Falsifiability of FE theory?

  • 46 Replies
  • 4578 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2013, 09:40:20 AM »
I thought UA said the Earth and all other celestial bodies are accelerating wrt an inertial reference frame.

I will confirm that later when I have team to read what is available, but from what I know, the UA pushes on the underside of the Earth.  Either way I will get back to you.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2013, 05:47:22 PM »
I'll take a stab:

Universal Acceleration is a key feature of the most prominent Flat Earth Hypotheses. If the force we call gravity could be proven to be non-accelerative rather than accelerative that would be a pretty big blow to FET.

Thoughts?
UA is bunk.  That said, your attempt, if successful, would be a huge blow to Relativity as well.  I imagine you'd be able to rack up quite a few grants if you were serious.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that all force is thought to be accelerative, and it's been that way since Newton. F = ma. A non-accelerative force would completely upend physics as we know it. If you could prove that I'm sure you'll be far too busy what with collecting your Nobel Prize and all to deal with the FES forum.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2013, 07:18:56 PM »
Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which means that the ball is on the Round Earth Theorists side.



Round earth "theory" has extraordinary proof to the same degree as "the earth is round" is an extraordinary claim.

And it was not Carl Sagan who "said" it; it was Marcello Truzzi. I have an axe to grind, sorry about that.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2013, 07:25:17 PM »
I'll take a stab:

Universal Acceleration is a key feature of the most prominent Flat Earth Hypotheses. If the force we call gravity could be proven to be non-accelerative rather than accelerative that would be a pretty big blow to FET.

Thoughts?
UA is bunk.  That said, your attempt, if successful, would be a huge blow to Relativity as well.  I imagine you'd be able to rack up quite a few grants if you were serious.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that all force is thought to be accelerative, and it's been that way since Newton. F = ma. A non-accelerative force would completely upend physics as we know it. If you could prove that I'm sure you'll be far too busy what with collecting your Nobel Prize and all to deal with the FES forum.

Friction.

Where's my Nobel Prize?

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2013, 08:01:33 PM »
Friction.

Where's my Nobel Prize?

Friction can be accelerative, it's just always opposite the direction of motion. Technically an object slowing to a stop is undergoing acceleration. Your body lurches forward just the same whether you're hitting the brake or accelerating in reverse.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2013, 08:24:28 PM »
Friction.

Where's my Nobel Prize?

Friction can be accelerative, it's just always opposite the direction of motion. Technically an object slowing to a stop is undergoing acceleration. Your body lurches forward just the same whether you're hitting the brake or accelerating in reverse.

The principle clause being "can be accelerative"

The equation for friction is F = Nk  (where k equals the friction coefficient and N is the coordinate along which the object transverses.) nothing about acceleration there. friction converts kinetic energy into heat.

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2013, 08:46:56 PM »
The principle clause being "can be accelerative"

The equation for friction is F = Nk  (where k equals the friction coefficient and N is the coordinate along which the object transverses.) nothing about acceleration there. friction converts kinetic energy into heat.

Well, what I should have said was "is accelerative" not "can be accelerative". If friction isn't causing an object to accelerate in the direction opposite its motion, it is only because it is being canceled by another force. In other words, friction always causes acceleration, it's just that sometimes it's *negative* acceleration.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2013, 09:11:49 PM »
What you should have done is given me a Nobel Prize and refrained from being a smart arse.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2013, 09:15:25 PM »
I have been reading this forum for quite some time, and one thing I have not seen from the RE community is a simple question:  Is FE theory falsifiable?

For those not familiar with the term, falsifiability is the terms/parameters/evidence that would prove a theory to be incorrect.  All good science has some form of falsifiability.  So, what exactly would the FE community accept as evidence that FE is wrong?  That is my challenge.  If you expect to be taken seriously, and you TRULY believe that this theory is correct, then please provide what evidence you would accept as anathema to FE theory.

