Here we go again

  • 46 Replies
  • 9786 Views
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2011, 04:07:38 PM »
Yeah thats why the earth is in the milky way on the western spiral arm and it is 100,000 light year across because it is the simplist explanation for what we are seeing through very powerful telescopes plus mars has been mapped google mars may help you. We orbit around the sun and and to say different is just plain silly, i know you will come back with a bit of a quote and just say its not but the majority of the planet apart from some nutballs think the universe is as we are taught by science and space exploration. To think millions have been spent just to lie to you is pretty pathetic to be honest, things are being discovered all the time and theories change very often one being string theory. You should listen to Michio Kaku you might learn something but then again your cranium must be pretty thick to think otherwise have fun. Oh yeah try looking at nasa j-track as well. I know i'm wasting my time but i am having fun laughing my arse of at your silly little pathetic quotes. P.S The Milky way is orbitting around M32 or Andromedia as this galaxy is far larger than the milky way, and we are caught in its gravitational influence ;D

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2011, 04:19:07 PM »
I'm still of an opinion that Occam's Razor favors the Flat Earth model.

From the FEWiki on Occam's Razor:

    Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation.

Tom, which is the simpler explanation; that one force (gravity) is responsible for the motions of the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth or that there is one force accelerating the FE (UA), another that suspends the sun, moon (photoelectric suspension?) and other celestial objects, a number of forces that cause the sun and moon to move in an ever expanding and contracting, rising and falling orbit above the north pole, and who knows how many forces responsible for the "celestial gears" of the southern hemiplane?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2011, 05:23:14 PM »
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel?  ???

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic. 
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE.  It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth.  Review inertia. 

It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)

As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
So long and thanks for all the fish

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2011, 06:04:52 PM »
It's pointless to invoke the aspect of complexity because either model can claim simplicity with respect to something in particular. I was trying to focus more on Ockham's notion of increased explanatory power in order to compensate for loss of simplicity. Thoughts?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2011, 06:07:17 PM »
Ockham's razor is bunk.  Its only use is for engineering;  its useful to make simple models and just that.  It states nothing about the truth of a matter.
So long and thanks for all the fish

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2011, 06:45:24 PM »
It is convenient to dismiss the idea (after invoking it) instead of formulating any sort of argument, isn't it? I will name this tactic the Davis Dismissal.  ;)
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2011, 07:01:22 PM »
It is convenient to dismiss the idea (after invoking it) instead of formulating any sort of argument, isn't it? I will name this tactic the Davis Dismissal.  ;)
... What you are describing is closer to "simpler" explanation. And of course, there's no really[sic] compelling reason that Ockham's Razor need be correct.
Ockham's Razor is bunk.  Its just a guiding rule, not a law or a theory or anything else.  It has no bearing of truth - its just something some guy thought up and thought it sounded good that gained popularity over the years because its useful for making simple tools.
I've always stated Ockham's razor is bunk.  I was merely pointing out the err in the previous post and joking at the use of Ockham's Folly.  Apologies for the confusion.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:03:31 PM by John Davis »
So long and thanks for all the fish

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2011, 07:10:16 PM »
Okay, thank you for clarifying. So it's safe to say, then, that Zetetic philosophy maintains that the simplest explanation is indeed always correct?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2011, 07:16:58 PM »
Okay, thank you for clarifying. So it's safe to say, then, that Zetetic philosophy maintains that the simplest explanation is indeed always correct?
I don't think zetetic philosophy says anything on the subject.  I however hold it to be universally useful only to the ends of engineering and not towards the search for truth. 

Also worth noting is that I'm the founder of the neozetetic movement myself which also holds its own more rich set of philosophical ties than zeteticism.  Most notably are the ties to pluralism in z. science and a strong emphasis on postmodern science as well as the right to believe and its import in z. science.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:19:39 PM by John Davis »
So long and thanks for all the fish

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2011, 07:34:16 PM »
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel?  ???

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic. 
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE.  It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth.  Review inertia. 

It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)

As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...

I suppose that would depend on whether the UA exists or not.  I know that your FE model does not use a UA, but most other FE models do.  Perhaps we should wait until the FE scientific (zetetic) community reaches a consensus as to whether or not the UA really exists before we get too deep into debating how many unexplained forces FET needs to account for which are otherwise explained by RE gravity.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #40 on: February 20, 2011, 08:02:58 PM »
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel?  ???

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic. 
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE.  It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth.  Review inertia. 

It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)

As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...

I suppose that would depend on whether the UA exists or not.  I know that your FE model does not use a UA, but most other FE models do.  Perhaps we should wait until the FE scientific (zetetic) community reaches a consensus as to whether or not the UA really exists before we get too deep into debating how many unexplained forces FET needs to account for which are otherwise explained by RE gravity.
UA is a force.  Or at least the dark energy pushing the UA is, depending on what model.

That said, many other things that are not forces can keep the stars aloft.

But thats fine with me, lets let it lie.
So long and thanks for all the fish

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2011, 11:52:42 PM »
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel?  ???

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic. 
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE.  It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth.  Review inertia. 

