The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium

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

You mean like this:

RE:
Observe a phenomenon.
Derive a mathematical model that describes said phenomenon.
Test model.
If it doesn't fit observations, just fudge the numbers so it does.

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

science

"1.   a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
"2.   systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
"4.   systematized knowledge in general."
"5.   knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study."
"6.   a particular branch of knowledge."

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)

That is an assumption many people make. FE doesn't necessarily involve abandoning the method of prediction; it merely requires different phenomena or explanations for the observations we encounter. Simply because a lot of FE work is in a type of infancy, and that the accuracy and simplification isn't quite there, doesn't mean that it can't be obtained in the future.

inconsistant number of ice wall guards. 6 months ago you said there were 600 of them.

also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles

also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles

I think there was this thing called technology, but I'm not too sure.

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 06:49:25 AM

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

science

"1.   a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"

Quick question:  Is "KNOWLEDGE" equivalent to "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws?"

NO!  The phrase "a branch of knowledge or ..." is superfluous in that definition.  It's not even needed in the definition, unless you want to gain some additional (unneeded) clarification.  If "knowledge" is equivalent to "a branch of knowledge" then by the transitive property of mathematics PHILOSOPHY is equivalent to science.

According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.

You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 06:49:25 AM

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)

That is an assumption many people make. FE doesn't necessarily involve abandoning the method of prediction; it merely requires different phenomena or explanations for the observations we encounter. Simply because a lot of FE work is in a type of infancy, and that the accuracy and simplification isn't quite there, doesn't mean that it can't be obtained in the future.

FE has been around for longer than RE.  But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY.  At this point, FE is woefully inferior.  If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it?  But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it.  Perhaps some day it will.  In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 06:07:06 AM

Do ANY of you understand what my point was?

I sure didn't see any point.

Point 1.) It is hypocritical to ridicule relatively uneducated members because they can't explain the mechanism by which gravity works BECAUES:

a- there are many observations that cannot be explained, yet they are described (strong, weak interaction, electromagnetism, etc)

b- the "explanation" that gravity is merely the curvature of space due to mass or acceleration only pushes the question back one step further: by what mechanism does MASS curve space or even exist? 

Point 2.) NO scientific model is TRUE in the philosophical sense.

Point 3.) The scientific model that accurately makes predictions while being the most integrated into one mathematical theory is the most logical.  Predictions include UTILITY.  FE generally is not integrated in nearly the same degree that our other models are, including Newton's and Einsteins.

sub point 3- even Newton's model is more accurate than most FE, and certainly more useful.  And even the FE models that pervert Einstein's are probably junk because Einstein's model unifies Newton's universal law of gravitation with special relativity (in the limiting case of weak gravitational fields and slow speed Einstein's model you can derive Newton's law).  Further, Einstein's model, with it's space curvature and conservation of the center of motion of the center of gravity, seems to agree that if particles are in open space they will clump together in... a sphere-ish shape- just like the models it incorporates in special conditions.  If large masses with no other actions on them tend to form spherical shapes even in Einstein's model, what's to stop Earth from doing that in its infancy?  The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.

Really? Where did I say that?

You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)

Do you know what the word basically means? Did you happen to miss definition #4?

FE has been around for longer than RE.  But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY.  At this point, FE is woefully inferior.  If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it?  But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it.  Perhaps some day it will.  In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).

No one argues that it's currently inferior. But that also takes into account the assumptions people place in the fallacies they invoke.

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 11:14:26 AM

According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.

Really? Where did I say that?

Are you familiar with the transitive property of mathematics?

If a = b, and b = c, then a = c ?

Well, you implied that the word "knowledge" is equivalent to the bold phrase in your definition "a branch of knowledge," and that that was a definition of science.  What I am trying to tell you is that the two are not equivalent.  Science is a subset of knowledge, but knowledge is not a subset of science.  Philosophy is also a subset of knowledge.  Thus, if you claim that science is knowledge (the word "is" is mathematically understood as "equal"), which you did, then you are, through the transitive property, claiming that science is philosophy.

If science = knowledge, and philosophy = knowledge, then science = philosophy.

