The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

  • 547 Replies
  • 268571 Views
?

theearthisbanannashaped

  • 21
  • This is how the theory works.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #210 on: October 14, 2007, 07:22:08 AM »
 ;D

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #211 on: October 14, 2007, 09:17:48 AM »
I agree.  Very interesting.

?

theearthisbanannashaped

  • 21
  • This is how the theory works.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #212 on: October 14, 2007, 12:49:02 PM »
Thank you Saddam.  At least there's someone sensible here.

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #213 on: October 15, 2007, 09:47:40 AM »
Good reason to believe the Earth's Governments would not be able to keep a secret?

Monica Lewinsky.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
tell me how your model explains why deep-dripping Russian geologists found an impenetrable layer of turtle shell when attempting to breach the crust of the earth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #214 on: October 15, 2007, 11:04:38 AM »
Good reason to believe the US gov't can keep a secret:

The F-117.


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

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #215 on: October 16, 2007, 02:32:51 PM »
The Conspiracy is absurd. The world governments can't work together, the evidence is on your television every day. The governments themselves barely function, the only reason for this conspiracy is to disqualify all the mountains of evidence against a flat earth and for a round earth so the theory would last more than ten seconds when scrutinized. Why make people think the Earth is round? It would cost masses of money and would reak no benefits.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

theearthisbanannashaped

  • 21
  • This is how the theory works.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #216 on: October 17, 2007, 03:40:44 PM »
No they can work together.  They just decided to stage wars inside of a film studio from 1910-2007, just to throw everyone off.  For money...  It's a conspiracy...

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #217 on: October 31, 2007, 02:09:16 AM »
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.

Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase. 

Gravity makes perfect sense?  Can you explain what gravity is?  I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.

These are very old posts, but I'll answer them anyway. No, nobody fully understands how gravity really works. This is, however, not any worse than your state of affairs where your FE is accelerating upwards. What would cause the acceleration? Nobody knows that either. You might as well ask why electrons float around the atom, or why magnets attract and repel each other. It's just how stuff works. The forces may be understood, but their causes will probably forever be a mystery. That's still far fewer mysteries than FE theory presents, I think.

Anyway, my point is: why do you need to know where gravity comes from in the first place, especially if it doesn't bother you that you don't know where the FE's upward acceleration comes from?

- Kef

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #218 on: October 31, 2007, 02:37:39 AM »
That's the point:  You get to have a bunch of magical, unexplained mechanisms, so why can't the FE?


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

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #219 on: October 31, 2007, 08:47:25 AM »
Ouch.  We got told.

?

theearthisbanannashaped

  • 21
  • This is how the theory works.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #220 on: October 31, 2007, 09:30:37 AM »
How do magnets work?  Is one magnet constantly accelerating towards the other?

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #221 on: October 31, 2007, 01:30:19 PM »
Quote from: phaseshifter

Another thing, you should check some basic economics, because giving that much money away every year would put so much of it in circulation that the U.S. dollar wouldn't be worth shit. (seriously, shit is worth something to some people, but that money actually costs something to print so it would be worth less than nothing)


The US puts 200 million dollars A DAY into the war in Iraq.  If that has not devalued the dollar how will keeping a few thousand guards and equipment at the ready do it?

You know this is the first war where we take money from tomorrow right?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

theearthisbanannashaped

  • 21
  • This is how the theory works.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #222 on: October 31, 2007, 03:04:58 PM »
Vietnam.  We're still paying for that.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #223 on: October 31, 2007, 11:25:20 PM »
How do magnets work?  Is one magnet constantly accelerating towards the other?
lol?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

theearthisbanannashaped

  • 21
  • This is how the theory works.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #224 on: November 01, 2007, 08:55:00 PM »
I am laughing out loud my friend.  But in the end, isn't the world just, round?







If no one got that, than I slap all of you anti-Dante's...

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #225 on: November 23, 2007, 06:29:21 PM »
Quote from: rr332211
Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.
The brick will 'crush' me, not gravity.  If gravity is not magical, why can't you tell me how it works?

"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.  The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.

Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.  You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.  So what is a force?  How do forces work?  In fact, what is energy?  How does energy work?  What is space?  What is time?  How do they work?

Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you?  You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume).  So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic... 




I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.

That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.

Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?





That's the point:  You get to have a bunch of magical, unexplained mechanisms, so why can't the FE?

Why is RE better?  Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions.  You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions.  In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."


It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles.  However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models.  The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions.  RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.

Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.

It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories. 
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

?

eric bloedow

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #226 on: November 23, 2007, 08:21:44 PM »
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!

on several other threads i referred to "occam's razor":
"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
that's how Einstein phrased it.

the FE model can't even explain sunrise and sunset without adding several unknown elements!

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #227 on: November 23, 2007, 08:22:46 PM »
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!
Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #228 on: November 23, 2007, 09:35:31 PM »
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature. 
Gravity specifically refers to Newton's version of the phenomenon. 

Quote
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's,
Gravity and General Relativity are mutually exclusive.

Quote
although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
That's one of the major problems:  It only works on objects with mass.  Everything else is left out.

Quote
You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.
That's because gravity is a pseudo force.  It doesn't actually exist as a force.

Quote
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do
But it is fundamentally flawed.  It only affects objects with mass and violates Special Relativity.  Plus, it claims there is some sort of force.

Quote
you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do)
The FE has a way to calculate the observed acceleration using simple phyisics.  The RE and Newton's formula had to be 'fudged' to provide the correct answer.

Quote
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
And fundamentally flawed.

Quote
RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Quite the contrary, the RE continually marches towards complication and irrationality.


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

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #229 on: November 24, 2007, 01:35:52 AM »
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.
What about it?

The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
What about objects with no mass?


Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.
It's four fundamental interactions.

Gravitation is a more correct term than gravity. "Gravity" is the general term used to describe the phenomenon.

  You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.  So what is a force?  How do forces work?  In fact, what is energy?  How does energy work?  What is space?  What is time?  How do they work?
A force is an influence. A force causes objects to accelerate. Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work. Space is a three-dimensional quantity. Time is a measurement of events. Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.

Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you?  You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume).  So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic... 
Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.

I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.
Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.
Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.

That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?
You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.

Why is RE better?  Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions.  You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions.  In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."
It's all about plausibility.

It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles.  However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models.  The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions.  RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Right, but not 100%.

Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
And?

It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories. 
It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #230 on: November 24, 2007, 05:58:24 AM »
For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post?  :headdesks:

"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.
What about it?

It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.

Quote
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.
What about objects with no mass?

:headdesks:  This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...


Quote
Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.
It's four fundamental interactions.

The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context.  That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces."  Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?

Quote
Gravitation is a more correct term than gravity. "Gravity" is the general term used to describe the phenomenon.

When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall."  Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion.  That alone makes it better than (most) FE.  Yes, gravitation is the more correct term, but only if you're wanting to split hairs.  When the people you debate say the word gravity, I know they mean gravitation, you know they mean gravitation, Santa Clause knows they mean gravitation, which brings up the question of why you even brought the distinction up?  Self aggrandization maybe?

Quote
  You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.  So what is a force?  How do forces work?  In fact, what is energy?  How does energy work?  What is space?  What is time?  How do they work?
A force is an influence.

What is an influence?  What CAUSES influence?  By what MECHANISM does influence occur?

Quote
A force causes objects to accelerate.

What is acceleration?  By what mechanism do bodies accelerate?  Force?  But what causes forces?  By what mechanism do forces opperate?

Quote
Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work.

What is work?  By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?

Quote
Space is a three-dimensional quantity.

This is a horrible definition.  Why should space only be three-dimensional?  What IS a dimension?  By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist?  What distinguishes one dimension from another?  How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)

Quote
Time is a measurement of events.

A measurement of events?  Wow.  This is even worse than your space definition. 

NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity.  They have no explanation.  They are simply observations.

Quote
Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.

By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur?  Ever read Kant?  By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continuums work as well? 

(some string theory models may be able to answer your jabs at RE's, however- the WHY and by what mechanisms- and one in particular seems to actually be testable- the E8 "theory of everything," although I wouldn't get my hopes up)

Quote
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.

First of all, you did no better in your definitions... however, that was kind of the point... anyway...  (No matter how sure of yourself you want to appear, you eventually WILL come to simply saying something is an observation whose mechanism is unknown.  The difference is most FE models will have many more, while RE models have only a few ==> RE is superior)

Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature.  No one knows where it comes from, anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.  Just like positive charges attract negative charges, gravity attracts mass in Newton's model.  It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.

The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.  FE on the other hand (the majority of the models I have seen), must incorporate two completely different modes to explain falling objects and orbital motion.

Now, Einstein's model explains it a lot better, but I'm not discussing that model, because that was never the point of my response (something you seem to have missed).



Quote
Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you?  You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume).  So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic... 
Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.

First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.  Second, IS causality a fact?  Is it something that occurs?  Does one event cause another?  If the answer to any of that is "yes," then by definition causality is a phenomenon and by your reasoning must be explianed in terms of "what, how, where, when, where, and why."

Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."  Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.


Quote
I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.
Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.

Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics?  What's your point here?  Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.

"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.  Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework.  This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.



Quote
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:  F = Gm1m2/r^2.  Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.
Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.

This response completely (yet again) misses the entire point.  OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.

Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase?  If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).

Quote
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model.  INCREDIBLY USEFUL.
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.

Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.

Quote
Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?
You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.

You seem to not be understanding what I post.  Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.  You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals.  Newton's model does this.  How does FE model?

You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here.  You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).  You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], becaues your model precludes the possibility of seeng the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" becaues in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...).  You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistantly matches your tested predictions.

So, what (mathematically described) predicitons does FE make?  Newton's model makes MANY predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.  But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model.  Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.

Quote
Why is RE better?  Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions.  You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions.  In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."
It's all about plausibility.

Plausibility?  Please explain.  This seems to be embarrasingly weak.  Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.  Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home?  No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.  Not very plausible at all.  But correct. (please pay special attention to the fact that I use the quotation marks there...I have a feeling someone might make a misunderstanding about what I was saying and then go to ridiculous lengths to disprove something that has nothing to do with what I'm saying... like the force vs interactoin thing.)

