A New Scientist on the Forum

If assumption is defined as there being alternate explanations, then all explanations of everything are and will always be assumptions, because there are infinite alternate explanations to everything. All ideas are the same in this way.

There is no alternative theory to any theory that has no less or more assumptions, if you defined assumption in that way that you described.

If a theory explains more data than another, with the same or better accuracy, and is as or more concise, and has less or the same assumptions, which is to say, an idea which the theory depends upon but which is not tested, then it is better, yes.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. It seems fair to point out that an assumption defined as "an idea which the theory depends upon but which is not tested," is not so different than "an idea with an alternative explanation," so long as we acknowledge said explanation is also a possible one (which I believed was obvious, but may as well clarify). In this case, the idea upon which the theory depends is that the evidence that points to the currently accepted theory is complete and whole, and that there won't be evidence which refutes it and implies a separate theory (which explains the same observations: has the same evidence) found later.
Ok, that was wordy. if A is the current theory, B is a competing hypothesis which explains all the same things as A and has not been contradicted by any observation, the idea you refer to is that B is untrue.

It should also be pointed out that there are different classes of assumption. Assuming that a certain piece of evidence is not found is not as grand an assumption as assuming a worldwide conspiracy, for example. Once this is acknowledged, it's very possible to compare models by how many assumptions they contain: they won't be 'all the same'.

In this case, the idea upon which the theory depends is that the evidence that points to the currently accepted theory is complete and whole, and that there won't be evidence which refutes it and implies a separate theory (which explains the same observations: has the same evidence) found later.

In a sense. But this is also true of absolutely everything, so it doesn't really matter. All ideas are the same in this way.

It should also be pointed out that there are different classes of assumption. Assuming that a certain piece of evidence is not found is not as grand an assumption as assuming a worldwide conspiracy, for example. Once this is acknowledged, it's very possible to compare models by how many assumptions they contain: they won't be 'all the same'.

With regards to alternative explanations existing, they are all the same. There are are infinite alternate explanations to all ideas, who themselves number in the infinite.

It's possible to compare theories by how many assumptions they have, but funnily enough, all of the examples you've given are not ways in which they can be because they are true of everything.

It's possible to compare theories by how many assumptions they have, but funnily enough, all of the examples you've given are not ways in which they can be because they are true of everything.

I'm not sure what examples you're talking about. I don't yet have a complete FE model so I cannot give something by which to compare with the RE model, so it would be nearly impossible to compare assumptions.
The assumption that specific questions will always remain unanswered no matter the model is quite a grand one, however. Even if all of them can't be answered by an FE model, some may be.

I'm not sure what examples you're talking about.

These:

In this case, the idea upon which the theory depends is that the evidence that points to the currently accepted theory is complete and whole, and that there won't be evidence which refutes it and implies a separate theory (which explains the same observations: has the same evidence) found later.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 17, 2015, 01:51:49 PM

Yes and no. I'd argue the fact there is an alternate explanation directly implies you are assuming said alternative does not hold. That seems to be the definition of an assumption.

If assumption is defined as there being alternate explanations, then all explanations of everything are and will always be assumptions, because there are infinite alternate explanations to everything. All ideas are the same in this way.

...are the examples of assumptions that you gave while talking about comparisons.

There are actually assumptions in some theories, past or present, which are not in others, it's just odd that the examples you gave are ones which are contained in everything.

The assumption that specific questions will always remain unanswered no matter the model is quite a grand one, however.

What?

There are actually assumptions in some theories, past or present, which are not in others, it's just odd that the examples you gave are ones which are contained in everything.

True, they're only meant to be reasons it's valid to consider an alternative.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 19, 2015, 12:24:00 AM

The assumption that specific questions will always remain unanswered no matter the model is quite a grand one, however.

What?

There are questions unanswered by the RE model. The idea was simply that answers to those models might be present in the subtly altered physics and universe made necessary by a FE.

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 19, 2015, 12:48:23 AM

There are actually assumptions in some theories, past or present, which are not in others, it's just odd that the examples you gave are ones which are contained in everything.

True, they're only meant to be reasons it's valid to consider an alternative.

