If RE and FE would both require the same amount of entities, except for one, being that FE needs the entity of 'government conspiracy', Occam's Razor would state that RE is right.

well, I'm saying that you could just as easily make 4 points saying its flat, (and make your 28 fall into one of each category) and 28 saying its round.

Now, that's the thing. Can you? You'd need to reduce both RE and FE to the least amount of entities, without resorting to wordplay ("FE only needs one entity, a universe in which the world is flat!"), and then compare them. If it would turn out that FE needs less entities then RE, Occam's Razor would indeed say that FE is correct.

Keep in mind though, Occam's Razor also has its share of flaws.

Once again, you have outsmarted yourself.

Impossible.  I think.  Or... nevermind.

An assumption, Erasmus, is not a scientific approach. You conclude that the earth is flat, and then work your way backwards,

If I have concluded the Earth is flat, then I am free to assume the same in future arguments.  Anyway, we are clearly talking here not about the comparative soundness of the round/flat hypotheses, but the extra assumptions (not to be confused with logically entailed theorems) that must be made in order to ensure that corollaries of those hypotheses are consistent.

In other words, the question of whether or not the evidence supports the FE hypothesis is a discussion for another thread.  Here, we are discussing whether it is "fair play" to list statements that are logical consequences of the FE hypothesis and say, "Look at all of these things that you must assume in order to support FEism!  Occam's Razor, Occams Razor!"  I claim that it is not fair play, and I support any FEer who wishes to give REism the same treatment.

But most of the things that FE requires are not logical consequences that follow from a few basic postulates. A disk of dark matter that obscures the Moon during eclipses is an extra assumption. A Universal Accelerator is an extra assumption. An ice wall is an extra assumption. The Earth rocking back and forth to cause tides is an extra assumption.

With RE, all you need to assume is that there's matter, and that matter has gravity, and you're set.

But most of the things that FE requires are not logical consequences that follow from a few basic postulates. A disk of dark matter that obscures the Moon during eclipses is an extra assumption.

No, it's not an extra assumption.  It's an unproven hypothesis that somebody on this sight brought up as pure speculation.  There are plenty of such hypotheses in the respected scientific community.

A Universal Accelerator is an extra assumption.

Ah, I was wondering what UA stood for.  It's not a universal accelerator -- quite the opposite, in fact.  It doesn't, for example, accelerate us, or golf balls.

An ice wall is an extra assumption. The Earth rocking back and forth to cause tides is an extra assumption.

I'm not sure where these come from -- I believe observational evidence in the former case.  I recommend reading "Earth: Not a Globe", which is linked from the FAQ and discusses both the ice wall and the tides.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

But most of the things that FE requires are not logical consequences that follow from a few basic postulates. A disk of dark matter that obscures the Moon during eclipses is an extra assumption.

No, it's not an extra assumption.  It's an unproven hypothesis that somebody on this sight brought up as pure speculation.  There are plenty of such hypotheses in the respected scientific community.

Ah yes, but you don't see them trying to claim that what they have is the truth when these kinds of assumptions are made. Also, I've never in my entire 17 years of existence seen a theory with more assumptions than the flat earth theory. Plus, I don't think any said assumptions occur in the RE model. RE is fact because it doesn't make baseless assumptions and every one of its conclusions is testable, repeatable, and verifiable.

RE is fact...

That's debatable, as evidenced by these forums.

Also, I've never in my entire 17 years of existence seen a theory with more assumptions than the flat earth theory.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

No, it's not an extra assumption.  It's an unproven hypothesis that somebody on this sight brought up as pure speculation.  There are plenty of such hypotheses in the respected scientific community.

The problem is is that these 'unproven hypotheses' are needed to explain certain phenomena. Otherwise, there is no explanation for eclipses in the FE theory, which is incompatible with reality. It is exactly these kind of entities that are the basis for Occam's Razor. Otherwise, everything is explainable inside any theory, you just have to assume more things.

Quote from: "Aralith"

Also, I've never in my entire 17 years of existence seen a theory with more assumptions than the flat earth theory.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

How so? What is it about your post that I'm failing to understand. You say that FE'ers believe the earth is flat, so a conspiracy must be assumed. It is these kinds of assumptions that make the FE theory less beleivable. There is no failure to understand your point Erasumus, just a failure to beleive its correctness.

You can't say "FEers need to assume a conspiracy" and "I understand your point, Erasmus" at the same time because my point is that FEers do not need to assume a conspiracy.  It is here that I feel I must have failed to communicate my point to you.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

But most of the things that FE requires are not logical consequences that follow from a few basic postulates. A disk of dark matter that obscures the Moon during eclipses is an extra assumption.

No, it's not an extra assumption.  It's an unproven hypothesis that somebody on this sight brought up as pure speculation.  There are plenty of such hypotheses in the respected scientific community.

Quote

A Universal Accelerator is an extra assumption.

Ah, I was wondering what UA stood for.  It's not a universal accelerator -- quite the opposite, in fact.  It doesn't, for example, accelerate us, or golf balls.

Quote

An ice wall is an extra assumption. The Earth rocking back and forth to cause tides is an extra assumption.

I'm not sure where these come from -- I believe observational evidence in the former case.  I recommend reading "Earth: Not a Globe", which is linked from the FAQ and discusses both the ice wall and the tides.

It gives a different answer for the cause of tides: the Earth rising and falling in the "deep Waters"; apparently he believed that the entire planet is suspended in a gigantic ocean. How such an ocean manages to remain liquid outside of an atmosphere, I'm not quite certain. The "observational evidences" of the ice wall you mentioned seem to be nothing more than an obviously exaggerated account of a ship running afoul of an exceedingly cold ice storm near Antarctica; as far as I can tell, they make no mention of an ice wall. Even if they did, that would mean little, as Antarctica has a number of mountains and glaciers which might certainly seem to be an infinite wall of ice to a desperate, storm-tossed crew. As far as the UA not actually being a universal accelerator- I didn't make up the name.

The "observational evidences" of the ice wall you mentioned seem to be nothing more than an obviously exaggerated account of a ship running afoul of an exceedingly cold ice storm near Antarctica; as far as I can tell, they make no mention of an ice wall.

I don't pretend for a moment that the ravings of that madman make for an easy read.  However, I'm pretty sure that the ice wall is mentioned explicitly in a few places.

I don't pretend for a moment that the ravings of that madman make for an easy read.

Amen! I'll read a chapter if someone raises a question, but I don't intend to read the whole thing looking for mentions of ice walls.

Quote from: "The_Earth_Does_Not_Exist"

think of it this way:
you made 4 points of why the earth is round
then you made 28 points explaining why its flat

well, I'm saying that you could just as easily make 4 points saying its flat,  (and make your 28 fall into one of each category) and 28 saying its round.

The difference is that all of the RE model follows from a few basic principles, whereas FE has to postulate all kinds of new mechanisms and objects that have never been observed.

This is what's known in the literary world as Deus ex Machina (machine of God).   Essentially it's when an author writes himself into a corner and has to create an on the spot way to work out of it that has not been consistent with the rest of the novel.  Terry Goodkind is a master of this by the way.

For FE'ers, it's basically the same.  There is something that needs explaining, so they come up with some random explanation.  But this explanation/theory has a hole in it, so another explanation/theory is created on the spot to compensate for that hole, and the cycle repeats itself.

Simply said, as in the original post here, RE can always be supported by four basic principles.  The explanations are always consistant and solid.  FE keeps creating more and more arguments everytime a weakness or hole is found in one of their theories to support them, then have to create more explanations to explain the explanations.

Erasumus, please explain how a conspiracy with no evidence for it is not assumed. I mean, if the earth were actually flat, that wouldn't be a bad assumption, but seeing how this is not the case (heck, I'll even go so far as to say it's debatable) this cannot be assumed. Until you can completely prove that the earth is flat, this assumption cannot be made. You may believe the earth is flat based on evidence, but until you see it floating out in space as a flat disc, you don't actually know. The difference between FE and RE is that we do actually have pictures of it. So once again, please explain how the conspiracy is not assumed, because I am failing to see how that works.

ok, well i found a hole in your 4 point theory

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

how does this explain earthquakes?

ok, well i found a hole in your 4 point theory

Quote

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

how does this explain earthquakes?

It doesn't have to- earthquakes would have to work the same way in RE and FE.

ok, well i found a hole in your 4 point theory

Quote

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

how does this explain earthquakes?

Um... most FE'ers think that earthquakes work the same way that RE'ers do (unless you're Dogplatter and don't think that tectonic plates exist, but he's a crazy). So, I don't really see how this is relevant. I said these four points explained every natural phenomana that is discussed on this forum, but I've never seen a thread about earthquakes. I only know of Dogplatters beliefs because of some thread about Antarctica that somehow ended with him talking about dinosaurs building boats for intercontinental travel (told you he was a crazy).