Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 8251 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #360 on: August 08, 2019, 06:35:54 AM »
I was trying to explain it as well as I could.
*Ignoring it when you had it pointed out to you that you were swapping definitions, several times over.
Stop pretending Rab. I don't think you're as stupid as you're acting.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #361 on: August 08, 2019, 07:22:40 AM »
Or you could be clearer about who “we” refers to.  Especially when preceded by something like “The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture.”, which appears to mean people in general.
Yes, well obviously people in general, I was calling out you excluding FEers from consideration for no clear reason.

Most flat earthers would be excluded for thinking gravity isn’t a thing at all.  Others might not be.  But as you are keen to point out you aren’t actually a flat earther, so how am I supposed to know who you mean by “we”?

Quote
Quote
Hafele-Keating verifies relativity in two ways.
Leaving aside the fact you seem to have forgotten the whole reason why the Equivalence Principle gets mentioned in explanations of UA, that's the point. We have observations that tell us relativity makes accurate predictions. Rejecting it just because we don't have a 100% framework of the world is silly. That's not an FE perspective, that's just regular science.

Obviously I don’t reject it.  But flat earthers claiming that apparent gravity is mainly due to universal acceleration should reject it, or provide an alternative explanation.

Again, the part of the Hafele-Keating results that apply to gravity SHOULD NOT HAPPEN under universal acceleration.

In fact, no test for general relativity I’ve seen appears compatible with the flat earth UA “model”.

Quote
Quote
The point was what do flat earthers want to use.  I’m pretty damn sure they don’t want to use Newton’s law of gravitation, where mass always attracts mass.  So obviously it matters.
You do realise that this entire conversation has been about FEers who accept that in certain circumstances don't you? Again, just a refinement where there are a couple of other factors, but it's not 'Einstein was wrong!!!!' any more than Einstein proved Newton was wrong. It's "This is a limiting case, relevant in certain situations and approximately accurate in the day-to-day."

Yeah, yeah.  “Refinement” and “limited case”. That can apply if you accept the path of scientific progress in general and build on it.  It doesn’t apply, if you want to toss most of established science out the window.

Quote
Quote
I listed a whole load of contradictions.  Observations of gravitation that shouldn’t apply to flat earth ideas of universal acceleration, but you didn’t address any of them.

Oh, sorry, I forgot.  They don’t matter, right?
Uh, what? You haven't provided contradictions, you've just objected that they can explain it because they do so without a 100% fleshed out model.

The contradiction is you saying that general relativity can apply to universal acceleration nonsense, when all the real world examples of general relativity don’t apply to the UA “model”.  You don’t see a problem with that?  Of course you don’t.

Quote
That's not a contradiction. That's just science. Some FEers do accept gravity, they just don't think all masses exert it, and that answers everything you've proposed that even approaches the status of 'contradiction.' The rest was just you getting mad that they don't think GR is the 100% complete view of the world, and is instead only applicable in certain situations, as a limiting case of a more complex model. Which is... not a controversial opinion in any scientific circles whatsoever. Sure, they take a different way, but this really shouldn't be the hill you want to die on.

“Take a different way”?  LOL.

We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.

Appealing to Einstein’s theories to support this is an insult to Einstein and every other real scientist.  As is your hand wave that flat earthers just don’t have the “complete view”.

Flat Earthers would be better off forgetting about things like the Stress-Energy Tensor, and start with basics like where the sun rises and sets.  You know, like early civilization did.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #362 on: August 08, 2019, 08:32:23 AM »
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.
You're now saying that a lot and for the life of me I don't see why. You now appear to be claiming that UA and gravity are contradictory on a fundamental level when the mere existence of the celestial gravitation models says that's rubbish. Getting mad and shouting at the concept of FET doesn't mean you have a point. You're just saying it doesn't work, and complaining when I actually expect you to give a reason beyond 'Well it's different, even if none of the differences contradict the model in any significant capacity.'
Great, you think it's unreasonable, join the club. But when all you do is yell about how ridiculous you find it, the sole achievement of your posts is convincing FEers further that REers are all brainwashed morons incapable of any original thought.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #363 on: August 08, 2019, 08:55:01 AM »
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.
You're now saying that a lot and for the life of me I don't see why. You now appear to be claiming that UA and gravity are contradictory on a fundamental level when the mere existence of the celestial gravitation models says that's rubbish.

