Government Manipulation

beast,

The joke that you made is called as "insult". These types of jokes are made by frustrated people. I'm sorry you're frustrated.

If you understood the second point, you would also understand that it proves my statement correct. You seriously have 'logic problems' if you don't get it and I don't like to repeat myself. Keep reading it if you wish.

Yes, that statement is correct despite he fact that RE theory predates Newtonian gravity by over 2000 years.

The Earth is round because of gravity. See the following on wikipedia: "Gravitation is the reason for the very existence of the earth, the sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these bodies and life as we know it would not exist." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)

beast,

The joke that you made is called as "insult". These types of jokes are made by frustrated people. I'm sorry you're frustrated.

 lol, whatever dude.  You can think what you like.  You should read the "learnt" debate.

If you understood the second point, you would also understand that it proves my statement correct. You seriously have 'logic problems' if you don't get it and I don't like to repeat myself. Keep reading it if you wish.

I understand the point.  I don't understand why "why?" is not a question you can ask of the RE model.

Yes, that statement is correct despite he fact that RE theory predates Newtonian gravity by over 2000 years.

So all the people who thought the Earth was round before Newton were wrong in their model?  What about Galileo?  Despite being one of the most famous people to argue that the Sun is the centre of the solar system and no the Earth?

The Earth is round because of gravity. See the following on wikipedia: "Gravitation is the reason for the very existence of the earth, the sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these bodies and life as we know it would not exist." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)

I understand what gravity does - I want you to answer why it does it.

Again: why is "why is the Earth round" not a question we can ask of the round Earth model?

basically using common sense you can figure out that the formation of matter where the maximum force can be exerted is a sphere-like shape, and as such the matter will form this shape given enough time, and whether it is massive enough.

think about it...if two sides are attracting each other, they will move closer, and closer until an equilibrium is reached where no one side can move closer to its opposite without overcoming the gravitational force of another side of the object (hence a sphere where supposedly the radius from the centre is constant).

this was my hope of trying to explain it to u beast, but im pretty sure ur arguing with bibicul here...can i join  

Yeah thanks woodepazz.  I have studied physics at college - I know what it does.  My question is "what causes the existence of gravity - why does gravity do what it does?"  - Which is an extention of "Why is the Earth round" - because answering why the Earth is round with "gravity" doesn't fully explain why it happens because we don't understand why gravity happens.  It's a shallow answer.  You're welcome to join in if you want.

i was under the illusion u were arguing over how gravity causes the earth to be round. i've got no answers of what causes gravity, and niether do u i suppose. i could say "little things called gravitons" but i really wouldn't understand myself

You can ask 'why' all you want.

What I've been trying to tell you and you just don't want to understand (and phaseshifter stated very nicely in reply to your post yesterday) is that by asking 'why' constantly you eventually reach the axioms, at which point you can look at evidence. Debate should continue only if what you find is different from what is currently known.

Example: if you ask why you always reach the same point on the globe from where you started, you get the answer 'because the earth is round'. If you ask why the earth is round, you get the answer 'because of gravity'. If you ask why gravity exists, you get the answer "because current evidence shows that it does'. Here another "why" is pointless because you've reached an axiom, and should therefore look at the current evidence. If you want to check for yourself, buy a telescope or use Hubble to observe galaxies and stars yourself. Then enlighten us with your new discoveries.

The people who proclaimed the earth was round before Newton weren't wrong in their model, as was later discovered. However, they didn't use gravity as an axiom, but other explanations that weren't as strong and left room for debate. When Newton came about, the RE model became clearer.

Why would *I* explain to you what gravity does? You can clearly find out this information for yourself. woopedazz was kind enough to provide an explanation already.

Gravitons are a theoretically particle.  String theory has some good ideas about what they are, but many physicists don't accept string theory and many others are undecided.  Part of the problem of string theory is that the particles involved are small that the current laws of physics say that we'll never be able to observe them.  It also has too many possible variations (I think 5 widely accepted as most likely) and like much of science it really asks more questions that we didn't know to ask than it answers.  I guess the reason there is so much excitement about string theory though is that it seems to be a theory of physics that looks like uniting all the forces in physics to the one cause (gravity, strong and weak nuclear and electro magnetism).