Quote
It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles.  However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models.  The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions.  RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.
Right, but not 100%.

Science can NEVER be 100% correct.  I'm just not understanding the fuss here.  We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.  We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.

Quote
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.
And?

If you have to ask...

Quote
It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories. 
It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Hopefully I don't have to respond to this, as it should be apparent now what my purpose for posting this was...
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 06:05:37 AM by ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles »
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #231 on: November 24, 2007, 05:59:56 AM »
tl;dr
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #232 on: November 24, 2007, 06:04:33 AM »
This turtle guy is funny. When he loses an argument or is shown to be incorrect, he just brings in questions to side-step the issue.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #233 on: November 24, 2007, 06:06:01 AM »
I'm sure. But I'm not really in the mood to read essays this afternoon.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #234 on: November 24, 2007, 06:07:06 AM »
This turtle guy is funny. When he loses an argument or is shown to be incorrect, he just brings in questions to side-step the issue.

Ad hominom.  Please show where I have lost an argument.  Do ANY of you understand what my point was?

Let me ask you this:  How does science work?

I seriously doubt you even know... in fact I am willing to bet that most of you who just dump all over Newton can't even tell me what a derivative is...  As I stated, Newton is not the most accurate model (neither are most FE models... in fact, Newton destroys them in terms of prediction and accuracy= they don't even MAKE predicitons)!  -  but that was never the point-The point was UTILITY! (specifically how RE models explain more with less)

EDIT- I'll spell it out for you since you seem to lack reading comprehension skills

TheEngineer was ridiculing a RE for mentioning gravity, and demanding ridiculous information about it.  I then did the exact same thing with causality, and then preceeded to again do the same thing with Jack and his definitions.  That was the point of the questions.


Now, please note that no one has challenged that Newton's mathematical formula is relatively accurate in predicting orbital motion and falling objects.  The only challenge was in regards to the fact that Einstein's model is superior, something I already mentioned... which clearly indicates that the responders have entrely missed the point!

« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 06:14:31 AM by ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles »
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #235 on: November 24, 2007, 06:17:29 AM »
Ad hominem*

Please show where I have lost an argument.

I could just copy paste their entire responses to your "questions" or misunderstandings. I'd just re-read the thread if I were you.

Let me ask you this:  How does science work?

Not sure what type of smart-ass answer you're looking for, but science doesn't "work." Science basically means knowledge.

If perhaps you're referring to the studying of the social or natural sciences, and the invocation of the scientific method, then there's obviously that. Either way, it comes down to majority opinion regarding subjective and valued aspects of reproducible events.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #236 on: November 24, 2007, 06:49:25 AM »

I could just copy paste their entire responses to your "questions" or misunderstandings. I'd just re-read the thread if I were you.


You could, but then you wouldn't be demonstrating that you what you say is true.  The only way to do that would be to specifically point out each "misunderstanding" and then explain why I am shown to be wrong.

The fact that Jack brought up the question of how massless objects are affected by gravity demonstrates that he missed the point too.  So if you want to go ahead and point out particulars, I don't mind eating humble pie if I really did miss something...

Quote
Let me ask you this:  How does science work?

Not sure what type of smart-ass answer you're looking for, but science doesn't "work." Science basically means knowledge.

If perhaps you're referring to the studying of the social or natural sciences, and the invocation of the scientific method, then there's obviously that. Either way, it comes down to majority opinion regarding subjective and valued aspects of reproducible events.

Science does not mean knowledge, but that's not relavent.

Science is based upon modeling physical events.  No model is actually true in the philosophical sense of the term.  The model that is preferred is that which makes more predictions yet has a higher degree of simplicity. 

The entire point of my science comments were that in order to accept most FE models you must abandon a model that makes more accurate predictions yet is more integrated- which is exactly contrary to the scientific method (which involves accepting the more integrated model, given identical prediction ability)
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #237 on: November 24, 2007, 08:01:39 AM »
Do ANY of you understand what my point was?
I sure didn't see any point.


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

?

eric bloedow

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #238 on: November 24, 2007, 08:29:14 AM »
Science works like this:

observe a phenomenon
come up with a theory for the phenomenon
TEST the theory by conducting experiments
revise or reject the theory based on the RESULTS of those experiments
repeat

FErs do NOT do this: they make up theories but NEVER test them!

now if someone shot a small rocket into the air and it HIT the "shadow object" i would believe in it. but simply saying "it MUST exist" over and over is NOT science; that's religious CULT preaching!

oh, yes, "Peer review" is SUPPOSED to mean someone else did the SAME experiment and got the SAME result. "cold fusion" FAILED peer review because NOBODY else got the same result!

Re: The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
« Reply #239 on: November 24, 2007, 08:52:49 AM »
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!
Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.

hang on a min , u think ww2 didn't happen ?!?!?!??!?!

was this dude being serious ? please tell me he wasn't
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 02:05:38 PM by tommo »
Quote from: jack
I'm special.