As far as I am aware, there is no celestial gravitation “model”.  There is little more than the words “celestial gravitation”  as if that actually explains anything.

Prove me wrong! 

Quote
Getting mad and shouting at the concept of FET doesn't mean you have a point. You're just saying it doesn't work, and complaining when I actually expect you to give a reason beyond 'Well it's different, even if none of the differences contradict the model in any significant capacity.'

I’m not mad.  It’s just that flat earthers have nothing to show to justify their claims scientifically.  But for some reason you couch all your defense of it all with what you imagine to be scientific arguments.

Quote
Great, you think it's unreasonable, join the club. But when all you do is yell about how ridiculous you find it, the sole achievement of your posts is convincing FEers further that REers are all brainwashed morons incapable of any original thought.

No.  I make plenty of reasonable points. You ignore them or just say “that doesn’t matter”. 

Now you say I look like a brainwashed moron incapable of any original thought?  Grow up and debate properly.

Here’s a challenge for you:

You claim that general relativity can function as a special case under the flat earth UA model?

Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #364 on: August 08, 2019, 09:04:09 AM »
Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
And that's the problem. You got given them earlier, you just decided that they contradicted what you wanted the model to be, rather than what it actually is. I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion if all you're interested in doing is decrying FET as a crime against god and man. This is a debate forum. I promise you, RET can stand honest comparison.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #365 on: August 08, 2019, 09:17:55 AM »
Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
And that's the problem. You got given them earlier, you just decided that they contradicted what you wanted the model to be, rather than what it actually is. I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion if all you're interested in doing is decrying FET as a crime against god and man. This is a debate forum. I promise you, RET can stand honest comparison.

As I remember, I gave you examples of evidence that should  not apply to UA- gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft.  All of which you need alternative explanations for.  All od which apparently “don’t matter” in your mind.

You suggested Hafele-Keating, which does not appear to fit.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #366 on: August 08, 2019, 09:58:51 AM »
Quote from: Unconvinced
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.

"The cavemen believed it before science existed so it must be true." I see a flaw there.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #367 on: August 08, 2019, 10:15:14 AM »
Name one piece of evidence we have for general relativity that doesn’t depend on observations that are directly contradicted by the flat earth UA “model”.
And that's the problem. You got given them earlier, you just decided that they contradicted what you wanted the model to be, rather than what it actually is. I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion if all you're interested in doing is decrying FET as a crime against god and man. This is a debate forum. I promise you, RET can stand honest comparison.

As I remember, I gave you examples of evidence that should  not apply to UA- gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft.  All of which you need alternative explanations for.  All od which apparently “don’t matter” in your mind.

You suggested Hafele-Keating, which does not appear to fit.
Well... no. They don't matter to this thread. Most of what you were dragging it to was barely relevant as it was, though it at least had the connection of being tied to celestial gravitation and UA. Those are just wholly separate standalone arguments against FET you brought in to distract. I'm not particularly interested in going over the lengthy outlines of FE models in response to space travel, orbits etc for someone who kicks up this much of a fuss at the concept of gravity not being 100% understood.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38029
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #368 on: August 08, 2019, 11:19:59 AM »
Quote from: Unconvinced
We’re talking about somehow overturning the most basic established science since long before science was even called science.

"The cavemen believed it before science existed so it must be true." I see a flaw there.
Yes, it's called a straw man.

Besides, FE'ers often appeal to ancient flat earth cosmologies, so I don't see where you have room to gripe.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #369 on: August 08, 2019, 12:13:29 PM »
someone who kicks up this much of a fuss at the concept of gravity not being 100% understood.

I think you might be confusing me with John Davis

;)

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #370 on: August 09, 2019, 06:06:59 AM »

Well... no. They don't matter to this thread. Most of what you were dragging it to was barely relevant as it was, though it at least had the connection of being tied to celestial gravitation and UA. Those are just wholly separate standalone arguments against FET you brought in to distract. I'm not particularly interested in going over the lengthy outlines of FE models in response to space travel, orbits etc for someone who kicks up this much of a fuss at the concept of gravity not being 100% understood.

OK, Jane, I’ll now explain why the things I listed are relevant. 

First off, let’s forget Einstein for a bit and go back to Newton’s law of gravitation.  In the real world, the effect of gravity is inversely proportional to distance from the center of the Earth, right?  As you gain altitude, the value of g drops, and the rate it drops slows down the higher you go.

Say you want to replace this with just universal acceleration + celestial gravity, you get a different function.  UA provides a constant acceleration component, while celestial gravitation makes up for change wrt altitude.

But wait!  If you want celestial gravitation to function the same way as real gravitation, the rate of change of g should increase with altitude as we get closer to whatever is supposed to be pulling us up.

The function of gravity/acceleration wrt to the earth is no longer inverse square, but a constant minus squared relationship.  A completely different thing.

So, how can flat earthers account for this?

1.  They could devise a new basic relationship for celestial gravitation wrt distance that isn’t inverse square and try to make that fit.  But doing so invalidates your claim that celestial gravitation would same function the same way as real gravitation.

2.  They could introduce new effects and variables and try to balance the functions to match measurements and observations.  Although I’ve never seen even a rough attempt to do so.

3.  They could just reject some or all of the measurements and observations as NASA/Illuminati lies, or whatever. 

And that’s just for acceleration wrt height above the surface.

To form a new hypothesis, the absolute first step must be to decide which observations you are trying to explain in the first place.  Then you need to propose a model that accounts for those observations.   You certainly can’t appeal to evidence and experiments that are completely incompatible with the model you are proposing.

That was the point of my list.  My problem with you saying that celestial gravitation should work the same way as in general relativity is that both the theory and evidence we have for general relativity shouldn’t work the same way under a UA/celestial gravitation model.

There is of course another option, which is what you have gone for so far:

4.  Baselessly claim “it doesn’t matter”, “it’s all been explained a bazillion times” and “REers look like morons incapable of independent thought”.  Translation: you don’t have the first clue how it’s all supposed to work.

So which are you going for?  Pick a number from 1-4.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #371 on: August 09, 2019, 06:17:04 AM »
OK, Jane, I’ll now explain why the things I listed are relevant. 
By which you mean, make a totally separate argument. Look, if you'd pointed out actual issues with it I wouldn't have bothered posting, but to use your words, your objections were based on "gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft." Not the rate of change of gravity with respect to altitude.
2's the one that follows the easiest from what I've seen. Not surprised you haven't seen it worked on, UA as a whole tends to be a minority opinion here and FEers are hardly interested in sticking around given the quality of debate. 3's done by people who don't appeal to celestial gravitation.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #372 on: August 09, 2019, 06:33:29 AM »
OK, Jane, I’ll now explain why the things I listed are relevant. 
By which you mean, make a totally separate argument. Look, if you'd pointed out actual issues with it I wouldn't have bothered posting, but to use your words, your objections were based on "gravitational lensing, planetary motion, anything related to satellites and spacecraft." Not the rate of change of gravity with respect to altitude.

Evidence related to some of the things I listed doesn’t seem at all compatible with Flat Earth/UA.  Although as I said, you still need to explain whether they are included in the model or not.

For simplicity, I used a case that we can at least easily compare.  One relevant to YOUR example of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

Are you seriously complaining I based my reply on the example you gave me?

Quote
2's the one that follows the easiest from what I've seen. Not surprised you haven't seen it worked on, UA as a whole tends to be a minority opinion here and FEers are hardly interested in sticking around given the quality of debate. 3's done by people who don't appeal to celestial gravitation.

So 2, then.  And have you seen anyone attempting to balance all these different functions to match observations?  I’ve searched and come up with nothing.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #373 on: August 09, 2019, 06:37:54 AM »
Are you seriously complaining I based my reply on the example you gave me?
I'm not complaining, just pointing out it wasn't exactly showing the things you listed were relevant. It's a decent enough argument, like I said, though less exposing a contradiction and more showing something they'd have to account for with the already-necessarily-different model of gravity. Might be fun to work the numbers to see how the rate-of-decrease from 9.8 exerted by the Earth compares to the rate-of-increase subtracted from a constant acceleration, but don't have the time for that right now.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #374 on: August 09, 2019, 05:46:55 PM »
My issue is you blindly asserting we can just use Einstein’s equations for General Relativity sectively, when you don’t even know if you want to use mass or something else in them.

How can you possibly state the equations will work normally under certain conditions, if you can’t even define the basic parameters you want to use?
The same way people could use Newton just fine even when it wasn't the whole picture. We already know it works fine in certain conditions, and that gets conceded by people who'd argue in this direction. Are you arguing there isn't enough observational evidence of GR?
Like, what you're arguing is that despite all the experiments and tests, we should reject Einstein's equations in totality just because there are super-niche circumstances where they might not hold. This isn't an FE-only position, it's basically the mainstream point of view, and your argument is that incomplete=wrong. That's just silly. Nothing about what I'm saying, beyond the one specific application which is irrelevant to most of your response, is outside of accepted scientific fact. Relativity does not explain everything, scientists are trying to combine it with quantum theory etc, they don't yet have the final formula but that doesn't mean quantum theory and relativity are inherently wrong. That just doesn't make sense. We know they're not for separate reasons.

Quote
You want only some mass to affect spacetime, but spacetime to affect all mass.  This breaks the two way interaction, so it’s fundamentally different.
And still simplifies. Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity. How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you? Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth? Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion? Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
Yes, it is different. No one's saying it isn't different. I didn't address that when you said it before because there's really nothing to address, it doesn't matter. Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then. Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case, but that's not an argument. You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.

Quote
Like, take the basic case of the Earth under RET; let's suppose the mass of your body no longer exerts any gravity.

Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
you would be moved around with the slightest of the breeze.( No weight to hold you in place.)
Unfortunately FET or RET would make no difference.
I see that there'll be a problem.
What is weight; weight is a measurement, of Force between two objects, and or, that of a third object, in this case; the gases, you, and the earth. The Earth being the most massive, and the most attractive, will defined the weights.
The gases are attracted to earth creating a pressure gradient in witch You stain, you're being solid, real displays any of the gas so you're firmly on the ground.

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #375 on: August 09, 2019, 05:50:00 PM »
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?

*

rabinoz

  • 22097
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #376 on: August 09, 2019, 06:41:36 PM »
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
You can't stop yourself can you?

But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?

Einstein's Equivalence Principle boils down to "Gravitational Mass is identical to Inertial Mass" and all mass is Inertial Mass.

Surely to be "subject to gravity" a mass must be Gravitational Mass and to be "exerting gravity" a mass must be Gravitational Mass.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #377 on: August 09, 2019, 06:51:14 PM »
But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?
Again? No, I really can't be bothered when you just keep pretending we haven't had the exact same discussion before, and you promptly left purely so you could regurgitate the same exact posts at a later date. Grow up Rab, just grow up. This is far from the first thread where you've pulled this. It doesn't make you look smart or convincing.

You've been called out on your semantic trickery. How about addressing that rather than pretending it never happened, yet again?

*

sokarul

  • 15970
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #378 on: August 09, 2019, 06:54:55 PM »
Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If you think otherwise please note it will just be an opinion until you provide evidence.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

rabinoz

  • 22097
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #379 on: August 09, 2019, 07:16:23 PM »
But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?
Again?
In other words, you cannot answer a simple question without attacking!

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #380 on: August 09, 2019, 09:47:14 PM »
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
Quote
yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way

and I do.

Quote
How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you?
A lot.
Quote
Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth?
yes
Quote
Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion?
yes
Quote
Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
no

Quote
nothing to address, it doesn't matter.
 Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then.
 Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case,
 but that's not an argument.
You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.
this is gibberish to me.

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #381 on: August 10, 2019, 05:49:01 AM »
But could you explain to a simple-minded person, like me, how a mass can be "subject to gravity" yet not be "exerting gravity"?
Again?
In other words, you cannot answer a simple question without attacking!
If your skin is that thin that being called out for your tactics qualifies as 'attacking' to you, either get off the site or stop being so blatantly repetitive. I've answered your question. if you don't want it to be pointed out you're asking the same exact thing and dragging the conversation in circles, *gasp* don't ask the same exact thing! Not hard.

How about you address the flaw (ie: blatant semantic trickery) already pointed out in your argument, as I've asked you to time and time again, rather than playing holier-than-thou and evading for the shallowest of reasons? Or better yet, just stop.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #382 on: August 10, 2019, 03:21:00 PM »
I think I understand the issue now.

The idea of the equivalence principle is that an object in a uniform gravitational field is the same as the surroundings accelerating.
This is because you get the same kind of relative acceleration.
The key part I was missing before was the field.
A field accelerates an object based upon the force the field generates and the inertial mass. i.e. a=F/mi.
The force a gravitational field generates is based upon the mass of the object, just like the force an electric field generates is based upon the charge.
i.e. F=k mg.
This means the acceleration due to a gravitational field would be:
a=k mg/mi

In order to have this be the same as just having the surroundings accelerate, this acceleration must be the same for all objects.
This means k mg/mi needs to be constant, and thus mg/mi needs to be constant.

While that doesn't mean that gravitational mass and inertial mass needs to be the same, it does show they need to be proportional.

So the question then is if this gravitational mass should also exert gravity and how strong that would be.
Every known object that is influenced by a force also exerts this force.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15387
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #383 on: August 15, 2019, 09:39:17 AM »
How does a great number of any type of person taking upon a logical fallacy make it not a logical fallacy?
I never said it didn't.
My point was a lot of FEers reject gravity, replace it with UA and then still appeal to gravity in the form of celestial gravity.
So it isn't a strawman.
The only part that comes close is the ending where they say they can't use it as it would make Earth a sphere.
Got it. You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.

Quote
I must have missed it. How again does it cause space to curve?
So you are asking for a mechanism for the mechanism.
Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.

Quote
Inductive logic is informal logic, and empirical thought embraces that.
And that doesn't make it irrational.
It is still a form of reasoning, and thus something being backed up by it is still rational.
If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.' If that is the bar round earth science uses, and the one you want to stand behind then fine. Its clearly not though, and everybody here recognizes that.

Quote
It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is rational.
No, you have it the wrong way around.
It would be incorrect to state, without justification, why you think inductive logic is irrational.

You are yet to provide any justification for that.
I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.

Quote
You are either completely ignorant of what you speak of, or are purposefully being difficult.
Good job projecting.
Completely ignorant got it. "Rational" and "Empirical" mean things. Words, as you might be surprised to learn, have meanings.

Quote
A rational conclusion
Again, I said a rational assumption, not conclusion.
Since your definition of rational includes magic thinking, I can't really argue that anything is not rational, making your definition useless.

Quote
is one based off deductive logic.
No, that would be a deductive conclusion.
There is nothing in the definition of rational which requires it to use deductive reasoning.
Not in your definition, as it clearly allows for any type of reasoning, however non-reasonable it is.

Quote
One of these two types of logical is formally valid, the other when attempted to prove it leads to infinite regression.
Again, care to provide a proof that deductive reasoning works, without the same infinite regress?
I'd shudder again to think of what you mean by "works." You are a big boy. You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.

Quote
Can you provide justification for your bold claim that I can't use deductive logic to prove deductive logic?
Because that is circular reasoning.
You are assuming deductive logic works to try and prove deductive logic works.

That is no better than using inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning works.
It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.

Quote
So do you have any proof that deductive reasoning works, without first assuming it does?

Quite the double standard you have.
You reject justifying inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning but are happy to do so for deductive reasoning.
Why?
It is truth preserving. It does not lead to infinite regression. The way you know it "works", by definition, is that it is truth preserving.

You can build the truth tables yourself if you'd like.

Quote

It does and I have shown, or at least cited, why.
No, you have just asserted it and tried to equate rational to based upon deductive reasoning.
By definition, rationalism concerns deductive reasoning.

Quote
And now you are begging the question.
Not in the slightest.
I am merely pointing out that if you honest followed what you preached you would accept nothing as proven and know that nothing can be proven (including that nothing can be proven), and as such wouldn't even bring it up as a point in an argument.
If I followed what I preach, which I do, I'd contend that you can prove things within closed self consistent systems.

Quote
No it isn't. Have you ever heard of photons?
Yes I have.
How are photons generated?
A nice simple case of an electron being moved from point A to point B, just once.
How does in generate photons to affect the electromagnetic field?
What is the mechanism behind it?
How does this photon then cause other charges to move?
Again, the same, or equivalent, questions apply to the other fundamental forces as well.
Never the less, we can observe the photon. We cannot observe the magic fairy particle you propose.

Quote
They are known well enough
The ones where they are just anomolies from a simple model based upon incomplete information rather than a contradiction of the model are well known.
For example, a variation in the gravity of Earth from what is predicted from a simple ellipsoid.
But you made it clear that is not what you were talking about.
The only thing which comes close to that is galactic rotation curves, but you said it was here on Earth, so that rules that out.

So just what anomalies are you talking about?
The ones I previously linked.

Quote
Just like I won't cite that the sky is blue
That is vastly different to an alleged gravitational anomaly.
Everyone can go outside on a near daily basis and observe that the sky appears to be blue.
They cannot do this for gravitational anomalies.
It would be more akin to citing that the average distance between the sun and Earth is a particular value.
They most certainly can for gravity anomalies.

