Shifting Gears and the Bipolar Model

Well, if Einstein was able to give an account that worked in BOTH systems, then  it seems silly to invoke Newton. I would think that he would be passe, once Einstein had spoken, if indeed Einstein's theory is superior. It may be hard to explain, but if it can account for all observed phenomena both local and galactic, it seems that it would be worth explaining. Does that make sense? And WHAT does OP mean?

We do invoke Einstein. It is more complete but it is unnecessary to do so when working with things in this inertial frame. For instance, we use calculators. I can bother to learn about how to do all the work necessary to do mathematics by using scratch paper if I want to but it is unnecessary when I can just use the calculator for the simple stuff. When things get more complex though you have to pull out the paper and pencil.

WHAT DOES OP MEAN???!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:57:01 AM

Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far.  It is the Three Bears story of science.  It only works when it is just right.

What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?

The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit can not be explained by Newtonian gravity.  However, it was one of the first successful tests of Einstein's General Relativity.

WHAT DOES OP MEAN???!!!!!!!!!

OP = Original Post

Yaakov ben Avraham, I know you are new, but these are the upper fora and I will ask you to please refrain from low content posting here.  Thanks.

Thank you for answering that question. I shall attempt to refrain from asking less intelligent questions in future. I must admit, this whole FE/RE debate is utterly fascinating to me. I could bury myself in it, I think. I wish I could get "The Inconsistency of Modern Astronomy" on my Nook, but as it was only a pamphlet, it hasn't been published there. I am still uncertain of which theory I believe. Both sides seem to have valid points. However, there is one thing I should say. Rounders do have one leg up on Flatters. This leg up is the fact that if you assume a RE, that explains the movement of the stars, the other planets, the Earth, and everything else. Flatters have to go to a lot more trouble, it seems, to come up with reasons for things happening the way they do. If we apply Occam's Razor, the Rounders would seem to win simply based on the statement that "the simplest answer is usually the truth." However, in science, as we have seen, nothing is simple. So Occam's Razor may not even be appropriate to invoke here. What say you all?

Thank you for answering that question. I shall attempt to refrain from asking less intelligent questions in future. I must admit, this whole FE/RE debate is utterly fascinating to me. I could bury myself in it, I think. I wish I could get "The Inconsistency of Modern Astronomy" on my Nook, but as it was only a pamphlet, it hasn't been published there. I am still uncertain of which theory I believe. Both sides seem to have valid points. However, there is one thing I should say. Rounders do have one leg up on Flatters. This leg up is the fact that if you assume a RE, that explains the movement of the stars, the other planets, the Earth, and everything else. Flatters have to go to a lot more trouble, it seems, to come up with reasons for things happening the way they do. If we apply Occam's Razor, the Rounders would seem to win simply based on the statement that "the simplest answer is usually the truth." However, in science, as we have seen, nothing is simple. So Occam's Razor may not even be appropriate to invoke here. What say you all?

I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor

Well, Tom, I must admit I don't have a response to that.  But the ultimate question is "WHY"? Why would NASA spend so much time faking everything they have done? What would be the point? What would they gain from it? In fact, if the Earth is flat, then why bother to have organisations like NASA at all? Since our eyes do show us a flat Earth (I won't argue that; when one looks at the horizon with one's eyes, it does appear the the sky comes down to meet the Earth. The Earth does indeed look flat). But if it is flat, in accordance with what most of the ancients believed, then why challenge that belief? Where would be the value in spending so much time and effort in trying to prove that the Earth is round when in fact it is not, and most people would agree with what their eyes are showing them? I just don't get what motive the REers could possibly have for upsetting the entire apple cart.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 24, 2013, 10:26:40 AM

Thank you for answering that question. I shall attempt to refrain from asking less intelligent questions in future. I must admit, this whole FE/RE debate is utterly fascinating to me. I could bury myself in it, I think. I wish I could get "The Inconsistency of Modern Astronomy" on my Nook, but as it was only a pamphlet, it hasn't been published there. I am still uncertain of which theory I believe. Both sides seem to have valid points. However, there is one thing I should say. Rounders do have one leg up on Flatters. This leg up is the fact that if you assume a RE, that explains the movement of the stars, the other planets, the Earth, and everything else. Flatters have to go to a lot more trouble, it seems, to come up with reasons for things happening the way they do. If we apply Occam's Razor, the Rounders would seem to win simply based on the statement that "the simplest answer is usually the truth." However, in science, as we have seen, nothing is simple. So Occam's Razor may not even be appropriate to invoke here. What say you all?

