Why cant RE exist?

We have proof, observable proof that there is something is accelerating at an observable and constant rate toward the ground,

and lets Occams Razor this, as all the RErs love to do

theory 1:never-observed particles act to create a field in which all matter is pulled toward it, you know this crap, I dont need to repeat it

theory 2: we are constantly accelerating, ereby having the things not falling, but having the earth catch up with them.


Theory 2 wins, less confusing, much more simple

Voila!

Nope. The attraction of mass to other mass is observed. All that is required is for the Earth to be massive, and since it is made of matter we that it is. Therefore if the Earth is round gravity automatically works, no extra mechanisms are necessary.

no extra mechanisms are necessary.

Extra mechanisms?  Show me the primary mechanism.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

no extra mechanisms are necessary.

Extra mechanisms?  Show me the primary mechanism.

The primary mechanism does not matter as far as Occam's Razor is concerned, because we already know that gravity does work.

The primary mechanism does not matter as far as Occam's Razor is concerned, because we already know that gravity does work.

I thought the issue was to explain how gravity works.  I don't think it's controversial that it does.  I think TheEngineer wants to know the primary mechanism for how it works, and claims that while Theory 2 offers one, Theory 1 offers something..... much less clear.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

The primary mechanism does not matter as far as Occam's Razor is concerned, because we already know that gravity does work.

I thought the issue was to explain how gravity works.  I don't think it's controversial that it does.  I think TheEngineer wants to know the primary mechanism for how it works, and claims that while Theory 2 offers one, Theory 1 offers something..... much less clear.

Perhaps I should rephrase myself. Both gravity and acceleration are observed, both can equally well explain the force we feel. Even though gravity is less well understood than straight acceleration, Occam's Razor does not favor either one as such. However, gravity requires nothing extra to explain what we feel. Mass attracts mass. Everything required for gravity to explain the force we feel is already known to exist. Whether its workings are explained in perfect detail or not is irrelevant. However, constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms that have never been observed, and are necessarily exceedingly large, complex, and unlike anything we have ever seen.

Theory 2 offers no explanations that are provable to be true EITHER. Would theory 1 be more to your liking if it said... Oh I don't know... that gravity was caused by undetectible pixie dust?

Basically... you're holding theory 1 (Gravity appears to caused by mass) to a level of evidence that must be explained completely in provable terms... but are allowing theory 2 (The Universal Accelerator hypothesis) to make wild, unproven claims.

Sorry. But that won't fly. You can't have a 'debate' where the rules are different for each side.

Sorry. But that won't fly. You can't have a 'debate' where the rules are different for each side.

Indeed!  That's just what FEers want -- fair treatment for their theories.

The REers' rules for Theory 1 seem to be -- as long as we say "mass attracts mass" we don't have to explain why it does.

gravity requires nothing extra to explain what we feel. Mass attracts mass.

The REers' rules for Theory 2 seem to be -- you must explain what is causing the acceleration.
constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms

constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms

See?

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Sorry. But that won't fly. You can't have a 'debate' where the rules are different for each side.

Indeed!  That's just what FEers want -- fair treatment for their theories.

The REers' rules for Theory 1 seem to be -- as long as we say "mass attracts mass" we don't have to explain why it does.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

gravity requires nothing extra to explain what we feel. Mass attracts mass.

The REers' rules for Theory 2 seem to be -- you must explain what is causing the acceleration.
constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms

Quote

constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms

See?

Yes, I see that you have no understanding of science at all. Let me guess... philosophy major?

First line: "Indeed!  That's just what FEers want -- fair treatment for their theories."

Something that can be disproven is not a theory... it's a failed hypothesis. A theory illicits predictions that can then be verified or proven false. The mathematics behind "Mass attracts mass" allows predictions to be made, predictions that can be verified.. thus providing validation for the theory. As soon as a prediction that matches how gravity SHOULD work is shown to be false.... "mass attracts mass" is shot down as a theory.

