Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 18, 2019, 08:52:29 PM »
I understand that FE has at least a couple of different explanations for “gravity”, but really all they are is alternative explanations for why things fall.

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

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

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2019, 08:19:26 AM »
In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.
Substantiate this claim.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2019, 08:41:51 AM »
In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.
Substantiate this claim.
Gravity pulls towards the Centre of Mass. For a sphere that will be (more or less) in the centre of the sphere (assuming roughly homogeneous density)
For a disc or flat plane that would be in the centre of the disc/plane (making the same assumption). Or even if the density varies and the centre of mass is off centre, it will be a point.
So people won't be pulled "down".
On a sphere every point on the surface is "above" the centre of the sphere, so gravity pulls "downwards".
On a plane only people above the centre of mass will be pulled "down". Everyone displaced from that point will be pulled at an angle depending on how far they are from the centre of mass.

You indicated in another post that gravity doesn't tally with observations, can you elaborate?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2019, 09:28:02 AM »
AATW, please allow me to repeat my request:

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

Blathering on about the differences between FE and RE is unlikely to clarify that.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 09:30:05 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2019, 10:53:52 AM »
Please substantiate the claim that in order to propose a theory, all competing theories must first be proven false.
That's not the claim you asked to substantiate and that is not what the original post claims.
You can propose what theories you like. Anyone can.

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

You indicated in another post that gravity (the RE explanation for why things fall) doesn't tally with observations, can you elaborate?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2019, 12:25:06 PM »
AATW, please allow me to repeat my request:

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

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

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

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

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2019, 01:02:38 PM »
I understand that FE has at least a couple of different explanations for “gravity”, but really all they are is alternative explanations for why things fall.

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

Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true?
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2019, 01:30:51 PM »
Quote
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?

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

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

Your question reveals the fundamental flaw in all of FE reasoning...it is circular. (no pun intended).  It starts with the unproven premise that RE gravity is not true and ends with the conclusion that RE gravity is not true.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 01:46:02 PM by pricelesspearl »

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2019, 01:50:52 PM »
Quote
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?

RE doesn't have to explain gravity.  RE isn't trying to over turn thousands of years of accepted science.
Science is never accepted.
Even if it were the case that RE has not proven gravity, absence of evidence it not evidence of absence.

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

Your question reveals the fundamental flaw in all of FE reasoning...it is circular. (no pun intended).  It starts with the assumption that RE gravity is not true and ends with the conclusion that RE gravity is not true.
My argument, as explained in other threads, is not circular.

I suggest you rethink your position.

You cannot claim:
...In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.
...if RE hasn't explained gravity.

And, as far as I can recall, RE hasn't.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 03:43:24 PM by totallackey »

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2019, 02:26:29 PM »

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

I suggest you rethink your position.

You cannot claim:
...In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.
...if RE hasn't explained gravity.

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

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

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

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2019, 02:59:07 PM »
RE has finally explained gravity?

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

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

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

My question was, and remains what makes you think that UA is a better model than gravity, in what way does UA work better as a model than gravity? Or which observations would you say show gravity to be wrong?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2019, 03:45:20 PM »

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

I suggest you rethink your position.

You cannot claim:
...In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.
...if RE hasn't explained gravity.

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

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

RE gravity has never been proven, therefore it does not exist, and cannot be proven.  How have I misstated your position?
My position is that you cannot disprove something that has to be proven.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2019, 05:13:38 PM »
My position is that you cannot disprove something that has to be proven.
[/quote]

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

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


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2019, 05:38:01 PM »
Unless you are suggesting that RE gravity and flat earth are consistent.
For most intents and purposes, sure.

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

Consider the following:

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

By your premise, we cannot accept A or B until we disprove the unfalsifiable hypothesis of C. Because of that, I find your reasoning to be unacceptable. In effect, you're attempting to reverse the burden of proof, which rarely works.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 05:40:45 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2019, 06:28:25 PM »
Quote
By your premise, we cannot accept A or B until we disprove the unfalsifiable hypothesis of C. Because of that, I find your reasoning to be unacceptable. In effect, you're attempting to reverse the burden of proof, which rarely works.

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

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

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2019, 03:20:00 AM »
RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.
Irrelevant.

And if you are being intellectually honest, you shouldn't accept A or B, until you can disprove C
This is completely at odds with how scientific progress is made. I respect your right to an opinion, but I fundamentally disagree that intellectual honesty comes into this. At best, it's your own unorthodox personal preference.

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

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

If the RE gravity explanation is incorrect, you'd think after thousands of years, somebody would have come up with something, somewhere, at some time, that occurs (or doesn't occur) that is inconsistent with it.
Sure. And they have. The discrepancies between observation and theory are well-documented - some of them even made it to the Wikipedia page on the subject. But I don't see why you'd waste the FES's time with something that's already taught within the mainstream at high school level. It's got nothing to do with us.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 03:22:01 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2019, 10:49:17 AM »
That sentence make no sense. I am not sure of what you are trying to say. Do you mean you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven? Sure, you can. Taking away the possibility of something, by definition disproves it. Just prove a contradictory premise that makes the 2nd premise impossible.  Something like this would work...x happens when y, which would be impossible if RE gravity existed.  Simple.

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

And RE gravity has yet to be proven.

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

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

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

So, no...I do not need to disprove gravity...it doesn't exist as science has already proven that.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 10:51:20 AM by totallackey »

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2019, 01:18:19 PM »
RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.
Quote
Irrelevant

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

And if you are being intellectually honest, you shouldn't accept A or B, until you can disprove C
This is completely at odds with how scientific progress is made. I respect your right to an opinion, but I fundamentally disagree that intellectual honesty comes into this. At best, it's your own unorthodox personal preference.

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

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

You engaged us entirely by choice. We didn't reach out to you, and we're not here to convince you. By pretending otherwise, you reinforce my conviction that you seek to reverse the BoP.
  I reached out to you with a simple question.  Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.  What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?, which has nothing to do with what I asked.  Those are two entirely different questions and that response was just a pathetic, transparent way of trying to deflect.  Answering a question with a question is called avoiding answering.

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

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

I thought RE was unfalsifiable?  You can't have it both ways.  And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity.  That is not the same thing as disproving it.  Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is".  But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven?  I think that would have been pretty big news.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 01:34:47 PM by pricelesspearl »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9749
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2019, 02:46:46 PM »
Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove?
I didn't. There was only one thing I called unfalsifiable in this thread, and it was not RET.

It's exactly how science works.  As long as there is the possibility that x is true, you cannot logically assume that it is not.
That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.

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

I reached out to you with a simple question.  Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.
Your understanding of burden of proof, and of context in human communication, is absolutely abysmal. In asking your question, you attempted to reverse the BoP of the entire debate, one which has been going for much longer than your attempted contribution. It is, first and foremost, your job to prove your position. Demanding that someone else proves the opposite of your position and declaring that no alternatives can be considered until then is asinine.

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

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

And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity.  That is not the same thing as disproving it.  Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is".  But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven?  I think that would have been pretty big news.
Holy shit, you can't even read a Wikipedia page without hand-holding? I'll give you a hint: examples of some anomalies and discrepancies within your favourite gravitational model are listed under the Anomalies and Discrepancies subheading of the Gravity page.

And yes, the uncertainties of science are something that was taught in high school back in my day. Perhaps they dropped it around the same time as reading comprehension?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 02:49:34 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2019, 06:24:39 PM »
Quote
That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.

Its the exact same argument I started with. Look up farther in the thread
Quote
Competing theories don't need to be disproved, but contradictory ones do.  If theory A proposes an outcome that makes theory B impossible, only one of them can be true.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

Teaching about the uncertainties of science is a long way from teaching they suggest gravity doesn't exist.