The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: pricelesspearl on August 18, 2019, 08:52:29 PM

Title: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl 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?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 19, 2019, 08:19:26 AM
In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.
Substantiate this claim.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 19, 2019, 08:41:51 AM
In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.
Substantiate this claim.
Gravity pulls towards the Centre of Mass. For a sphere that will be (more or less) in the centre of the sphere (assuming roughly homogeneous density)
For a disc or flat plane that would be in the centre of the disc/plane (making the same assumption). Or even if the density varies and the centre of mass is off centre, it will be a point.
So people won't be pulled "down".
On a sphere every point on the surface is "above" the centre of the sphere, so gravity pulls "downwards".
On a plane only people above the centre of mass will be pulled "down". Everyone displaced from that point will be pulled at an angle depending on how far they are from the centre of mass.

You indicated in another post that gravity doesn't tally with observations, can you elaborate?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 19, 2019, 09:28:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 19, 2019, 10:53:52 AM
Please substantiate the claim that in order to propose a theory, all competing theories must first be proven false.
That's not the claim you asked to substantiate and that is not what the original post claims.
You can propose what theories you like. Anyone can.

All the original post says is that the FE and RE explanations for why things fall can't both be true. And that's right, they contradict one another. They could both be false, they can't both be true.
And it asks what evidence you have for the RE explanation being incorrect. I would like to know this too.

You indicated in another post that gravity (the RE explanation for why things fall) doesn't tally with observations, can you elaborate?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl 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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 01:02:38 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?
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 19, 2019, 01:30:51 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 01:50:52 PM
Quote
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.
Science is never accepted.
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 assumption that RE gravity is not true and ends with the conclusion that RE gravity is not true.
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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 19, 2019, 02:26:29 PM

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 19, 2019, 02:59:07 PM
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?
I believe Einstein's model is the best we have right now. But I'm not sure it's up to anyone to "explain" things. It's nice if we can of course, the more we understand about the way the universe works the better, but we don't have to understand the mechanism behind gravity any more than you need to explain the mechanism behind UA.
The key question is which model better fits observations.

The theory of gravity explains why things fall
It explains differences in the strength of gravity in different locations.
It explains the Cavendish experiment.
It explains how the moon orbits us, how we orbit the sun and how the other planets do too.

UA only explains the first of those, the others need to be explained in different ways.

My question was, and remains what makes you think that UA is a better model than gravity, in what way does UA work better as a model than gravity? Or which observations would you say show gravity to be wrong?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 19, 2019, 03:45:20 PM

Quote
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?
My position is that you cannot disprove something that has to be proven.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl 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. 

Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 19, 2019, 05:38:01 PM
Unless you are suggesting that RE gravity and flat earth are consistent.
For most intents and purposes, sure.

Competing theories don't need to be disproved, but contradictory ones do.
I fundamentally disagree with your approach. To prove a theory, one does not need to individually debunk all the competition.

Consider the following:

Question: What causes things to fall down on Earth?
Proposed answers:
A) RET's "standard" gravitational model
B) FET's UA
C) YHWH is consciously and intentionally nudging every particle in the Universe, and currently it is HIS will that things should fall. Praise be.

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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 19, 2019, 06:28:25 PM
Quote
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? 
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 20, 2019, 03:20:00 AM
RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.
Irrelevant.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 20, 2019, 10:49:17 AM
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.
I mean that I do not need to disprove something that has yet to be proven.

And RE gravity has yet to be proven.

Every other force known to man has properties that are proven and definable.

No matter where you find these forces in action, they will behave the exact same way.

Yet, we are told, that gravity has this force that is measurably distinct, except in certain aspects of our own environment!

So, no...I do not need to disprove gravity...it doesn't exist as science has already proven that.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 20, 2019, 01:18:19 PM
RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 20, 2019, 02:46:46 PM
Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove?
I didn't. There was only one thing I called unfalsifiable in this thread, and it was not RET.

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.
That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.

Trying to shift the goal posts like this makes you look worse, not better. Please approach this discussion with some intellectual honesty.

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.
Your understanding of burden of proof, and of context in human communication, is absolutely abysmal. In asking your question, you attempted to reverse the BoP of the entire debate, one which has been going for much longer than your attempted contribution. It is, first and foremost, your job to prove your position. Demanding that someone else proves the opposite of your position and declaring that no alternatives can be considered until then is asinine.

What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?
I said nothing to that effect. If you have a problem with something someone else has said, might I recommend taking it up with them?

I thought RE was unfalsifiable?
I'm still not sure where you got that from, but once again for those in the back: no one here said anything like that.

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.
Holy shit, you can't even read a Wikipedia page without hand-holding? I'll give you a hint: examples of some anomalies and discrepancies within your favourite gravitational model are listed under the Anomalies and Discrepancies subheading of the Gravity page.

And yes, the uncertainties of science are something that was taught in high school back in my day. Perhaps they dropped it around the same time as reading comprehension?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 20, 2019, 06:24:39 PM
Quote
That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.

Its the exact same argument I started with. Look up farther in the thread
Quote
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.

 You cannot "explore alternatives" that directly contradict a premise, unless the premise it is not true.  If there are several alternatives that could all be true, that is perfectly legitimate.  But if x and y can't both be true,  its pretty irresponsible to say I believe x even though I know y could be true.  The only way UA or any other theory of FE gravity could be true is if RE gravity is not. If you can't prove RE gravity false, you can't ever prove FE gravity is true.

Quote
In asking your question, you attempted to reverse the BoP of the entire debate, one which has been going for much longer than your attempted contribution. It is, first and foremost, your job to prove your position. Demanding that someone else proves the opposite of your position and declaring that no alternatives can be considered until then is asinine.


Why is it my job to prove my position?  I am not the one claiming RT gravity is not true.  The burden of proof is on the party making the claim.  If I came on this board and said I could prove gravity, wouldn't you expect me to back that up?  But FE can go all over media and internet claiming it doesn't exist and nobody is allowed to ask you to back that up?  That's a bit of a double standard

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear

Coincidentally, you are making a claim and denying a well-established fact or theory.  When you respond by demanding the other side prove their claim, that is known as a logical fallacy.  Look it up.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Quote
Holy shit, you can't even read a Wikipedia page without hand-holding? I'll give you a hint: examples of some anomalies and discrepancies within your favorite gravitational model are listed under the Anomalies and Discrepancies subheading of the Gravity page.



Quote
And yes, the uncertainties of science are something that was taught in high school back in my day. Perhaps they dropped it around the same time as reading comprehension?

Teaching about the uncertainties of science is a long way from teaching they suggest gravity doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 20, 2019, 06:31:15 PM
Its the exact same argument I started with. Look up farther in the thread
I already explained how the two arguments are different. I'm sorry, but "nuh uh" is not a helpful answer here.

Why is it my job to prove my position?
Because it's your position. I'll defend mine, you'll defend yours. I will not be defending the opposite of yours, or vice-versa. That's just not how anything works.

(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15269.0;attach=2933;image)
Do you not know what Wikipedia is?

Teaching about the uncertainties of science is a long way from teaching they suggest gravity doesn't exist.
Once again - not something I have ever said or suggested. Do you think these constant straw man attacks will get you anywhere?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 20, 2019, 07:16:40 PM
Quote
Because it's your position. I'll defend mine, you'll defend yours. I will not be defending the opposite of yours, or vice-versa. That's just not how anything works.

What position on gravity have I expressed? I have not expressed a position or made any claims whatsoever.  All I asked is that you defend yours, but so far you have been unable.
None of the Anomalies on the Wikipedia page even come close to disproving gravity.  None of them are inconsistent with gravity existing.  At best, they suggest we have more to learn about it.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 21, 2019, 12:28:58 PM
I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

Over time it became adopted because people agreed it did work better with observations.
That's how progress has been made with scientific models down the centuries.

So while there may be some anomalies with gravity, all that shows is we have more to learn. We shouldn't throw the model out though, it's got us to the moon. Science should always be open to models being updated or even replaced completely of course if a model comes along which better matches observations.

But I don't think UA was proposed because it was felt to work better as a model than gravity, in fact part of the premise of UA is that it's equivalent to gravity in certain respects. The test should be does UA work better as a model than gravity? It can explain why things fall as well as gravity can but it can't explain variations of gravity in different places:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-map-of-earths-gravity-30976030/

And it can't explain the movements of the moon or planets or anything else, other mechanisms have to be suggested for those.

Do you think UA is a better match for observations than gravity? If so, can you elaborate?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: newhorizons on August 21, 2019, 03:19:58 PM
Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

Over time it became adopted because people agreed it did work better with observations.
That's how progress has been made with scientific models down the centuries.

I agree. However FE theorists obviously must think differently otherwise what is the point of FE theory? Science is not about proving anything right or wrong. Rather it is about producing the theory or model which most widely fits with real world experience. It doesn't conclude that the Earth is flat because it looks flat. It takes into account that not everything in nature is actually exactly as it seems at first glance.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 21, 2019, 03:28:18 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not.
Unfortunately, OP's current position relies strongly on arguing with that. This is why it needs amending.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 21, 2019, 04:16:57 PM
Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

Over time it became adopted because people agreed it did work better with observations.
That's how progress has been made with scientific models down the centuries.

I agree. However FE theorists obviously must think differently otherwise what is the point of FE theory? Science is not about proving anything right or wrong. Rather it is about producing the theory or model which most widely fits with real world experience. It doesn't conclude that the Earth is flat because it looks flat. It takes into account that not everything in nature is actually exactly as it seems at first glance.

I did not ask about the entire FE model.  I asked about gravity, specifically.  I am not asking them to disprove anything, they are claiming, by implication, they already have. If they haven't disproved it, it is irresponsible to claim that it doesn't exist. They are making the claim so the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence. So where's the evidence?

The only "evidence" I have seen are just alternate theories, which just coincidentally, behave consistent with RE gravity.  Those theories aren't evidence of anything, much less proof of anything, except perhaps, it could be something else

There is a big difference between RE gravity could be something else RE gravity doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Adrenoch on August 21, 2019, 05:43:45 PM
I believe the OP was essentially asking if FE adherents find fault with the conventional description of gravity, or if FE adherents disbelieve in a globe and so must therefore disbelieve in the conventional description of gravity.

There are simple ways to discriminate between UA and gravity - such as differing weights at the equator vs. poles, or valleys vs. mountains, or even laboratory experiments. If those measurements support the RE model, but not the FE model, then the FE model needs to account for those discrepancies somehow. If the measurements support the FE model, then the RE model would need to be adjusted somehow or abandoned.

I think we can all agree on that, correct?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 21, 2019, 06:47:00 PM
I believe the OP was essentially asking if FE adherents find fault with the conventional description of gravity, or if FE adherents disbelieve in a globe and so must therefore disbelieve in the conventional description of gravity.

There are simple ways to discriminate between UA and gravity - such as differing weights at the equator vs. poles, or valleys vs. mountains, or even laboratory experiments. If those measurements support the RE model, but not the FE model, then the FE model needs to account for those discrepancies somehow. If the measurements support the FE model, then the RE model would need to be adjusted somehow or abandoned.

I think we can all agree on that, correct?

I appreciate you stepping in to clarify, but what I was asking was much more simple than that. Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true? which is really just another way of asking is there any evidence that UA is true, since if one is true, the other is untrue, by default. That is all I asked A simple yes, and here is the evidence, or no, there isn't any evidence is all that was needed. Instead, what I get in response is deflection, dissembling, false assumptions, logical fallacies and insults.  Which I guess, is kind of answer of its own.   
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 22, 2019, 03:36:37 PM
I appreciate you stepping in to clarify, but what I was asking was much more simple than that. Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true? which is really just another way of asking is there any evidence that UA is true, since if one is true, the other is untrue, by default. That is all I asked A simple yes, and here is the evidence, or no, there isn't any evidence is all that was needed. Instead, what I get in response is deflection, dissembling, false assumptions, logical fallacies and insults.  Which I guess, is kind of answer of its own.
I think Pete's point is why does FE (or anyone) have to disprove a theory to propose an alternative.
And he's right, they don't. BUT, I would suggest that in order to propose a new theory you surely have to have some evidence that there is something wrong with the prevailing one.
Why would you propose a new model if you have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the existing one?
The heliocentric model was suggested because Copernicus believed there were issues with the geocentric model and that the heliocentric one worked better.
Over time it became adopted because as accuracy of observations improved it became clear he was right.

I don't think UA was suggested because it was felt to work better as a model than gravity, my guess is it came about because if you believe the world is flat then the RE gravity where things are attracted towards the centre of mass can't work, so an alternative has to be proposed. And the premise of UA is that it is in certain regards equivalent to gravity.
But there are other reasons like the variations in gravity which have been mapped why it doesn't work as well. And it has no explanatory power for how any of the celestial bodies move.
UA actually explains less than gravity and doesn't work as well as a model compared to observations. That's why it hasn't revolutionised our scientific understanding.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 22, 2019, 05:22:40 PM
Quote
I think Pete's point is why does FE (or anyone) have to disprove a theory to propose an alternative

I never said that they did, even specifically said they did not.  Specifically said that competing theories don't need to be disproven, but contradictory ones do.  If  x and y are the only possibilities, you can't say that x is true if it is also possible that that y is true. They are not "proposing an alternative"...they are claiming to have found "the truth".   When you have found "the truth", it is impossible for anything that contradicts it to be true.  So before you go around claiming to have found "the truth", you damn well need to be sure there is nothing out there that contradicts it. 

That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.  Whether what I said was true or not, it wouldn't prevent a simple yes or no.


Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 22, 2019, 07:12:38 PM
That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.
That would be a cute theory to cover up your logical fallacies, were it not for the simple fact that I already pointed you to an impartial resource on your gravitational model's flaws.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 22, 2019, 07:54:51 PM
That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.
That would be a cute theory to cover up your logical fallacies, were it not for the simple fact that I already pointed you to an impartial resource on your gravitational model's flaws.
You did, and those do indicate that we have more to learn. But does UA fix any of those problems? And UA doesn’t account for the differences in gravity measures in different locations. If you accept that result then you would need a different mechanism to explain that, if the flat earth is accelerating upwards at a certain rate then g should be constant regardless of location which is not what is measured.

UA solves none of the anomalies mentioned on the source you provided, only explains one phenomenon (us falling) when gravity explains lots more things like orbits of planets and satellites. And UA has additional problems like being unable to explain variations of g in different locations.

A new model only replaces an old one if it does better and predicting and explaining observations than the old ones, like the heliocentric model replacing the geocentric one. UA does a worse job than gravity at predicting or explaining observations.

 
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 22, 2019, 08:15:42 PM
But does UA fix any of those problems?
That's irrelevant to the OP's question. Which, once again, is why I keep trying to get the OP to pursue something more productive.

And UA doesn’t account for the differences in gravity measures in different locations.
Not in a (figurative) vacuum, no. In other extremely thrilling news, gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: thors_evil_twin on August 22, 2019, 08:46:00 PM
Quote
Not in a (figurative) vacuum, no. In other extremely thrilling news, gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue.

When has Gravity been proposed to explain why sky is blue? Please provide references. Other wise your statement is just a lame attempt to move the goalpost, as is often the case with many flat earth arguments.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 22, 2019, 09:44:35 PM
That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.
That would be a cute theory to cover up your logical fallacies, were it not for the simple fact that I already pointed you to an impartial resource on your gravitational model's flaws.

You seem to struggle with this whole burden of proof concept, so let me remind you: If you want to make the claim any of those anomalies or discrepancies disprove the RE model of gravity, it’s up to you to prove it.  That’s how arguments work between people who are actually interested in being fair and reasonable and interested in the truth.

But I will help you along…since it appears that no FE on this board has a clue as to what a sound argument is, much less how to make one.
To be a sound argument, the conclusion must logically follow (be valid) from a true premise(s). Not from just something, that could be true, or that you believe is true or that you want to be true.  It has to actually be true.

So if you want to start out with the premise that a discrepancy and/or anomalies disproves a theory, your argument is already unsound. You need to explain how/why any of those disprove RE gravity.  Not just that they could or they might, but that they actually do.

Good luck with that because if any of them do that, I don’t think the references would be buried in a Wikipedia page. The discovery that Newton was wrong and that everything science has learned in the past 300 years is wrong would kind of be big news.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 23, 2019, 09:22:22 AM
When has Gravity been proposed to explain why sky is blue?
It hasn't. That's what makes it analogous to AATW's "issue".

You seem to struggle with this whole burden of proof concept, so let me remind you
Please remember that the upper fora are not designed for exchanging cheap insults. If you'd like to do that, take it to AR.

In the meantime, I encourage you to address the logical flaws in your argument, which have been acknowledged by most in this thread by now.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 23, 2019, 12:38:16 PM
Quote
In the meantime, I encourage you to address the logical flaws in your argument, which have been acknowledged by most in this thread by now.

P1) FET and RET have two different theories of gravity
P2) FET Gravity and RET gravity cannot both be true
C1) Therefore, when FET claims that FET gravity is true, FET is also claiming that RET gravity cannot be true.
P3) The burden of proof is on the party making the claim
P4) FET claims that RET gravity cannot be true (See C1)
C2) Therefore, the burden of proof is on FET to demonstrate that RET gravity cannot be true.

I really don't know how to make it any more simple than that.  Feel free to point out any premise that is not true or any conclusion that does not logically follow.


Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 23, 2019, 04:17:46 PM
Quote
In the meantime, I encourage you to address the logical flaws in your argument, which have been acknowledged by most in this thread by now.

P1) FET and RET have two different theories of gravity
P2) FET Gravity and RET gravity cannot both be true
C1) Therefore, when FET claims that FET gravity is true, FET is also claiming that RET gravity cannot be true.
P3) The burden of proof is on the party making the claim
P4) FET claims that RET gravity cannot be true (See C1)
C2) Therefore, the burden of proof is on FET to demonstrate that RET gravity cannot be true.

I really don't know how to make it any more simple than that.  Feel free to point out any premise that is not true or any conclusion that does not logically follow.
Well, let's just say P2 for starters.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 23, 2019, 06:07:38 PM
Quote
Well, let's just say P2 for starters.

Fair enough. I will prove that premise the same way.

P1)RE gravity necessitates a round earth
P2)FE gravity necessitates a flat earth
P3)The earth can not be both flat and round
C1) Therefore, RE gravity and FE gravity cannot both be true.

Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 24, 2019, 08:43:40 AM
C1) Therefore, when FET claims that FET gravity is true, FET is also claiming that RET gravity cannot be true.
C1 is the flaw, or rather two flaws, which you need to resolve, not restate.

While it is true that proving something to be true implies that the alternatives are untrue, demanding a direct proof of the negation of these alternatives is not logically equivalent.

You also conflate something that "isn't true" with something that "cannot be true". Your flawed logic implies the former if we're being generous, but you're loudly demanding the latter.

This has been explained to you multiple times now. Rephrasing your claim will not resolve its failure.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 24, 2019, 06:26:03 PM
Quote
You also conflate something that "isn't true" with something that "cannot be true". Your flawed logic implies the former if we're being generous, but you're loudly demanding the latter

No, you are conflating saying something is true with saying that something could be true.

In logic, there is a basic, fundamental principle from which all other logic flows.  It is called the Law of Non-Contradiction and states that something cannot be both true and false.  So when you say that FE gravity is true (not just could be true), there is zero possibility that it could be false.  If there is zero possibility that it could be false, there is also zero possibility that RE gravity could be true.  If FE gravity is true, the earth is flat, if RE gravity is true the earth is round.  If the earth is flat, there is no possibility that it is round. The Law of Non-Contradiction demands that it cannot be round

Now if all you are saying is that it is just possible that FE gravity is true and that it is not necessarily true, the law on Non-Contradiction does not apply.  I don’t get the impression that is your position when I read “This website is dedicated to unravelling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax” and other such statements on this on the website. If that assumption is wrong, I stand corrected.

There is something else is logic called Modus Tollens, it is a basic rule of inference in logic and states that if a statement is true, so is it contrapositive.  The contrapositive of a statement is when you reverse the antecedent and consequent.  The contrapositive of P implies Q, would be Q implies P.  So when you state that the truth of FE gravity implies that RE gravity is false (which is true statement because of the law of Non-Contradiction), that is the logical equivalent of saying RE gravity is false because FE gravity is true.

P2 is true because of the Law of Non-Contradiction, and C1 logically follows because of the Modus Tollens principle.  If my conclusion C1 is incorrect, can you explain why the Law of Non-Contradiction or the Modus Tollens does not apply?

Quote
While it is true that proving something to be true implies that the alternatives are untrue, demanding a direct proof of the negation of these alternatives is not logically equivalent

I am not demanding “direct refutation”, although it would be nice, it isn’t necessary.  To disprove RE gravity, all you have to do is prove FE gravity.  But as I stated in my opening post, just offering alternate theories that could be true doesn’t do that.  You must be able to demonstrate those alternate theories must be true.  That is the only way, because of the Law of Non-Contradiction, to eliminate the possibility that RE gravity is true. Evidence that any FE theory must be true is evidence that RE gravity cannot be true, and that is all I asked for in my opening post.




Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 24, 2019, 06:47:31 PM
C1 is the flaw, or rather two flaws, which you need to resolve, not restate.
But C1 is a conclusion. You deny the conclusion, so you need to say whether the argument is not valid, or whether one or more of the premisses is false.

We can tidy up PPs argument as follows.

P1) FET and RET have two different theories of gravity
P2) FET Gravity and RET gravity cannot both be true
C1) Therefore, when FET claims that FET gravity is true, FET is also implying that RET gravity cannot be true.

P3) The burden of proof is on the party making or implying the claim
P4) FET claims or implies that RET gravity cannot be true (See C1)
C2) Therefore, the burden of proof is on FET to demonstrate that RET gravity cannot be true.

Now which of the two arguments is not valid? If neither, which premiss is false?

Strictly P1 is not necessary, but never mind.

P2 is true because of the Law of Non-Contradiction

Not quite. The claim 'The earth cannot be both flat and round' is not true because of PNC. The claim you are looking for is 'it is impossible that the earth is flat and that it is not flat'. 'Round' and 'not flat' are not logically equivalent. PNC is that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true. But I am nitpicking.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 24, 2019, 09:12:50 PM
Quote
Not quite. The claim 'The earth cannot be both flat and round' is not true because of PNC. The claim you are looking for is 'it is impossible that the earth is flat and that it is not flat'. 'Round' and 'not flat' are not logically equivalent. PNC is that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true. But I am nitpicking.

That’s correct but I wasn’t applying the PNC to flat v round, but to whether or not FE gravity could be true and also not true, I guess I didn’t make that clear.  I could go into the explanation, but I think that would just further complicate an argument that in reality shouldn't be all that difficult to understand.  Logic is mostly intuitive and it should be obvious that both theories cannot be true.

In any event, you are correct that Pete has failed to demonstrate why P2) is incorrect.  Unless he can do that, there is no basis to claim the conclusion is incorrect.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 09:13:08 AM
But C1 is a conclusion. You deny the conclusion, so you need to say whether the argument is not valid, or whether one or more of the premisses is false.
Indeed. Conveniently, I have done so. Can we get to the part where one of you fix your argument?

Now which of the two arguments is not valid? If neither, which premiss is false?
With your revisions: C1 (did not change meaningfully), P3 (now a complete perversion of BoP), P4 (because C1 does not logically follow, and because it's the OP's job to make a claim when starting a thread here), C2 (does not follow from P3 and P4).

Please stop making this argument worse and let pricelesspearl sort out their logic in their own time. "Clarifying" or "tidying it up" only makes its failures more pronounced. What it needs is a proper resolution.

No, you are conflating saying something is true with saying that something could be true.
Which one of these things do you think you proposed in the OP?

In logic, there is a basic, fundamental principle from which all other logic flows.  It is called the Law of Non-Contradiction and states that something cannot be both true and false.  So when you say that FE gravity is true (not just could be true), there is zero possibility that it could be false.
And that's why propositional logic is a shit way of having real-world discussions. If you are so confident in something that you're willing to declare there is a probability of zero that you're wrong, it is fair to conclude that you've lost any meaningful touch with the real world.

Of course, your complete perversion of propositional logic makes matters much worse, but those are two separate issues at this stage.

It's easy to see why your approach fails: after all, I pointed out a small list of flaws in RE gravity. If you apply unadulterated propositional logic, your gravitational model is either true or false. We know it has flaws, therefore it's false. And yet your intuition told you to loudly reject this conclusion. You should reflect on why that happened - it'll make you a better person.

If FE gravity is true, the earth is flat, if RE gravity is true the earth is round.
Neither of these statements follow your strict logical standards. It's perfectly possible that one of the gravitational models is correct, and that we're both wrong about the shape.

The remainder of your post is a self-aggrandising lecture on high-school-level logic. Please don't do that. You waste people's time, you make yourself look like a plonker, and you're technically in breach of rule 6.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 09:20:09 AM
C2 (does not follow from P3 and P4).
How does C2 not follow from P3 and P4? The argument was this:
Quote
P3) The burden of proof is on the party making or implying the claim
P4) FET claims or implies that RET gravity cannot be true (See C1)
C2) Therefore, the burden of proof is on FET to demonstrate that RET gravity cannot be true.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 09:25:34 AM
How does C2 not follow from P3 and P4?
It's a needlessly bloated description of the argument from ignorance.

I will not waste any more of my time with your "tidied up" argument. It makes things worse, and does not address the claim I need resolved.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 09:30:12 AM
How does C2 not follow from P3 and P4?
It's a needlessly bloated description of the argument from ignorance.

No that’s completely wrong, look up ‘argument from ignorance’

Nevertheless, I agree that this thread has meandered around a bit, so here is your original objection to the OP.
In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.
Substantiate this claim.
Substantiated as follows. FE denies the existence of Newtonian gravitational attraction, whereas the RE explanation of why things fall depends entirely on Newtonian gravitational attraction.

Therefore in order for FE to be true, there can be no Newtonian gravitational attraction, from which it follows logically that the RE explanation (requiring Newtonian gravitational attraction) must be false.

Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction (as opposed to not requiring it?). Yes. According to Newton, a very large mass (Earth) will exert a force upon a very small mass (a human), so a human will fall towards the Earth for a different reason than FE claims. Hence FE has to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction.  (Unless the Earth has a small mass in FE, but I won’t go there).

Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 10:27:04 AM
No that’s completely wrong, look up ‘argument from ignorance
If you have nothing to say, say nothing. You don't have to write something in response to everything you say, especially if you have zero content to offer.

FE denies the existence of Newtonian gravitational attraction
What makes you think that? It's quite plainly false, but I'm curious nonetheless.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 10:36:37 AM
No that’s completely wrong, look up ‘argument from ignorance
If you have nothing to say, say nothing. You don't have to write something in response to everything you say, especially if you have zero content to offer.
I thought it might be helpful for you to understand the difference between argument from ignorance (which is a logical fallacy) and the burden of proof principle, which is a key component of scientific methodology. If you want me to spell it out, I can, but easier if you do your own homework.

FE denies the existence of Newtonian gravitational attraction
What makes you think that? It's quite plainly false, but I'm curious nonetheless.

I didn’t think that, I gave an argument for it. See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 10:51:40 AM
Spelling it out further.

From empirical observation, objects accelerate downwards by between 9.764 m/s^2 and 9.834 m/s^2, depending on latitude and height. That difference is a problem for FE already, which needs to have a model for that difference, but ignore that for now.

UA explains the empirical observation on the hypothesis that the earth is accelerating upwards by the same amount as objects are observed to fall downwards. Note the term ‘same amount’. If Newtonian theory is also true, then there would be an additional acceleration caused by gravitation, which is not consistent with the UA hypothesis.

UA theory could get round this by assuming that the earth is accelerating at a lower rate than 9.834 m/s^2, with the difference explained by Newtonian gravitation. But then there are all sorts of problems. If Newtonian theory is also true, why doesn’t the Moon come crashing to Earth? Why doesn’t the flat earth collapse under the massive gravitational force? RE theory says that the earth is approximately spherical because a sphere best explains the equilibrium between shape and the force. There is the question of what the mass of the earth is. If the amount the RE claims, then there is no room for the UA effect. And so on.

Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 11:54:22 AM
It's mildly amusing that you'd ramble on about "doing your homework" on simple subjects in order to deflect from a position you should be defending, while simultaneously displaying a complete lack of understanding of what FET proposes.

Might it be time to practice what you preach?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 12:26:13 PM
Quote
According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA). Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 12:29:13 PM
Okay - what of it?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 25, 2019, 02:50:31 PM
Quote
Neither of these statements follow your strict logical standards. It's perfectly possible that one of the gravitational models is correct, and that we're both wrong about the shape.

I'll bow out and let you guys argue the science.  I just got the concession I was looking for all along.

It is possible that the earth is not flat.  Flat earth is not "The Truth", as claimed over and over by FE.

 

Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 03:04:26 PM
Wiki:
Quote
According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA). Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Okay - what of it?

If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2. But it isn’t.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 04:11:27 PM
If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2.
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?

I'll bow out and let you guys argue the science.  I just got the concession I was looking for all along.
In summary: you posted an absolute turd of a logical fallacy and pretended not to see your failure over and over because you wanted someone to state that human understanding is not infallible.

You'll have to excuse me if I point out that that's the most transparent lie in history.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 04:16:58 PM
If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2.
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?

It's mathematics.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 04:25:10 PM
It's mathematics.
If you're unwilling to explain your thinking or be helped, could you please stop spamming this thread?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 04:28:32 PM
It's mathematics.
If you're unwilling to explain your thinking or be helped, could you please stop spamming this thread?

I don't know how much mathematics you understand. If you don't understand, there would be no point explaining. Start with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation 
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 25, 2019, 04:32:02 PM
I don't know how much mathematics you understand. If you don't understand, there would be no point explaining.
A few things for your consideration:

Start with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
I strongly doubt reading this page will clarify your misunderstandings of FET to everyone. Once again, if you are unwilling to participate in the discussion, please do not participate in the discussion.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Zonk on August 25, 2019, 04:38:40 PM
Quote
See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.

It does.  Newtonian gravitational attraction requires objects to be attracted  their common center of mass.  No matter what one's  earth model looks like,  if it is not a sphere, the gravitational vector will vary depending on where one is on the surface.  This phenomenon has never been observed.  Observed gravity acts the same* whether one is on the North Pole, the equator, or on the "ice wall". That cannot happen on a flat earth with Newtonian gravitational attraction. 

*Yes, the magnitude varies slightly but the vector does not.  The vector will point towards the center of mass, and on a flat earth, it is impossible for the center of mass to be directly below the surface at all every place.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 04:47:58 PM
Quote
See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.

It does.  Newtonian gravitational attraction requires objects to be attracted  their common center of mass.  No matter what one's  earth model looks like,  if it is not a sphere, the gravitational vector will vary depending on where one is on the surface.  This phenomenon has never been observed.  Observed gravity acts the same* whether one is on the North Pole, the equator, or on the "ice wall". That cannot happen on a flat earth with Newtonian gravitational attraction. 

*Yes, the magnitude varies slightly but the vector does not.  The vector will point towards the center of mass, and on a flat earth, it is impossible for the center of mass to be directly below the surface at all every place.
Right, but if I understand Pete correctly, that is not what he is suggesting. He is agreeing with the wiki that the observed downward acceleration of 9.8ms^2 is due to the upward acceleration of UA, but at the same time suggests that this effect can co-exist with Newtonian gravitational acceleration, without the extra Newtonian force causing an increase in observed downward acceleration. This I completely fail to follow. But as Pete says, this is probably due to my misunderstanding of FE.

My understanding of classical mechanics is that the resultant force caused by two independent forces acting on the same object is the mathematical sum of the two forces.

This explains it without the need for maths.

http://physicsnet.co.uk/gcse-physics/the-effects-of-forces-resultant-force-and-motion/
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 08:52:13 PM
  • Personal attacks do not advance your argument. Indeed, they make you look like the kind of person who needs to resort to personal attacks to self-validate.
  • You're posting on an open online forum. My personal competence should be the least of your concern. You are presenting your argument to everyone.
My apologies. No personal attack was intended. But I don’t know how much mathematics you understand, and forgive me again, but if you understood the mathematics, you wouldn’t be asking me to explaining the reasoning, as you did here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15269.msg198915#msg198915).

There are a few steps, but they are not difficult. The first thing is to understand the idea of resultant force. This website (http://physicsnet.co.uk/gcse-physics/the-effects-of-forces-resultant-force-and-motion/) explains it very well.

It’s not highly mathematical. The idea is that if you apply two forces, say of 10 Newtons each, then the effect is exactly the same as if you had applied one force of 20 Newtons. Or if you apply 10N in the forward direction and 5N in the backward direction, it’s as though you had applied a forward force of 5N. The site gives three other examples.

You are bound to say, ‘what has this to do with anything’. Fair enough, but you asked me to explain the reasoning behind my post here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15269.msg198902#msg198902).

Understanding resultant force is the first step in helping you to understand. There is only one more step, but I need to be sure you understand the first step. It’s all about resultant force.

I am here to help.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 25, 2019, 09:08:33 PM
I may as well give the second step of the reasoning. Suppose we have a 1 kg mass on the table, and suppose (as hypothesised) that Newton’s theory is true. Then the purely gravitational force exerted is

   F1  = ma  =  1kg x 9.86 m/S^2  =  9.86N

Then suppose also that UA is accelerating the table upwards by 9.86 m/S^2. Then

   F2  = ma  =  1kg x 9.86 m/S^2  =  9.86N

The principle of resultant force says that the two forces are equivalent to a single force equal to the sum of the forces. Thus

   F  =  F1 + F2  =  9.86N + 9.86N  =  19.72N

And forgive me but there is a third step. What is the total acceleration caused by the two forces. Well

   a  = F/m  =  19.72N/1kg  =  19.72 m/S^2

Hence, if both UA and Newtonian gravitation are acting upon our 1kg weight, it would accelerate by 19.72 m/S^2 if taken from the table and allowed to fall. But we observe no such thing. QED.