Right, well, the conditions you described are the same for all possibilities.

There are questions unanswered by the RE model. The idea was simply that answers to those models might be present in the subtly altered physics and universe made necessary by a FE.

What questions?

What questions?

Details of dark matter, fundamental forces, unifying quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, ultimate cause... No scientist pretends science is complete.
If an FE model can answer just one of those, in addition to having proven mechanisms for justifiably explaining observations, that would seem to make it preferrable.

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 19, 2015, 11:12:53 PM

What questions?

Details of dark matter, fundamental forces, unifying quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, ultimate cause... No scientist pretends science is complete.
If an FE model can answer just one of those, in addition to having proven mechanisms for justifiably explaining observations, that would seem to make it preferrable.

Right, well, we'd like to know those things, but why is this a problem with the idea that the earth is round? Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain or predict the orbit of Venus.This doesn't mean that descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or incomplete. They're not intended to explain the orbit of Venus, just how magnets work.

Quote from: SisyphusTheElder on September 19, 2015, 11:12:53 PM

What questions?

Details of dark matter, fundamental forces, unifying quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics,

And what have they got to do with the fundamental shape of the planet?  That the world is round is a fact, not a model.

Right, well, we'd like to know those things, but why is this a problem with the idea that the earth is round? Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain or predict the orbit of Venus.This doesn't mean that descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or incomplete. They're not intended to explain the orbit of Venus, just how magnets work.

And what have they got to do with the fundamental shape of the planet?  That the world is round is a fact, not a model.

We've been to this exact spot before. It's a knock-on effect: an FE model is going to do more than just change the shape of the world from the RE model. Laws would need to be different because RE laws would not explain a FE: there's the movement of light, the formation of the world... There are some things which would observably not be true on a RE, but would be on a FE (example: 'bendy light' or some force that alters the path of light).
It is well within the realms of possibility that the new direction required for a FE would lead to more accessible answers to certain quetsions. No, I can't say this for certain as the model does not yet exist, but the point is the possibility is what makes an alternative worth considering.

We've been to this exact spot before. It's a knock-on effect: an FE model is going to do more than just change the shape of the world from the RE model. Laws would need to be different because RE laws would not explain a FE: there's the movement of light, the formation of the world... There are some things which would observably not be true on a RE, but would be on a FE (example: 'bendy light' or some force that alters the path of light).
It is well within the realms of possibility that the new direction required for a FE would lead to more accessible answers to certain quetsions. No, I can't say this for certain as the model does not yet exist, but the point is the possibility is what makes an alternative worth considering.

Anything's possible, but you keep saying there are flaws and gaps in the idea that the earth is round. And that it's incomplete. Which apparently refers to either assumptions or questions not answered. But why is there a problem with the idea that the earth is round that it doesn't explain everything? Every idea doesn't explain something, and probably never will. Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain why leaves are green. This doesn't mean descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or have problems. They're not intended to explain why leaves are green, just how magnets work.

Anything's possible, but you keep saying there are flaws and gaps in the idea that the earth is round. And that it's incomplete. Which apparently refers to either assumptions or questions not answered. But why is there a problem with the idea that the earth is round that it doesn't explain everything? Every idea doesn't explain something, and probably never will. Descriptions of magnetic force don't explain why leaves are green. This doesn't mean descriptions of magnetic force are wrong or have problems. They're not intended to explain why leaves are green, just how magnets work.

There's no inherent problem. I've said this before. These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model, so it is only honest and scientific to examine an alternative.
Why the opposition to simply testing the FE model?

These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model

Gaps in the idea or the 'model' that the earth is round? They might, but they don't. I've never heard of any. I have heard of, and you have mentioned, e.g. gaps in relativity and cosmology. Specifically the phenomenon referred to as 'dark matter,' which more precisely refers to, afaik, that galaxy cluster's movements, some of them have orbital speeds which are in excess of that predicted by cosmology and relativity. Which is then also a gap in knowledge in general.