HOWEVER, if we want to get philosophical, in the philosophical definition of the word knowledge (well, the Aristotelean), science CANNOT be knowledge because science can NEVER by absolutely true- unless all things about the universe can be known. (the philosophical Aristotelean knowledge, in most schools of thought, can only be knowledge if it is true- otherwise it is generally classified as belief)

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 11:14:26 AM

You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)

Do you know what the word basically means? Did you happen to miss definition #4?

Definition four without the addition of " knowledge gained by systematic study" is not a definition of science.  Again, you can't just highlight one or a few words of the definition- and you can't have "basically" definitions if you want actual definitions, because philosophy ALSO "basically" means knowledge, as does astrology (knowledge of astrological bs)

But what the hell is the point of this? This is exactly what I wanted to avoid! (semantic bs) When I asked the question, I was wanting to know if you realized what scientists actually do, not whether you could type science into the search option of dictionary.com. (the point being about how models work and why certain models are preferred over others)

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on November 24, 2007, 11:14:26 AM

FE has been around for longer than RE.  But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY.  At this point, FE is woefully inferior.  If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it?  But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it.  Perhaps some day it will.  In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).

No one argues that it's currently inferior. But that also takes into account the assumptions people place in the fallacies they invoke.

Please elaborate.

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 10:44:55 AM

also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles

I think there was this thing called technology, but I'm not too sure.

If the atmosphere stops them seeing farther than 3 miles which is (in RE) curvature of the earth but same effect. How could technology allow them to see through it?

name this technology.

...radar for one.

Powered by what? radar is extremely power consuming. Powering the entire 78,000 circumferance of earth would take an unrealisitic amount of power. you'd need a nuclear fusion plant or something. or lots of power plants, which would not go un noticed.

which would not go un noticed.

 

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 12:08:29 PM

which would not go un noticed.

 

Avoided answering as usual

Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.

Avoided answering as usual

Didn't avoid anything. The rolling of the eyes was the indication of your illogical assumption that someone would notice such a thing. You know, the very opposite of a planned conspiracy.

Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.

Which probabilistically rules out a pipeline, good work.

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 12:44:47 PM

Avoided answering as usual

Didn't avoid anything. The rolling of the eyes was the indication of your illogical assumption that someone would notice such a thing. You know, the very opposite of a planned conspiracy.

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 12:44:47 PM

Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.

Which probabilistically rules out a pipeline, good work.

So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.

not making much sense this guard theory.

So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.

not making much sense this guard theory.

Visible from space...who are the ones orbiting the Earth? What are they using?

You seem to like the word unnoticed. I'd like to know on what assumptions you're basing such arguments.

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 01:00:10 PM

So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.

not making much sense this guard theory.

Visible from space...who are the ones orbiting the Earth? What are they using?

You seem to like the word unnoticed. I'd like to know on what assumptions you're basing such arguments.

Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.

Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows

Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.

I said it was possible to orbit the FE, yes. However, not in the traditional sense.

I also said satellites exist. I never said they were used. You'd have to constantly eject mass to stay situated above the Earth.

Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows

Really? Compared to the scientific research and such is going on there, who would raise their eyebrows?

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 01:06:23 PM

Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.

I said it was possible to orbit the FE, yes. However, not in the traditional sense.

I also said satellites exist. I never said they were used. You'd have to constantly eject mass to stay situated above the Earth.

Quote from: SparteX on November 24, 2007, 01:06:23 PM

Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows

Really? Compared to the scientific research and such is going on there, who would raise their eyebrows?

The civilian companies running the ships. all experiments in the antarctic are civilian operations.

scientific operations are the norm every now and then. Seeing wind turbines being shipped there is most definately not.

So you mean to say they have satellites lying around on the floor. cause that makes sense.

Quote from: Jack- on November 23, 2007, 08:22:46 PM

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 23, 2007, 08:21:44 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.

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

was this dude serious ? please tell me he wasn't

Are you familiar with the transitive property of mathematics?

Yes, and it doesn't apply since you're omitting an aspect of my statement.

Well, you implied that the word "knowledge" is equivalent to the bold phrase in your definition "a branch of knowledge,"

No, please read what I said again and try to suggest I'm implying a direct equivalency.

What I am trying to tell you is that the two are not equivalent.

Very good! 

Thus, if you claim that science is knowledge (the word "is" is mathematically understood as "equal"), which you did

Yes, and you missed an important word as well.

