That's interesting that everyone who is anti flat earth always states science can prove everything.
Actually, scientists say exactly the opposite.
This link has gotten a workout recently. Here's the nut of it:
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
That's intirley untrue.
I'm glad we agree.
What science says in this specific subject is that physical and observable evidence is not excepted. Science was the same tool used to say it was ok to smoke in hospitals in the 70s and before. It was also science that said its ok to put Floride in our water.
The health problems associated with smoking were well known long before 1970. The problem was that enough people enjoyed smoking cigarettes, regardless the risks, that little could be done about it.
Did you know the incidence of tooth decay in kids is climbing as more of them drink bottled water [this is from my dentist, who should be
delighted about this development, wouldn't you think]? Life expectancy in the US was also rising as Fluoridation was becoming more common in the US, and, AFAIK, it's as high as it's ever been. The objections to Fluoridation are, and always have been, mostly political, not science-based. Can you cite any competent studies that show otherwise?
Now I'm aware that not all science is garbage.
Well,
that's a relief. I'll sleep much better tonight knowing that. Thanks for putting this to rest.
But being that you took a shot at my preference in flat earth. I think it's only fair to return the favor. The easiest and number one reason and proof of flat earth is always discredited. That's the horizon. It always remains flat and eye level.
Can we have a citation for that? It actually doesn't remain at eye level.
No matter how high anyone goes.
And the effect is more pronounced the higher one goes.
Science also said that the oceans horizon proves a curvature when looking at a boat. But then some smart flat Earther proved that to be inaccurate by using a telescope[Citation needed.]. Water doesn't curve up or down.
Here's a photo of Chicago from across Lake Michigan. It was initially presented on these forums by a flat-earther.
In it you can see only the tops of the very tallest buildings. Where is the rest of the Chicago skyline? Why is it below the horizon?
But yet science can't explain why the horizon stay flat. What they give is, " the curvature is to small to see. And the eyes have limitation. Complete BS. I took a picture of Mt Rainer from over 80 miles away. Not only could I still see Mt Rainer with absolutely no limitation to vision, but the horizon remained flat.
Well, so much for the flat-earth claim that the horizon happens "because we can't see any farther than that". Can we see this photo rather than just your vague description of it?
If the world was indeed round, I shouldn't be able to see as much of Rainer as I do.
How much could you see? What was the elevation the photo was taken from? Can we see the analysis you did to reach this conclusion?
So how about someone show is flat earthers how to present physical and observable evidence with out using computer simulations or graphs. That's not science.
Sez who?
Science is observable research and data collecting. Applying that data in to experiments for results. Catfish eye lens isn't scientific proof.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. If you think there is, you're obviously not a scientist. See above.
I've done the research on the globe model, and I have yet to see any physical proof. Because that's what is demanded of flat earthers.
Sure you've "done research." Forget proof. We'd be thrilled to see some real
evidence that the Earth is flat. So far, it's been a big fat zero in that regard. Do you have some? Let's see it!
If the tables were turned and we brought cgi and graph charts, large numbers and computer simulations. And you guys brought observable physical evidence, you would say that we are not showing anything but animations and matatics. In a court room our evidence would trump anything the globe model has to offer[Citation needed]. Electromagnetics can be proven scientifically.
Actually, no, they can't. There is pretty compelling evidence that the models are reasonably correct, but no proof.
Right along with magnetic water. All water is magnetic. Add salt like the salt in the ocean and you have a stronger magnetic reaction.That should tell you a lot. Considering they didn't teach that in science class or in college institutions.
Water molecules have a dipole moment because they're asymmetrical. This gives water some interesting properties. So? This is well known and hardly a secret. Do you have a point here?