Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Sorry Beanz, I didn't even read your post, I've told and shown you what water does in this reality. If you are disputing the natural physics of water, then it's on you to prove it. And for me to believe something to be true, I need to see it, be able to repeat it etc.
I know you can't scale it (doesn't that ring some alarm bells in your common sense?), but you will continue to believe water can conform to the exterior of a shape, even tho you can't demonstrate this claim to yourself. It's something you can't observe for yourself, so it's basically blind faith.
Enjoy your spinning ball.
This is you admitting defeat. You expect Tito to watch a two hour video and yet you fail to address any of the points I made that deconstruct the fallacy you have created. You have not even made an argument. You refused to start a thread, refused to define terms, ignored any accepted definition of empirical science after insisting on it, and then cited the example of the horizon which actually destroys your assertions.
Get a telescope and watch a ship disappear over the horizon. Not just fade out and become miniscule. Watch it sink like somebody descending over a hill. It is telling that you wish your world to be limited by the literal horizontal line at the furthest point your eyes can resolve. Stand on the shoulders of even 3rd century Greek astronomers and just like climbing a hill or watchtower because we are on a globe you will see further.
Still waiting on your empirical proof (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic on your ball earth.
Can I ask what your definition of the horizon is? The problem is there are different meanings of what the horizon is. I think there's about 10 different meanings. Is it the line that divides the sky and the earth, is it the geometrical horizon, the astronomical horizon, the true horizon, and each one of the them has a different assumption. Right, the true horizon is based on the spherical earth, the geometric horizon assumes a flat plain, the astronomical one assumes that the fundamental plain is through the center of the eye (personally that's how I define it).
Now think for moment, if you see a ship disappear over the horizon, then fix that point. As you rise up, it would be impossible for the horizon to rise with you. Geometry dictates this. That point should continue to drop.
The claim that water can conform to the exterior of a shape like it does on a spinning globe, doesn't stand up to the scientific method. You can't observe it, you can provide a demonstrable experiment for me to repeat and confirm.
The steps of the scientific method go something like this:
Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."