Out of all that, no direct quote and a misuse of the transitive property.

Definition four without the addition of " knowledge gained by systematic study" is not a definition of science.  Again, you can't just highlight one or a few words of the definition- and you can't have "basically" definitions if you want actual definitions, because philosophy ALSO "basically" means knowledge, as does astrology (knowledge of astrological bs)

I'm not gonna debate every meaning of every word with you. You're clearly smart enough to read definitions and know how to apply them. Philosophy is not equivalent to science and knowledge, stop being silly.

Please elaborate.

People assume; they invoke fallacies to support this "knowledge" or "truth." Appealing to authority, appealing to majority, fallacy of composition, argument ad populum. Depending on their involvement, probably many more.

For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post?  :headdesks:

I don't see any point in your post.

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

Some repeatedly observed events of what?

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

And your purpose was...?

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?

Eh, we use "interactions" because there's no such thing as gravitational "force".

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. 

What mechanism makes gravity to cause things fall? How does gravity cause things to fall?

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?

Because I want accuracy. I don't want fallacies.

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

An influence is a force. When I push a block, I apply influence (or force) to the block to make it move.

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

Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. Bodies accelerate when force is applied. Force is caused by an external agent.

What causes the external agent? Well, what causes you to push a block?

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

Ever heard of a dictionary?

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)

Space = Length, width, and height. Hence, space is three-dimension.

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

A measurement of sequence of events. I thought your brain would be spinning fast enough to notice it... 

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

Observation of what?

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? 

Why does an explosion occur? Space and time allow that to happen. Time cannot be separated from space because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light.

 

First of all, you did no better in your definitions...

It must feel so good to be so denial.

Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature. 

Nature of what?

No one knows where it comes from

Therefore its existence is fallacy.

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.

Right, which is why "interaction" is more accurate than "force".

gravity attracts mass in Newton's model.  It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.

Again, how does gravity attracts mass? Actually, you still haven't answered this:

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

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.

And?

First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.

Really? It explains why I am typing right now.

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."

Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.

Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.

A model of what?

Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics?  What's your point here?

My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.

Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.

Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.

"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.

Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?

  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.

I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.

My pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!

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.

Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...

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).

Who says I believe in a flat Earth?

Quote

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.

Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.

Great precision is not needed? No wonder why NASA fails all the time...

Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.

What is "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?

According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.

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).

When did I say science starts with a conclusion?

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.

Internets just couldn't get any weirder...

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.

What about it?

Plausibility?  Please explain.  This seems to be embarrasingly weak.  Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.

If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.

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.

Speed of light is science fiction?

  Not very plausible at all.  But correct.

Speed of light is plausible and correct.

Science can NEVER be 100% correct.  I'm just not understanding the fuss here.

Yes, and?

We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.

General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?

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.

I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?

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.

...Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.

i've known of people who thought the "holocaust" was fake before, but that's the first time i've encountered someone who thought the ENTIRE war was fake!

ok, who was the first person to drop objects off a tower and notice that they fell at the same speed? i forgot his name.

obviously, when you drop something and it falls, SOME force is pulling it down. Newton named it gravity, and worked out his formula.

FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.

FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.

What?

i've known of people who thought the "holocaust" was fake before, but that's the first time i've encountered someone who thought the ENTIRE war was fake!

Both were faked in the same movie: 'World war II" by John Timmer.

ok, who was the first person to drop objects off a tower and notice that they fell at the same speed? i forgot his name.

Galileo, I think.

obviously, when you drop something and it falls, SOME force is pulling it down. Newton named it gravity, and worked out his formula.

When things fall, they experience weightlessness. If the force of gravity is gone so easily, how could it be a force?

FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.

Wait, what?

ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!

and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?

ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!

No, microgravity means nothing of the kind.

and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?

What?  Do you have ADHD or something?

ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!

NASA puts a person inside a rocket and it accelerates at 9.8m/s² in deep space, far from sources of gravity. The person holds a ball and lets it go. Now, what happens to the ball?

it falls toward the rocket!

Right, and since this experiment was performed under no gravity, gravity equals to acceleration. Hence, the "force" of gravity does not exist.

Quote

and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?

What?  Do you have ADHD or something?

so that's totally unrealistic but ww2 being fake isnt ?