NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
What observational facts are incorrect, and why are they incorrect?
World upside down
- Thread starter sir.clip
- Start date
What observational facts are incorrect, and why are they incorrect?
You'd love that sun is solid chap. Can't remember his name though. No sorry solid metallic earth makes sense right now. Maybe wrong though
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
OK, so what observations lead you to this model of yours? For example, people who have been into Earth orbit report that the ground is visible on the outward-facing surface of a sphere. The trajectories of the spacecraft they travel in are calculated assuming that the Earth is convex, not concave. Show us how exactly all those astronauts and mathematicians have got the wrong end of the stick entirely.
You're saying that every one, from Eratosthenes to Galileo to Newton to Einstein, and even including the flat Earth believers, that every single one of those people are utterly wrong.
These observations are going to have to be some awesome and ground-breaking stuff. But to be honest I won't be holding my breath.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yep. Because nobody could go and research back to first principles everything which they need to know. But we can have faith that, if we chose to, we could trace the development of an idea we're relying on back to its first principles. The whole edifice of science is built on exactly that, and by choosing credible sources, cross-checking facts, and making a determination how much evidence we need for our purposes, we can function quite satisfactorily in the knowledge that our faith in the scientific system is well-founded.
The same cannot be said for faith, for example, that Jesus died for our sins. That is just faith, no certainty.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Without the correction for relativity, it would go out by about 10km per day.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
That's not an observational fact. It's a picture that you drew of your delusion.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
And I'm being generous in calling it a model.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
This isn't really about your 6 year old's revelations, is it?
No not any more.
Ok I'll give up on it.
Sorry all science people for questioning your beliefs. I will never do it again.
Sir.clip
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Nice loaded (and utterly irrelevant) non-apology there...No not any more.
Ok I'll give up on it.
Sorry all science people for questioning your beliefs. I will never do it again.
Sir.clip
Be happy.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
No not any more.
Ok I'll give up on it.
Sorry all science people for questioning your beliefs. I will never do it again.
Sir.clip
Questioning beliefs is not the problem here. The problem is that you have no evidence to support your claims. You don't need to apologize, you just need to provide evidence.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
If you're going to read up on theories on concentric spheres and polar voids, might it not also be a good idea to familiarise yourself with some of the more conventional theories around planet formation, gravity, spacetime, etc? After all, those are the arguments you're going to keep coming up against if you decide to pursue the "hollow earth" ideas...
I am trying to acknowledge and understand these theories.
My excuse is :
I left school at 16 and went straight into laboring, then carpentry, then onto cabinet making and now furniture design.
I never had an interest in space science or why the planet, sun, moon, universe exists, what is gravity etc.
I really just took it all as a given, all worked out by people a long time ago with a better understanding of these things than myself.
I am practical minded, i can understand most things if they are explained clearly, but i find it difficult to understand the mathematical equation in almost all science.
Now i have children, i am beginning to have an interest in Science.
Mainly, because the kids are questioning me on subjects i have no experience with.
I value their interpretation of things, as their mind is really a blank canvas.
I could tell them Newton's gravitational law, Einsteins theory of relativity, etc, but without fully understanding it i feel ill equipped to do so. i could by a book and read it to them, but i still do not fully understand it myself.
If i try to understand the equations, i begin to question the method in how the scientist reached it. Then i snowball into a hundred thousand paths of theory with no real consolidated answers to give a child.
I started this thread asking if there was any info on "if the world was inside out."
Answer is, No not really.
Most people today follow the general idea that gravity equals all things with Mass are drawn to one another, space is expanding and the center of the earth is made of really hot stuff mainly Iron.
All this is backed up with mathematical evidence.
I just heard Sir Brian Cox on the Shaun Keaveney breakfast show confirming my thoughts "there are no truths in science".
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
You don't need an excuse. Nobody is suggesting that you should know this stuff.
What I'm suggesting is that, if you're going to get into exploring these ideas, then a decent grounding in basic science would be a very good basis on which to build. I might add, to the suggestions I've already made, some exploration of the philosophy that lies behind scientific thinking. Karl Popper is a good place to start - Google him.
And it's not about the mathematics - most people are happy to accept the maths in peer-reviewed papers on trust, and work with the conclusions reached thereby. My mathematics (A-level) is woefully short of enabling me to understand tensor calculus and the group theory based stuff that crops up in relativity theory, but I'm prepared to accept that Stephen Hawking (and those who review his papers) have a) got it right, and b) aren't pulling a fast one.
But you'd understand it enough to tell them, and my guess is that, just in explaining it to them, you may have greater insights of your own.
There are no "real consolidated answers", really. There are dominant theories (eg relativity), which have been proven to some degree by experimental observation (back to Popper), and there are theories (eg string, supersymmetry) which hold together on paper, but are rather more difficult to verify. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but they are more likely to be right than, say, a theory based on "wouldn't it be interesting if...?" with no maths, hypotheses, or prior theories on which it was based.
I started this thread asking if there was any info on "if the world was inside out."
Answer is, No not really.
Philosophy of science again. I've heard Brian Cox speaking on "truth" before, and what he's almost certainly referring to is "truth" in the sense of some accepted version of events. When he says "there are no truths in science", what he's saying is that there is nothing that can be considered self-evidently true without it being necessary to demonstrate and prove that truth through experiment.I just heard Sir Brian Cox on the Shaun Keaveney breakfast show confirming my thoughts "there are no truths in science".
As an example, and at the risk of confusing the issue even further, there are some interesting lines of mathematical research into why 1+1=2 - something most of us would consider to be a self-evident truth, but which, to pure scientists, simply cannot be accepted without evidence (in this case, a mathematical proof) that it holds true for all cases.
Don't be discouraged. Newton said "I can see far only because I stand on the shoulders of giants" - OK, it was a pop at his notoriously short rival Hooke, but the point stands: no scientist can claim to have constructed a theory from first principles all the way through to the end. Each one builds on the work done by others, and relies on the scientific method to assure that that prior work is coherent and valid, without necessarily having to go back and prove it from first principles. And all science is liable to revision. Newton's laws of motion, for example, turn out not to be entirely true: not that they're false, but they represent only the special case where objects are moving at extremely slow speeds in relation to the speed of light - it took 300 years and Einstein to refine those ideas and show how they change when you're talking about objects moving at appreciable fractions of lightspeed.
Thanks existentialist.
makes me feel less of a clueless imbecile.
As for 1+1=2
I question this everyday.
I see it as a numeric value added by us humans to objects to simplify there existence.
This is why i value the child's view. Children Know not of 1s & 2s they see objects as individuals and collectives. Its much better way of viewing things.
makes me feel less of a clueless imbecile.
As for 1+1=2
I question this everyday.
I see it as a numeric value added by us humans to objects to simplify there existence.
This is why i value the child's view. Children Know not of 1s & 2s they see objects as individuals and collectives. Its much better way of viewing things.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
One of the brilliant things about kids is that they don't yet have the embedded knowledge we take for granted as adults. So yes, a child's notion of number is refreshingly naive, and free from the constraints that our "knowledge" that, say, 1+1 always equals 2, puts us under.
But we have to balance that freedom against the power that having a counting system embedded in our thinking gives us - without it, certainly, we have the ability to conceptualise and hypothesise ideas that would, on the face of it, seem ludicrous to adult minds; but without it we have no mathematics, and therefore no science. Children have to learn cause and effect, and with that comes the tyranny of "no action without consequences", but also the freedom to be able to predict how something we do affects the world around us...or how something anything does affects the world around it. We need numbers, and we need causality, and all the things that are built on them, but they do come at a price - the loss of that naivete.
That said, Einstein has ascribed much of his greatest insight into being able to think about things in a "childlike" way - he describes how he began to understand the concept of relativity by trying to imagine (as a child might) what it would be like to ride a beam of light. So it's important that we don't completely discard that naivete, but simply recognise that it has its place within the more concrete areas of knowledge we acquire as we grow and develop.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I fear you may have missed my point
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
No disrespect to the Clan as a whole but GZA is a straight up loon. All of it, black hebrew israelite flat earther.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I looked up the lyrics and had a quick look because I'm terrible at being to hear them properly when actually listening to music.
Unless I'm missing something, it reads like a poetic description of the Big Bang? There's a bunch of nitpicky things I could say about the lyrics, but given that this is a rap song and not a doctoral thesis, I'm willing to grant considerable leeway on the artistic license front.
Unless I'm missing something, it reads like a poetic description of the Big Bang? There's a bunch of nitpicky things I could say about the lyrics, but given that this is a rap song and not a doctoral thesis, I'm willing to grant considerable leeway on the artistic license front.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been replying entirely in earnest.
But... it's obviously stupid.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
To you, granted. To me as well.
But remember that there are still people who genuinely seem to believe that the Earth is flat.
Similar threads