Quote from: FEScientist on September 21, 2015, 02:37:26 PM

These gaps might well exist in an accurate model: the point is they might also exist in a flawed model

Gaps in the idea or the 'model' that the earth is round? They might, but they don't. I've never heard of any. I have heard of, and you have mentioned, e.g. gaps in relativity and cosmology. Specifically the phenomenon referred to as 'dark matter,' which more precisely refers to, afaik, that galaxy cluster's movements, some of them have orbital speeds which are in excess of that predicted by cosmology and relativity. Which is then also a gap in knowledge in general.

We've discussed knock-on effects before. I am quite tired of repeating myself.

We've discussed knock-on effects before. I am quite tired of repeating myself.

As far as I remember, you actually defined gap as a question not answered or an assumption. If so, and taking into account that as I explained, questions unanswered by a description which the description makes no claims or statements about are irrelevant, such as how description of magnetic force don't talk of or answer any questions about why leaves are green, then there is not, as far as I know, any gaps in the idea that the earth is round.

There is a gap in relativity and cosmology as I explained, for it makes predictions about the movements of galaxy clusters which are also off for such large objects as those, as far as I understand. This discrepancy is given the nickname "dark matter."

Your line of thinking is correct. The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things, and it is correct to try and find an answer to it.

Your line of thinking is correct. The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things, and it is correct to try and find an answer to it.

I don't know if this is in reply to the original post of the thread or the recent posts, but I'm only talking about the other things she's said which are wrong or meaningless; I thought that it would be good to point them out.

The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things.

Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.

Quote from: Misero on September 26, 2015, 06:11:07 AM

The current laws of physics cannot explain specific things.

Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.

The double slit experiment, off the top of my head, unless it's been "explained". I created this account out of sheer boredom and to troll this 'wacky' idea of a flat earth, but after looking into it, it's obviously not convincing evidence that Earth is flat, but does raise many questions. It's nice to wonder again, makes me feel young.

Oh, and  don't bother "explaining" how photons on a quantum level work. I'm finished believing IN things such as science or God. I'd rather see for myself and believe things for myself. As for the unknown, I enjoy wondering.

Really, don't bother replying. This is my second time on this forum. I'm far to busy with friends and family. I have them to entertain, other than myself (unlike some obvious trolls or shills). We know you're not as ignorant as you pretend. My question is how is this entertaining for you? What keeps you on the flat earth society forum? Okay, go ahead and reply, but I might not be back for some time.

You are retatded.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 28, 2015, 11:53:26 AM

Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.

The double slit experiment, off the top of my head, unless it's been "explained". I created this account out of sheer boredom and to troll this 'wacky' idea of a flat earth, but after looking into it, it's obviously not convincing evidence that Earth is flat, but does raise many questions. It's nice to wonder again, makes me feel young.

Oh, and  don't bother "explaining" how photons on a quantum level work. I'm finished believing IN things such as science or God. I'd rather see for myself and believe things for myself. As for the unknown, I enjoy wondering.

Really, don't bother replying. This is my second time on this forum. I'm far to busy with friends and family. I have them to entertain, other than myself (unlike some obvious trolls or shills). We know you're not as ignorant as you pretend. My question is how is this entertaining for you? What keeps you on the flat earth society forum? Okay, go ahead and reply, but I might not be back for some time.

I've been saying a lot of contrary things to FEScientist for the past few weeks, so this gives me an opportunity to say something commending:

FEScientist has a greater grasp of what questions are unanswered than you. No, the double slit experiment isn't unexplained.

All of the things FEScientist mentioned are, however. In particular, the one i'm most familiar with is the discrepancy referred to as 'dark matter.' When considering the movement of large objects or large groupings of objects, in this case, clusters of galaxies, are considered and their orbital speed is calculated and compared to predictions, there is a discrepancy.

Quote from: ElitesFinalGeneration on September 28, 2015, 05:42:32 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 28, 2015, 11:53:26 AM

Please cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.

The double slit experiment, off the top of my head, unless it's been "explained". I created this account out of sheer boredom and to troll this 'wacky' idea of a flat earth, but after looking into it, it's obviously not convincing evidence that Earth is flat, but does raise many questions. It's nice to wonder again, makes me feel young.

