Government Manipulation

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 don't get this at all?!?!

i technically agree with you, but technicality never won a nobel prize that people look at and say "damn, he was a ground breaker...he did wat others had defined before him, but more gramatically correct..."

gravity and the RE are not based on one another, they coincide. one depends upon the other, they are linked. if we were to say: "gravity causes the earth to be round" we would 100% be correct. therefore the earth depends on gravity, not neccessarily being based upon it.

for one to be true the other must also be correct...infact u could almost say that (bibicul will be angry for me saying this   ) gravity=RE haha

Definitions of basis from google:

footing: a relation that provides the foundation for something; "they were on a friendly footing"; "he worked on an interim basis"
the fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained; "the whole argument rested on a basis of conjecture"

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

"the foundation of a theory or process"


The basis or foundation of something comes first. That is, pardon the pun, pretty basic. Thus, in this context it is incorrect to say that 'rely (upon)' and 'based (upon)' mean the same thing, because they don't. The theory of gravity is based upon the mathematics which were used to formulate it, but it relies upon 'observable proof'. If the maths were correct, but no 'observable proof could be found, then it would still be based on the maths, but would not be able to rely on proof. They mean two different things. You are, simply, wrong.

RE theory relies on gravity to provide a scientific/mathematical explanation for the 'observable phenomenon' upon which it is based. RE theory is not based on gravity.

I have no problem with the disambiguation of "based on" and "rely upon".
So, as you said, the theory of gravity is based upon the mathematics which were used to formulate it, but it relies upon "observable proof".

While your explanations are completely valid, this still does not disprove the fact that the RE theory leaves no unanswered questions; some of them can be answered through the mathematics upon which the theory is "based on", while others can be answered through the observations upon which the RE theory "relies on".

You could say that I was wrong in my choice of words, but that does not affect my argument. The RE theory became more complete when the concept of gravity was defined, as it summed up different diverging ideas about the reason why the earth was round. I don't see how the disambiguation of "based on" and "rely upon" affect the fact that the RE theory leaves no unanswered questions.

So are you admiting you were wrong when you said

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

??

Also I feel that you're still missing the arguement.


Can we explain what causes gravity?

Is gravity an important part of explaining why it is that the Earth is round?

Is asking a question about why an observation is the case a question related to that observation?

Please answer these three questions with "yes" or "no."

First of all, I ask you not to tell me how to answer questions since you have answered none of mine, despite my insistance to do so.

Secondly, all that I admitted to was the wrong choice of words - "based on" rather than "rely upon" (excuse my limited knowledge of English) in light of your statement that the RE theory came before gravity was introduced (by the way, I found out information pointing out that gravity might have actually come into existence first, which could make half of this conversation obsolete - I am posting it below).

Now, to move to your questions,

No, we don't know what causes gravity and that was stated from the beginning of the conversation. We know that gravity exists, we know how it operates, but we don't know why it exists.

Gravity is what the RE theory "relies upon" - I sincerely hope we have no disagreement here since half of this thread was dedicated to word usage. Gravity is not part of the RE theory. It was NOT introduced into science IN ORDER to prove that the earth was round, but rather to explain the motion of planets in the universe. As people began to study the forces at work, they realized that using Newton's theory of gravitation they could explain the shape of our planet - call it a bonus if you wish. It is NOT a PART of the RE theory. Here are Newton's exact words to prove this:

I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.

Therefore, not knowing WHY gravity exists remains a question outside of the RE theory.

I think you should rephrase your third question - the wording is... ambiguous.



Now, consider for a second that what you said about gravity coming into existence AFTER the RE model was introduced is wrong... which would make your argument obsolete. Apparently, "Since the time of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the 4th century BC, there have been many attempts to understand and explain gravity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). Now, if that's true, then the RE theory could be said to be BASED on gravity, rather than RELYING upon it. It's open to debate: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Honestly, it doesn't make that much of a difference to me if you say that the RE theory is based on gravity or relies upon it, since either way gravity is one thing, and the round earth another.