In summary: step 1, understand the idea of resultant force, step 2 understand how UA and Newtonian gravitation exert two separate forces, step 3, understand the resulting acceleration.


[EDIT] And remember this proof is in support of my claim above, that

Quote
If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2. But it isn’t.

Which was precisely the claim that Pete asked me to provide evidence for.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 26, 2019, 08:32:39 AM
edby, you really have to take some time to try and understand how discussion fora work.

I am not asking you to explain your reasoning because I'm somehow stunned by the idea of 10+10=20, or 10N+10N=20N. Indeed, given your previous claims of academic interest (and the, uh, quality of evidence behind that claim), I'd be willing to wager that my mainstream physics education is far more thorough than yours. This is why I suggested you should likely not worry about that, and it turns out I was right.

I am asking you to explain your reasoning because you must have got some of your assumptions wrong to reach this conclusion. I can make an educated guess as to where you fucked up, but that risks me being equally unhelpful as you just were above. So, either explain yourself, or stop wasting time and make space for those who actually want to improve themselves.

Do recall that the actual question asked to you was:
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?

Do note that your claim that I asked you to prove your conclusion is a transparent lie - all one needs to do to check it is scroll up, making it rather ineffective.

I pointed out that the source of your premises is dubious, and verges on completely made up. Your response to that was "It's mathematics." You can probably see why that answer would not be very helpful, yet somehow you managed to post something of even less value! Astonishing.

Your issue was, and continues to be, that your assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with FET. Making up a silly claim and then proving that it's internally consistent is slightly amusing, but not very helpful in the upper boards. If you continue trying to derail this thread, I'm going to have to put on the moderator hat - something I really don't want to do when it looks like we can make some progress. You've all but conceded the original logical fallacy, and now we just need to work through your gaps in knowledge.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: edby on August 26, 2019, 09:33:39 AM
edby, you really have to take some time to try and understand how discussion fora work.
Well I don't understand how they work. My experience of discussion for the last 30 odd years has been through the standard process of peer review by experts. I fully understand how that process works.

Since I have no need to 'take time' to understand discussion fora, indeed I need to spend much time currently with the reviewers of the current book, and with the managing editor, plus another paper in preparation, I will bow out of this 'discussion'.

Regards
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 10:24:22 AM
Thinking about this a little further, I have come to the following observation.

Witnessing things fall, assigning numbers to a rate, formulating a couple of equations, does not even constitute a definition, explanation, proof of, or cursory evidence of the mythical force called gravity.

It constitutes numbers and how they work.

That is virtually the same thing as taking each of the participants' monikers here, assigning a number to each  of the letters, then ask each participant to simply cross out a number and read back the total sum of those left. By casting out nines, one could magically inform each participant the number they chose to cross out.

FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: newhorizons on August 26, 2019, 12:50:15 PM
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain.

What is this about then if it isn't an explanation of gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 26, 2019, 01:47:11 PM
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain

RET has offered an explanation. It’s called Newtonian Gravity, later refined by General Relativity.  As has been pointed out over and over, the burden of proof is on FET if it wants to challenge that explanation and be considered a viable scientific alternative to RET.  Just offering alternate explanations does not rise to the level of a serious scientific challenge.

Nearly every scientific breakthrough has been made when someone challenges the prevailing views.  Observations are made, studies are conducted, explanations are provided, papers are submitted for peer review and those that meet good scientific standards (acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication in well regarded publications. Others in the field test the claims and if results are sufficiently replicated, eventually it becomes the new prevailing view.  That's how you change minds in the scientific community and prove why your theory or view should replace the current understanding.

FE has done none of that.  All that is offered are alternate explanations with no reason given why that explanation should replace the prevailing one.  It is disingenuous, at best, to suggest to people coming to the website and others like it, who may be coming looking for real answers, that “what if”, “could be”, circular logic and arguments from ignorance rise to the level of actual scientific inquiry, much less actual proof.  They don’t.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 03:19:04 PM
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain.

What is this about then if it isn't an explanation of gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
Can you direct me to the sentence or series of sentences that states:

"This explains gravity."

Other than that, it is something that explains the postulate of gravitational waves, a proposed aspect of general relativity.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 26, 2019, 03:24:50 PM
Quote
FE does not need to disprove something that RE has yet to even explain

RET has offered an explanation. It’s called Newtonian Gravity, later refined by General Relativity.
No, it hasn't.

For instance, GR does nothing to further explain the concept of terrestrial gravity.
As has been pointed out over and over, the burden of proof is on FET if it wants to challenge that explanation and be considered a viable scientific alternative to RET.  Just offering alternate explanations does not rise to the level of a serious scientific challenge.
And has been pointed out to you numerous times, RET has explained NOTHING.

As I pointed out, posting a bunch of numbers that match observations is not an explanation, it is score keeping.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 26, 2019, 03:50:27 PM
Quote
As I pointed out, posting a bunch of numbers that match observations is not an explanation, it is score keeping.

Here is a very simplified version of the Theory of Relativity.  It does much more than just throwing out numbers that match observations.  It explains why the numbers match the observations.  Relativity explains where the gravity comes from.


https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

A few quotes...

"In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

"Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another."

"As he worked out the equations for his general theory of relativity, Einstein realized that massive objects caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine setting a large body in the center of a trampoline. The body would press down into the fabric, causing it to dimple. A marble rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in much the same way that the gravity of a planet pulls at rocks in space."
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 27, 2019, 10:49:10 AM
Quote
As I pointed out, posting a bunch of numbers that match observations is not an explanation, it is score keeping.