Oh, and  don't bother "explaining" how photons on a quantum level work. I'm finished believing IN things such as science or God. I'd rather see for myself and believe things for myself. As for the unknown, I enjoy wondering.

Really, don't bother replying. This is my second time on this forum. I'm far to busy with friends and family. I have them to entertain, other than myself (unlike some obvious trolls or shills). We know you're not as ignorant as you pretend. My question is how is this entertaining for you? What keeps you on the flat earth society forum? Okay, go ahead and reply, but I might not be back for some time.

I've been saying a lot of contrary things to FEScientist for the past few weeks, so this gives me an opportunity to say something commending:

FEScientist has a greater grasp of what questions are unanswered than you. No, the double slit experiment isn't unexplained.

All of the things FEScientist mentioned are, however. In particular, the one i'm most familiar with is the discrepancy referred to as 'dark matter.' When considering the movement of large objects or large groupings of objects, in this case, clusters of galaxies, are considered and their orbital speed is calculated and compared to predictions, there is a discrepancy.

SisyphusTheElder asked someone to pease cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation. I simply, without citing, gave an example off the TOP of my head, seemingly unrelated to the subject, although relevant. If using the phrase "off the top of my head" was why I was accused of being a retard, to clarify, it was a figure of speech, but I will quote my accuser and question him. Anyway, you are clueless to what unanswered questions that I'm aware of. You are clueless to even who I am, let alone how much I may or may not know and understand. I could very well hold the knowledge and understanding of that knowledge that, if given to you, could open your mind to an entirely new insight leading to the understanding of information beyond comprehension of a mind without that information. Allow me to ask, who are you to tell me who I am or what I may or may not know?

I have created one topic in this forum titled "I Have A Secret" to simply observe how many curious minds in this forum view the topic. Within the topic is seemingly nonsense along with my email. We cannot be too careful to what we think we know. A mind with even a picolitre of assumption is a mind unworthy of understanding of true knowledge. A mind with a foundation based on only clues (like an unfinished puzzle) is, indeed, an unstable mind, for the foundation should come first. That's the kind of mind meant to be blown. Do you get it? Probably not. Have a nice day or so, I won't be back for only God knows when but I will be back. Patients is a lost art. To wait is not to be impatient.

Here's a bit of advice for you and anyone who comes across this. "Simply be, wait, and see what you become." That phrase will not be understood until three things are not only known but understood. What does it mean to be? What does it mean to wait? What does it mean to see? You may think you know, but I will bet you have no idea where I am coming from.

Oh, and my joke of the day, dark doesn't matter!

Hey, you caught something, (laughing out loud) to bad it was the joke.

[Edit] Dinosaur Neil asked someone to pease cite some examples where we have experimental data yet still no explanation.
I apologize, SisyphusTheElder, for that mistake.

Imagine the devistation of the smallest human error in history on mankind, collectively. With that in mind, ask yourself how perfect we are? What have been the consequences of mistakes after how ever many thousands of years of collected data and research? How many and how massive have mistakes been? Even more curious, why are we emotional beings? Why the excitement?

You are retatded.

...and what are you basing this judgement from? I understand that we all lack knowledge and understanding. Compared to the unknown, we know practically nothing. Even more elaborate, by only being able to base reality (the only observable and measurable experience we have) on our limited senses, by only being able to think, do we know anything for sure? If you're judging my knowledge on the thought I posted, ask yourself how ignorant you are. I'm MAN enough to admit that I'm a moron compared to the understanding of all things in and out of reality. If, to you, I'm a retard compared to you, that might possibly, to me, be the understatement of the year.

Sokarul is so retarted, that he can't even speel it, .

Pardon my manors, FEScientist and your viewers, for they are apparently limited. I made the mistake of contradicting myself. It appears that within the thought of my replies, I have became completely irrelevant to your subject. Nor have I had the common decency to even introduce myself. My name is Eric, I am new to this forum as well.

In the past, I have ridiculed others for making this very mistake as rather I was interested in the topic at hand, I found my mind swimming through a thought of a different subject. Perhaps I should be more considerate and self-disciplined. After all, admitting ones self to be wrong is what makes them right, right?