So... how to test "Universal Acceleration"? Hey! Gravity should be constant all over the earth. It's not. BOOM! Hypothesis destroyed. Come back with a new hypothesis. Or... Hmm, ALL mass should be subject to this acceleration... why isn't the air, or me, or a rock I pick up sobject to it?

Scientists don't cry about it or claim "You're just a stupid pooopypants! My theory is true!" when their hypotheses are destroyed. They fix them or move on.

Yes, I see that you have no understanding of science at all. Let me guess... philosophy major?

Ow ow my hominem has been brutally added.

Hey! Gravity should be constant all over the earth. It's not. BOOM!

Proof?

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Yes, I see that you have no understanding of science at all. Let me guess... philosophy major?

Ow ow my hominem has been brutally added.

Quote

Hey! Gravity should be constant all over the earth. It's not. BOOM!

Proof?

That's not an 'ad hominem' attack, you made statements consistant with someone with minimal understanding of science... in a debate that required said knowledge.

Have I PERSONALLY gone all over the earth with sensitive measurement euqipment? No. I have not. But it is my understanding that others HAVE done so... these links are not proof, in that they don't cite actual experimentation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_due_to_gravity
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/TR80003C.HTM

But it is reasonable to assume that this is not made up bullshit because a great number of people could obtain these instruments and do these measurements.

Quote from: "dysfunction"

gravity requires nothing extra to explain what we feel. Mass attracts mass.

The REers' rules for Theory 2 seem to be -- you must explain what is causing the acceleration.
constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms

Quote

constant acceleration as explanation does need to infer external mechanisms

See?

Exactly. We don't have to explain how mass attracts mass, because we know it does. It's not an extra assumption simply because you cannot explain how it works; as long as you know that it does. We know acceleration works as well, of course, but what we don't know is whether there is something capable of producing the required acceleration. The attraction of mass for mass is observed, so long as the Earth is a sphere gravity automatically works (hell, even if it isnt a sphere gravity should work). If the Earth is flat, however, there is not then automatically a Universal Accelerator- that's an added assumption.

Have I PERSONALLY gone all over the earth with sensitive measurement euqipment? No. I have not. But it is my understanding that others HAVE done so... these links are not proof, in that they don't cite actual experimentation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_due_to_gravity
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/TR80003C.HTM

But it is reasonable to assume that this is not made up bullshit because a great number of people could obtain these instruments and do these measurements.

Yeah but check out this website I just found:

http://www16.brinkster.com/ghost02/truth.htm

So one of our sources must be lying... how do we know which one?

Well wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so Unimportant, I think yours is more credible

I believe i read somewere that Wikipedia is like 96% accurate or somthing.
Also, go to wikipedia, and try to change a fact. See what the moderators do. Its quite funny accualy.

We don't have to explain how mass attracts mass, because we know it does.

Well we also don't need to explain how the Earth is accelerating, because we know it does.  It's easy to see if you just consider that all timelike geodesics  in the Earth's neighborhood converge on the center of the Earth.  Since we aren't all falling into the center of the Earth, we must not be on timelike geodesics, which means we aren't in an inertial reference frame, which means we are accelerating (a timelike geodesic is the path that a particle travels when no external forces are acting on it; gravity is not a force).

That's not an 'ad hominem' attack, you made statements consistant with someone with minimal understanding of science...

I'm pretty sure I have a good notion of what consitute theories vs. hypotheses... if I erred here it's because I continued using the terminology of previous posts and I didn't see it as being relevant what terminology I used.  If you want to continue being a presumptuous ass (ad hominem there) with your "lemme guess, philosophy major?" (that's ad hominem too, because it implies that you believe that philosophy majors are necessarily ignorant of science (and are thus accusing somebody of being a philosophy major is, to you, a personal insult), which is idiotic because they often (if not always) study a field called philosophy of science which, ironically, deals with exactly the sort of thing like the difference between an hypothesis and a theory), then you can go right ahead, but let it be known to all that you are, in fact, a presumptuous ass.