Quote
I apologize for my use of the term "gravitational anomaly" rather than "gravity anomaly" if that is what you are harping on.
So you didn't even bother reading past the first line?
Quote
Typically the model is based on simplifying assumptions, such as that, under its self-gravitation and rotational motion, the planet assumes the figure of an ellipsoid of revolution. Gravity on the surface of this ellipsoid is then given by a simple formula which only contains the latitude, and subtraction from observed gravity in the same location will yield the gravity anomaly.
So just like I said, a variation from a simple model with no indication it lies outside the uncertainty range as it does not include the distribution of all the mass in the object.

If you have an example of an actual gravitational anomaly on Earth, where the prediction of gravity is actually wrong, rather than a simplified prediction being wrong, feel free to provide it.
Until then I see no reason to foolishly accept it.

No, they are well known to those actually working in the field that believe in a round earth.
Again, any justification?
Or is this again just focusing on the simplifications of the model?
I'll provide justification when you justify your assertion that there is a problem of deduction. Show me why it must rely on deduction to prove itself, and then show that this is indeed a recursive relationship that must then be justified again.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #384 on: August 15, 2019, 02:26:42 PM »
You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.
No, it isn't an argument held by mainstream science. You already admitted it was a strawman.

I think I will skip over the majority of your strawmen and insults this time.

Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.
Good thing I'm not just saying that.
Mass curving space is the mechanism behind what causes objects to fall and appear to be attracted to one another.
Yes, it is an effect itself, and could have a mechanism behind it.
But that applies for all mechanisms.
You can always try to go one step deeper.

If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.'
There is no "gut feel reasoning"

There is inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.
So no justification at all then.
Again, the definition you want to look at is rational, not rationalism.

You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.
Again, prove it.
So far all we have are your empty words asserting that it works, but no actual proof.
Please show that it is "truth preserving" without using deductive reasoning or any form of reasoning you reject as irrational.

It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.
No, it is exactly the same.
You can use inductive reasoning to show inductive reasoning works, just like you can use deductive reasoning to show that deductive reasoning works.
Both are equally circular, relying upon themselves to prove that they work.

If I followed what I preach
No you don't. If you did you wouldn't support being able to know anything at all.

Never the less, we can observe the photon.
Which isn't what I asked for at all.
Again, how are these photons generated?
This is the equivalent of mass bending space time.
If you are happy for photons to just be created without any mechanism for their formation you should be equally happy with mass just bending space time without any mechanism for doing so.

The ones I previously linked.
So not the ones you were claiming existed at all.
Not any that disprove or contradict gravity.
Ones that are entirely consistent with gravity and our limited knowledge of the mass distribution of our planet (or any planet).
So you were lying when you said they did contradict gravity.

They most certainly can for gravity anomalies.
How?
Just how do you think the average person can easily go and detect a gravitational anomaly?

But as you have just established that they are not the ones you were talking about before, and instead are ones which pose no problem for gravity, I guess that is entirely irrelevant.

I'll provide justification when you justify
i.e. you will happily just assert that deductive reasoning works with absolutely no backing to it, while dismissing other forms of reasoning unless they can be proven.

Thanks for yet again showing your double standard.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15387
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #385 on: August 15, 2019, 03:20:35 PM »
You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.
No, it isn't an argument held by mainstream science. You already admitted it was a strawman.

I contend it is and you haven't shown otherwise.

Quote
I think I will cherry pick arguments now that I've been decimated and refuse to admit it.
Go ahead.

Quote
Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.
Good thing I'm not just saying that.
Mass curving space is the mechanism behind what causes objects to fall and appear to be attracted to one another.
Yes, it is an effect itself, and could have a mechanism behind it.
But that applies for all mechanisms.
You can always try to go one step deeper.
How do you justify that this applies to all mechanisms?

Quote
If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.'
There is no "gut feel reasoning"

There is inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
What sets apart inductive, deductive, abductive, and gut feeling reasoning? Its starting to look like you just are defining reasoning to include exactly what you want. For example, by leaving out abductive reasoning, or other forms of 'reasoning'. Tell me, how would you determine between something that is a "reasoning" and that which is not?

You seem to contend such a thing is not possible, as you are fine with no line of demarcation. Now, you seem to be claiming only these two things are reasoning, and the rest aren't without providing any justification whatsoever.


Obviously, you can be "right" if you chose your definition to say it is right. And argue circularly. Without doing so, how would you distinguish between inductive reasoning and a gut-feeling reasoning that is also a trait shared by "deductive reasoning"?

In other words, please describe to me what you consider "reasoning" to mean - not a set of examples.

Quote
I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.
So no justification at all then.
Again, the definition you want to look at is rational, not rationalism.

You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.
Again, prove it.
So far all we have are your empty words asserting that it works, but no actual proof.
Please show that it is "truth preserving" without using deductive reasoning or any form of reasoning you reject as irrational.
I don't have to prove deductive reasoning to be truth preserving. Its in the fucking definition of valid deductive reasoning. If it is not truth-preserving, its not valid deduction.

Quote
It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.
No, it is exactly the same.
You can use inductive reasoning to show inductive reasoning works, just like you can use deductive reasoning to show that deductive reasoning works.
Both are equally circular, relying upon themselves to prove that they work.
Again, one is infinitely more circular. Can you explain why there is a need to justify the principle of deduction on infinitely recursive layers or cite one source? Your claim hinges upon such a need, and no need exists. The two deductive principles validate each other. This is not true of inductive principles because they cannot be truth preserving and thus cannot validate each other assuming a set of axioms that are truthful.

I'll cite the claim for my assertion that inductive requires this. Popper: The Logic Of Scientific Discovery. Now why would it be able to justify itself in one order without being truth preserving?

Quote
If I followed what I preach
No you don't. If you did you wouldn't support being able to know anything at all.
I never did support being able to know anything at all.

Quote
Never the less, we can observe the photon.
Which isn't what I asked for at all.
Again, how are these photons generated?
This is the equivalent of mass bending space time.
If you are happy for photons to just be created without any mechanism for their formation you should be equally happy with mass just bending space time without any mechanism for doing so.
I can't validate the existence of mass bending space time, or its model without reaching a null result.

I can validate the existence of something that adheres to the model of photon.

Quote
The ones I previously linked.
So not the ones you were claiming existed at all.
Not any that disprove or contradict gravity.
Ones that are entirely consistent with gravity and our limited knowledge of the mass distribution of our planet (or any planet).
So you were lying when you said they did contradict gravity.
Like I said, I'm sure everybody would have a perfect batting average, if only his hits were counted.


Quote
I'll provide justification when you justify
i.e. you will happily just assert that deductive reasoning works with absolutely no backing to it, while dismissing other forms of reasoning unless they can be proven.

Thanks for yet again showing your double standard.
See above; any chance on justifying inductive reasoning "works", which by the way you have yet to tell me what "works" means? Am I to find you a true Scotsman while I'm at it? Or just read your mind?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15387
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #386 on: August 15, 2019, 03:24:07 PM »
Disproof by example of inductive reasoning 'working':

Bob always leaves for work at 6:00 a.m.
Bob is always on time.
.: If Bob leaves at 6:00 a.m. for work today → Bob will be on time.


Clearly, this is not the case.

Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15387
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #387 on: August 15, 2019, 03:35:13 PM »
In Before:
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #388 on: August 15, 2019, 06:01:52 PM »
Humm A Einstein though experiment, your would no longer displays the weight of the gases around you, you would become buoyant, And float like a balloon.
I said your body stops exerting gravity, not that it stops being subject to gravity. yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way etc etc, but how about paying attention to the context of the discussion that was being had, and how that had already been gone through, rather than plucking one post out of context to make a pointless comment?
Quote
yes, you can argue that's impossible, gravity has to be two-way

and I do.

Quote
How much of an impact would that have on your interactions with everything around you?
A lot.
Quote
Would it massively reduce the rate at which you fall to Earth?
yes
Quote
Would it completely change the way you interact with the world around you in any noticeable fashion?
yes
Quote
Or would it simply be negligible in all but the rarest of circumstances?
no

Quote
nothing to address, it doesn't matter.
 Some masses (on Earth and in space) exert gravity, everything functions as per normal and you cannot seriously be arguing the equations fail then.
 Some don't; the equations are still approximately accurate when the masses that defy it are significantly smaller than the ones that do.
Sure, the two-way interaction is a result of the boundary case,
 but that's not an argument.
You aren't making a case, you're just saying things and insisting they're problems when they're... not. They're just not.
this is gibberish to me.
where did you go Jane ?
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.
The earth is a globe.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #389 on: August 15, 2019, 06:14:12 PM »
where did you go Jane ?
Make an actual point and it'll be worth posting. You got into a discussion midway through without bothering reading any of the context and got surprised you were lost. Not really worth much response.