*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #20 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #21 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"?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 06:44:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8789
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #22 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.

*

Offline Mora

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #23 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.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #24 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.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #25 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."
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 12:56:07 PM by JocelynSachs »

devils advocate

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #26 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #27 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.

Gravity predicted that the universe should be decelerating due  to the the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe, yet it is accelerating.

Gravity predicted that the planet Neptune should have been far larger and in a far different place than where it was discovered.

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?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 06:16:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #28 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 06:25:31 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #30 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #31 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.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 07:15:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #32 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.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #33 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.

Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #34 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #35 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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 01:01:43 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #36 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #37 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.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #38 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".

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« Reply #39 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.