Gravitons are a theoretically particle.  String theory has some good ideas about what they are, but many physicists don't accept string theory and many others are undecided.  Part of the problem of string theory is that the particles involved are small that the current laws of physics say that we'll never be able to observe them.  It also has too many possible variations (I think 5 widely accepted as most likely) and like much of science it really asks more questions that we didn't know to ask than it answers.  I guess the reason there is so much excitement about string theory though is that it seems to be a theory of physics that looks like uniting all the forces in physics to the one cause (gravity, strong and weak nuclear and electro magnetism).

a good summation, but it still doesnt tell me what gravitrons are...

why would string theory explain all this? why beast? why?!?!  :lol:

Well as I said, string theory asks more questions than it answers.  Gravitons according to string theory are "bits of string" that vibrate at a certain frequency.  Obviously they're not actually literal bits of string and I don't know if "vibrate" is the best word but considering the huge mathematical base to string theory, I don't know a great deal about the details.  There are some good books and websites out there though - it's very interesting but really takes an enourmas amount of study to understand well.

The people who proclaimed the earth was round before Newton weren't wrong in their model, as was later discovered. However, they didn't use gravity as an axiom, but other explanations that weren't as strong and left room for debate. When Newton came about, the RE model became clearer.

What is the "round Earth" model?  The Newtonian model is wrong because it doesn't take into account relativity - so it doesn't actually work and I can give you plenty of examples where you can try to use Newtonian physics to predict things in astronomy and the results are wrong.  The RE model becoming clearer does not say that it didn't exist before Newton.  And if it did exist before Newton (even in an unclear model) then surely it cannot be "based" on something that it predates.

What I've been trying to tell you and you just don't want to understand (and phaseshifter stated very nicely in reply to your post yesterday) is that by asking 'why' constantly you eventually reach the axioms, at which point you can look at evidence. Debate should continue only if what you find is different from what is currently known.

Example: if you ask why you always reach the same point on the globe from where you started, you get the answer 'because the earth is round'. If you ask why the earth is round, you get the answer 'because of gravity'. If you ask why gravity exists, you get the answer "nobody knows'. Here another "why" is pointless because you've reached an axiom, and should therefore look at the existing evidence. If you want to check for yourself, buy a telescope or use Hubble to observe galaxies and stars yourself. Then enlighten us with your new discoveries.

Lets be clear.  Your comment was that were no unanswered questions from the round Earth model.  Surely there is - "Why does it happen".  Infact Godel proved that no system could be completely without making an unprovable assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Essentially Godel's completely accepted theorems says that we cannot come up with a theorem that is not internally complete - there has to be questions that can't be answered.

Who said that the RE model didn't exist before Newton? I surely didn't, nor does it matter at all. Over time, the RE model became more and more complete and easy to undertand. When gravity was defined, it just summed up a lot of different (and sometimes even diverging) explanations (for why the earth was round) into one. That's great. Like you said, Newtonian physics was wrong on many accounts. The theory of relativity followed and made the model even better. I agree, and you are proving my point. The RE theory became more and more complete (different from the FE model, which I have questioned many times and you never took the time to defend). What's your point?



There are no questions left unanswered by the RE model. Read this again, you don't understand it:

beast, your lack of intellect is obvious from the fact that you do not understand the simple mathematical concept of logical implication ('if A then B' or 'A => B'). Gravity is 'A'. The RE is 'B'. Now think 'A => B' or "Gravity => RE', or in other words 'given the fact that gravity exists, the earth is round'. Or how about "Gravity causes the earth to be round". Or "Because of gravity, the earth is round". Does that make any sense to you?

You asked me to explain the existence of gravity using the RE model, so basically B => A. That is illogical. The 'reason' for gravity is NOT the fact that the earth is round, but vice-versa: the earth is round because of gravity.



Then read this:

What I've been trying to tell you and you just don't want to understand (and phaseshifter stated very nicely in reply to your post yesterday) is that by asking 'why' constantly you eventually reach the axioms, at which point you can look at evidence. Debate should continue only if what you find is different from what is currently known.

