I mean, I could go into the Kolmogorov complexity of the two hypotheses for a more rigorous explanation of why the one is more likely than the other, but that's a lot more effort than the task of justifying an assertion like "a flat Earth is less likely than experimental error". Obvious things are obvious.
"Flat-Earther talking points" is a very niche subject, it's not weird to have to look that stuff up, it's more embarrassing for your side that the responses to the standard talking points are compiled that way.
You sound real proud of that diss considering it amounts to mocking me for having the scientific consensus on my side.
do you even have a high school education? because now you are just throwing words out there again. kolmogorov does not apply in anyway, shape or form.
and yet you continuously use words that don't apply. it is embarrassing.
i think you are acting from a script.
look at how you talk... bringing up shit that doesn't apply, then not being able to defend it. you are just hoping to befuddle me.
that is mainstream science... or a paid schill. same thing.
It's just about Occam's Razor. Kolmogorov complexity is a rigorous way of defining the complexity of a thing, as opposed to colloquial understandings of complexity where "the woman down the street is a witch, she did it" sounds like a very simple explanation for any "it". Didn't really need to name it here, I suppose, since it's not needed to recognise which is more Occamian between "experimenter error" and "massive global conspiracy".
It's kinda funny how you're insulting me with an accusation that I'm uneducated, and then immediately also insulting me by saying I sound like mainstream science. Like, are science educators good or bad?
Although if you do think you know physics enough to posture about it, how do you think gravity works on a flat Earth? Because the usual line I hear is about "density" which is silly.
proving which is more likely is useless here. kolmogorov is used to find the best equation, not find the truth.
as for occam... heliocentric people require nasa/government for proof.
flat earther just needs to walk outside.
science is observation/theory. not truth. it is treated as truth right now, which is the problem. it is treated as gospel.. it has become a religion.
talking to schills, i've noticed they seem to think calling things silly, or obviously stupid then makes it true.
yet here is one of the 'leaders of science' defining gravity... and can't do it. not without bringing up space/time blah blah, bullshit that can't be tested.
so if you can't explain it to me, you can't test it, why do you keep pretending it is a thing that makes sense? what we have is observations that are useful for prediction, not a definition of what it is.
dont waste your time with the globehead trolls, they argue in circles. There are videos of gyroscope experiments online, not only that, they claim gyros are too cheap or no sensitive enough but have never shown or used one that can detect the drift . Focoults gyro from many years ago was crude and no where close to as mechanically sound as today gyros and he claimed to have measured the apparent drift. Its all nonsense and these guys havent done any research and it is evident in their shallow straw man arguments
agree completely. i am compiling a list of their arguments. i am interesting in the truth, these guys claim to have it. i wanted to press them to see what they had. and you are right, they had absolutely nothing.
i have left the discussion. i lost a ton of reputation arguing with them. but some kind soul went back and upvoted my comments.
just a note on this, they are professionals. most fall for they games. that is why i debate them, so others see that what they are saying is false, unproven, unscientific, and just bullshit.
thanks for caring, appreciate you.
Huh, I thought I was pressing you guys to see what you had and finding absolutely nothing.
Please be trolling.
unfortunately , the only troll here is you . gyros do not drift, the earth does not spin.
Ah, so you are missing a rigorous definition of probability, and invoking Kolmogorov complexity was justified after all.
Reasonable criticisms, like pointing out a study has poor methodology or correcting a poor statistical model, is accepted by science with open arms.
Insane conspiracy theory "criticism", like alleging that a study is a complete fabrication and the entirety of academia is playing along to help the illuminati lizard people control the public's mind, is treated like an insane conspiracy theory.
>calling le black science man a "leader of science"
Our observation useful for prediction is the fact that F=Gm1m2/r^2. Flat-Earthism disposes of even that. It's one of the four fundamental forces of nature, you can't just take it out of the picture by equating "not adequately explained to the standards of someone who thinks theoretical physics just means bullshit that can't be tested" to "total unknown".
i spent years in academia. what i know about them is they are book smart, many are world stupid. they live inside the worlds created by the facts their got their phd's in. they have trouble seeing it any other way now, they are literally brainwashed into a way of thinking.
so there aren't that many people 'in the know' .. most are convinced what they are doing is right... 99% of the population is doing what they think is right. that is why i think i can make a difference, that is why i have hope, that is why i see this world waking up into a new age of peace and prosperity.
i dispose of nothing that is useful. i take from hitler if it was useful to my mission of getting closer to God.
it matters not where information comes from in my world, only that i can find it useful, in one way or another.
i really give no shits if the world is a globe or a flat.. makes no difference to me, but what does make a difference is the 54 million going to nasa every day. what does make a difference to me is the endless wars.
so please stop saying what schills would say about flat earthers. besides that, flat earthers are each individuals. some i agree with up to a point, then they get all crazy biblical (in my eyes). so you make up your own mind, expect others to do the same, but rational discussion can help you see more clearly. blind acceptance, authoritarian rule, mockery for even holding an idea... i have no place for that.
peace brother
namaste
In another context, I'd 100% agree with that; the replication crisis in psyochology, for example, is an embarrassment, and especially the backlash from some of the scientists who acted like being told their study failed to replicate was an attack on them. But, again, reasonable criticisms and conspiracy theories are different beasts.
Again, in another context...
1% of the population is still 70,000,000 people. And it would have to be in the millions, between all the individuals and groups worldwide who would know for sure what shape the Earth actually is. A conspiracy of that size keeping itself and its actions secret is highly implausible.
The NASA budget is 0.5% of the federal budget, it's tiny. I could totally believe a conspiracy theory where that much was being stolen if it was in the form of "a couple dozen washington suits that spend all day embezzling federal money and snorting cocaine". But NASA being fake has too many moving parts, different kind of thing.
Most wars throughout history have been fought by people who thought the Earth was round, true, but I don't think that's related to the causes of conflict.