If you want to stop pretending you know anything about me, that would be good too.

Exactly. We don't have to explain how mass attracts mass, because we know it does.

What is the FE explanation for this?

And who did the math and science and research to actually test that the magic, panacea-like "dark matter" is the force behind UA, among other things?

I guess what bothers me about FE is that it doesn't use the scientific method and doesn't have a valid alternative.

It looks flat, and even though the surface of the Earth is truly massive, I refuse to believe that I wouldn't be able to perceive a curvature from my front porch, and the idea of invisible particles keeping me tethered to the ground is totally ridiculous; it makes much more sense that invisible particles are pushing everything in the universe upward.

And who did the math and science and research to actually test that the magic, panacea-like "dark matter" is the force behind UA, among other things?

A small bit of homework reveals that the whole dark matter thing was made up by people on this forum and is not part of the FE canon, which doesn't (as far as I know) propose an explanation for universal acceleration.

I guess what bothers me about FE is that it doesn't use the scientific method and doesn't have a valid alternative.

The alternative is the so-called "Zetetic method", which requires that you accept only those conclusions that are directly forced upon you by logic or firsthand observation.  The difference is that the scientific method allows for indirect observation (or in fact any line of reasoning that results in acceptance among peers).

A good example of this is detecting planets around other stars.  The Zetetic method would never allow you to conclude the presence of a planet because you observed a wobble in the star, only if you actually see the planet.

I refuse to believe that I wouldn't be able to perceive a curvature from my front porch,

Hm.  Human eyes can resolve objects 0.93 mm wide at a distance of 1 mm (Wikipedia article on visual acuity); that's an angular resolution of just over 0.053°.  The horizon dip sitting on your porch (2 meters high?) is about 0.045° below level -- less than the minimum size of objects the human eye can see:



r is the radius of the Earth, h is your height above see level, and a is the angle that the horizon dips below level.  a = arcsec((r + h) / r).

and the idea of invisible particles keeping me tethered to the ground is totally ridiculous;

Um, that's a description of RE gravity.

Wait, was this post intended to support FEism, or to refute it?  I had assumed the latter but I guess I could be wrong

Now, finaly, your anser to the seal question.

Seals who whave never seen a ball, don't know that they can balance it on their nose. But, when they see a ball for the first time, they are interested in it, becouse it it new. They start playing with it until they exedentely find out that they can balance it on their noses (becouse of their nose haires that hold the ball in position). THAT is how they find that out, pure curiosity.

Now, to give my opinion about this "flat earth society": It is pretty much bullsh**. When you THINK, and look at what SMART people say about it, for exemple on the wikipedia site, named before, there is is an normal explenation for every single argument i could find about the FE theory.

So, the earth is round, and the gravity is caused by the earth it self. all arguments against that named on the complete internet, are explanable.

That is how i think of the FE theorie. its crap

(I am dutch, so it can be i did not write everything right on this page)

When you THINK, and look at what SMART people say about it, for exemple on the wikipedia site, named before,

Actually when you look at Wikipedia you are seeing what anybody with enough brain cells to get to Wikipedia has to say about it.

1st: Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity. This is written by an expert, who has seen lots of opinions from other experts. So what you said is not correct in this file.

2nt: I posted this on the wrong page  sorry about that

2nt: I posted this on the wrong page :P  sorry about that

Ho hum... so where did you intend to post it?

Um, that's a description of RE gravity.

You have to keep reading...

the idea of invisible particles keeping me tethered to the ground is totally ridiculous; it makes much more sense that invisible particles are pushing everything in the universe upward.

I was poking fun at the FE view of how "ridiculous" gravity is (if broken down to simpleton terms), when UA (if broken down to simpleton terms) sounds just as ridiculous.

So what is the FE explanation for why mass attracts mass, and why the force pushing us down isn't equal everywhere?

Okay that's a little clearer.  I agree that on some level FE and RE gravity sound equally ridiculous.  In answer to your question, FE, just like RE, offers no explanation that isn't ridiculous.