Example: if you ask why you always reach the same point on the globe from where you started, you get the answer 'because the earth is round'. If you ask why the earth is round, you get the answer 'because of gravity'. If you ask why gravity exists, you get the answer "nobody knows'. Here another "why" is pointless because you've reached an axiom, and should therefore look at the existing evidence. If you want to check for yourself, buy a telescope or use Hubble to observe galaxies and stars yourself. Then enlighten us with your new discoveries.



You were given answers to all of your question. You either don't understand the answers or you don't like to admit that you are wrong.

Essentially Godel's completely accepted theorems says that we cannot come up with a theorem that is not internally complete - there has to be questions that can't be answered.

Yes. They are called axioms. They are based on observations. We don't actually have reasons for why they happen, just observations in the universe that confirm their existence.

Who said that the RE model didn't exist before Newton?

I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity, which in turn is "scientifically accepted" through observations.

You said that the RE model is "BASED" on gravity.  How can it be "BASED" on something it predates.

Your question "Why does gravity exists?" has nothing to do with the fact that the RE theory is strong, nor does it prove that the RE theory still leaves unanswered questions. In fact, your question is entirely out of context.

So you're saying "why is the Earth round?" is not a question that RE theory leaves unanswered?  Is it logically ok to answer a question with a statement involving something that you can't explain?

beast, your lack of intellect is obvious from the fact that you do not understand the simple mathematical concept of logical implication ('if A then B' or 'A => B'). Gravity is 'A'. The RE is 'B'. Now think 'A => B' or "Gravity => RE', or in other words 'given the fact that gravity exists, the earth is round'. Or how about "Gravity causes the earth to be round". Or "Because of gravity, the earth is round". Does that make any sense to you?

You asked me to explain the existence of gravity using the RE model, so basically B => A. That is illogical. The 'reason' for gravity is NOT the fact that the earth is round, but vice-versa: the earth is round because of gravity.

I have never asked you to explain gravity with in the RE model - I'm saying that the RE model relies on something that cannot be explained.  Your statement was:

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

 But you can't explain why the Earth is round beyond crediting it to something you can't explain.

I already told you how it is based on something that it predates:

"Over time, the RE model became more and more complete and easy to undertand. When gravity was defined, it just summed up a lot of different (and sometimes even diverging) explanations (for why the earth was round) into one. That's great. Like you said, Newtonian physics was wrong on many accounts. The theory of relativity followed and made the model even better. I agree, and you are proving my point. The RE theory became more and more complete (different from the FE model, which I have questioned many times and you never took the time to defend)."



Yes, "why is the Earth round?" is not a question that RE theory leaves unanswered. It is logically ok to answer a question using something which you do not know the cause for (gravity) but which exists nonetheless since observation of the universe proves that it exists. I think you have a hard time understanding what an axiom is. What you are debating is identical to someone saying that mathematics is faulty because (since it's also based on axioms) constantly asking "why, why, why" will eventually lead to a deadlock (if to you axioms are a deadlock). Which part of "when you get to the axiom, you need to look at observations" don't you understand?



You are right. The RE model RELIES on something whose origins cannot be explained, yet exists based on observations. Let me also point out that you've just contradicted yourself since you just said "I'm saying that the RE model relies on something that cannot be explained", while in an earlier post you said

"So your statement

Quote:
I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Is clearly false.

Instead gravity is a part of round Earth theory - a crucial part."
(Normally, argument over, but I just know you will post some nonsense about how you didn't actually contradict yourself)



Gravity can be explained; there are tone of books and websites out there talking about gravity and teaching you about it, from the acceleration of gravity to the theory of relativity (see the chapter "Considerations of the universe as a whole", for example). The only thing that cannot be explained is the reason for gravity's existence (e.g. The human body can be explained; the reason for humans' existence cannot be explained).

There is obviously a huge difference between explaining what something does and why it does it.  We can explain what gravity does.  We cannot explain why it does it.

Yes, "why is the Earth round?" is not a question that RE theory leaves unanswered. It is logically ok to answer a question using something which you do not know the cause for (gravity) but which exists nonetheless since observation of the universe proves that it exists. I think you have a hard time understanding what an axiom is.

I understand what an axiom is.  I am not questioning RE theory - I'm questioning your statement that.

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

And also your statement that:

RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Both these statements are false.  You cannot base a model on something you don't know.  RE model does leave unanswered question.  Even if we know for sure that the RE model is true, we still don't know why the Earth is round.  We know that it's round because of the force of gravity but we don't know what causes this force.