I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor

IMO the wiki is not using Occam's razor correctly. Who wrote that crackery

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, a simpler but less correct theory should not be always preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one. "Preferred" doesn't necessarily mean "correct".

Regrettably, I have to log off. But Rotting, you do have a point about Occam's Razor. And the argument that NASA faked all their research seems to me to unnecessarily complicate matters. However, that having been said, I am still avidly reading ENaG to try and see if there is any support for FET. I am not averse to changing my previously held views (in a RE) if there is need to do so. At present, I shall continue my state of research, acknowledging that either FE or RE may be accurate. It is time to find out. I shall try to come back on my phone later to answer any posts that I find. The difficulty with that is that all the quoted passages take up ALOT  of time for me to get through them on my phone. Perhaps if you could all skip over quoting each other, it might make it easier for me to read and post replies. Thanks. And, if this is a low content post, please accept my apologies. I shall try to refrain from more of those.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 24, 2013, 10:01:00 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 24, 2013, 09:57:01 AM

Newtonian gravity only works if you are not very close or very far.  It is the Three Bears story of science.  It only works when it is just right.

What example can you give for the scale of our solar system?

The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit can not be explained by Newtonian gravity.  However, it was one of the first successful tests of Einstein's General Relativity.

You're absolutely right. We should have been more specific by using the term Newton/Einstein theory rather than just Newtonian.

I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor

FES wiki doesn't count unless it is peer reviewed. Can I be a contributor to FES wiki?

No, but you can review it and make suggestions. 

Then  it is biased isn't it?

Then  it is biased isn't it?

Just because you can't contribute, does not mean REers in principle cannot contribute I think. 

Is there any example of an REers suggestion which makes it to the wiki?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2013, 11:35:20 AM

I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor

FES wiki doesn't count unless it is peer reviewed. Can I be a contributor to FES wiki?

Peer review is a review by peers. You are not our peer.

What I meant by being a contributor was obviously an intention to become a peer. Can I be a peer? Do you have an RE peer?

It is a good question. Can a Rounder contribute to the Wiki? What about a person who is neither a Rounder nor a Flatter yet (yet being the key word for both)?  I would understand if the answer was no, since the Flat Earth Wiki is intended to give information regarding a Flat Earth, not a Round Earth.

Question: I've been looking at a Bipolar map of the Flat Earth. How does one circumnavigate the Earth in that model? One could leave Palos, Spain, and return there in a circle... Ah, I see. On a globular Earth one would do the same. However, in this map, I see that its impossible to circumnavigate the world at the equator. Any other latitude, one can do, but not the equator. Query: how does one explain the circumnavigations of the Earth at the equator by sea or air? I don't get it.

What I meant by being a contributor was obviously an intention to become a peer. Can I be a peer? Do you have an RE peer?

Markjo is a peer, and an RE'er. I trust him not to destroy the Wiki. As a non-peer, if you would like to see changes made to the wiki I would suggest making threads which put article in it up for discussion and we can all make changes as a group consensus.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 25, 2013, 08:40:58 AM

What I meant by being a contributor was obviously an intention to become a peer. Can I be a peer? Do you have an RE peer?

Markjo is a peer, and an RE'er. I trust him not to destroy the Wiki. As a non-peer, if you would like to see changes made to the wiki I would suggest making threads which put article in it up for discussion and we can all make changes as a group consensus.

Thank you for the information. My point actually was to show that the wiki is biased towards the FE. I don't mind it being biased because that's your own wiki. What I mind was that you were using it as if it was the truth.

I say that Occam's Razor actually supports FET: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor