Further disproof of UA.

  • 42 Replies
  • 4855 Views
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2012, 05:11:48 AM »
The main difference between a scientifically performed study and a zetetically performed one is that zetetics do not create hypotheses.

That is absolute codswallop:  Boat-building Dinosaurs, infiniate plane, UA, celestial gears, shadow objects, anti-moons, moonshrimps.  All are proposed untested solutions and therefore hypotheses.

When Robotham talks about the moon giving off its own light, he's suggesting an alternative explanation without any supporting evidence.  He presents it in an assertive, arrogant way, but it's a hypothesis.

Zetetics, please practice what you preach for once.  If you don't know how something works, then you have to keep quiet about any possible explanation until you have amassed evidence that covers all eventualities.



I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2012, 06:08:38 AM »


Why is it then that Round Earthers are always coming here demanding that we have a gap-less theory when they clearly don't hold RE science to the same standards?
In that regard I do agree with you.  Anyone that expects FET to be a completely bulletproof description of the shape of the earth is certainly being disingenuous. However, science generally plays "small ball".  In other words, science tackles smaller, testable problems, the answers of which naturally build towards larger, demonstrable  conclusions. This is the exact opposite of how FET seems to operate, namely by starting with a conclusion and then trying to fit the observations to meet that model.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2012, 01:32:05 PM »
For the millionth time.....this is not a gotcha moment on science.  Just because we do not yet have a fundamental understanding of the precise process by which gravity operates does not mean that it somehow invalidates all of the calculations, observations, and principles used to describe it. We also do not know what precisely imbues matter with mass, but this in no way hinders calculations involving forces, accelerations, and falling bodies.

I agree with you.

We don't exactly know 100% of what atoms are made of, but this didn't stop us from discovering nuclear energy.

Same could be said about the brain, we don't fully understand, but this won't stop us from trying to find cure for the illnesses that inflict the brain.
We don't fully understand it, but we can draw conclusions based on the facts we know.

This same methodology is applied in every single scientific branch.

For Christ sake, Alexander Fleming didn't fully know what he found out in this experiments, but that didn't stop him from creating Penicillin.

Why is it then that Round Earthers are always coming here demanding that we have a gap-less theory when they clearly don't hold RE science to the same standards?

There are a couple of paints that id like to make regarding to the statement.

1.)  Many times RE'ers do hold FE to to high of a standard. BUT,
2.)  We do hold Science to extreme standards, testing and retesting experiments until we are absolutely sure that they are showing accurate results.
3.)   The gaps in FE are much, much larger than RE.  There is not a single thing that FE explains that RE does, and there are many things that RE explains that FE does not.

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2012, 02:02:19 PM »
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2012, 02:16:53 PM »
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.

Not this again.  Do you have any evidence that science suggest gravitation is caused by magic?

All i have found is that science suggests that it is caused by the bending of space time, or by a possible particle.

I see no reference to magic.  Further research is being conducted, but no one is giving up and claiming magic.


And so my points still stand,  There is not a single thing explained by FE that is not better explained by RE.  And there are many things that RE explains that FE cannot or does not.

Furthermore, that is a hole that is just as present if not more so in FE.


?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2012, 02:20:46 PM »
Then all four (three if you do electroweak) of the fundamental forces are mysterious and magical.  Knowing the force carrier of the other three doesn't make their existence make any more sense, if you think like that.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2012, 02:23:17 PM »
Then all four (three if you do electroweak) of the fundamental forces are mysterious and magical.  Knowing the force carrier of the other three doesn't make their existence make any more sense, if you think like that.

Exactly, you can dissect anything until it no longer makes any sense.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2012, 03:13:28 PM »
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.

How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1524
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2012, 06:12:47 PM »
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.

How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
I never said it is, but it seems unreasonable to demand an explanation of the UA if one for gravity cannot be given.
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2012, 11:36:52 PM »
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.

How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
I never said it is, but it seems unreasonable to demand an explanation of the UA if one for gravity cannot be given.

With our current gravity knowledge we can calculate the force of gravity at any given height in our planet. In fact with that knowledge, I can calculate what is the potential gravitational energy of a given body, and with that potential gravitational energy I can calculate how much of that energy I can transform in kinetic energy.

That is exactly how we can create and harvest the energy from water by building Dams. Because we know exactly how much potential GRAVITATIONAL energy that body of water holds. And what is the percentage of that energy we can actually concert in electricity.

That is how much understanding of gravity we have. Stating we don't understand gravity is ignorance.

Now, is it possible to calculate how much potential energy a Dam has using the UA mathematics?
Do the FE apologists have any understanding of how UA works in a basic mathematical level?
Are there any UA math that can predict the behavior of a given body at a certain height?
Well, I don't think so.

Unless UA can be explained mathematically, we can certainly conclude FEers have no understanding of what UA actually is.


?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2012, 10:55:33 AM »
I don't know, I would say that a magical force that cause objects to attract is quite a substantial gap.

How is it any more magical than, say, magnetism or fluorescence? It's not. You attempt argumentum ad ridiculum. Just because it's not fully understood yet does not mean that one day we won't understand it as well as we understand things like electricity today.
I never said it is, but it seems unreasonable to demand an explanation of the UA if one for gravity cannot be given.

It's irrelevant, because predictions for UA don't match reality. Predictions for gravity do. UA says the force should be uniform all over the plane. It isn't. Predictions for gravity say there should be slight variability from place to place.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2012, 01:59:38 PM »
Biases in hypotheses?  Hypotheses are created specifically so they can be tested with experiments.  If what's predicted by the hypothesis doesn't match the results, it's thrown out.

Is testing ideas bad?

Unintentional bias. You naturally want your hypothesis to be correct and may subconsciously adjust the experiment accordingly. I've been a victim of this myself.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Further disproof of UA.
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2012, 02:01:35 PM »
Unintentional bias. You naturally want your hypothesis to be correct and may subconsciously adjust the experiment accordingly. I've been a victim of this myself.

Which is why things are peer-reviewed, carefully controlled, and repeated.

I'd love to know what mechanism in zeteticism prevents this from happening.  You're going to form ideas based on what you see.  What's stopping you from misinterpreting new observations to fit with your ideas better?
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.