*

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 #20 on: August 20, 2019, 06:31:15 PM »
Its the exact same argument I started with. Look up farther in the thread
I already explained how the two arguments are different. I'm sorry, but "nuh uh" is not a helpful answer here.

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

Do you not know what Wikipedia is?

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

What position on gravity have I expressed? I have not expressed a position or made any claims whatsoever.  All I asked is that you defend yours, but so far you have been unable.
None of the Anomalies on the Wikipedia page even come close to disproving gravity.  None of them are inconsistent with gravity existing.  At best, they suggest we have more to learn about it.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2019, 12:28:58 PM »
I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think UA is a better match for observations than gravity? If so, can you elaborate?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

newhorizons

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2019, 03:19:58 PM »
Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

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

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

*

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 #24 on: August 21, 2019, 03:28:18 PM »
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not.
Unfortunately, OP's current position relies strongly on arguing with that. This is why it needs amending.
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 #25 on: August 21, 2019, 04:16:57 PM »
Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

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

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

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

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

There is a big difference between RE gravity could be something else RE gravity doesn't exist.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2019, 05:43:45 PM »
I believe the OP was essentially asking if FE adherents find fault with the conventional description of gravity, or if FE adherents disbelieve in a globe and so must therefore disbelieve in the conventional description of gravity.

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

I think we can all agree on that, correct?

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2019, 06:47:00 PM »
I believe the OP was essentially asking if FE adherents find fault with the conventional description of gravity, or if FE adherents disbelieve in a globe and so must therefore disbelieve in the conventional description of gravity.

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

I think we can all agree on that, correct?

I appreciate you stepping in to clarify, but what I was asking was much more simple than that. Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true? which is really just another way of asking is there any evidence that UA is true, since if one is true, the other is untrue, by default. That is all I asked A simple yes, and here is the evidence, or no, there isn't any evidence is all that was needed. Instead, what I get in response is deflection, dissembling, false assumptions, logical fallacies and insults.  Which I guess, is kind of answer of its own.   
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 07:56:05 PM by pricelesspearl »

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2019, 03:36:37 PM »
I appreciate you stepping in to clarify, but what I was asking was much more simple than that. Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true? which is really just another way of asking is there any evidence that UA is true, since if one is true, the other is untrue, by default. That is all I asked A simple yes, and here is the evidence, or no, there isn't any evidence is all that was needed. Instead, what I get in response is deflection, dissembling, false assumptions, logical fallacies and insults.  Which I guess, is kind of answer of its own.
I think Pete's point is why does FE (or anyone) have to disprove a theory to propose an alternative.
And he's right, they don't. BUT, I would suggest that in order to propose a new theory you surely have to have some evidence that there is something wrong with the prevailing one.
Why would you propose a new model if you have no evidence that there is anything wrong with the existing one?
The heliocentric model was suggested because Copernicus believed there were issues with the geocentric model and that the heliocentric one worked better.
Over time it became adopted because as accuracy of observations improved it became clear he was right.

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

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

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


« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 05:26:36 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 #30 on: August 22, 2019, 07:12:38 PM »
That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.
That would be a cute theory to cover up your logical fallacies, were it not for the simple fact that I already pointed you to an impartial resource on your gravitational model's flaws.
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 #31 on: August 22, 2019, 07:54:51 PM »
That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.
That would be a cute theory to cover up your logical fallacies, were it not for the simple fact that I already pointed you to an impartial resource on your gravitational model's flaws.
You did, and those do indicate that we have more to learn. But does UA fix any of those problems? And UA doesn’t account for the differences in gravity measures in different locations. If you accept that result then you would need a different mechanism to explain that, if the flat earth is accelerating upwards at a certain rate then g should be constant regardless of location which is not what is measured.

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

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

 
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 #32 on: August 22, 2019, 08:15:42 PM »
But does UA fix any of those problems?
That's irrelevant to the OP's question. Which, once again, is why I keep trying to get the OP to pursue something more productive.

And UA doesn’t account for the differences in gravity measures in different locations.
Not in a (figurative) vacuum, no. In other extremely thrilling news, gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue.
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 #33 on: August 22, 2019, 08:46:00 PM »
Quote
Not in a (figurative) vacuum, no. In other extremely thrilling news, gravity doesn't explain why the sky is blue.

When has Gravity been proposed to explain why sky is blue? Please provide references. Other wise your statement is just a lame attempt to move the goalpost, as is often the case with many flat earth arguments.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2019, 09:44:35 PM »
That whole line of "reasoning" was just a deflection to avoid answering the question, anyway.
That would be a cute theory to cover up your logical fallacies, were it not for the simple fact that I already pointed you to an impartial resource on your gravitational model's flaws.

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

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

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

Good luck with that because if any of them do that, I don’t think the references would be buried in a Wikipedia page. The discovery that Newton was wrong and that everything science has learned in the past 300 years is wrong would kind of be big news.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 09:49:20 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 #35 on: August 23, 2019, 09:22:22 AM »
When has Gravity been proposed to explain why sky is blue?
It hasn't. That's what makes it analogous to AATW's "issue".

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

In the meantime, I encourage you to address the logical flaws in your argument, which have been acknowledged by most in this thread by now.
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 #36 on: August 23, 2019, 12:38:16 PM »
Quote
In the meantime, I encourage you to address the logical flaws in your argument, which have been acknowledged by most in this thread by now.

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

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


« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 01:23:03 PM by pricelesspearl »

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2019, 04:17:46 PM »
Quote
In the meantime, I encourage you to address the logical flaws in your argument, which have been acknowledged by most in this thread by now.

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

I really don't know how to make it any more simple than that.  Feel free to point out any premise that is not true or any conclusion that does not logically follow.
Well, let's just say P2 for starters.

Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2019, 06:07:38 PM »
Quote
Well, let's just say P2 for starters.

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

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


*

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 #39 on: August 24, 2019, 08:43:40 AM »
C1) Therefore, when FET claims that FET gravity is true, FET is also claiming that RET gravity cannot be true.
C1 is the flaw, or rather two flaws, which you need to resolve, not restate.

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

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

This has been explained to you multiple times now. Rephrasing your claim will not resolve its failure.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 08:54:18 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*