A pool of indisputable round-earth data would be sufficient to falsify flat-earth theory.

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2013, 09:17:32 PM »
What you should have done is given me a Nobel Prize and refrained from being a smart arse.

But being a smart arse is all I'm good at. And I don't have 8 million kroner handy, so this is the best I can do. Here you go: [_($)_]

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2013, 09:18:47 PM »
I have been reading this forum for quite some time, and one thing I have not seen from the RE community is a simple question:  Is FE theory falsifiable?

For those not familiar with the term, falsifiability is the terms/parameters/evidence that would prove a theory to be incorrect.  All good science has some form of falsifiability.  So, what exactly would the FE community accept as evidence that FE is wrong?  That is my challenge.  If you expect to be taken seriously, and you TRULY believe that this theory is correct, then please provide what evidence you would accept as anathema to FE theory.

A pool of indisputable round-earth data would be sufficient to falsify flat-earth theory.

Gee whizz, talk about burden of proof. Indisputable? not even the Positivists were that strict. No proof is indisputable you retarded chimpanzeebra.

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2013, 05:34:12 AM »
A pool of indisputable round-earth data would be sufficient to falsify flat-earth theory.
You're right, that would be sufficient. However, it's also far more than is necessary. You are aware of what falsifies a theory, right? Evidence contradictory to that theory. It doesn't necessarily have to be round-earth data. It could simply be "curved-earth" data, concave or convex. You shouldn't need another contradictory theory being correct to contradict the disputed theory - just evidence against it, period.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2013, 05:40:14 AM »
Showing an object disappearing under the horizon and eliminating ocean swell as a cause could falsify the theory as it would show an object disappearing from the bottom up.

Thoughts?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2013, 08:50:13 AM »
I've thought about that, and I think "bendy light" should be able to eliminate any qualitative electromagnetic discrepancies.  Though Wolfram Alpha predicts a horizon distance of 3 miles assuming a 6 foot tall person at sea level watching a ship sink in the distance on a perfectly "round" ocean (too lazy to check the calculations, though some elementary geometry and the Pythagorean Theorem should suffice,) and further calculations could probably tell us when a ship (insert number here) feet high would disappear over the horizon (my geometric intuition is 3 miles + horizon distance of that ship,) so perhaps electromagnetic acceleration would predict a different horizon distance?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2013, 02:31:53 AM »
The flat Earth models (if you are so bold you call them models) that you see in this forum are all falsifiable, and have been falsified a long time ago. They all predict specific apparent positions for the Sun, Moon, planets and stars, for any given day and time. They all predict specific distances between known places on Earth. And that is just the short list. The long list is far too long to even make it.

The true test for a scientific theory is not just that there are clear ways to find that it is wrong (falsifiability) but that those ways have been tested to a good level of certainty and found not wrong (non-falsified).

In another attempt at replacing science with word games, the flat earthers sometimes talk about falsifiability but do not give a clear model where anything falsifiable really exists, and other times they give something a lot closer to falsifiable, measurable models but do not talk about falsifiability.

?

Megaman

  • 176
  • Winning all the forums
Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2013, 03:57:30 AM »
The flat Earth models (if you are so bold you call them models) that you see in this forum are all falsifiable, and have been falsified a long time ago. They all predict specific apparent positions for the Sun, Moon, planets and stars, for any given day and time. They all predict specific distances between known places on Earth. And that is just the short list. The long list is far too long to even make it.

The true test for a scientific theory is not just that there are clear ways to find that it is wrong (falsifiability) but that those ways have been tested to a good level of certainty and found not wrong (non-falsified).

In another attempt at replacing science with word games, the flat earthers sometimes talk about falsifiability but do not give a clear model where anything falsifiable really exists, and other times they give something a lot closer to falsifiable, measurable models but do not talk about falsifiability.

This

Re: Falsifiability of FE theory?
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2013, 07:22:24 PM »
Transmit a radio signal to the West, receive it from the East.

Any questions?