161

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 20, 2019, 01:18:19 PM »

RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.

Irrelevant

Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove? 

And if you are being intellectually honest, you shouldn't accept A or B, until you can disprove C

This is completely at odds with how scientific progress is made. I respect your right to an opinion, but I fundamentally disagree that intellectual honesty comes into this. At best, it's your own unorthodox personal preference.

It's exactly how science works.  As long as there is the possibility that x is true, you cannot logically assume that it is not.  To do so is intellectually dishonest, not to mention a logical fallacy. There could be a black swan out there, somewhere you never know. It's absurd to suggest that "scientific progress" is made by assuming something is true when you don't know that it is.  That is the exact opposite of science. But that is exactly what FE does.  You start with the premise that RE gravity does not exist without eliminating the possibility that it does.

If you are trying to change someone's mind

We aren't. We offer information to those who seek it. We encourage people to perform their own experiments, and to experience the world that surrounds them for themselves. If you choose not to do that, that's fine. Your prerogative.

You engaged us entirely by choice. We didn't reach out to you, and we're not here to convince you. By pretending otherwise, you reinforce my conviction that you seek to reverse the BoP.

  I reached out to you with a simple question.  Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.  What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?, which has nothing to do with what I asked.  Those are two entirely different questions and that response was just a pathetic, transparent way of trying to deflect.  Answering a question with a question is called avoiding answering.

If the RE gravity explanation is incorrect, you'd think after thousands of years, somebody would have come up with something, somewhere, at some time, that occurs (or doesn't occur) that is inconsistent with it.

Sure. And they have. The discrepancies between observation and theory are well-documented - some of them even made it to the Wikipedia page on the subject. But I don't see why you'd waste the FES's time with something that's already taught within the mainstream at high school level. It's got nothing to do with us.

I thought RE was unfalsifiable?  You can't have it both ways.  And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity.  That is not the same thing as disproving it.  Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is".  But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven?  I think that would have been pretty big news.

162

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 19, 2019, 06:28:25 PM »

By your premise, we cannot accept A or B until we disprove the unfalsifiable hypothesis of C. Because of that, I find your reasoning to be unacceptable. In effect, you're attempting to reverse the burden of proof, which rarely works.

RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.  It should be easily contradicted by observation (at the very least) if it weren't true.  If the RE gravity explanation is incorrect, you'd think after thousands of years, somebody would have come up with something, somewhere, at some time, that occurs (or doesn't occur) that is inconsistent with it.  And if you are being intellectually honest, you shouldn't accept A or B, until you can disprove C, if it were impossible for C to exist if A or B were true.  I don't accept either the density or UA theory of gravity because I have seen nothing to suggest that the RE version is not true. It fits my personal experience and observations as well as my understanding of the science. And if it is true, neither of those others can be.

I am not reversing the burden of proof, I'm putting back to where it belongs. If you are trying to change someone's mind, that person is under no obligation to engage you at all, much less justify what they believe or convince you of their position. You are the one picking an argument with centuries of established scientific thought. Surely, you've seen the "Change my mind" memes? 

163

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 19, 2019, 05:13:38 PM »

My position is that you cannot disprove something that has to be proven.
[/quote]

That sentence make no sense. I am not sure of what you are trying to say. Do you mean you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven? Sure, you can. Taking away the possibility of something, by definition disproves it. Just prove a contradictory premise that makes the 2nd premise impossible.  Something like this would work...x happens when y, which would be impossible if RE gravity existed.  Simple.

Do you mean cannot disprove something that "must" be proven first?  IOW, you can't disprove something until it has been proven?  Surely, even you can see that makes no sense. 

164

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 19, 2019, 03:05:35 PM »

So, you have personally been to a point in outer space and know first hand that it exists as depicted on screen, regardless whether self-proclaimed fictional portrayal or non-fictional portrayal.

I really don't think you have a valid point here.

I do not need to know the people involved. I need only to provide the reported names and what I have seen.I have done that for both the reportedly fictional and reportedly non-fictional video presentations of people on the ISS.

It is all fake is my point, so no...no circular reasoning...pretty linear thinking...

So I have to personally go to space and validate the accuracy instead of relying on what I have told, but you don't.  I can't take what is claimed at face value, but you can.  If you don't know the people who claim to have made the CGI or witnessed them doing it, you don't know what they did any more than I can know what space looks like without going there.  Quite a double standard, don't you think?

And yes, your logic is the very definition of circular...you can't know something is true, unless you already know its true.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 19, 2019, 02:26:29 PM »

My argument, as explained in other threads, is not circular.

I suggest you rethink your position.

You cannot claim:

...In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.

...if RE hasn't explained gravity.

And, as far as I can recall, RE hasn't.

Again, RE gravity doesn't have to be proven, it has to be disproven for the FE position is correct.  Both theories cannot be true at the same time.  The FE explanations, at best, offer alternate explanations, but don't prove or disprove anything.

RE gravity has never been proven, therefore it does not exist, and cannot be proven.  How have I misstated your position?

166

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 19, 2019, 01:30:51 PM »

RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?

RE doesn't have to explain gravity.  RE isn't trying to over turn thousands of years of accepted science.  Even if it were the case that RE has not proven gravity, absence of evidence it not evidence of absence.

In a court of law, the default position is innocent.  It is up the prosecution to prove, not just that the defendant could have done it, but that the defendant must have done it.  Like or not, scientifically, RE is the default position.  If FE wants to change the default position, then it must prove, not just that FE could be true, but that it must be true.

Your question reveals the fundamental flaw in all of FE reasoning...it is circular. (no pun intended).  It starts with the unproven premise that RE gravity is not true and ends with the conclusion that RE gravity is not true.

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 19, 2019, 12:25:06 PM »

AATW, please allow me to repeat my request:

Please substantiate the claim that in order to propose a theory, all competing theories must first be proven false. It doesn't make much sense historically, and I'd like to understand OP's reasoning behind that thought. Given that it's the cornerstone of OP's argument, it's important that we ensure we're working under reasonable assumptions, otherwise we risk jumping into unsound conclusions.

Blathering on about the differences between FE and RE is unlikely to clarify that.

Competing theories don't need to be disproved, but contradictory ones do.  If theory A proposes an outcome that makes theory B impossible, only one of them can be true.

Unless you are suggesting that RE gravity and flat earth are consistent.

168

Flat Earth Theory / Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 18, 2019, 08:52:29 PM »

I understand that FE has at least a couple of different explanations for “gravity”, but really all they are is alternative explanations for why things fall.

In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.

Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true?

169

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 18, 2019, 12:25:28 AM »

Because I paid attention in physics class in high school. I think pretty much every school is going to do an experimental demonstration of snell's law, I guess you missed out.

So then you trust science, when it is convenient and confirms what you already believe.

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 17, 2019, 06:30:23 AM »

lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?

Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

IMO there's no distinguishable difference between you and non-human text. I guess this means you don't exist. Solid evidence right?

Anyway there is a difference, you can look up the actors names from the big bang theory show. Astronauts aren't publicly listed or acknowledged as actors, instead it's a career they've years trained for.

Are you stating that actors do not train or that being an astronaut and an actor somehow results in different abilities to portray supposed weightless characteristics on screen?

In regard to your writing analogy, how does that relate to a moving picture on screen?

There's a sure way to find out the truth... Become an astronaut. Do something instead of crying fake at everything you can't see 10 feet in front of you. I mean heck I've never been to Japan but I know the place exists. I've never met a Samurai and never will but I know they were a thing. I can't gain access to military bases but I know they have military staff inside. I've never been to space but I know astronauts have. I've not been on the ISS but I know it exists.

I don't cry fake fake at everything I can see 10 feet in front of me.

That is unsubstantiated.

I could now write you believe everything you hear, but that merely casts a worthless stone your way.

I only wrote it to demonstrate exactly the falsehood of what you wrote.

But hey, how could you possibly know if you haven't been there or seen it with your own eyes right? Oh yea photos and real people accounts of it... Just like everything else you haven't seen for yourself.

I know The Big Bang Theoryis a television show.

I know the actors Jim Parsons, Johnny Galecki, Kaley Cuoco, Simon Helberg, and Kunal Nayyar, appear on the show. Real people, real accounts of their being a television show and there was a series of video episodes accounting for time that the real person, Simon Helberg , portraying Howard Wolowitz, spent in space aboard the ISS.

A real person portraying a fictional character spending fictional time in fictional space aboard the fictional ISS, all captured on video.

That admitted fiction looks NO DIFFERENT than the SUPPOSED NON-FICTIONAL VIDEO of real people on what is supposed to be the real ISS.

I think people being on the ISS is more plausible than billions of people being tricked into thinking the earth is a completely different shape and that space travel doesn't exist. And if the earth somehow isn't spheroid, it doesn't default to being a flat disk, what stops it from being every other shape? Why should the earth be flat? I mean if you can take a close up of a basketball and see a lumpy but overall flat surface, does a basketball default to a flat disk for an ant?

Well, there isn't any ancient culture claiming the earth to be a square or a rectangle, for one.

Do you know these people, met them, gone to a taping of the show?  Unless you have, then by your logic you can't really know anything about what you claim to know.

171

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 17, 2019, 06:21:46 AM »

lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?

Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.

That is a classic example of circular reasoning, with a big heaping helping of hypocrisy thrown in.  You have to know that movie versions are fake to know that ISS versions are fake...but you only "know" the movie versions are fake because that is what Big Movie wants you to believe. For all you know they actually went into space and filmed it in real time because it was cheaper and just said it was done on computers so everyone would think they were so talented.  You weren't there to watch them create the pictures, so by your logic, you can't really know they are fabricated

172

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 17, 2019, 05:58:26 AM »

A circling flat earth sun would never reach the horizon and as it moved away from the observer it would get smaller and smaller like all things do that recede from an observer. The sun does not.

Stack,

That image is a wonderful concept of how the sun would never reach the horizon in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't live in a vacuum. Do you have a demonstration of how where the sun would appear that even makes the slightest attempt at factoring in any sort of refraction among the layers of the atmosphere?

How do you know refraction even exists?

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 17, 2019, 05:18:43 AM »

I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.

So then there is no objective reality and RE is as true as FE.