An RE'r threw this argument at me... What do I say?

Ok prove your false statement.

Why don't you prove that the statement is false? Because, from what I see, you're the only one claiming it to be false.

Burden of proof's on you, buddy.

Quote from: Starman on May 06, 2014, 02:53:50 PM

Ok prove your false statement.

Why don't you prove that the statement is false? Because, from what I see, you're the only one claiming it to be false.

Burden of proof's on you, buddy.

Person "a" says "what goes up will continue indefinitely" .

Person "b" says "I disagreed with that old foggie Person a, what goes up, MUST come down!"

person "c" says "I disagree with that old man person b "what goes up, generally comes down, but there's some special cases in which it doesn't work like that!"

By disagreeing with person b, person c implicitly also disagrees with person a. It doesn't matter that person b has already disagreed with person A and proved his theories to be off by a bit.

Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others.  And, Einstein was doubting Maxwell's theories.  Newton was out of the picture long before Einstein.

Everyone builds upon the works of others, if he wants to obtain something. You FErs don't, and we see the results.
And Newton wasn't "out of the picture". There were some unexplained problems, like Mercury's orbital precession, but it was the only theory available.

Yeah, there's a notion that Newtonian mechanics were suddenly abandoned because they were proven false or something to that effect. It's weapons grade baloney. Those laws are just special cases of the more complete, relativistic ones that came later. You can use relativity to work out the motion of two 100g balls colliding on your desk if you like but you'll get the same answer Newton would have.

Yeah, there's a notion that Newtonian mechanics were suddenly abandoned because they were proven false or something to that effect. It's weapons grade baloney. Those laws are just special cases of the more complete, relativistic ones that came later. You can use relativity to work out the motion of two 100g balls colliding on your desk if you like but you'll get the same answer Newton would have.

You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right?  Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids.  Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones.  Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference. 

You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right?  Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids.  Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones.  Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference.

Just out of curiosity, what is the point of this argument?  Debating Einstein vs Newton may be fun, but it does absolutely nothing to support FET or refute RET.

You do realize that Special Relativity has completely different formulas for pretty much all physics as compared to Newton, right?  Newtonian equations are convenient and simplistic and that is why they are taught to high school kids.  Special Relativity equations are more accurate, but for our frame of reference, the results are very close to the Newtonian ones.  Newton's formulas simply don't work when you get bigger or smaller than our frame of reference.

Yes, I vaguely remember that coming up when I studied physics at university 

However, the point remains that Newtonian mechanics are just a subset of relativistic ones, not some completely different animal. In any case, it is just an interesting aside and doesn't do anything to push the thread forward. Not sure what will do that at this point, but I'm happy to drop it, I just twitch internally when some hugely powerful but incomplete model is described as "wrong" or "outdated" in a context where it's as valid as ever.

Actually, Galileo just built upon the works of others. 

And this is one of the principle methodologies of the scientific process.  Numerous scientists propose their own individual hypothesis about something, and each of those hypotheses is subsequently subject to peer review.  If the particular hypotheses stands up to the scrutiny of a peer review, then it becomes a scientific theory.

It always amuses me when flat earthers attempt to denigrate the major scientific theories formulated by people like Galileo, Newton, or Einstein in an attempt to reinforce their notions of a flat earth.

I wonder if any flat earther could name three scientists whose works parallel those of Galileo, Newton or Einstein?  And had such a major influence on the way we live today?

I'm betting not.