Here is a very simplified version of the Theory of Relativity.  It does much more than just throwing out numbers that match observations.  It explains why the numbers match the observations.  Relativity explains where the gravity comes from.


https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

A few quotes...

"In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

"Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another."

"As he worked out the equations for his general theory of relativity, Einstein realized that massive objects caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine setting a large body in the center of a trampoline. The body would press down into the fabric, causing it to dimple. A marble rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in much the same way that the gravity of a planet pulls at rocks in space."
So, you are stating that "massive objects...," causing a "...distortion in space-time...," is the generator of terrestrial gravity?
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 27, 2019, 11:29:05 AM
I don't know if RE needs to explain gravity or FE needs to explain UA.
Obviously it's nice if things can be explained but I can have a theory that rainbows occur when there's sunshine and rain without understanding the way light refracts and reflects through water drops to cause the effect.
From what I understand GE is our best model of how gravity works right now but the key thing here is whether UA is a better model than gravity?
Does it match observations better? Can it explain things better.
Both gravity and UA can explain why things fall. But UA doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
It doesn't explain the movements of the celestial bodies.
FE doesn't need to disprove gravity, but in order to be taken seriously it does need to propose a model which works better than it, and right now it doesn't seem to have done that.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: totallackey on August 27, 2019, 12:23:42 PM
I don't know if RE needs to explain gravity or FE needs to explain UA.
Obviously it's nice if things can be explained but I can have a theory that rainbows occur when there's sunshine and rain without understanding the way light refracts and reflects through water drops to cause the effect.
From what I understand GE is our best model of how gravity works right now but the key thing here is whether UA is a better model than gravity?
Does it match observations better? Can it explain things better.
Both gravity and UA can explain why things fall. But UA doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
It doesn't explain the movements of the celestial bodies.
FE doesn't need to disprove gravity, but in order to be taken seriously it does need to propose a model which works better than it, and right now it doesn't seem to have done that.
I am unsure if gravity explains why there are variations of gravity.

I mean, it goes on about supposedly different spin times in different locations, but this would mean that spin is somehow causal for the whole process and that is established...nowhere...
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: rpt on August 27, 2019, 12:43:55 PM
I am unsure if gravity explains why there are variations of gravity.
Gravity varies across the earth's surface due to different distance (e.g. at altitude) from the centre of mass of the earth and due to different densities of the rock.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Zonk on August 27, 2019, 01:01:53 PM
If earth were a smooth (no elevation differences to speak of), homogeneous (same density throughout), perfect sphere, there would be no variations in g.  That fact that it is not, and there are (very small) variations in g is evidence that our current theory of gravity is more or less correct, not the other way around.  I am aware of no FE theory of gravity (or gravitational affect if you like) that fits observation.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: pricelesspearl on August 27, 2019, 03:48:19 PM
Quote
So, you are stating that "massive objects...," causing a "...distortion in space-time...," is the generator of terrestrial gravity?

I am not saying anything specific about the theory one way or another, just pointing out that it doesn’t “just throw out numbers”, but offers an explanation for numbers.  Yes, it does explain terrestrial gravity, but I ‘m interested into getting into the weeds of general relativity.  That’s not my point.

My point is that like it or not, GR is the most widely accepted theory of gravity at this point in time. It’s backed up with 100 years of research and supported by mathematics, physics and astronomy.  It has been verified hundreds, if not thousands of times by countless numbers of scientists all over the world in dozens of different ways.  FET claims it is incorrect, which is a perfectly legitimate position to take, provided you can back it up with science. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim.

FET makes no effort to meet that burden (where is the science, where is the data, where are the peer reviewed studies? ) and relies instead on the argument from ignorance, that RE gravity “cannot be proved”, therefore gravity could be caused by this, that or the other thing. That is a completely fallacious argument. It means nothing, much less prove anything.  Unless you can meet your burden of proof, you have no basis to claim that RE gravity is untrue…except your opinion. Opinions don’t count in science and opinions are not “The Truth”.

That being said, I would agree with AATW that FET doesn’t have to disprove RT gravity if the FET position was that RET gravity could be true, but for whatever reason, FET thinks its theory is better. However. that is not my understanding of the FET theory.  It is my understanding that FET position is that RET is not and cannot be true because it is incompatible with a flat earth.  If that understanding is correct, the burden of proof is on FET to substantiate the claim that it cannot be true. Just saying it is not true because it hasn’t been proven to your satisfaction is the very definition of a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: AATW on August 28, 2019, 05:47:43 AM
While we're here, gravity explains why the earth is round. It also explains why every celestial body we can observe (above a certain mass) is round.
This is yet another thing which gravity explains.
All UA "explains" is that things fall, and it doesn't even explain that as well as gravity - it doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
A new theory only replaces an old one when it does a better job of explaining observations or makes better predictions than the prevailing one.
I've yet to see any evidence that UA does that. It explains less things than gravity and it doesn't explain the one thing it does explain as accurately as gravity.
There's a reason it hasn't swept the scientific world and no-one has won a Nobel prize for "discovering" it yet.
Title: Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 28, 2019, 10:45:28 AM
All UA "explains" is that things fall, and it doesn't even explain that as well as gravity - it doesn't explain variations in g across the earth.
You really need to work on your habit of repeating yourself. We already discussed this in this thread. You do not need to echo it over and over.

But does UA fix any of those problems?
That's irrelevant to the OP's question. Which, once again, is why I keep trying to get the OP to pursue something more productive.

And UA doesn’t account for the differences in gravity measures in different locations.
Not in a (figurative) vacuum, no. In other extremely thrilling news, gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue.