Flawed at the very core

  • 124 Replies
  • 16347 Views
?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« on: October 19, 2006, 07:57:40 PM »
I have read through several boards, and read the FAQ and there is something you are all missing. People call it a alternative science and say it is a theory. now a theory, by definition cannot be proved, it can be disproved though and if any part of it is found to be wrong then the entire theory is disproved and must be altered. A theory is a combination of hyposis, and a hyposis by definition is a idea that can be exparimentaly proved or disproved, so if any one of the hyposis in the theory is incorect the theory is incorrect, and if any part of the theory is not an hypothisis the it is not a theory.

now that that is established, we can progress onto the fact that this is either not a science, or not a valid theory, and if you cannot even correctly define this "thing" how can any of it be debated? This suposed science needs revision otherwise it is factualy incorrect on a base level and never can progress past that to a functional science, and the goal of this isnt to prove the earth is flat, the original goal was to prove how this flat earth functions.

there, hows that for a debate.

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2006, 08:45:50 PM »
It's a scientific theory. So what?

There has been proof against us, and we've remade the theory. That's how theories work.

The latter paragraph (stanza?) didn't even make a fraction of sense, so I'm just going to not bother addressing it at all.

I'd also suggest you make a strive for making your grammar more understandable if you want people to actually address what you are saying. That whole post was like one long sentence (blob of words?).

~D-Draw

?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2006, 08:57:05 PM »
How cute, well I supose this is where I get flustered and start yelling? wrong.

If you would care to re-read it, and not disreguard me due to my spelling and grammer I belive it would come into a new light.

I am saying it is either not a science or not a theory, because some of its "Hypothisis" cannot be proved or disproved ergo it is not up for debate. Your group is far too caught up in telling other people off for not accepting your views you dont realise the true reason for your science isnt to prove your right, but to prove how it would work since your right. and you cannot do this because your theory is flawed at the core. so first, you must restart and re-evaluate the theory, then start testing it again. The burden of proof doesnt fall on you, or the "Round earth" people, but the burden to disprove hypothisis does entirely fall on your sholders, because you can never say that the science is finished.

now will you please actualy try? your making this too easy.

*

beast

  • 2997
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2006, 09:05:45 PM »
I don't see very many people getting told off for not accepting that the world is flat.  Mainly we're the ones being told off for being "gay retards."

?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2006, 09:11:45 PM »
again cute, but still not on topic. I would like to hear your response to this. and not what is the norm, because I was just, in the last post, told off for questioning your theorys.

?

3

  • 14
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2006, 09:34:15 PM »
I like how nobody has actually addressed B's initial challange.

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2006, 09:37:37 PM »
Flat Earth is just as testable as any other cosmological theory.  It's precepts are very defined, and have been tested.  Personally, I'm a Round Earther, but I think that your attack on Flat Earth is pretty baseless.

Flat Earth is not a science any more than calling the Earth round is.  Physics is a science.  Chemistry is a science.  These attempt to explain how the world works.  Flat Earth is a cosmological theory.  It attempts to explain the layout of the world, or of the universe.  As such, it's subject to an entirely different set of rules than a science would be.  In fact, the shape of the world has been tested many times.  The results, in my opinion, have pretty conclusively proved Round Earth to be correct, but that doesn't mean that we should fault the other side simply for existing.  We can call them wrong all we want, as long as we back our claims up.  But we can't call their beliefs untestable or claim that they are "not even a theory", because that's anything but true.

?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2006, 09:46:13 PM »
I am not saying its a "Science" I am saying its a theory in the Physics of your world.
Quote
Flat Earth is a cosmological theory.

you see, that is exactly what I am saying is not the case, its not a theory because it doesnt follow the accepted definition of a theory, there for it cannot be accepted as a valid alternative theory. A theory by definition cannot be proven, just as you say, no one can prove the earth is round, but all the hypothisis involved with that are testable and havent yet been proved wrong in a recreatable experiment. there for its status as a theory is still valid. its not one theory against another, its the theory againt itself, thats how science works. and if you claim to have proven something you are ruining the theory itself causing it to collapse on itself making all the work pointless.

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2006, 09:58:06 PM »
Quote from: "B"
I am not saying its a "Science" I am saying its a theory in the Physics of your world.
Quote
Flat Earth is a cosmological theory.

you see, that is exactly what I am saying is not the case, its not a theory because it doesnt follow the accepted definition of a theory, there for it cannot be accepted as a valid alternative theory. A theory by definition cannot be proven, just as you say, no one can prove the earth is round, but all the hypothisis involved with that are testable and havent yet been proved wrong in a recreatable experiment. there for its status as a theory is still valid. its not one theory against another, its the theory againt itself, thats how science works. and if you claim to have proven something you are ruining the theory itself causing it to collapse on itself making all the work pointless.
No, if a theory is "proven", then it becomes fact.  That hardly makes work useless.

The fact remains that the hypothesis of Flat Earth can be tested.  There are numerous ways to prove Flat Earth wrong, that's obvious.  But that doesn't mean that it ceases to exist as a theory.  Oscillatory Universe Theory, Many-Worlds Theory, Big Crunch Theory, and countless other cosmological theories exist despite data that contradict them.  Being proven wrong does not mean that a theory is no longer a theory.

?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2006, 10:01:03 PM »
a theory by defintion cannot be proven, too many hypothisis, and each hypothisis creates more hypothisis, thats why gravity is still a theory. if it has been proven 99% it becomes a law of nature, but then there is still the ablity to disprove it. and they are not scientific theorys if they have been disproven, because they cease to be theorys until re-imagined. come on this is science 101 stuff people.

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2006, 10:07:45 PM »
If we get down to the deepest of philosophical levels, you can't prove much more than that you exist.  Should we, therefore, cease to believe in everything?

I'm going to sleep, though.  You'll have to find someone else to debate with.

?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2006, 10:23:26 PM »
I am not saying you cant belive in it. I am just saying the theory is broken and cannot evolve. I am trying to say that currently they cannot progress tward a better understanding of the physics of a flat world if the theory is broken, and there is no point in know its flat if you are not going to study anything about it.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2006, 12:11:02 AM »
When I saw this thread I immediately wanted to nominate it for "Best title of an RE thread ever," but since it turns out that doesn't actually have anything to do with the Earth's core, I take it back... you lose!.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2006, 01:50:38 AM »
swish

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2006, 11:48:08 AM »
Hi, the people on this forum are very friendly :)

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what B seems to be saying is that FE theory is not within the accepted definition of a theory, and has gaps in it that are not being filled, and may never be, which causes it to be stagnating.

Or maybe I read everything you said wrong.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Definition to Theory
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2006, 12:04:53 PM »
the·o·ry (th?'?-r?, thîr'?)
n., pl. -ries.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.



ABove is the definition to theory. Sorry to intrude, but it seems that there is a question of what theory means. Just trying to help.
y the Power of Round Earth!!!

I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flexgirl

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: Definition to Theory
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2006, 01:33:52 PM »
Quote from: "FlexGirl"
ABove is the definition to theory. Sorry to intrude, but it seems that there is a question of what theory means. Just trying to help.


Thanks.  It would seem that "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena" describes FEism rather well.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

B

  • 23
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2006, 06:07:37 PM »
That would be the websters definition, not the scientific definition. and phaseshifter has gotten the thisis of my argument correct. Therefor, before you can go on with this as a scientific princple you need to rectify the errors otherwise the only thing it can be difined as is a religion which I am sure is not what is wanted.

now someone prove me wrong.

definition
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2006, 07:25:13 PM »
actually it was answers.com definition, but I get what your saying. Just trying to help both arguments to go on beyond definitions.
y the Power of Round Earth!!!

I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flexgirl

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2006, 07:25:45 PM »
sorry for the intrusion.
y the Power of Round Earth!!!

I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flexgirl

theory definition
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2006, 09:51:36 PM »
I know I am trying to have this conversation go beyond definitions, but I found out the scientific definition for theory. Again, this may or may not go with the flat earth theory.

Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

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


Again just trying to help. Again sorry for the intrusion.
y the Power of Round Earth!!!

I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flexgirl

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: theory definition
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2006, 09:54:11 PM »
Quote from: "FlexGirl"

Again just trying to help. Again sorry for the intrusion.

Can you please stop being so nice.  You're creepin' me out.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2006, 09:58:29 PM »
I dont do forums very often, and I dont want to be mistakin, or portrayed in the wrong way.
y the Power of Round Earth!!!

I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flexgirl

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2006, 12:20:54 AM »
Quote from: "B"
a theory by defintion cannot be proven, too many hypothisis, and each hypothisis creates more hypothisis, thats why gravity is still a theory. if it has been proven 99% it becomes a law of nature, but then there is still the ablity to disprove it. and they are not scientific theorys if they have been disproven, because they cease to be theorys until re-imagined. come on this is science 101 stuff people.


