The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JocelynSachs on November 25, 2017, 08:25:42 PM

Title: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: JocelynSachs on November 25, 2017, 08:25:42 PM
Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle that may be stated in several different ways, perhaps most straightforwardly as 'the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true'

Over the years I've personally converged on a rule of thumb that smacks of Occam's Razor, but which isn't quite captured by the original. I can't believe it's a novel principle, so if anyone recognises it, shout out :)

First attempt at expressing it: "The explanation that is least capable of explaining anything else is the most likely to be true."

My personal poster-child for this principle is evolution. I find the fact of evolution (the truth of common descent with modification, as distinct from any particular theory describing the mechanisms by which it happened) overwhelmingly compelling precisely because its explanatory powers are so limited. Only things that self-replicate with potential for modification can evolve. Everything must be a modification of that which came before - even more specifically: the embryonic development of everything must be a course-change of embryonic development that came before.

The fact that all life ticks these incredibly specific, limiting boxes - with the shared ancestry and course-changes visible in its DNA - is what seals the deal for me. Anyone who comes at me brandishing Intelligent Design, telling me that it's a better explanation because an intelligent designer is more capable than no designer, is completely missing the point as far as I'm concerned. An intelligent designer could have done anything. Frankly, Minecraft is a better designed habitat for humans than reality is. Positing an intelligent designer merely begs the question: why would he limit himself in these precise ways?

I'm posting this here because Flat Earth Theory rings all the same alarm bells in my head as Intelligent Design. I don't reject FET because it requires deformations of perspective, curved rays of light, non-euclidean space, or whatever. I don't even reject it because it requires an implausible worldwide conspiracy involving corporations acting against their own financial self-interest. No: I reject FET because these deformations of perspective, curved rays of light, and non-euclidean spaces by an incredible and inexplicable coincidence just happen to make it look exactly as though the world is a ball, and make the conspiracies possible.

Think about it: if we asked someone to create a universe based on the general statement "Ok, the world is flat, and rays of light curve sharply over short distances, and space is profoundly non-euclidean" we would in 99.999999999% of cases see a total mess when we looked up at the sky, or into the middle distance. Stars and the sun and the moon warping and shifting. Objects bending and squashing as we moved towards or away from them. And in those 99.999999999% of cases, nobody would even think of claiming the world was a ball, let alone foster a worldwide conspiracy to that effect.

That's why the conspiracy theories are bullshit: because they require the universe to be in on the con. I can step outside my back door on any clear night, point my camera at Polaris and take a long exposure picture that confirms RET. Why the hell would that be the case if the world were flat? What are the chances of everything being fucked in the exact way and exact degree necessary to mislead me?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: devils advocate on November 25, 2017, 09:42:10 PM
Another solid post JS, you ask questions that as yet the FE have been unable to answer. The universe certainly doesn't care about ANY human conspiracy theory and in its unbiased demonstration of round earth is consistent. Still I don't expect the FE faithful (Tom) to let these facts stop them..........
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: wil on November 28, 2017, 01:05:21 PM
These are the exact questions that made me join this site. I just don't see how people can be so certain that such improbable scenarios and physics can be true, and that it really seems like people are stretching things to make 'evidence.' There are so many things that would seem to disprove the theory, yet people make 'evidence' or 'proof' to continue backing the theory, whether or not it contradicts previous ones.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 28, 2017, 02:36:11 PM
These are the exact questions that made me join this site. I just don't see how people can be so certain that such improbable scenarios and physics can be true, and that it really seems like people are stretching things to make 'evidence.' There are so many things that would seem to disprove the theory, yet people make 'evidence' or 'proof' to continue backing the theory, whether or not it contradicts previous ones.
I've noticed in my time here and on the other site, nearly every idea for how something works begins with "The Earth is flat and X happens. So Y must be correct in order to make X happen upon this clearly flat Earth." Or something to that effect. The other site has no less than 4 different explanations for how we stick to the Earth, all four quite radically different. Each proponent convinced they have the correct answer. Add in the two 'standard' FE models for gravity, and you've got a half dozen ideas on that alone! I applaud them for their creativity, but when everyone has their own thoughts and ideas on how something works one begins to wonder if we're all looking at the same information.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2017, 07:17:05 PM
These are the exact questions that made me join this site. I just don't see how people can be so certain that such improbable scenarios and physics can be true, and that it really seems like people are stretching things to make 'evidence.' There are so many things that would seem to disprove the theory, yet people make 'evidence' or 'proof' to continue backing the theory, whether or not it contradicts previous ones.
I've noticed in my time here and on the other site, nearly every idea for how something works begins with "The Earth is flat and X happens. So Y must be correct in order to make X happen upon this clearly flat Earth." Or something to that effect. The other site has no less than 4 different explanations for how we stick to the Earth, all four quite radically different. Each proponent convinced they have the correct answer. Add in the two 'standard' FE models for gravity, and you've got a half dozen ideas on that alone! I applaud them for their creativity, but when everyone has their own thoughts and ideas on how something works one begins to wonder if we're all looking at the same information.

Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 28, 2017, 07:41:56 PM
These are the exact questions that made me join this site. I just don't see how people can be so certain that such improbable scenarios and physics can be true, and that it really seems like people are stretching things to make 'evidence.' There are so many things that would seem to disprove the theory, yet people make 'evidence' or 'proof' to continue backing the theory, whether or not it contradicts previous ones.
I've noticed in my time here and on the other site, nearly every idea for how something works begins with "The Earth is flat and X happens. So Y must be correct in order to make X happen upon this clearly flat Earth." Or something to that effect. The other site has no less than 4 different explanations for how we stick to the Earth, all four quite radically different. Each proponent convinced they have the correct answer. Add in the two 'standard' FE models for gravity, and you've got a half dozen ideas on that alone! I applaud them for their creativity, but when everyone has their own thoughts and ideas on how something works one begins to wonder if we're all looking at the same information.

Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Where did I imply that anywhere? Cavendish is evidence for attraction of masses and gravity. The community agrees on this, and uses it pursue the question further. The only thing any two FE people have in common appears to be belief that the Earth is flat. You don't think that's a problem for a movement a few hundred years old? Especially considering some of the really out there ideas? I mean, have you looked at denpressure?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 28, 2017, 08:51:10 PM
Quote
Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Where did I imply that anywhere?

Considering you were criticizing us for debating on different forms of gravity, I had assumed you had gravity all worked out, and so I expected to see your nobel prize to show for it.

Quote
Cavendish is evidence for attraction of masses and gravity. The community agrees on this, and uses it pursue the question further.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Quote
The only thing any two FE people have in common appears to be belief that the Earth is flat. You don't think that's a problem for a movement a few hundred years old? Especially considering some of the really out there ideas? I mean, have you looked at denpressure?

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 28, 2017, 09:02:22 PM
There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?
You DO understand the difference here and the difference between UA/Denspressure/dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks/Aether flows towards that low concentrations/Sku push/Flipper Earth/Infinite Earth, right?

Your Cavendish site has been discussed and refuted elsewhere, I see no reason to dig into it again.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on November 28, 2017, 09:48:53 PM
Quote
Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Where did I imply that anywhere?

Considering you were criticizing us for debating on different forms of gravity, I had assumed you had gravity all worked out, and so I expected to see your nobel prize to show for it.

Quote
Cavendish is evidence for attraction of masses and gravity. The community agrees on this, and uses it pursue the question further.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Quote
The only thing any two FE people have in common appears to be belief that the Earth is flat. You don't think that's a problem for a movement a few hundred years old? Especially considering some of the really out there ideas? I mean, have you looked at denpressure?

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

Tom - do you have any legit evidence problems with the Cavendish experiment? Miles Mathis isn't exactly a credible source.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis)
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on November 29, 2017, 12:03:49 AM

Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Does this suggest that you consider the Nobel Prize a gold standard of sorts and that you would then accept as factual any theories that had received that award?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2017, 12:27:09 AM
Quote
Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Where did I imply that anywhere?

Considering you were criticizing us for debating on different forms of gravity, I had assumed you had gravity all worked out, and so I expected to see your nobel prize to show for it.

Quote
Cavendish is evidence for attraction of masses and gravity. The community agrees on this, and uses it pursue the question further.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Quote
The only thing any two FE people have in common appears to be belief that the Earth is flat. You don't think that's a problem for a movement a few hundred years old? Especially considering some of the really out there ideas? I mean, have you looked at denpressure?

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

Tom - do you have any legit evidence problems with the Cavendish experiment? Miles Mathis isn't exactly a credible source.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis)

That page does not address the points Mathis brings up, and appears to be nothing more than an article someone wrote on an alternative Wikipedia-style humor website.

It describes Al Gore as:

Quote
Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. is a former Senator and Representative from Tennessee who served as Vice President under Bill Clinton (1993–2001). He is a prominent liberal boogeyman. The excuses for this boil down to:
  • People think he claimed he invented the Internet.
  • Conservatives treat him as the Final Boss of global warming. If they beat him then they win the debate forever.
  • He's an old white man with a "D" next to his name, which obviously stands for Douche. An "R" would mean Righteous!
In the 2000 presidential election, he won the popular vote but lost the judicial electoral vote to George W. Bush, forcing his retirement. His daughter was a writer for Futurama, and Al voiced himself in 5 episodes.

The following appears on Hillary Clinton's page:

Quote
Crooked Hillary Diane Rodham[2] Clinton is an American politician, a member of the Democratic Party, and the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Renowned for her Machiavellian past, drinking a bottle of oak-aged fortified orphan blood every night,[citation NOT needed] and steering her husband like a fine automobile, HRC was elected Senator of New York in 2000, and ran twice for President, in 2008 and 2016. She was the second-most hated presidential candidate in US history, slightly behind her 2016 opponent Donald Trump.[3] On November 8, she proceeded to lose to Trump despite winning the popular vote[4], ensuring she will be the most hated member of her party for years to come.

This is your source?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 29, 2017, 12:42:04 AM
Quote
Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Where did I imply that anywhere?

Considering you were criticizing us for debating on different forms of gravity, I had assumed you had gravity all worked out, and so I expected to see your nobel prize to show for it.

Quote
Cavendish is evidence for attraction of masses and gravity. The community agrees on this, and uses it pursue the question further.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Quote
The only thing any two FE people have in common appears to be belief that the Earth is flat. You don't think that's a problem for a movement a few hundred years old? Especially considering some of the really out there ideas? I mean, have you looked at denpressure?

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

Tom - do you have any legit evidence problems with the Cavendish experiment? Miles Mathis isn't exactly a credible source.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis)

That page does not address the points Mathis brings up, and appears to be nothing more than an article someone wrote on an alternative Wikipedia-style humor website.

It describes Al Gore as:

Quote
Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. is a former Senator and Representative from Tennessee who served as Vice President under Bill Clinton (1993–2001). He is a prominent liberal boogeyman. The excuses for this boil down to:
  • People think he claimed he invented the Internet.
  • Conservatives treat him as the Final Boss of global warming. If they beat him then they win the debate forever.
  • He's an old white man with a "D" next to his name, which obviously stands for Douche. An "R" would mean Righteous!
In the 2000 presidential election, he won the popular vote but lost the judicial electoral vote to George W. Bush, forcing his retirement. His daughter was a writer for Futurama, and Al voiced himself in 5 episodes.

The following appears on Hillary Clinton's page:

Quote
Crooked Hillary Diane Rodham[2] Clinton is an American politician, a member of the Democratic Party, and the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Renowned for her Machiavellian past, drinking a bottle of oak-aged fortified orphan blood every night,[citation NOT needed] and steering her husband like a fine automobile, HRC was elected Senator of New York in 2000, and ran twice for President, in 2008 and 2016. She was the second-most hated presidential candidate in US history, slightly behind her 2016 opponent Donald Trump.[3] On November 8, she proceeded to lose to Trump despite winning the popular vote[4], ensuring she will be the most hated member of her party for years to come.

This is your source?
Mathis and his erroneous information have been put to bed on this site before. Do you also believe Pi=4? If you like I can go dig up those points so you can ignore them again. Or attempt to discuss any of the other issues currently waiting on FE input that you've left. Otherwise I'd love to hear why you believe a disagreement over the precise mechanism of gravity is analogous to 6+ radically different ideas that are attempting to replace Newtonian Gravitation. Which works in nearly all scenarios to explain the movements of what is observed.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2017, 01:01:31 AM
Mathis and his erroneous information have been put to bed on this site before. Do you also believe Pi=4?

Pi can equal 4. It depends how we interpret the scenerio. I describe how pi can equal 4 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg89626#msg89626) in this thread.

Quote
If you like I can go dig up those points so you can ignore them again. Or attempt to discuss any of the other issues currently waiting on FE input that you've left. Otherwise I'd love to hear why you believe a disagreement over the precise mechanism of gravity is analogous to 6+ radically different ideas that are attempting to replace Newtonian Gravitation. Which works in nearly all scenarios to explain the movements of what is observed.

What are you talking about? Gravity does not explain the "movements of what is observed".

Consider how Galaxies move. Galaxies move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies with "gravity" has been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is opposite of what is observed.

See this article on softpedia.com (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml):


See this article on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem):


Physicists usually try to explain these observed discrepancies as "Dark Matter did it." The fact that gravity does not really work to explain the movements seen in astronomy (there are plenty of other examples besides galaxies), is a major stain on the theory of gravity.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on November 29, 2017, 01:05:54 AM
Quote
Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?
Where did I imply that anywhere?

Considering you were criticizing us for debating on different forms of gravity, I had assumed you had gravity all worked out, and so I expected to see your nobel prize to show for it.

Quote
Cavendish is evidence for attraction of masses and gravity. The community agrees on this, and uses it pursue the question further.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Quote
The only thing any two FE people have in common appears to be belief that the Earth is flat. You don't think that's a problem for a movement a few hundred years old? Especially considering some of the really out there ideas? I mean, have you looked at denpressure?

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

Tom - do you have any legit evidence problems with the Cavendish experiment? Miles Mathis isn't exactly a credible source.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis)

That page does not address the points Mathis brings up, and appears to be nothing more than an article someone wrote on an alternative Wikipedia-style humor website.

It describes Al Gore as:

Quote
Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. is a former Senator and Representative from Tennessee who served as Vice President under Bill Clinton (1993–2001). He is a prominent liberal boogeyman. The excuses for this boil down to:
  • People think he claimed he invented the Internet.
  • Conservatives treat him as the Final Boss of global warming. If they beat him then they win the debate forever.
  • He's an old white man with a "D" next to his name, which obviously stands for Douche. An "R" would mean Righteous!
In the 2000 presidential election, he won the popular vote but lost the judicial electoral vote to George W. Bush, forcing his retirement. His daughter was a writer for Futurama, and Al voiced himself in 5 episodes.

The following appears on Hillary Clinton's page:

Quote
Crooked Hillary Diane Rodham[2] Clinton is an American politician, a member of the Democratic Party, and the wife of former President Bill Clinton. Renowned for her Machiavellian past, drinking a bottle of oak-aged fortified orphan blood every night,[citation NOT needed] and steering her husband like a fine automobile, HRC was elected Senator of New York in 2000, and ran twice for President, in 2008 and 2016. She was the second-most hated presidential candidate in US history, slightly behind her 2016 opponent Donald Trump.[3] On November 8, she proceeded to lose to Trump despite winning the popular vote[4], ensuring she will be the most hated member of her party for years to come.

This is your source?

Oh Tom, don't take my word for his idiocy, take his own words.
Here is Miles rambling on about how Sandy Hook was fake. http://mileswmathis.com/sh.pdf (http://mileswmathis.com/sh.pdf) Some one fake killed a bunch of kids.
He has a bunch of other fake death stories. Why should anyone take him serious?? He is already saying the Las Vegas killings were a hoax. He is a joke. If this is your go to guy, it says a ton about what you think is proof.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2017, 01:28:01 AM
Oh Tom, don't take my word for his idiocy, take his own words.
Here is Miles rambling on about how Sandy Hook was fake. http://mileswmathis.com/sh.pdf (http://mileswmathis.com/sh.pdf) Some one fake killed a bunch of kids.
He has a bunch of other fake death stories. Why should anyone take him serious?? He is already saying the Las Vegas killings were a hoax. He is a joke. If this is your go to guy, it says a ton about what you think is proof.

I haven't really looked into the Sandy Hook debate. But if you were having this debate and if your opponent pointed out the same discrepancies, you would need to actually address the evidence. You can't just dismiss everything and point to a news article that says things were "debunked" without actually showing that it was debunked.

From the PDF you linked:

Quote
To see the mainstream response to the story unwinding, I encourage you to read this article called
“Newtown Conspiracy Theories Debunked (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/newtown-shooting-conspiracy-theories/60126/),” at the Atlantic. As usual, I recommend you read both
sides and decide for yourself. As with the so-called debunking of the 911 theories, what we get here is
just a list of the theories and then the assurance that they are wrong. Notice there is no counterargumentation
here or presentation of evidence. Not even a clarification or an explanation of
anomalies. Apparently this author thinks all she need do is title the article “Debunked,” and it will do
the job of debunking. The word “debunk” is so powerful, in and of itself, that all an author need do is
chant it. I clicked on the article hoping to hear the other side of the story, but I got nothing.

[Update, January 19, 2013. We now have debunking from CNN, TIME, Yahoo, HuffPost, Salon, and
just about every other mainstream source. But none of these pieces does any real debunking. None
explain any of the anomalies, or even try to. They simply attack those asking questions and try to spin
the already spun information. Again, I encourage you to read them, since all the debunkers simply end
up shooting themselves in the foot, giving more credibility and attention to the anomalies. Other than
that, the only purpose these debunking pieces serve is to highlight and circle which sources are being
written by the government. If you are smart, you will simply catalog every magazine or TV program
that is debunking, filing them away as compromised. The CIA trains journalists to write these articles,
and you are seeing the articles they write: it is that simple.]

If your standard of evidence is an article from The Atlantic which generically declares that everything is debunked, without actually showing that things have been debunked, then I am afraid that your standard isn't actually very high at all compared to a man who provides some level of evidence for his assertions that the story and motivations of the killer may not be exactly as portrayed.

If you read his PDF he isn't even claiming that no one died and it was all fake; he is questioning why the killer's hard drive went missing, why the families are being told to read from a script when talking to the media, and why there seems to be an organization trumpeting around pictures of little dead girls (some of which were stolen from Imgur of children who are still living, apparently) in an effort to push new gun laws. The underlying implication from that PDF is that there is an organization using and molding this event for their own purposes.

Right or wrong, the points must be addressed and considered before disregarding it, and the points must be addressed on this topic as well.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on November 29, 2017, 01:49:51 AM

Consider how Galaxies move. Galaxies move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies with "gravity" has been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is opposite of what is observed.
Let me stop you here and ask a question. Tom, what do you think galaxies are?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on November 29, 2017, 02:34:15 AM
Right or wrong, the points must be addressed and considered before disregarding it, and the points must be addressed on this topic as well.

No, see, that is where you are wrong. His points don't need to be addressed because he has shown himself to not be worthy of discussion. Here is the thing, I've been around long enough to spot the very common feature of all these whack jobs. They find little pieces of a greater whole and try to make some cover up out of it. Like the parents reading from a script. Seems so sinister. What are they hiding???? The police probably were focusing on building the legal case against the shooter so they could prosecute him. A bunch of people with inside knowledge of the case talking on TV would easily taint the jury pool. This is SOP. Flat Earthers like to do the same thing. "Earth looks flat when I look outside." Yes, it does. That isn't the whole picture though. If you're small enough, a basketball would look flat. It is how gullible people buy into this stuff.

Back to the topic at hand, this guy's OPINION about the Cavendish experiment in no way invalidates it. Cavendish was shown to be accurate to within 1% of today's accepted gravitational strength. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/) And yes, I will take Scientific American over some Internet conspiracy theorist ANY day of the week.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: the_enlightened on November 29, 2017, 02:51:08 AM
It is upsetting to see so many potentially great minds, corrupted with the belief that the Earth is round. It's not your fault you were lied to since birth, and that you are so gullible even now. I will pray for those in this forum that need 'science' to prove everything, as at this point I'm unsure if they can ever be converted to the truth. May Gods light shine upon these non-believers and direct them to redemption. Amen.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 29, 2017, 05:21:32 AM
Mathis and his erroneous information have been put to bed on this site before. Do you also believe Pi=4?

Pi can equal 4. It depends how we interpret the scenerio. I describe how pi can equal 4 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg89626#msg89626) in this thread.
Fascinating read so far, but all I see is people pointing out how Pi != 4 and the steps you take in an attempt to prove it are erroneous. But maybe that's just me.

Quote
Quote
If you like I can go dig up those points so you can ignore them again. Or attempt to discuss any of the other issues currently waiting on FE input that you've left. Otherwise I'd love to hear why you believe a disagreement over the precise mechanism of gravity is analogous to 6+ radically different ideas that are attempting to replace Newtonian Gravitation. Which works in nearly all scenarios to explain the movements of what is observed.

What are you talking about? Gravity does not explain the "movements of what is observed".

Consider how Galaxies move. Galaxies move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies with "gravity" has been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is opposite of what is observed.

See this article on softpedia.com (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml):

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk – as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

See this article on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem):

    "In 1959, Louise Volders demonstrated that spiral galaxy M33 does not spin as expected according to Keplerian dynamics,[1] a result which was extended to many other spiral galaxies during the seventies.[2] Based on this model, matter (such as stars and gas) in the disk portion of a spiral should orbit the center of the galaxy similar to the way in which planets in the solar system orbit the sun, that is, according to Newtonian mechanics. Based on this, it would be expected that the average orbital speed of an object at a specified distance away from the majority of the mass distribution would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line in Fig. 1). At the time of the discovery of the discrepancy, it was thought that most of the mass of the galaxy had to be in the galactic bulge, near the center.

    Observations of the rotation curve of spirals, however, do not bear this out. Rather, the curves do not decrease in the expected inverse square root relationship but are "flat" -- outside of the central bulge the speed is nearly a constant function of radius (the solid line Fig. 1). The explanation that requires the least adjustment to the physical laws of the universe is that there is a substantial amount of matter far from the center of the galaxy that is not emitting light in the mass-to-light ratio of the central bulge. This extra mass is proposed by astronomers to be due to dark matter within the galactic halo, the existence of which was first posited by Fritz Zwicky some 40 years earlier in his studies of the masses of galaxy clusters. Presently, there are a large number of pieces of observational evidence that point to the presence of cold dark matter, and its existence is a major feature of the present Lambda-CDM model that describes the cosmology of the universe."

Physicists usually try to explain these observed discrepancies as "Dark Matter did it." The fact that gravity does not really work to explain the movements seen in astronomy (there are plenty of other examples besides galaxies), is a major stain on the theory of gravity.
Oh look, you found part of what I was talking about when I said 'most' things. Let's keep it to the solar system for the moment then shall we, as you like to try and dance away from the point, FE doesn't care about any of the rest of that anyway, and has no explanation for it to boot at present. Seems silly to discuss something of that nature.

Newtonian gravity explains the rate objects fall, and the motions of all but 1 planet about the sun to an exceptional degree. FE has 6+ different ideas on how/why an object falls to the Earth, perhaps 2 or 3 of which can even begin to attempt to explain the rest of the motions of objects we see in the sky. Are you understanding how the fact that we aren't quite sure how gravity 'transfers' isn't really on the same level as arguing over why an object goes from my hand to the ground when I let go? Or should I try and spell that out a bit better for you, even though I'm honestly not sure how I can at this point.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: TomInAustin on November 29, 2017, 03:48:55 PM


I haven't really looked into the Sandy Hook debate. But if you were having this debate and if your opponent pointed out the same discrepancies, you would need to actually address the evidence. You can't just dismiss everything and point to a news article that says things were "debunked" without actually showing that it was debunked.


Again with the irony.   Tom, you are the master of debunking everything based on one data point.   The GPS bs is a prime example.   One test showed that for runners in a small area the GPS units were not accurate so therefore no GPS is accurate.  Ringing any bells here?

Please.

Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on November 29, 2017, 05:37:35 PM

Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?

Hardly fair! Only 200 individuals have received the Nobel prize; they clearly are a league of their own, and would never in a million years grace this forum with their presence. Furthermore, your post implies that every theory that has merit has won a Nobel prize, which is not true. It is worth mentioning though, that Kip Thorne won the Nobel prize very recently for the observation of gravitational waves. We've literally seen them. Saying gravity is not real, is like saying global warming is not real, Mr. Trump.


There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

This is the same way that we view light. In some instances, light acts as a wave, and in others, it acts as a particle. We call this the wave-particle duality of light. See the double slit experiment if you're curious. We need both models to describe the behavior of light, and both models do give very accurate predictions. And how else might you judge a theory as being right or not if not from the accuracy of their predictions. You can't just know because you're God or something. So as far as we're concerned, both models are "correct" as far as we can determine what "correctness" is. And again I emphasize, we need both models. The case with gravity is completely analogous.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 29, 2017, 06:28:30 PM

Consider how Galaxies move. Galaxies move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies with "gravity" has been a challenge to astronomers. In the Round Earth model stellar systems like this aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is opposite of what is observed.
Let me stop you here and ask a question. Tom, what do you think galaxies are?

We believe that the nature of the galaxies is unknown (See, we are honest).

Quote
No, see, that is where you are wrong. His points don't need to be addressed because he has shown himself to not be worthy of discussion.

How is he not worthy of discussion? I actually read the article you linked, and Mathis' follow up articles. He isn't calling it "all fake" and "all a hoax" like you implied. I don't see how this topic is not worthy of discussion.

He has shown evidence suggesting that there is an organization using and manipulating the Newton event to push for new gun laws. The points are valid. In the aftermath the liberals label Lanza's mother as a "doomsday prepper," and imply that people with food and guns are mentally unstable and something to be outlawed. There are so many appeals to emotion in an effort to push new gun laws it is ridiculous.

His PDF and the follow up articles linked at the bottom all talk about how an organization (liberals/democrats) are using this as a push for an assault weapon ban, and are willing to stretch some of the facts to do it. That is not really too hard to believe.

Since you seem to dismiss things without looking too closely, and put generic labels on people without actually reading the material, I would go as far as saying that it appears that you are the one who is not worthy of participating in these discussions and debates with us. We don't mindlessly follow the herd. We seek to have an open mind, and require such an effort from anyone we debate with.



I haven't really looked into the Sandy Hook debate. But if you were having this debate and if your opponent pointed out the same discrepancies, you would need to actually address the evidence. You can't just dismiss everything and point to a news article that says things were "debunked" without actually showing that it was debunked.


Again with the irony.   Tom, you are the master of debunking everything based on one data point.   The GPS bs is a prime example.   One test showed that for runners in a small area the GPS units were not accurate so therefore no GPS is accurate.  Ringing any bells here?

Please.

It rings a bell. As I recall that article was something you guys brought to us as evidence that GPS was accurate. We pointed out that the article was not a valid test of GPS accuracy.

No one said that it was a universal proof that GPS is inaccurate. That is a statement you are imagining in your head. An article was brought to our attention, and it was addressed with agreement on both sides to our points that the article was invalid as evidence of GPS accuracy.

Please try and be more accurate with your arguments in the future.


Since you think you have gravity all worked out, where is your nobel prize?

Hardly fair! Only 200 individuals have received the Nobel prize; they clearly are a league of their own, and would never in a million years grace this forum with their presence. Furthermore, your post implies that every theory that has merit has won a Nobel prize, which is not true. It is worth mentioning though, that Kip Thorne won the Nobel prize very recently for the observation of gravitational waves. We've literally seen them. Saying gravity is not real, is like saying global warming is not real, Mr. Trump.

**remembers that we believe in celestial gravitation**

Quote
This is the same way that we view light. In some instances, light acts as a wave, and in others, it acts as a particle. We call this the wave-particle duality of light. See the double slit experiment if you're curious. We need both models to describe the behavior of light, and both models do give very accurate predictions. And how else might you judge a theory as being right or not if not from the accuracy of their predictions. You can't just know because you're God or something. So as far as we're concerned, both models are "correct" as far as we can determine what "correctness" is. And again I emphasize, we need both models. The case with gravity is completely analogous.

A theory isn't "proven right" by the accuracy of its predictions.

A prediction of gravitational lensing is predicted by both bendy space and graviton theories, and an observation of gravitational lensing does not prove either mechanism.

We must have a true test of the mechanism. The problem is the mechanisms were just made up. No one really knows what form the mechanism might be.

Your assertion that we can predict things with the equations, so it must be true, is fallacious. If we make a theory called "invisible pusher fairies" and give it the same equations of action, does that prove that gravity is caused by "invisible pusher fairies"?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: junker on November 29, 2017, 06:30:53 PM
It is upsetting to see so many potentially great minds, corrupted with the belief that the Earth is round. It's not your fault you were lied to since birth, and that you are so gullible even now. I will pray for those in this forum that need 'science' to prove everything, as at this point I'm unsure if they can ever be converted to the truth. May Gods light shine upon these non-believers and direct them to redemption. Amen.

While I am allowing your alts for now, refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on November 29, 2017, 10:27:59 PM

**remembers that we believe in celestial gravitation**

Not the same gravitation Kip Thorne received his Nobel prize for. I am pressed for time, I might come back to this point later.
A theory isn't "proven right" by the accuracy of its predictions.

Perhaps in pure mathematics, but not the case in the real world. Technically you can never "prove" most physical theories. Knowing that your model works 1 billion times in a row does not mathematically give you that it will work the 1 billion and 1 times in a row. I ask again, this time not rhetorically, how else might you judge a theory as being "right" or not? I have proposed using their predictions. Other possible options might include: praying to God and asking for the answers, looking up the solutions in the back of a text book, reading the universe's instruction manual... Help me our here.

A prediction of gravitational lensing is predicted by both bendy space and graviton theories, and an observation of gravitational lensing does not prove either mechanism.

We must have a true test of the mechanism. The problem is the mechanisms were just made up. No one really knows what form the mechanism might be.

Your assertion that we can predict things with the equations, so it must be true, is fallacious. If we make a theory called "invisible pusher fairies" and give it the same equations of action, does that prove that gravity is caused by "invisible pusher fairies"?

I haven't yet made any claims as to the nature of gravity, only that it exists and we can predict its behavior. It doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind it is, that does not in any way influence our ability to make predictions about the real world. You can call it "Spiderman 3 Was a Terrible Movie" if you'd like. If you take gravity and work with it mathematically, you reproduce the physics of the real world beautifully. I certainly have yet to see any other models, FE or not, that have even vaguely come close to its explanatory power. It is not "true" in some epistemic sense. You cannot say, “A priori, starting with the integers, we derive that gravity exists.” It’s a model; that’s what physics does. Physics doesn’t tell you what’s "true", physics doesn’t tell you what a priori the world has to look like, physics tells you this is a good model, and it fits the data, and to the degree that it doesn’t fit the data, it’s wrong. This isn’t something we derive; it is something we declare. We call it our model, we use it to calculate stuff, and we see if it fits the real world. And it does fit the real world.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on November 29, 2017, 11:43:48 PM
Since you seem to dismiss things without looking too closely, and put generic labels on people without actually reading the material, I would go as far as saying that it appears that you are the one who is not worthy of participating in these discussions and debates with us. We don't mindlessly follow the herd. We seek to have an open mind, and require such an effort from anyone we debate with.
You are 100% correct in your assertion that I didn't really read his "material." Let's recap this - you tried to use him as evidence that the Cavendish experiment was wrong. I pointed out that he is a known conspiracy theorist. Maybe I should have made myself more clear on this, I was not inviting you to debate Mathis at all. It was very much a "I'm not accepting your evidence" post. Does that sound familiar to you?? It should. I have no interest in the man. I have no desire to debate his views. The Internet is still free in America (at least until the Republicans kill net neutrality), read/debate what you want. He is of zero interest to me. Long story short - you need better sources if you're going to say gravity isn't real.

As far as blindly following....yeah, we ALL do it to some degree. We all have lives and we can't question every little thing that comes along. More problematic are the people who make up phony theories to attempt to reconcile their blind belief with what we see in the world. UA, "perspective lines", an ice wall that no one can visit because the military guards it, etc...

I would LOVE to revisit your sun on the horizon/magic projectile statement. That is something I would be VERY happy to debate.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: JocelynSachs on November 30, 2017, 10:30:07 AM
The oddest part of all this, for me, is that FETs are ostensibly predicated on our 'experience' that the world is flat. Yet the first thing they do - the only thing they do - is start making excuses for why our experiences don't match what you would expect on a flat earth.

"Based on my common-sense experience, that animal over there is a dog."

"But it walks like a duck."

"Dogs have never been proven not to walk like ducks."

"And quacks like a duck."

"How sounds work close up is no evidence of how they might work at a distance."

"And looks, frankly, like a duck. See? Now it's flying away."

"That's just a trick of perspective."
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: devils advocate on November 30, 2017, 04:54:49 PM
The oddest part of all this, for me, is that FETs are ostensibly predicated on our 'experience' that the world is flat. Yet the first thing they do - the only thing they do - is start making excuses for why our experiences don't match what you would expect on a flat earth.

"Based on my common-sense experience, that animal over there is a dog."

"But it walks like a duck."

"Dogs have never been proven not to walk like ducks."

"And quacks like a duck."

"How sounds work close up is no evidence of how they might work at a distance."

"And looks, frankly, like a duck. See? Now it's flying away."

"That's just a trick of perspective."

Excellent analogy JocelynSachs, you're bang on the money here. Especially dogs have never been proved to not walk like ducks! The exact argument used by a certain FE contributor as his staple defence of the absurd positions he backs himself into.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2017, 05:52:33 PM
Perhaps in pure mathematics, but not the case in the real world. Technically you can never "prove" most physical theories. Knowing that your model works 1 billion times in a row does not mathematically give you that it will work the 1 billion and 1 times in a row. I ask again, this time not rhetorically, how else might you judge a theory as being "right" or not? I have proposed using their predictions. Other possible options might include: praying to God and asking for the answers, looking up the solutions in the back of a text book, reading the universe's instruction manual... Help me our here.

The theory of gravitons for the mechanism of gravity can be proven by deriving a test that will allow us to observe gravitons. Dropping a ball and observing that it is accelerated to the earth at the rate graviton theory predicts is not a proof of graviton theory. A true test of the mechanism is required.

Quote
I haven't yet made any claims as to the nature of gravity, only that it exists and we can predict its behavior. It doesn't really matter what the mechanism behind it is, that does not in any way influence our ability to make predictions about the real world.

Gravity predicted that galaxies should spin faster at the middle than the edges, yet they spin as solid disks (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml).

Gravity predicted that the universe should be decelerating due  to the the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe, yet it is accelerating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe).

Gravity predicted that the planet Neptune should have been far larger and in a far different place than where it was discovered (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm).

Quote
You can call it "Spiderman 3 Was a Terrible Movie" if you'd like. If you take gravity and work with it mathematically, you reproduce the physics of the real world beautifully. I certainly have yet to see any other models, FE or not, that have even vaguely come close to its explanatory power. It is not "true" in some epistemic sense. You cannot say, “A priori, starting with the integers, we derive that gravity exists.” It’s a model; that’s what physics does. Physics doesn’t tell you what’s "true", physics doesn’t tell you what a priori the world has to look like, physics tells you this is a good model, and it fits the data, and to the degree that it doesn’t fit the data, it’s wrong. This isn’t something we derive; it is something we declare. We call it our model, we use it to calculate stuff, and we see if it fits the real world. And it does fit the real world.

Your understanding of "a priori" is misguided. It is a term popularized by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism.

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

Quote
A priori and a posteriori

These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" (which must follow it).

There is no direct evidence that there is something small and invisible pulling things to the the ground, and no experiment has observed such a thing. If we go by pure priori reasoning, in fact, then we must conclude that the earth is rising upwards to cause this phenomenon.

If we step onto a chair and walk off of the edge and become inert while observing the surface of the earth carefully we see that the earth accelerates upwards to us. This is a direct observation of a mechanical action for gravity. We do not see anything pulling us down to the earth. The only observation from an inert position is that the earth is moving upwards. This is a strong empirical example for the mechanism of gravity.

When standing upright we feel the earth pushing up upwards against our feet. If we pay attention we will feel that we are being pushed upwards by something. If we were take a baseball and and put it into an inert position by extending out our hand and releasing it into the air, we would see that we rise up with the earth to the level of the inert ball to meet it.

These examples, while certainly not conclusive, show that our basis for what keeps us on the earth are at least based on empirical experiences. What empirical experience tells us that gravity is mediated by tiny puller particles? If there is no real evidence for such a mechanism, why should it be considered at all?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 30, 2017, 06:12:07 PM
There is no direct evidence that there is something small and invisible pulling things to the the ground, and no experiment has observed such a thing. If we go by pure priori reasoning, in fact, then we must conclude that the earth is rising upwards to cause this phenomenon.

If we step onto a chair and walk off of the edge and become inert while observing the surface of the earth carefully we see that the earth accelerates upwards to us. This is a direct observation of a mechanical action for gravity. We do not see anything pulling us down to the earth. The only observation from an inert position is that the earth is moving upwards. This is a strong empirical example for the mechanism of gravity.

When standing upright we feel the earth pushing up upwards against our feet. If we pay attention we will feel that we are being pushed upwards by something. If we were take a baseball and and put it into an inert position by extending out our hand and releasing it into the air, we would see that we rise up with the earth to the level of the inert ball to meet it.

These examples, while certainly not conclusive, show that our basis for what keeps us on the earth are at least based on empirical experiences. What empirical experience tells us that gravity is mediated by tiny puller particles? If there is no real evidence for such a mechanism, why should it be considered at all?
Your 'empirical evidence' is up for interpretation. Going over the hill on a rollercoaster sure feels like I'm falling to the Earth. Even stepping off something a little higher than a chair, feels like I'm going down, not that something else is rising up to meet me. So what to trust? Sight or inner ear? Both can be tricked, so one's certainly not more reliant than the other. Both are rather core mechanisms for us living upon the Earth. Simply declaring 'the Earth rises' is ignoring another part of your senses providing a different set of evidence. Seems to me you should have no way to tell which is happening based on that alone.

We're not talking about the underlying mechanism here. This is "Do I go to the Earth, or does the Earth come to me?" territory, so please stop attempting to make an argument from incredulity by bringing up gravitons. I see no way to tell which is happening if we rely strictly on our personal sensory experience.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
Your 'empirical evidence' is up for interpretation. Going over the hill on a rollercoaster sure feels like I'm falling to the Earth. Even stepping off something a little higher than a chair, feels like I'm going down, not that something else is rising up to meet me. So what to trust? Sight or inner ear? Both can be tricked, so one's certainly not more reliant than the other. Both are rather core mechanisms for us living upon the Earth. Simply declaring 'the Earth rises' is ignoring another part of your senses providing a different set of evidence. Seems to me you should have no way to tell which is happening based on that alone.

We're not talking about the underlying mechanism here. This is "Do I go to the Earth, or does the Earth come to me?" territory, so please stop attempting to make an argument from incredulity by bringing up gravitons. I see no way to tell which is happening if we rely strictly on our personal sensory experience.

There is no way to tell to a certainty what is really happening, as you say, but we are left with one explanation we can observe (the earth is moving) and one explanation that we cannot observe (tiny puller particles). What is more empirical, something that we can observe or something that we cannot?

If you tell me that I am being pulled by something I will ask what is pulling me and assert that I cannot observe anything pulling me.

If you tell me that the earth is moving upwards I will ask for a way to experience it for myself. Stepping off of a chair and going into an inert position satisfies this query, and provides a greater level of evidence than the 0% evidence that the "some kind of small and invisible pulling thing" explanation provides.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 30, 2017, 06:40:52 PM
Your 'empirical evidence' is up for interpretation. Going over the hill on a rollercoaster sure feels like I'm falling to the Earth. Even stepping off something a little higher than a chair, feels like I'm going down, not that something else is rising up to meet me. So what to trust? Sight or inner ear? Both can be tricked, so one's certainly not more reliant than the other. Both are rather core mechanisms for us living upon the Earth. Simply declaring 'the Earth rises' is ignoring another part of your senses providing a different set of evidence. Seems to me you should have no way to tell which is happening based on that alone.

We're not talking about the underlying mechanism here. This is "Do I go to the Earth, or does the Earth come to me?" territory, so please stop attempting to make an argument from incredulity by bringing up gravitons. I see no way to tell which is happening if we rely strictly on our personal sensory experience.

There is no way to tell to a certainty what is really happening, as you say, but we are left with one explanation we can observe (the earth is moving) and one explanation that we cannot observe (tiny puller particles). What is more empirical, something that we can observe or something that we cannot?

If you tell me that I am being pulled by something I will ask what is pulling me and assert that I cannot observe anything pulling me.

If you tell me that the earth is moving upwards I will ask for a way to experience it for myself. Stepping off of a chair and going into an inert position satisfies this query, and provides a greater level of evidence than the 0% evidence that the "some kind of small and invisible pulling thing" explanation provides.
No no, none of this 'puller particle' stuff Tom. Am I moving, or is the Earth? You have no evidence showing that something is pushing the Earth either. You may as well claim it's black magic. That's to the same point as gravitons. We're talking basics here, and you have no more evidence beyond that very basic than anyone else.

You can feel yourself falling to the Earth. You can see the Earth rising. Neither is more valid than the other as discussed.

You cannot see anything pulling you to Earth. You cannot see anything pushing the Earth. Once again, neither is more valid in this scenario either. Hold them to the same standard Tom. You're looking deeper into the how for gravity, and staying at the same surface level for UA. You have the same level of evidence that you are being pulled as that the Earth is moving towards you. Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it. Your position from zeteticism should be you have no idea if you're being pulled down or the Earth is accelerating, because you can't observe the mechanism behind either, and your senses can't distinguish which is happening with any degree of certainty. If I'm wrong explain, but remember to treat both to the same standard.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2017, 07:05:38 PM
Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it

They are not both equal. We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover. The question of what moves the mover is unknown, but we can at least say what we see the mechanical action of the mover directly. We can also say that the phenomenon of pushing and accelerating of matter are known concepts in physics.

For the invisible pulling theories we have no evidence of a mover at all, and so we are unable to ask what moves the mover. It is a more mysterious explanation, and one which has no physical analogues in the real world. We have plenty of experiences of being pushed, not many of being pulled. By a priori reasoning it is the weaker explanation.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on November 30, 2017, 07:21:14 PM
Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it

They are not both equal. We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover. The question of what moves the mover is unknown, but we can at least say what we see the mechanical action of the mover directly. We can also say that the phenomenon of pushing and accelerating of matter are known concepts in physics.

For the invisible pulling theories we have no evidence of a mover at all, and so we are unable to ask what moves the mover. It is a more mysterious explanation, and one which has no physical analogues in the real world. We have plenty of experiences of being pushed, not many of being pulled. By a priori reasoning it is the weaker explanation.

We do have plenty of examples of gravity in action.The orbits of all the planets and moons are controlled by it. When you step off a chair, there is a sensation of falling. This is undeniable. If the floor simply rushed up to you, you would feel nothing.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on November 30, 2017, 08:18:36 PM
Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it

They are not both equal. We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover. The question of what moves the mover is unknown, but we can at least say what we see the mechanical action of the mover directly. We can also say that the phenomenon of pushing and accelerating of matter are known concepts in physics.

For the invisible pulling theories we have no evidence of a mover at all, and so we are unable to ask what moves the mover. It is a more mysterious explanation, and one which has no physical analogues in the real world. We have plenty of experiences of being pushed, not many of being pulled. By a priori reasoning it is the weaker explanation.
But we have no evidence of the Earth moving upwards that isn't of the same empirical nature as us being brought to Earth. Friction is a 'pulling force' in many respects, as is inertia. Everything has a force that works to pull whenever it's pushed. A car can be said to be pulling itself along the road as well, since it works via friction.

We are the one moving. Plenty of evidence of a mover there, with just as little evidence of what is doing the pulling as we have of what is doing the pushing. As for no analogues, you've never been pulled along behind someone/something? Never seen someone riding the wake behind a boat before? That seems unlikely Tom. I also don't believe we're discussing theoretical here, so I'm not sure what a priori has to do with anything. We're discussing empirical evidence, something you zetetics claim you're all about. I can pull you as easily as I can push you.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: JocelynSachs on November 30, 2017, 08:45:12 PM
Personally, I'm constantly aware of the matter of my body trying to accelerate downwards.  I have to exert muscular energy to overcome the tendency of my arms to dangle at my sides as I type this. If I jump, the natural tendency of my body to try to move downwards quickly overwhelms my efforts.

If I step off a chair or a wall, I feel a different sensation - but to call that sensation 'inert' is to prejudge the issue. If I put my hands into tepid water I sense neither hot nor cold, but it would be overreaching to assert that the temperature of that water must be some kind of objective, special 'zero degrees' value from which all others diverge.

Better to say that if I step off a chair or a wall I observe my body doing what I've sensed it trying to do all along: move downwards, and the sensation I feel is merely the absence of conflict between desire and accomplishment.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 30, 2017, 11:53:09 PM
Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it

They are not both equal. We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover. The question of what moves the mover is unknown, but we can at least say what we see the mechanical action of the mover directly. We can also say that the phenomenon of pushing and accelerating of matter are known concepts in physics.

For the invisible pulling theories we have no evidence of a mover at all, and so we are unable to ask what moves the mover. It is a more mysterious explanation, and one which has no physical analogues in the real world. We have plenty of experiences of being pushed, not many of being pulled. By a priori reasoning it is the weaker explanation.
But we have no evidence of the Earth moving upwards that isn't of the same empirical nature as us being brought to Earth. Friction is a 'pulling force' in many respects, as is inertia. Everything has a force that works to pull whenever it's pushed. A car can be said to be pulling itself along the road as well, since it works via friction.

We are the one moving. Plenty of evidence of a mover there, with just as little evidence of what is doing the pulling as we have of what is doing the pushing. As for no analogues, you've never been pulled along behind someone/something? Never seen someone riding the wake behind a boat before? That seems unlikely Tom. I also don't believe we're discussing theoretical here, so I'm not sure what a priori has to do with anything. We're discussing empirical evidence, something you zetetics claim you're all about. I can pull you as easily as I can push you.

The experience of being pulled behind a boat isn't in the same realm as the universal attraction of mass. Where are the little strings pulling the atoms?

We do, however, have direct experiences of the acceleration of objects. The acceleration of objects is a known phenomenon, possible through many chemical and physical means, and does not require a new branch of physics to work.

We do have plenty of examples of gravity in action.The orbits of all the planets and moons are controlled by it. When you step off a chair, there is a sensation of falling. This is undeniable. If the floor simply rushed up to you, you would feel nothing.

The celestial bodies are seen to exhibit attraction of some form (gravitation); but there is no corollary that it is a universal attraction of mass which keeps us on the earth (gravity).

The sensation of falling is the sensation of being inert. Your intestines are not being pinned down any more and are more freely moving against each other. The same sensation is found in vomit comets.

Personally, I'm constantly aware of the matter of my body trying to accelerate downwards.  I have to exert muscular energy to overcome the tendency of my arms to dangle at my sides as I type this. If I jump, the natural tendency of my body to try to move downwards quickly overwhelms my efforts.

If I step off a chair or a wall, I feel a different sensation - but to call that sensation 'inert' is to prejudge the issue. If I put my hands into tepid water I sense neither hot nor cold, but it would be overreaching to assert that the temperature of that water must be some kind of objective, special 'zero degrees' value from which all others diverge.

Better to say that if I step off a chair or a wall I observe my body doing what I've sensed it trying to do all along: move downwards, and the sensation I feel is merely the absence of conflict between desire and accomplishment.

Einstein's Equivalence Principle states that an upwardly accelerating earth would be indistinguishable from a mysterious force of gravity which accelerates all matter downwards.

You could interpret the scenario either way; but you are still comparing the concepts of upward acceleration, which is possible with known physics, to a mysterious force of nature, which requires new physics.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on December 01, 2017, 12:42:23 AM

We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover.
I'll repost this without the further commentary that caused the post to be deleted earlier.

Has anyone, ever, in the history of the world, seen something fall off an object and intuitively thought, look at the Earth coming up to catch it? I think not.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2017, 12:55:32 AM

We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover.
I'll repost this without the further commentary that caused the post to be deleted earlier.

Has anyone, ever, in the history of the world, seen something fall off an object and intuitively thought, look at the Earth coming up to catch it? I think not.

That's right. All of the big thinking takes place in alternative science societies like this one, not your local community college where you are spoon fed facts without room for discussion.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on December 01, 2017, 01:13:46 AM

We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover.
I'll repost this without the further commentary that caused the post to be deleted earlier.

Has anyone, ever, in the history of the world, seen something fall off an object and intuitively thought, look at the Earth coming up to catch it? I think not.

That's right. All of the big thinking takes place in alternative science societies like this one, not your local community college where you are spoon fed facts without room for discussion.
As usual, you respond without actually answering the question. I'll take that as a "no".
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2017, 01:27:51 AM
As usual, you respond without actually answering the question. I'll take that as a "no".

You are appealing to the authority of "regular people" like your mother and father and the people in your neighborhood to have true knowledge of gravity. Not a very high bar or compelling argument you have made there. They believe what they were taught in schools and look no further, hence my last comment.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on December 01, 2017, 01:42:46 AM
Quote
authority of "regular people"

I don't know what you are talking about there. I asked the question if anyone observing an object falling to the ground believes, that actually, the ground flew up to the object. It's a simple question, I think the answer is no. If you disagree, say you think the answer is yes.

I find it interesting how you have to twist and turn every response into a different direction.

But as to what was taught in school, pretty much everything FE here was proved wrong in my 6th grade astronomy class. But I don't recall any actual lessons where they conspired to brainwash us into thinking stuff fell to the ground.

This is really getting silly.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 01, 2017, 01:47:16 AM
Quote
authority of "regular people"

I don't know what you are talking about there. I asked the question if anyone observing an object falling to the ground believes, that actually, the ground flew up to the object. It's a simple question, I think the answer is no. If you disagree, say you think the answer is yes.

I find it interesting how you have to twist and turn every response into a different direction.

But as to what was taught in school, pretty much everything FE here was proved wrong in my 6th grade astronomy class. But I don't recall any actual lessons where they conspired to brainwash us into thinking stuff fell to the ground.

This is really getting silly.

There is no twisting and turning. You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something. The fallacy of your argument is apparent to all.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on December 01, 2017, 03:28:54 AM

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 01, 2017, 06:35:15 AM
Both are empirical observations. What's pulling you down? Don't know, can't see it. What's pushing the Earth up? Don't know, can't see it

They are not both equal. We have evidence that the earth is moving upwards. That is evidence of a mover. The question of what moves the mover is unknown, but we can at least say what we see the mechanical action of the mover directly. We can also say that the phenomenon of pushing and accelerating of matter are known concepts in physics.

For the invisible pulling theories we have no evidence of a mover at all, and so we are unable to ask what moves the mover. It is a more mysterious explanation, and one which has no physical analogues in the real world. We have plenty of experiences of being pushed, not many of being pulled. By a priori reasoning it is the weaker explanation.
But we have no evidence of the Earth moving upwards that isn't of the same empirical nature as us being brought to Earth. Friction is a 'pulling force' in many respects, as is inertia. Everything has a force that works to pull whenever it's pushed. A car can be said to be pulling itself along the road as well, since it works via friction.

We are the one moving. Plenty of evidence of a mover there, with just as little evidence of what is doing the pulling as we have of what is doing the pushing. As for no analogues, you've never been pulled along behind someone/something? Never seen someone riding the wake behind a boat before? That seems unlikely Tom. I also don't believe we're discussing theoretical here, so I'm not sure what a priori has to do with anything. We're discussing empirical evidence, something you zetetics claim you're all about. I can pull you as easily as I can push you.

The experience of being pulled behind a boat isn't in the same realm as the universal attraction of mass. Where are the little strings pulling the atoms?

We do, however, have direct experiences of the acceleration of objects. The acceleration of objects is a known phenomenon, possible through many chemical and physical means, and does not require a new branch of physics to work.
We don't know. Perhaps we can't see it since it's too small. Where's the energy pushing the Earth coming from? What's creating it? Once again you're breaking down one side as small as you can, and refusing to do so with the other.

What new branch of physics does a pulling force require? There's pulling forces all over. You're right, the acceleration of objects is well known, I'm simply accelerating you. Maybe it's the air pressing you down. Plenty of evidence air pushes down. That seems like a simple answer to me, far more so than an unknown and unobserved force accelerating the Earth.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: JocelynSachs on December 01, 2017, 09:58:52 AM
Quote
You could interpret the scenario either way; but you are still comparing the concepts of upward acceleration, which is possible with known physics, to a mysterious force of nature, which requires new physics.

For someone who likes the idea of a flat earth, you do seem to prefer your logic circular :)

Tell you what: you show me a piece of matter that exhibits these 'known physics' of upward acceleration. I mean, if 'the earth' is doing it, then presumably you can find a piece of the earth somewhere which, when lifted off the ground, doesn't get caught up by the rest.

Meanwhile, I'll track down a magnet. Ready? Go!

There's also the tiny wrinkle that the earth is demonstrably spherical (I refer you to my earlier experiment), and thus can't be accelerating in all directions at once.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on December 05, 2017, 10:24:14 PM

The theory of gravitons for the mechanism of gravity can be proven by deriving a test that will allow us to observe gravitons. Dropping a ball and observing that it is accelerated to the earth at the rate graviton theory predicts is not a proof of graviton theory. A true test of the mechanism is required.


In principle, it is impossible to observe individual gravitons directly, we can only measure their effects. The way that you would "observe" gravitons is essentially the equivalent of dropping a ball. It's as if the universe won't let you observe the mechanism, but that's okay. You don't need to know what the mechanism is in the sense that you don't need to be able to envision in your head how gravitons function, just that they do. You can have a vision of an imaginary gravity fairy if it helps you think about gravity, but know that that's only an aid to understanding. If the mechanism is truly unobservable, then any discussion on the matter is inherently not scientific.


Gravity predicted that galaxies should spin faster at the middle than the edges, yet they spin as solid disks (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml).

Gravity predicted that the universe should be decelerating due  to the the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe, yet it is accelerating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe).

Gravity predicted that the planet Neptune should have been far larger and in a far different place than where it was discovered (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm).

I don't really want to go down this rabbit hole, but as we've seen from countless recently discovered exoplanets, we don't know nearly as much about how planets form as we thought we do.

I think we are getting too far from the original question.

There are multiple mechanisms for gravity in the Round Earth model. Don't you think that's a problem? Talk to one scientist and he says that gravity is a "puller particle," talk to another one and he says that it's "bendy space." Why all of these wacky theories? Where is the Grand Unified Theory?

But I don't want to seem like I'm dodging questions. Science refers to this phenomena as dark matter / energy. It's simply an unknown. It may be a force all its own, it's probably a type of non-linearity correction for gravity. This doesn't mean that gravity is fundamentally wrong, it just means that our model isn't accurate at larger scales, as we probably would have expected anyways, since we've only very recently been able to observe these large structures where gravity is non-linear. We didn't have any data to go on before, so essentially what we've done is extrapolate the trend we observed on the small scale to the universe at large. Now that we have the data and can see these inconsistencies, we're now able to work towards understanding and accounting for them in our model. It just takes a little time. Again, this doesn't mean that gravity is fundamentally wrong. After all, it works so well on the small scale. We've used it for nearly half a millennia, and only recently have had any sort of inkling that anything was amiss. Any correction will likely be a small detail in the math.
 
Anyways, my point was that having multiple theories for the same thing isn't necessarily conflicting. We also had 5 different String Theories until someone finally realized that they were all the same thing. And then when someone did realize that they were all the same thing, that strengthened the case for String Theory. Scientists are able to talk about gravity in different ways because the mechanism is unobservable. At least we think it is. If so, it makes no difference if its a particle or if gravity is just an intrinsic property of matter to bend spacetime. They give the same exact predictions. If they didn't, that is when we'd have a problem with our theory. But since they do and since we can't observe the mechanism, that's good enough for everyone else.

Your understanding of "a priori" is misguided. It is a term popularized by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism.

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

Quote
A priori and a posteriori

These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" (which must follow it).

I don't use words without knowing their meanings. Allow me to clarify. My use of a priori highlights the fact that you can't "prove" gravity in any epistemic sense. You can't write a proof on gravity. That's not how physics works, but that doesn't make it any less true.

There is no direct evidence that there is something small and invisible pulling things to the the ground, and no experiment has observed such a thing. If we go by pure priori reasoning, in fact, then we must conclude that the earth is rising upwards to cause this phenomenon.

See the above. We're not going by pure priori reasoning, because that's not physics. I've already said that, but it didn't seem to compute. If you limit yourself to priori reasoning, you will never be able to understand the universe in any great detail, and that prospect is personally upsetting.

If we step onto a chair and walk off of the edge and become inert while observing the surface of the earth carefully we see that the earth accelerates upwards to us. This is a direct observation of a mechanical action for gravity. We do not see anything pulling us down to the earth. The only observation from an inert position is that the earth is moving upwards. This is a strong empirical example for the mechanism of gravity.

In your frame of reference, the Earth is rises up to meet you, but in the Earth's frame, you fall down to meet it. What's so special about your frame of reference?

When standing upright we feel the earth pushing up upwards against our feet. If we pay attention we will feel that we are being pushed upwards by something. If we were take a baseball and and put it into an inert position by extending out our hand and releasing it into the air, we would see that we rise up with the earth to the level of the inert ball to meet it.

I've never observed that actually.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on December 05, 2017, 10:33:23 PM

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.

I do see his point, but like all of his other points, its only goal is distract you from the greater matter at hand. Perhaps he doesn't have anything else in his arsenal other than roadblocks and red tape such as these.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: mtnman on December 06, 2017, 04:39:11 AM

You are appealing to the authority of what your mother believes like it is supposed to prove something.
I am asking you and anyone reading this a question about their experience in seeing things fall. I'm completely lost how that is an appeal to authority, or to what authority I am appealing. Don't think it matters at this point, just saying I don't understand your point.

I do see his point, but like all of his other points, its only goal is distract you from the greater matter at hand. Perhaps he doesn't have anything else in his arsenal other than roadblocks and red tape such as these.
Agreed. From my time here most of the FE responses fall into a few categories. Redirect, cast doubt on other's proof while offering none, conspiracy, and ignore.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: RJDO on December 06, 2017, 06:02:33 PM
Air resistance with the UA?

I keep reading that Gravity and UA are the same, but with UA, it is pushing on the atmosphere to create pressure. It cannot be pulling, but must be pushing on it to create barometric pressure. Is this correct?

(I am going somewhere with this, but need to make sure I somewhat understand UA and how it replaces Gravity as we experience it.)
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Haws on December 06, 2017, 06:05:42 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

If I were defending universal acceleration, I would reject the idea of linear kinetic acceleration, since that would imply a rather quick clash with the speed of light. That would leave me with centripetal kinetic acceleration, which implies that the flat earth is in orbit around the Anchor Object with the face of the earth toward the Anchor Object. Now all I need is an Anchor Force so that the earth can be a rock on a spinning string. Hmm. And this is the Occam's Razor thread. I am multiplying entities pretty freely.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: RJDO on December 06, 2017, 06:19:55 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on December 06, 2017, 06:31:15 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

If I were defending universal acceleration, I would reject the idea of linear kinetic acceleration, since that would imply a rather quick clash with the speed of light. That would leave me with centripetal kinetic acceleration, which implies that the flat earth is in orbit around the Anchor Object with the face of the earth toward the Anchor Object. Now all I need is an Anchor Force so that the earth can be a rock on a spinning string. Hmm. And this is the Occam's Razor thread. I am multiplying entities pretty freely.

Interesting. In your attempt to fix some of the inconsistencies, you make some concessions that put your flat earth model a few steps closer to the round earth model. Just an observation.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 06, 2017, 06:59:10 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: RJDO on December 06, 2017, 07:21:15 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically. 
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: junker on December 06, 2017, 08:21:01 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: RJDO on December 06, 2017, 08:49:03 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.

No junker, I have a great understanding of equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity. And, I fully understand what empirically means.

Our difference is I know gravity to exist, and that the earth is a globe. I do not need to make up theories that cannot be proved. Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier as more molecules were pushed into "dark matter" or "dark energy" in whatever lies above our atmosphere. Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

Prove to me how this does not happen.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 06, 2017, 09:53:12 PM
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.

No junker, I have a great understanding of equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity. And, I fully understand what empirically means.

Our difference is I know gravity to exist, and that the earth is a globe. I do not need to make up theories that cannot be proved. Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier as more molecules were pushed into "dark matter" or "dark energy" in whatever lies above our atmosphere. Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

Prove to me how this does not happen.
How is it being 'rammed into the atmo' though? The water wants to stay still. The Earth is pushing it. The bottom of the water is also pushing all of the water between it and the edge of the atmo. Halfway up is pushing against only half of the water. The top of the water is only pushing against the air. Seriously, there is no difference we can discern or reason between UA and gravity, outside of UA needing an explanation for gravimetric differences. But pretending for a moment Earth's gravitational field is equal all over, you cannot tell a difference between the two.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: junker on December 06, 2017, 10:01:25 PM
Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier...

Prove to me how this does not happen.

Whew you roundies are all about the memes today. How many more ways can you say “prove me wrong?” Do you understand what is wrong with that?

If not, I’ll suggest you look into it. Don’t bother asking me to provide links as to where I learned about the burden of proof, please. That seems to be all the rage amongst your group today.

Take care!
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: JocelynSachs on December 06, 2017, 10:43:25 PM
My thinking as regards UA runs along these lines:

My first stumbling block is that nobody can show me a piece of the earth that's willing to exhibit it. Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch suits my mood here perfectly: empirically speaking, it's not a cheese shop.

The second is 'celestial gravity', which is a mysterious invisible something that can evidently pull huge, extremely massive things around in all directions...
...and is allegedly responsible for tides and surface variations in measurements of UA...
...so it acts on regular matter too...
...and between regular matter, as experiments with big balls of lead confirm.

It strikes me as inescapable that even if we begin by assuming the existence of UA, we would also need to account for the 'celestial gravity' the earth's disc exerts upon us. Though not as massive as a spherical form, a disc of rock and metal many miles in thickness would exert a distinct pull - an increasingly lateral pull as one moves away from the pole.

No such tug can be detected. But a tug we know there must be, and the only direction in which it can hide is the one we've reserved for UA.

So the earth's 'celestial gravity' is, without exception anywhere on earth, pulling us in the same direction as UA's 'push'.

Huh.

Now, in truth, there are a few different volumetric distributions of matter that yield a gravitational pull at 90 degrees to the surface (ignoring minor local deformations like hills or waves, obviously) at every relevant point - one being a kind of shallow dome - but none of them are flat. That's a huge problem because as we've already established, UA and the earth's celestial gravity are acting in the same direction. And if the earth isn't flat, then the only value for UA that doesn't tear the earth apart in moments is 'zero'.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 06, 2017, 11:24:28 PM
My thinking as regards UA runs along these lines:

My first stumbling block is that nobody can show me a piece of the earth that's willing to exhibit it. Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch suits my mood here perfectly: empirically speaking, it's not a cheese shop.

The second is 'celestial gravity', which is a mysterious invisible something that can evidently pull huge, extremely massive things around in all directions...
...and is allegedly responsible for tides and surface variations in measurements of UA...
...so it acts on regular matter too...
...and between regular matter, as experiments with big balls of lead confirm.

It strikes me as inescapable that even if we begin by assuming the existence of UA, we would also need to account for the 'celestial gravity' the earth's disc exerts upon us. Though not as massive as a spherical form, a disc of rock and metal many miles in thickness would exert a distinct pull - an increasingly lateral pull as one moves away from the pole.

No such tug can be detected. But a tug we know there must be, and the only direction in which it can hide is the one we've reserved for UA.

So the earth's 'celestial gravity' is, without exception anywhere on earth, pulling us in the same direction as UA's 'push'.

Huh.

Now, in truth, there are a few different volumetric distributions of matter that yield a gravitational pull at 90 degrees to the surface (ignoring minor local deformations like hills or waves, obviously) at every relevant point - one being a kind of shallow dome - but none of them are flat. That's a huge problem because as we've already established, UA and the earth's celestial gravity are acting in the same direction. And if the earth isn't flat, then the only value for UA that doesn't tear the earth apart in moments is 'zero'.
What should a piece of Earth exhibit? Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me." Not sure what a piece of the Earth should do since it's being pushed normally just like we are.

The Earth itself exerts no pull. Celestial gravitation != gravity. That's the claim. CG is called upon to explain tides and other gravitational anomalies. Cavendish is essentially fake/bad science, because clearly there's no attraction between masses.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2017, 11:35:47 PM
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: ghostopia on December 06, 2017, 11:50:00 PM
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

You noticed that cannot be used here if you reject the Round Earth's evidence of "I step off a chair and I fall down to the ground" because of the Equivalence principle that you used to prove that acceleration acts same as Gravity.

Also we do have proofs for Gravity. For example the Cavendish experiment.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 12:03:28 AM
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

You noticed that cannot be used here if you reject the Round Earth's evidence of "I step off a chair and I fall down to the ground" because of the Equivalence principle that you used to prove that acceleration acts same as Gravity.

Also we do have proofs for Gravity. For example the Cavendish experiment.

They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on December 07, 2017, 12:18:21 AM
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

This is so wrong, Tom. Gravity is the warping of spacetime. The warping of spacetime has been proven via experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Experimental_tests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Experimental_tests)

Are you smarter than Einstein???

Further, LIGO has detected several gravitational waves. Those can't exist in FEH and yet we have detected them.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 12:32:26 AM
This is so wrong, Tom. Gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is a puller particle called the Graviton. Are you saying that you know better than QM physicists to know what the true mechanism of gravity is? Where is your Nobel Prize?

Quote
The warping of spacetime has been proven via experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Experimental_tests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Experimental_tests)

Frame dragging is a Special Relativity thing. Special Relativity, which deals with moving frames of reference, is different from General Relativity, which deals with the bending of space.

Quote
Are you smarter than Einstein???

Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

Quote
Further, LIGO has detected several gravitational waves. Those can't exist in FEH and yet we have detected them

We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Haws on December 07, 2017, 12:48:10 AM
My thinking as regards UA runs along these lines:

My first stumbling block is that nobody can show me a piece of the earth that's willing to exhibit it. Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch suits my mood here perfectly: empirically speaking, it's not a cheese shop.

The second is 'celestial gravity', which is a mysterious invisible something that can evidently pull huge, extremely massive things around in all directions...
...and is allegedly responsible for tides and surface variations in measurements of UA...
...so it acts on regular matter too...
...and between regular matter, as experiments with big balls of lead confirm.

It strikes me as inescapable that even if we begin by assuming the existence of UA, we would also need to account for the 'celestial gravity' the earth's disc exerts upon us. Though not as massive as a spherical form, a disc of rock and metal many miles in thickness would exert a distinct pull - an increasingly lateral pull as one moves away from the pole.

No such tug can be detected. But a tug we know there must be, and the only direction in which it can hide is the one we've reserved for UA.

So the earth's 'celestial gravity' is, without exception anywhere on earth, pulling us in the same direction as UA's 'push'.

Huh.

Now, in truth, there are a few different volumetric distributions of matter that yield a gravitational pull at 90 degrees to the surface (ignoring minor local deformations like hills or waves, obviously) at every relevant point - one being a kind of shallow dome - but none of them are flat. That's a huge problem because as we've already established, UA and the earth's celestial gravity are acting in the same direction. And if the earth isn't flat, then the only value for UA that doesn't tear the earth apart in moments is 'zero'.

It's unfortunate to see CuriousSquirrel remind us that Celestial gravitation != gravity, because I really like the thinking above.

Am I the only person who thinks it's a serious stretch of credulity to think that earth is special? That the laws of nature are different here? That gravity does not work here? I really don't want (but do feel duty bound) to accept what CuriousSquirrel said. Can a Flat Earth believer resolve this?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Haws on December 07, 2017, 12:54:56 AM
Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

No to both questions. CuriousSquirrel's answer was right. Let me add that the pressure is constant and begins instantaneously as soon as the UA begins because the UA is constant. Water pressure, barometric pressure, football player pyramid pressure, or whatever are all identical to with gravity due to the equivalence principle. The only questions are 1) why is the earth special so that there is no gravity and 2) what causes the UA?
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on December 07, 2017, 03:17:28 AM
Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is a puller particle called the Graviton. Are you saying that you know better than QM physicists to know what the true mechanism of gravity is? Where is your Nobel Prize?

You are aware that QM is not horribly relevant at the scale we are talking about and it is used in work involving very small scales. At human visible scales, GR is the model that is used. There are attempts to find a unified theory, but they have been unsuccessful. No need for a Nobel, just need to know what you're talking about.

Quote
Frame dragging is a Special Relativity thing. Special Relativity, which deals with moving frames of reference, is different from General Relativity, which deals with the bending of space.

You are, again, 100% wrong. FD is a feature of GR, not SR and has nothing to do with frames of reference and everything to do with the warping of space. Please Google and read. It isn't a topic most are familiar with.

Quote
Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

No, those words never came out of his mouth. He was referring to acceleration and gravity and he didn't think the Earth was being accelerated.

Quote
We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

Can you explain what that is, how it works, and why it doesn't cause the sun, moon, Earth, and stars to collide? Also, by what mechanism does it creates waves? Just saying you believe in CG doesn't make it real.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2017, 04:09:24 AM
Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is a puller particle called the Graviton. Are you saying that you know better than QM physicists to know what the true mechanism of gravity is? Where is your Nobel Prize?

You are aware that QM is not horribly relevant at the scale we are talking about and it is used in work involving very small scales. At human visible scales, GR is the model that is used. There are attempts to find a unified theory, but they have been unsuccessful. No need for a Nobel, just need to know what you're talking about.

Oh, so now the mechanism is unknown? You just told us that the mechanism was bendy space.

Quote
Quote
Frame dragging is a Special Relativity thing. Special Relativity, which deals with moving frames of reference, is different from General Relativity, which deals with the bending of space.

You are, again, 100% wrong. FD is a feature of GR, not SR and has nothing to do with frames of reference and everything to do with the warping of space. Please Google and read. It isn't a topic most are familiar with.

No, Frame Dragging is a feature of Special Relativity, which can be expressed by the gravitational effects of General Relativity. Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are indistinguishable from inertial effects. When you are around a gravitating body you are accelerating, and that is what causes frame dragging effects. Frame Dragging also occurs through linear acceleration, without the need for a gravitating mass to cause the acceleration at all.

Quote
Quote
Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

No, those words never came out of his mouth. He was referring to acceleration and gravity and he didn't think the Earth was being accelerated.

I didn't say that Einstein believed it. He said that the effect would be equivalent. Einstein asserted that if we were accelerating upwards it would cause an equivalent effect to gravity and we wouldn't know.

Quote
Quote
We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

Can you explain what that is, how it works, and why it doesn't cause the sun, moon, Earth, and stars to collide? Also, by what mechanism does it creates waves? Just saying you believe in CG doesn't make it real.

Most of those things are unknown. We're empiricists, not astromagineers.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 07, 2017, 06:25:43 AM
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

You noticed that cannot be used here if you reject the Round Earth's evidence of "I step off a chair and I fall down to the ground" because of the Equivalence principle that you used to prove that acceleration acts same as Gravity.

Also we do have proofs for Gravity. For example the Cavendish experiment.

They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.
But your evidence is equivalent for any of a number of other options. No need to talk about the theorized mechanism behind gravity. Why isn't it air pressure holding us down (denpressure)? Why not an invisible wind (Aetheric theory)? What about tiny strings connecting everything to Earth that we just haven't developed the technology to see (gravity analogue)? You going from the air to the ground is empirical evidence of one thing only. That when separated you and the Earth attempt to reunite. Why? Can't tell. That's it. There is nothing in this scenario to tell you whether it's you or the Earth that is moving, without bringing in preconceptions. Your eyes say the Earth moves. Inner ear says it sure feels like you moved there.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: JocelynSachs on December 07, 2017, 10:40:24 AM
They would act the same way in theory, sure, but when we weigh the evidence there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space. We have direct observational evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth, even if the deeper power source behind it remains unknown, but NO evidence at all for the other mechanisms, let alone their power sources.

Quite the reverse. 'Celestial gravity' (Mechanism? Pully particles, perhaps? Bendy space? You show me yours, and so forth) is observable via changes of direction of celestial bodies and tides, and measurable, according to FET, even at ground level as variations in UA. Meanwhile you cannot show me anything that exhibits UA. The challenge still stands: you claim 'the earth' is accelerating upwards.  - well, show me a piece of 'the earth' that exhibits that behaviour. If all you can show me are things that don't accelerate upwards, you can hardly claim empiricism.

It's unfortunate to see CuriousSquirrel remind us that Celestial gravitation != gravity, because I really like the thinking above.

Am I the only person who thinks it's a serious stretch of credulity to think that earth is special? That the laws of nature are different here? That gravity does not work here? I really don't want (but do feel duty bound) to accept what CuriousSquirrel said. Can a Flat Earth believer resolve this?

If someone could demonstrate matter undergoing UA, then there would be some justification for formulating an asymmetrical model of gravity. As things stand, though, UA is just wishful thinking. Tom claims that when he steps off a chair, he 'sees' the earth rising to meet him. Yet every single thing he is looking at, if lifted and released, demonstrates the exact opposite tendency.

It's the dog-and-duck routine all over again: we can observe the influence of an invisible force pulling matter around, a force that can influence matter on earth. But is that force responsible for unifying us with the ground? Oh, no no no. It's an absurd leap to suppose that the quacking sounds we can hear are all coming from ducks.

IIRC, Tom himself has said that the precise distribution of 'celestial matter', and thus its influence upon us and the earth's accessible surface, is unknown. To state that the observed behaviour of terrestrial matter cannot be induced by celestial gravity alone is, in direct contradiction of the above, to make a definitive statement excluding distributions that would produce these effects. Again: where is the empiricism?

The clincher, for me, is that even in FET there is no need - other than the pursuit of sophistry - to propose UA. 'Celestial gravitation' is just as good an explanation for why we stick to a disc as UA, and the only reason Tom won't agree to that statement is that UA only works on a flat earth, whereas gravitation could work on anything. He doesn't want to start down that slippery slope.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: StinkyOne on December 07, 2017, 01:33:19 PM

Oh, so now the mechanism is unknown? You just told us that the mechanism was bendy space.

Stop trying to bend my words. It is transparent and childish. Let me post some definitions for you so you're up to speed.

Graviton - In speculative theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory.

You would hardly hold speculative and hypothetical as proof. It is an attempt to add gravity to QM.


Quote
No, Frame Dragging is a feature of Special Relativity, which can be expressed by the gravitational effects of General Relativity. Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are indistinguishable from inertial effects. When you are around a gravitating body you are accelerating, and that is what causes frame dragging effects. Frame Dragging also occurs through linear acceleration, without the need for a gravitating mass to cause the acceleration at all.

More definition time:

In general relativity , a mass's rotation influences the motion of objects in its neighbourhood. Put simply, the rotating mass "drags along" space-time in the vicinity. This is known as Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging.

I can see what you're trying to get at with frames of reference, but it doesn't apply in the way you're trying to force it. I know you can't allow gravity to exist in this manner for your flat Earth, so you really want this to be somehow acceleration related, but it isn't. It is angular velocity. The Earth isn't flat.

Quote
Most of those things are unknown. We're empiricists, not astromagineers.

Why do you think empiricism is so great? It seems very limiting to me.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: garygreen on December 07, 2017, 03:47:46 PM
Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are indistinguishable from inertial effects.

there is still more evidence for the mechanism of an upwardly accelerating earth than the mechanisms of puller particles/bendy space.

you can't make both of these claims.  invoking equivalence means there is no (local) experiment you can do to distinguish between being in a gravitational force field and standing on an accelerating surface.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on December 11, 2017, 05:42:01 PM
Tom's evidence the Earth is accelerating is literally just "I step off a chair and the Earth comes to me."

It is certainly a lot stronger than the Round Earth position of "we have no evidence for graviton puller particles/bendy space, but just believe!"

The LIGO array, which has been brought up three times now and which I've already mentioned won the Nobel Prize in Physics, literally proves curved space-time. This is something we've actually measured. That's what gravitational waves are. They are wave-like disturbances in space-time.

INB4:
We believe in Celestial Gravitation, did you forget that?

LIGO implies gravitational waves, which you explain with Celestial gravitation, but LIGO also implies bendy space, something you seem to be having a problem with.

Maybe your theory of celestial gravity does have a convenient explanation for everything. I will look into it when I have more time, hopefully soon.

Where is your Nobel Prize?

Touché. Where's yours?

Einstein said that an upwardly moving earth would be equivalent to his theory of bendy space.

They can't possibly be equivalent by the simple fact that one says the Earth is round while the other says the Earth is flat. A way to settle the matter once and for all would be to fly up into space, fly around the Earth, and observe it's geometry. At which point, one theory would prevail and the other would fail. Thus they are not equivalent. Certainly if you limit their scope enough, then they both appear to be equivalent, just like how the round earth and flat earth become the same when you limit yourself to what you are able to observe from your perspective on the Earth. I think what Einstein was referring to was that direction is all relative. Are we accelerating downwards, or is the Earth accelerating upwards? It's all relative, and unless we are able to observe the Earth from a reference frame not contained in the Earth in our day-to-day, then it makes no difference. That's likely what was meant.
Title: Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
Post by: Mora on December 11, 2017, 05:51:04 PM

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

The pressure at the bottom of a swimming pool and at the bottom of the oceans comes from the weight of all of the water on top of you. Same with atmospheric pressure. It makes no difference if we are accelerating towards the Earth or if the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's all relative.