What is interesting to note is that the whole point of this debate sprang from the fact that I wanted (and I believe I did) prove that the RE model leaves no unanswered questions, such that when math no longer offers an answer (for example, the reason why gravity exists) observations STILL do. What I wished to say but did not get a chance to until now is that there are NO observations or axioms or whatever you want to call them for the FE model. For example, what kind of observations/proof do we have that the government has been hiding the true shape of the earth for hundreds of years? What observations/proof do we have that show the Sun as a big light that turns on and off rather than a rising and setting body in the sky?

Lets me clear.  Your statement did not suggest that there were unanswered questions inside of round Earth theory.  Your statement was:

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

A theory or model can leave unanswered questsions without those questions being part of the theory.  For example the obvious question in RE theory is; "Why is the Earth round?"  We don't need to know the answer of this to decide if the Earth is actually round or not because all the evidence for proving the round Earth has always come from observational evidence but at the same time it's an important question and it is a question left by the RE model.  We wouldn't ask it if we didn't already have the theory that the Earth is round.

Lets look at another example.  A few nights ago Australia beat New Zealand in a rugby league game.  That's a statement I'm making from what I observed on television.  Now you may ask; "Why did Australia win?" And I can only say; "Because Australia was a better side."  Which immediatly leads to the question; "Why is Australia better?" And I can't answer that last question.  The reason I can't answer it is not because an answer doesn't exist but because I don't have the knowledge.  Now these questions and my answers have nothing to do with the result of the game but if I were to say that my statement that Australia won leaves no answered questions that would clearly be false.  The same goes with your statement that there are no questions left unanswered by the round Earth model.

Regarding our attempts to say that gravity is older than the RE theory; I posted that exact same link up as my proof that RE theory is older.

"The first person known to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth is Pythagoras (6th century BC)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

6th century BC is 200 years before 4th century BC.  While we may be talking a long time ago such that 200 years doesn't sound like a lot - it's about 6 generations.

Lets me clear.  Your statement did not suggest that there were unanswered questions inside of round Earth theory.  Your statement was:

Quote

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

A theory or model can leave unanswered questsions without those questions being part of the theory.  For example the obvious question in RE theory is; "Why is the Earth round?"  We don't need to know the answer of this to decide if the Earth is actually round or not because all the evidence for proving the round Earth has always come from observational evidence but at the same time it's an important question and it is a question left by the RE model.  We wouldn't ask it if we didn't already have the theory that the Earth is round.

Lets look at another example.  A few nights ago Australia beat New Zealand in a rugby league game.  That's a statement I'm making from what I observed on television.  Now you may ask; "Why did Australia win?" And I can only say; "Because Australia was a better side."  Which immediatly leads to the question; "Why is Australia better?" And I can't answer that last question.  The reason I can't answer it is not because an answer doesn't exist but because I don't have the knowledge.  Now these questions and my answers have nothing to do with the result of the game but if I were to say that my statement that Australia won leaves no answered questions that would clearly be false.  The same goes with your statement that there are no questions left unanswered by the round Earth model.

Regarding our attempts to say that gravity is older than the RE theory; I posted that exact same link up as my proof that RE theory is older.

"The first person known to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth is Pythagoras (6th century BC)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

6th century BC is 200 years before 4th century BC.  While we may be talking a long time ago such that 200 years doesn't sound like a lot - it's about 6 generations.

You cannot compare the result of one team of rugby against another with the behavior of a planet.

The behavior of celestial bodies is gouverned by a set of constants ( mass, presence of another body, rotational axis, rotation period, ect.) all those things can be calculated and you could predict exactly how a planet would behave given those informations).

A game of Rugby between 2 teams has more unknown and very little constants. How many players are sick, depressed, angry, injured, did the coach have an argument with one of them, is one of them simply not interested in winning that game, are the referees reliable?) ect, there is a near infinite amount of factors that interact chaoticly, and no exact predictions are possible.

When you make an analogy, please make sure that the subjects can actually compare and have a few things in common.

Clearly the point of the analogy was not the nature of the question but the nature of the wording.  I was trying to show how a statement can leave unanswered questions without those questions reflecting on the truth of the statement.  I'm sorry you couldn't understand that.  I'll try to make it clearer next time.

beast,

You obviously have a problem understanding what "At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions" means.

All of a sudden, you change your argument to "A theory or model can leave unanswered questions without those questions being part of the theory". It seems that all of a sudden what I said can be interpreted as "the RE theory doesn't explain why WW2 started". Sure, if your argument is now that the RE theory cannot account for everything that happens in the universe (which is different from what you initially posed), then I have no quarrel with that. However, that no longer has anything to do with how complete the RE theory is or what it can or cannot answer.

Clearly when someone says that a model leaves no unaswered questions they don't refer to questions about another model or theory (such as the theory of gravity). Sure, the obvious question "Why is the earth round?" IS part of the RE theory, becuase it's directly related to it. If you remember, woopedazz answered that question for you and you replied "Thanks, I also took science courses in university". You were also told by phaseshifter that constantly asking "why, why, why" will eventually lead to an "I don't know" but that doesn't meant that the RE theory is flawed or that it doesn't answer everything, but rather that our knowledge of other theories, such as gravity (and more particularly, what causes it) is limited. In no way does that affect the RE theory and what it can answer.

With regards to your analogy - I think phaseshifter explained to you why it's not a good one.

What is interesting to note is that the whole point of this debate sprang from the fact that I wanted (and I believe I did) prove that the RE model leaves no unanswered questions, such that when math no longer offers an answer (for example, the reason why gravity exists) observations STILL do. What I wished to say but did not get a chance to until now is that there are NO observations or axioms or whatever you want to call them for the FE model. For example, what kind of observations/proof do we have that the government has been hiding the true shape of the earth for hundreds of years? What observations/proof do we have that show the Sun as a big light that turns on and off rather than a rising and setting body in the sky?

Most importantly, how is it that you believe the earth to be flat when the FE theory poses more questions than it answers? You seem to pick on anything you can related to the RE theory; but are you not curious to constantly ask "why, why, why" about the flat earth?

Nearly 100% of the earth's population has believed for THOUSANDS of years that the earth is round. This must then imply that any conspiracy that upholds that belief has also been around for thousands of years.

An average of 100% people belive its round
And an average of 0% people belive its flat

(Remember it is averaged)

Nearly 100% of the earth's population has believed for THOUSANDS of years that the earth is round.

Way off,That number of peple beliving is only a few hundred years old.THis is from the 1st page.

Quote from: "Fred"

Nearly 100% of the earth's population has believed for THOUSANDS of years that the earth is round.

Way off,That number of peple beliving is only a few hundred years old.THis is from the 1st page.

The first page of what?  You're mistaken; Fred is right.  For at least 2400 years, most people in the civilized world have believed the Earth to be round.

The Fist page of this thread and no he is not,Most people did not think the World was around unil that past few hundred years,SUre there probaly was but not that many.

Erasmus is correct.

The reality of a round earth has yes, been around for at least 2400 years. The layman, or commoner was not necessarily aware of the scientific finds.

The layman population of the world was in the dark about it and it was not taught in regular curriculum until at least the 17th century.

The similar subject was already observed somewhere at this thread

www.Skeptical%Listener.justgotowned.com

in FE, the focre we call 'gravity' is explained by the earth accelerating upwards. Now, thats not a complete explanation, but its accualy more complete than the Round earth one wich is basicly 'it is becasue it is'

But you also say the flat earth 'is because it is', that the sun is a spotlight 'because it is', orbiting a central point 'because it does', the earth accelerates upwards 'because it does', that light bends 'because it does' and so on.

With RE all the facts work with each other. This is no coincidence.  Everything is explained - all that remains is working out the fine details, like how gravity unifies with the other forces etc.