There are no facts in realtity then since nothing can be proven..?

Btw: I agree with you on most things you've written so far. However, the earth can be proven round, while it cannot be proven flat.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2006, 12:23:25 AM »
Quote from: "FlexGirl"
I dont do forums very often, and I dont want to be mistakin, or portrayed in the wrong way.


get stuck into sum of the suckers  :wink:  and trust me, theres no such thing as an intrusion on this site, speak up whenever u want to, or have sumthing to add

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2006, 12:46:01 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "B"
a theory by defintion cannot be proven, too many hypothisis, and each hypothisis creates more hypothisis, thats why gravity is still a theory. if it has been proven 99% it becomes a law of nature, but then there is still the ablity to disprove it. and they are not scientific theorys if they have been disproven, because they cease to be theorys until re-imagined. come on this is science 101 stuff people.


There are no facts in realtity then since nothing can be proven..?

Btw: I agree with you on most things you've written so far. However, the earth can be proven round, while it cannot be proven flat.


Actually, no, it can't.

Basically, if you follow politics, it's just like the WMD in Iraq. Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they aren't there. Just because we don't find the flaw doesn't mean we can assume that no flaw exists.

We can't ever PROVE anything. Just like you can't prove that no pictures of that thing you did last summer exist on the internet, we can't prove that the earth is, in fact, round. We can only keep testing to try and detect some flaw that indicates that it isn't.

We can only find that a theory is INCORRECT, and thus throw it out.

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2006, 12:56:14 AM »
Quote from: "IneptOne"


Actually, no, it can't.

Basically, if you follow politics, it's just like the WMD in Iraq. Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean they aren't there. Just because we don't find the flaw doesn't mean we can assume that no flaw exists.

We can't ever PROVE anything. Just like you can't prove that no pictures of that thing you did last summer exist on the internet, we can't prove that the earth is, in fact, round. We can only keep testing to try and detect some flaw that indicates that it isn't.

We can only find that a theory is INCORRECT, and thus throw it out.


Oh boy.  He said WMD and Iraq in the same post.

Time to break out the flame retardant suits.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2006, 01:06:44 AM »
I'm not saying there ever WAS one, I'm just saying that not finding one isn't proof that it wasn't there!

I can search the internet all day for a picture of Laura Croft from the original Tomb Raider and never find one. That does NOT mean, however, that there are no pictures on the internet of the original Tomb Raider's Laura Croft.

I could spend all my life searching for a webcomic that includes a refrence somewhere to something I unconciously did to the author/artist, and never find one. But that doesn't mean that one isn't there.

You could spend fifty years looking for the love of your life, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.

THUS: A theory is never proved or disproved! You can only keep looking disproof!

Also, as far as theories are concerned, you typically must disprove the current one before a new one is even necessary.

Prove that the world is NOT round, and THEN I'll start looking at the possibility that it's flat.

Flawed at the very core
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2006, 02:10:21 AM »
I thought the Earth was a cube?
he earth is a cube!

*

beast

  • 2997
Flawed at the very core
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2006, 06:39:24 AM »
Quote from: "IneptOne"
I'm not saying there ever WAS one, I'm just saying that not finding one isn't proof that it wasn't there!

That may be the case, but the US administration now accepts that there were no weapons.  The claims that there were WMDs have now been traced back to a terrorist who was tortured at the time and later admitted to making it up and from exiled opposing Iraqis who were trying to convince the US to go to war.  While we can't "prove" there were no WMDs we can feel very confident in saying that there were not.

Quote

I can search the internet all day for a picture of Laura Croft from the original Tomb Raider and never find one. That does NOT mean, however, that there are no pictures on the internet of the original Tomb Raider's Laura Croft.


Actually there are definitely no pictures on the internet of the original Tomb Raider's Laura Croft.  You can easily prove this as the case because in the original Tomb Raider there was nobody named "Laura Croft."  Her name is Lara Croft dude.




Quote

THUS: A theory is never proved or disproved! You can only keep looking disproof!


Theories can never be ultimately proven.  You can prove a theory within the context of a particular assumption and you can definitely disprove theories easily.  Some examples.

My computer moniter exists
Through the power of observation I can see that it does exist.  I'm making the assumption that what I see and feel is real.  Beyond that I can see that it's true.  Maybe I can't prove it to you or anybody else without getting them to come see it, but I can definitely prove it myself within the assumption of believing my senses.

Everybody on this forum argues that the Earth is flat
Again easy to prove that this theory is false just by powers of observation.