I don't understand how I have contradicted myself.  Please post the statement and its contradiction.

'I don't understand how I have contradicted myself. Please post the statement and its contradiction.'
Answer: In your last post you said,


"I'm saying that the RE model relies on something that cannot be explained",


while yesterday you stated,


"So your statement
Quote:
"I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity"
Is clearly false.
Instead gravity is a part of round Earth theory - a crucial part."

Please see the use of "RE model RELIES ON something (gravity)" vs. "Instead gravity is A PART OF round earth theory" => contradiction.




Yes, we cannot explain why gravity exists. What does that have to do with the fact that it exists ANYWAY and hence that the earth is round?

There are no questions that the RE theory leaves unanswered. Questions about the reason why gravity exists are not part of the RE theory. Gravity is an axiom upon which the RE theory is built, therefore it uses gravity as a given (axiom). The theory that will (hopefully) answer why gravity exists will most likely be called the "gravitational theory" or something along these lines. The RE theory answers all questions that it was made to answer.

You said that the statement "RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity" is false because "You cannot base a model on something you don't know". We know gravity and you admitted this yourself when you stated "We can explain what gravity does. We cannot explain why it does it." All we don't know is WHY gravity exists (not whether or not it exists). Of course you can base a model on something that you know exists, but don't know WHY exists. Arguing that "you cannot base a theory on something whose existence you cannot explain" is like saying that you cannot base anatomy on the human body because you don't know why humans exist.

"We know that it's round because of the force of gravity but we don't know what causes this force." => I couldn't have said it better myself.

I've edited the above post. Check for edits.

You completely misunderstand our you're taking comments out of context.


"Relies" and "based on" are different things.

Round Earth theory relies on gravity to explain why it happens.  Round Earth theory is not based on gravity.  Those two comments do not contradict.

Yes, we cannot explain why gravity exists. What does that have to do with the fact that it exists ANYWAY and hence that the earth is round?

This has nothing to do with the debate - it's not what I'm saying at all.  What I am saying is that you are wrong when you say that

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

What not being able to explain gravity has to the debate is that it means if somebody looks at round Earth theory and says "why does it happen like that?" you can't give them a complete answer.

There are no questions that the RE theory leaves unanswered. Questions about the reason why gravity exists are not part of the RE theory. Gravity is an axiom upon which the RE theory is built, therefore it uses gravity as a given (axiom). The theory that will (hopefully) answer why gravity exists will most likely be called the "gravitational theory" or something along these lines. The RE theory answers all questions that it was made to answer.

You didn't say that initially that "RE theory answers all questions that it was made to answer" - What you said is that it "leaves no unanswered questions"  You are redefining what you said in order to mean that you are not wrong but your initial comment was wrong.  RE theory does not explain why the Earth is round in a comprehensible manner.


You have also stopped commenting at all on the fact that when you said "RE theory is BASED on gravity" this was false because you can't base a theory on something you don't know.

Contradiction alarm.

You cannot base a model on something you don't know.

Flat earth theory does not know why the earth is flat or how it was formed. (for that matter, it doesn't even bother trying to explain it)

Flat earth theory also does not know why there would be a conspiracy.
You don't seem to have a problem with that.

Also, you answered your own question...by contradicting yourself.

1.

we still don't know why the Earth is round.

2.

We know that it's round because of the force of gravity

I don't understand how I have contradicted myself. Please post the statement and its contradiction.

Done.

The RE model answers all questions about itself. "Why is the earth a sphere?", is not the same as, "why does gravity exist?"

The same way that "Why is there an ice wall surrounding the earth?" is not the same as "what causes ice to exist?". ( note that FE does not answer either of these questions, which, again, you don,t seem to mind)

No you misunderstand and have quoted out of context.

Clearly when I say "we don't know why the Earth is round" I'm talking about the fact that we don't know what causes gravity.  Obviously we know why it is round to a certain degree.  If you follow the debate you'll see that clearly that is what I meant.  When you quote different parts of an arguement out of context it doesn't show a contradiction at all.

The point is that

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

Is clearely false because we don't know the full reason why the Earth is round - we obviously know that it is because of gravity but we don't know why that happens.  I feel I've been pretty clear on this.

What causes gravity, and why the earth is spherical are 2 different things.

Those are 2 different questions and do not share their answer.

What causes gravity Is not a question about earth, it's a question about a fundamental force in the universe. Because earth is NOT the only object i nexistence to be affected by it.

And like I said, Lack of explanations in FE doesn't seem to bother you. The RE model answers all questions ABOUT ITSELF. If you want answers to other phenomenons, then you have to look else where.

Flat earth theory does not know why the earth is flat or how it was formed. (for that matter, it doesn't even bother trying to explain it)

Flat earth theory also does not know why there would be a conspiracy.

Well I guess it's a good thing we don't base our theory off of those things, isn't it?

The RE model answers all questions ABOUT ITSELF. If you want answers to other phenomenons, then you have to look else where.

And if I used this argument for the FE, you would not stand for it!

What causes gravity, and why the earth is spherical are 2 different things.

Those are 2 different questions and do not share their answer.

What causes gravity Is not a question about earth, it's a question about a fundamental force in the universe. Because earth is NOT the only object i nexistence to be affected by it.

Again you misunderstand.  I'm not saying that because we can't explain gravity that the Earth must be flat.  I'm not saying that being unable to explain gravity means that the RE theory is any less strong.  I am simply saying that the comment:

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

is wrong because there is the unanswered question of "Why is the Earth round?" - Which can be answered on a shallow level (because of gravity) but not on a deeper level.

As I also said before - Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that in any logic system based on axioms is either incomplete or inconsistant.  While his theory specifically applies to first order logic - it's still very relevent in this debate.  The point is that you cannot have a system that is complete.  Every system will have questions that are left unanswered.  This doesn't in any way mean the system is wrong - it just means that the statement that the RE model leaves no unanswered questions is wrong.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Flat earth theory does not know why the earth is flat or how it was formed. (for that matter, it doesn't even bother trying to explain it)

Flat earth theory also does not know why there would be a conspiracy.

Well I guess it's a good thing we don't base our theory off of those things, isn't it?

The theory of a planet being flat is NOT based on the formation of a flat planet?

That's some weird logic.

Also, without the concpiracy, FE theory doesn't stand. So I'd say that qualifies as being based on something.

I'm fairly sure the Enraged Penguin is referring to the fact that:

RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Which is to say the he says the round Earth model is BASED on the existence of gravity despite the fact that the round Earth model predates the theory of gravity and we don't know what causes gravity.

Flat Earth theory on the other hand is largely based on the observation that when you look at the world, it appears flat (or at least we can't see that it's round from our own eyes).  That's not to say it is or isn't round - that's just what the theory that the Earth is flat is based on.  Indeed I would have personally said that round Earth theory is based upon observations and calculations of the world and not based on gravity at all.  I would say that the existence of gravity is really immaterial to the shape of the Earth.  Obviously gravity answers some of the questions we may have about why the Earth is flat and also asks others.

This is not what bibicul was saying - what he was saying is that round Earth theory is BASED on gravity and that it leaves no unanswered questions.

beast,

bibicul wrote:
RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Which is to say the he says the round Earth model is BASED on the existence of gravity despite the fact that the round Earth model predates the theory of gravity and we don't know what causes gravity.

Firstly, I already answered that, and the fact that we don't know what causes gravity is irrelevant. I said that the concept of gravity, introduced after the earth was thought to be round, summed up different (and sometimes diverging) opinions about WHY the earth was round. It simply made the RE model MORE credible and MORE complete. A model becomes better and better over time as it becomes more and more simple and easy to understand. Just because gravity was formally defined after the RE model was introduced doesn't mean that the RE model cannot be based upon it! All it means is that as time progressed the RE theory was based on something NEWER and BETTER - it evolved. In the same way, the expansion of the universe is based on Einstein's Theory of relativity, even though people thought about whether the universe was expanding long before Einstein was born.



Secondly, you did contradict yourself; saying "you are taking things out of context" has nothing to do with the fact that you've stated 2 opposing ideas: once you said that the RE model is based on something that cannot be explained:

I'm saying that the RE model relies on something that cannot be explained.

You are admitting that the RE model is BASED on gravity in this sentence, where 'be based/base' and 'rely' are OBVIOUS synonyms, and HERE is your proof on www.thesaurus.com:

Synonyms: base, be based, be contingent, be dependent, be founded, be supported, be upheld, bottom, count, establish, found, ground, hang, hinge, lie, predicate, rely, reside, stay, turn

Then you said that gravity was part of the RE theory, and highlighted that it is NOT something upon which the RE theory is based:

Instead gravity is a part of round Earth theory - a crucial part.

Either the RE theory is based on gravity or gravity is part of the RE theory - not both! This is called a contradiction! Are you redefining the definition of "contradiction" too? So far you've been redefining everything that you read - in improper ways, too. Nobody is taking anything out of context, we are simply quoting you and your stubborness is amusing.



Thirdly, what I am saying and I can argue for over and over again is that the RE theory is BASED on gravity and leaves no unanswered questions. The RE theory proves that the earth is round; it does not attempt to answer the question "why does gravity exist". That question will most likely be answered by something called "The gravitational theory".
Your statement "Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that in any logic system based on axioms is either incomplete or inconsistant." is false; you completely misunderstood what this man said and you redefined his first theorem; I urge you not to do that because he said something correct, unlike you. Observe what Godel stated:

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

He is explicitly referring to "arithmetical truths". Do you know what those are? They are proofs based on arithmetic. Nowhere in his theory does Godel say that a theory "in general" is incomplete. Again, all he is saying is that THEORIES BASED ON ARITHMETIC are incomplete.

www.dictionary.com: Arithmetic: the mathematics of integers, rational numbers, real numbers, or complex numbers under addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division  

When all of us in this thread tell you that gravity is an axiom, that it is based on observations of the nightsky, other galaxies, stars, and the bahavior of bodies in the universe in general, we are pointing out that axioms (including those for the RE theory) are NOT based on arithmetic

www.dictionary.com:
axiom: 1) a self-evident truth that requires no proof; 2) a universally accepted principle or rule; 3) Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it

Godel is not talking about axioms, which you claimed in your sentence "Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that in any logic system based on axioms is either incomplete or inconsistant", nor does he say that all theories are incomplete. He is saying that theories based on arithmetical statements are incomplete (i.e. that mathematical proof can only take you so far).
beast, you need to pay attention to what you read and you should seriously consider that what you post on this forum is deeply flawed.



Lastly... the RE theory proves that the earth is round. It is based on gravity. Read phaseshifter's statement again, it addresses what you said very clearly:

"What causes gravity, and why the earth is spherical are 2 different things.
Those are 2 different questions and do not share their answer.
What causes gravity Is not a question about earth, it's a question about a fundamental force in the universe. Because earth is NOT the only object i nexistence to be affected by it."

I have no idea where you are going with your nonsense but the entire point of a debate is to learn something from others and to stop responding just for the sake of having the last word; in no way does that mean you won the argument. I really thought that you understood this being an older member of this forum. We can all keep posting and posting infinitely, but the idea is that we HAVE brought you all the arguments that one needs, while you never answered any of our questions about the FE theory which you (seem to?) embrace.

beast,

bibicul wrote:
RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Which is to say the he says the round Earth model is BASED on the existence of gravity despite the fact that the round Earth model predates the theory of gravity and we don't know what causes gravity.

Firstly, I already answered that, and the fact that we don't know what causes gravity is irrelevant. I said that the concept of gravity, introduced after the earth was thought to be round, summed up different (and sometimes diverging) opinions about WHY the earth was round. It simply made the RE model MORE credible and MORE complete. A model becomes better and better over time as it becomes more and more simple and easy to understand. Just because gravity was formally defined after the RE model was introduced doesn't mean that the RE model cannot be based upon it! All it means is that as time progressed the RE theory was based on something NEWER and BETTER - it evolved. In the same way, the expansion of the universe is based on Einstein's Theory of relativity, even though people thought about whether the universe was expanding long before Einstein was born.



Secondly, you did contradict yourself; saying "you are taking things out of context" has nothing to do with the fact that you've stated 2 opposing ideas: once you said that the RE model is based on something that cannot be explained:

I'm saying that the RE model relies on something that cannot be explained.

You are admitting that the RE model is BASED on gravity in this sentence, where 'be based/base' and 'rely' are OBVIOUS synonyms, and HERE is your proof on www.thesaurus.com:

Synonyms: base, be based, be contingent, be dependent, be founded, be supported, be upheld, bottom, count, establish, found, ground, hang, hinge, lie, predicate, rely, reside, stay, turn

Then you said that gravity was part of the RE theory, and highlighted that it is NOT something upon which the RE theory is based:

Instead gravity is a part of round Earth theory - a crucial part.

Either the RE theory is based on gravity or gravity is part of the RE theory - not both! This is called a contradiction! Are you redefining the definition of "contradiction" too? So far you've been redefining everything that you read - in improper ways, too. Nobody is taking anything out of context, we are simply quoting you and your stubborness is amusing.



Thirdly, what I am saying and I can argue for over and over again is that the RE theory is BASED on gravity and leaves no unanswered questions. The RE theory proves that the earth is round; it does not attempt to answer the question "why does gravity exist". That question will most likely be answered by something called "The gravitational theory".
Your statement "Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that in any logic system based on axioms is either incomplete or inconsistant." is false; you completely misunderstood what this man said and you redefined his first theorem; I urge you not to do that because he said something correct, unlike you. Observe what Godel stated:

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

He is explicitly referring to "arithmetical truths". Do you know what those are? They are proofs based on arithmetic. Nowhere in his theory does Godel say that a theory "in general" is incomplete. Again, all he is saying is that THEORIES BASED ON ARITHMETIC are incomplete.

www.dictionary.com: Arithmetic: the mathematics of integers, rational numbers, real numbers, or complex numbers under addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division  

When some of us in this thread tell you that gravity is an axiom, that it is based on observations of the nightsky, other galaxies, stars, and the bahavior of bodies in the universe in general, we are pointing out that axioms (including those for the RE theory) are NOT based on arithmetic:

www.dictionary.com:
axiom: 1) a self-evident truth that requires no proof; 2) a universally accepted principle or rule; 3) Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it

Godel is not talking about axioms, which you claimed in your sentence "Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that in any logic system based on axioms is either incomplete or inconsistant", nor does he say that all theories are incomplete. He is saying that theories based on arithmetical statements are incomplete (i.e. that mathematical proof can only take you so far).
beast, you need to pay attention to what you read and you should seriously consider that what you post on this forum is deeply flawed.



Lastly... the RE theory proves that the earth is round. It is based on gravity. Read phaseshifter's statement again, it addresses what you said very clearly:

"What causes gravity, and why the earth is spherical are 2 different things.
Those are 2 different questions and do not share their answer.
What causes gravity Is not a question about earth, it's a question about a fundamental force in the universe. Because earth is NOT the only object i nexistence to be affected by it."

I have no idea where you are going with your nonsense but the entire point of a debate is to learn something from others and to stop responding just for the sake of having the last word; in no way does that mean you won the argument. I really thought that you understood this being an older member of this forum. We can all keep posting and posting infinitely, but the idea is that we HAVE brought you all the arguments that one needs, while you never answered any of our questions about the FE theory which you (seem to?) embrace.

bibicul, you are missing basic points through English.


If theory two is BASED on theory one, then theory one must have come before theory two. Hence, for RE theory (theory two) to be based on the theory of gravity (theory one), then the theory of gravity would have to be the theory which came first. This is not the case, and as such, it is incorrect and non-factual to say that RE theory is based on the theory of gravity.

In fact, the theory of gravity was something invented to explain a round earth- this is chronologically indisputable. Thus you were wrong to say that the theory of a round earth is based on the theory of gravity.

I completely disagree.

If something new ('a') is discovered or defined and affects something that precedes it ('b'), that doesn't mean that 'b' cannot be based on 'a' thereafter; it just means that something that was previously unknown/undefined but existed nonetheless ('a') is now known and defined. I believe that you should read "basic English" in the following paragraph:

Just because gravity was formally defined after the RE model was introduced doesn't mean that the RE model cannot be based upon it! All it means is that as time progressed the RE theory was based on something NEWER and BETTER - it evolved. In the same way, the expansion of the universe is based on Einstein's Theory of relativity, even though people thought about whether the universe was expanding long before Einstein was born.