It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)

As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
so your model has negative three forces? that's got to be an overstatement.
Gravity is not a force in GR, and if you're considering it a force, then that leaves your model with negative two forces.

And in FE, if the Sun has gravity, then it should be going towards the earth, unless it is orbiting it, which it is clearly not. It therefore requires a normal force to keep it up. What you said about its inertial path makes no sense, the inertial path for a body with gravity is toward the other body's center of mass, or in this case the point below it. Circular motion requires an acceleration perpendicular to velocity, what causes this acceleration? gravity? that's one/two forces from two different sources.

At best, the FE model has equal number of forces, 0, caused solely by curved spacetime. At worse 2, the force to keep the sun from going on its inertial path downwards, and the force to keep it in circular motion.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2011, 12:11:48 AM »
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel?  ???

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic. 
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE.  It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth.  Review inertia. 

It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)

As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
so your model has negative three forces? that's got to be an overstatement.
Gravity is not a force in GR, and if you're considering it a force, then that leaves your model with negative two forces.

And in FE, if the Sun has gravity, then it should be going towards the earth, unless it is orbiting it, which it is clearly not. It therefore requires a normal force to keep it up. What you said about its inertial path makes no sense, the inertial path for a body with gravity is toward the other body's center of mass, or in this case the point below it. Circular motion requires an acceleration perpendicular to velocity, what causes this acceleration? gravity? that's one/two forces from two different sources.

At best, the FE model has equal number of forces, 0, caused solely by curved spacetime. At worse 2, the force to keep the sun from going on its inertial path downwards, and the force to keep it in circular motion.
You are correct, apologies for stating the wrong number.  I was wrong.  That wasn't the point anyways, but thanks for pointing out my obvious error!
So long and thanks for all the fish

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2011, 12:31:43 AM »
The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights ;D

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel?  ???

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.
Or continue travelling its geodesic. 
Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...
It would not require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE.  It would require forces for the sun to plummet towards Earth.  Review inertia. 

It would also not be moving in a circular path (as I said, its following a straight line - its inertial path - its geodesic...)

As we see, it requires 3 less forces than yours, and as much as I hate to involve ol Ockham in this...
so your model has negative three forces? that's got to be an overstatement.
Gravity is not a force in GR, and if you're considering it a force, then that leaves your model with negative two forces.

And in FE, if the Sun has gravity, then it should be going towards the earth, unless it is orbiting it, which it is clearly not. It therefore requires a normal force to keep it up. What you said about its inertial path makes no sense, the inertial path for a body with gravity is toward the other body's center of mass, or in this case the point below it. Circular motion requires an acceleration perpendicular to velocity, what causes this acceleration? gravity? that's one/two forces from two different sources.

At best, the FE model has equal number of forces, 0, caused solely by curved spacetime. At worse 2, the force to keep the sun from going on its inertial path downwards, and the force to keep it in circular motion.
You are correct, apologies for stating the wrong number.  I was wrong.  That wasn't the point anyways, but thanks for pointing out my obvious error!

I don't believe in ockham's razor very much anyways though. There are way too many ways to evaluate a given model, some ways which seem simple to one person, and another that seems complex to another. For example, if you grew up with technology, then the philosophical reasoning behind being Omish might seem too logically twisted. The inverse is also true.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2011, 12:40:30 AM »
Occam's Razor makes sense to me. You begin with a very simple model. Then, in order to accommodate increasingly sophisticated observational data, you must accept the burden of proof in order to deviate from natural simplicity. So long as your increase explanatory power and the ability to more accurately predict phenomena as you decrease simplicity, you don't get cut.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Here we go again
« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2011, 12:52:09 AM »
Occam's Razor makes sense to me. You begin with a very simple model. Then, in order to accommodate increasingly sophisticated observational data, you must accept the burden of proof in order to deviate from natural simplicity. So long as your increase explanatory power and the ability to more accurately predict phenomena as you decrease simplicity, you don't get cut.
Yes, but defining simple becomes very difficult when we consider model's that still have undiscovered mechanisms. Until either side comes up with a ToE, neither will be simpler than the other.

Re: Here we go again
« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2011, 12:17:43 PM »
Let me ask something regarding the sun and moon here. Based on FET, they move in changing circles overhead, yes?

Now, FET also states that the Earth is constantly ascending upwards, thus contributing to the effect that the majority of the scientific body, RET, attribute to gravity.

For this to be true, we must also assume that the other celestial bodies are also constantly ascending, and at the same rate. Otherwise, if the Earth were moving upwards and the sun and moon are staying at the same height, the Earth would long ago have crashed into them.

Thus, we can assume that the sun and moon are ascending upwards, and also in fluctuating circles. In other words, a spiral.

We are able to simulate this effect using small scale models, and every attempt I have seen indicates that when spirals move with fluctuating velocity, they do not return to smaller location without outside influence. This is due to inertia, which is easily proven scientific fact. What actually happens is that the spiral continues to get wider, not smaller.

Based on these facts, and looking at your theory and explanation, what force is acting on the sun and moon to cause them to move regardless of inertia back to their original positions, and why is this force not also relevant in explaining functions of the Earth?