#### pricelesspearl

• 144
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2019, 06:26:03 PM »
Quote
You also conflate something that "isn't true" with something that "cannot be true". Your flawed logic implies the former if we're being generous, but you're loudly demanding the latter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 06:31:04 PM by pricelesspearl »

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2019, 06:47:31 PM »
C1 is the flaw, or rather two flaws, which you need to resolve, not restate.
But C1 is a conclusion. You deny the conclusion, so you need to say whether the argument is not valid, or whether one or more of the premisses is false.

We can tidy up PPs argument as follows.

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

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

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

Strictly P1 is not necessary, but never mind.

P2 is true because of the Law of Non-Contradiction

Not quite. The claim 'The earth cannot be both flat and round' is not true because of PNC. The claim you are looking for is 'it is impossible that the earth is flat and that it is not flat'. 'Round' and 'not flat' are not logically equivalent. PNC is that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true. But I am nitpicking.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 06:52:33 PM by edby »

#### pricelesspearl

• 144
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2019, 09:12:50 PM »
Quote
Not quite. The claim 'The earth cannot be both flat and round' is not true because of PNC. The claim you are looking for is 'it is impossible that the earth is flat and that it is not flat'. 'Round' and 'not flat' are not logically equivalent. PNC is that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true. But I am nitpicking.

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

In any event, you are correct that Pete has failed to demonstrate why P2) is incorrect.  Unless he can do that, there is no basis to claim the conclusion is incorrect.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2019, 09:13:08 AM »
But C1 is a conclusion. You deny the conclusion, so you need to say whether the argument is not valid, or whether one or more of the premisses is false.
Indeed. Conveniently, I have done so. Can we get to the part where one of you fix your argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The remainder of your post is a self-aggrandising lecture on high-school-level logic. Please don't do that. You waste people's time, you make yourself look like a plonker, and you're technically in breach of rule 6.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2019, 09:20:09 AM »
C2 (does not follow from P3 and P4).
Quote
P3) The burden of proof is on the party making or implying the claim
P4) FET claims or implies that RET gravity cannot be true (See C1)
C2) Therefore, the burden of proof is on FET to demonstrate that RET gravity cannot be true.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2019, 09:25:34 AM »
How does C2 not follow from P3 and P4?
It's a needlessly bloated description of the argument from ignorance.

I will not waste any more of my time with your "tidied up" argument. It makes things worse, and does not address the claim I need resolved.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2019, 09:30:12 AM »
How does C2 not follow from P3 and P4?
It's a needlessly bloated description of the argument from ignorance.

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

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

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

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

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2019, 10:27:04 AM »
No that’s completely wrong, look up ‘argument from ignorance
If you have nothing to say, say nothing. You don't have to write something in response to everything you say, especially if you have zero content to offer.

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

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2019, 10:36:37 AM »
No that’s completely wrong, look up ‘argument from ignorance
If you have nothing to say, say nothing. You don't have to write something in response to everything you say, especially if you have zero content to offer.
I thought it might be helpful for you to understand the difference between argument from ignorance (which is a logical fallacy) and the burden of proof principle, which is a key component of scientific methodology. If you want me to spell it out, I can, but easier if you do your own homework.

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

I didn’t think that, I gave an argument for it. See my final paragraph, beginning ‘Does FE actually have to deny Newtonian gravitational attraction …’.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 10:38:11 AM by edby »

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2019, 10:51:40 AM »
Spelling it out further.

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

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

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

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2019, 11:54:22 AM »
It's mildly amusing that you'd ramble on about "doing your homework" on simple subjects in order to deflect from a position you should be defending, while simultaneously displaying a complete lack of understanding of what FET proposes.

Might it be time to practice what you preach?

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2019, 12:26:13 PM »
Quote
According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA). Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2019, 12:29:13 PM »
Okay - what of it?

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### pricelesspearl

• 144
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2019, 02:50:31 PM »
Quote
Neither of these statements follow your strict logical standards. It's perfectly possible that one of the gravitational models is correct, and that we're both wrong about the shape.

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

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

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2019, 03:04:26 PM »
Wiki:
Quote
According to Flat Earth Theory, gravity is not the main force keeping us on the ground. Instead, there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA). Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Okay - what of it?

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

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2019, 04:11:27 PM »
If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2.
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?

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

You'll have to excuse me if I point out that that's the most transparent lie in history.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2019, 04:16:58 PM »
If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2.
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?

It's mathematics.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2019, 04:25:10 PM »
It's mathematics.
If you're unwilling to explain your thinking or be helped, could you please stop spamming this thread?

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2019, 04:28:32 PM »
It's mathematics.
If you're unwilling to explain your thinking or be helped, could you please stop spamming this thread?

I don't know how much mathematics you understand. If you don't understand, there would be no point explaining. Start with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10410
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2019, 04:32:02 PM »
I don't know how much mathematics you understand. If you don't understand, there would be no point explaining.
A few things for your consideration:
• Personal attacks do not advance your argument. Indeed, they make you look like the kind of person who needs to resort to personal attacks to self-validate.
• You're posting on an open online forum. My personal competence should be the least of your concern. You are presenting your argument to everyone.