The mainstream science is brain dead

Author Message
Extra Sense

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 12:41 PM 

Here are links to the papers about Mars Life and Civilization:

The mainstream scuence is brain dead, like the mainstream media.


Theory Underdetermination

Posts: no

Reply: 1

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 1:28 PM 

Nice work, ES! I especially like “The Fantastic Statues of Mars,” in which you pose the musical question, “Is Gusev Crater an abandoned Martian theme park?”

You’re doing good science now. Oh, I know, folks will scoff. But ask yourself this: one of the supposed “proofs” that the earth is a sphere (to be more precise, an oblate spheroid) is this: That as a ship sails toward the horizon, the bottom of it gradually disappears from sight, until only the mast remains. Then the mast vanishes last of all. If the earth were flat, we would expect to see the entire ship getting smaller and smaller as it receded on the horizon, until it disappeared entirely and all at once. Ergo, we conclude the earth is round.

But this reasoning is brain dead. What is not commonly realized is that inferring a round earth from the way a ship gradually sinks out of sight on the horizon depends on a crucial auxiliary hypothesis: that light always travels in a straight line. But, in fact, light doesn’t always travel in a straight line, but rather in geodesics like everything else; and, what’s more, we can postulate that as objects get further away, light sags; and, if it does, then this sagging would be entirely consistent with the following observations: (1) A ship appears to sink slowly out of sight, with its bottom disappearing first, as it travels away from shore; and (2) the earth is flat. There is no contradiction between (1) and (2), because sagging light explains why the ship only appears to sink out of sight, as if the world were round.

Reasoning from our new auxiliary premise – that light sags – we have inductive warrant to conclude that the earth is flat.

I’d also like to congratulate you on stimulating a thread that, about halfway through, evolved into one of the funniest threads I have ever read. It may be found at the following link:

Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 2

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 2:21 PM 

It seems to me that some brains are flat too

e Cool s

Martin Gradwell

Posts: 323

Reply: 3

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 2:34 PM 

Mr. Underdetermination:

You must surely know that a round world can be mapped smoothly and continuously onto a flat one in which light sags. The connectivity and causality are the same in both models, so that an embedded observer cannot objectively determine which model is applicable. The two models are entirely equivalent, therefore, as far as the embedded observer is concerned, and can be used interchangeably. It would be as wrong to insist on the incorrectness of one or other model as it would be to say "This glass is NOT half empty! It's half full!" (this latter statement being demonstrably wrong because I've just emptied the glass).

My impression is that this forum is supposed to be for the discussion of non-mainstream ideas. Do you have any ideas which are non-mainstream?

Theory Underdetermination

Posts: no

Reply: 4

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 2:42 PM 

You are completely right, Martin, in your analysis of the situation, which leads us next to conclude that flat earth/round earth models are underdetermined by the evidence. Since they are, one can't know the earth is round.

This points us toward radical philosophical skepticism, which I think is one of the most non-mainstream ideas that one can entertain.


Posts: no

Reply: 5

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 3:32 PM 

I love that blue flower link. Hilarious!

Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 6

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 3:48 PM 

can you believe they did not want publish such a beauty


Martin Gradwell

Posts: 323

Reply: 7

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 4:41 PM 

Theory, my understanding is that radical philosophical skepticism is the belief that we cannot know anything. That is not quite the same as a belief that we cannot validly distinguish between equivalent models. The notion that different models can have an equal validity is relativism, not scepticism. Relativism only becomes radical philosophical scepticism if it is asserted that *all* conceivable models are equivalent, so that all statements have equal validity.

Now, do you know of any concept in science which is more mainstream than relativism?

Of course the scientific establishment don't understand the consequences of relativism. They praise Galileo for his notion that the Earth orbits the Sun, and they praise Einstein for producing a theory which surpasses that of Newton and Copernicus. They ridicule anybody who sticks to the Ptolemaic notion that the universe revolves around the Earth; as if Einstein didn't prove that Ptolemy is right. Or Copernicus is right (except where he insists that Ptolemy is wrong). Take your pick. The Earth orbits the sun, or the universe revolves around the Earth, or around Mars (gotta bring it in somewhere), or around any other object or identifiable point you care to think of.
All these seemingly different models are equivalent. And of course, the Earth is round or it is flat. Take your pick. In Special Relativity Einstein imagined a universe of rigid measuring rods and straight lines, but in the General Relativity which superseded it the universe became an infinitely malleable "mollusc" in which all coordinate systems which can be mapped onto one another by a continuous transformation can be regarded as having equal validity, and observers don't have to be stationary or moving in straight lines, and the very notions of a straight line or a stationary observer have no clear meaning.

But, just because the mainstream doesn't understand its own ideas, that doesn't make those ideas non-mainstream.

If you actually want to discuss this, don't you think it would make sense to start a new thread instead of hijacking one? That way, we don't interrupt the discussion of Martian flowers, hooks and theme parks, and it doesn't interrupt us.

Theory Underdetermination

Posts: no

Reply: 8

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 4:51 PM 

If you seriously want to discuss this, Martin, maybe we should do it at a different message board, as it goes far afield from Mars.

I do love the abandoned Martian theme park. ES, did the butt heads turn down that paper, too? Evil or Very Mad

Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 9

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 5:51 PM 


Sure they did. What is funny, that when I have offered it to the Amature Astronomy, they said they do not publish pure speculations. So it does not cut even with amatures.
The "science" is in process of self destruction.

e Razz s

Theory Underdetermination

Posts: no

Reply: 10

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 6:22 PM 

They're data weasels! Mad

Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 11

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 6:44 PM 

Rather skunks, there.



Posts: 200

Reply: 12

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 8:27 PM 

Light doesn't curve much due to relativity at the surface of the earth. That "ship over horizon" was one of the first inklings that the earth was spherical rather than flat. The Greeks then moved on to measure the diameter of the earth, using measurements of the sun's angle in the sky on one particular day in Alexandria and somewhere further north. They got it very close.

Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 13

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 9:45 PM 

dont mind, the guy is just trying to be funny that's all

e Cool s

Theory Underdetermination

Posts: no

Reply: 14

PostPosted: June 3, 2005 11:13 PM 

Hynee, dont mind, the guy is just trying to be funny that's all

Not at all.

Please read the linked paper, Background Theories and Total Science

From the above-linked paper:

The idea is simple enough. If the sea were flat, then an observer who could
see a ship clearly should be able to see both the hull and the mast, as in figure
1a. Contrariwise, since the sea is curved, an observer may see the mast even at
a distance at which the hull is not visible, as in figure 1b. The latter of these is
observed, and the observation decides between these two depictions. The catch
is this: The test implicitly assumes that light travels in a straight line— but of
course the rectilinear propagation of light is independent of TF and TR.
Without the implicit assumption, the observation may not favor TR. Suppose
TF is true— the Earth is flat— but that light sags slightly between the
object and the observer, curving down toward the surface of the Earth. At a
distance, the light from the hull of the ship may sag down into the water while
the light from the mast reaches the observer. Thus, the observer sees the mast
even as the hull has passed from view. This situation, depicted in figure 2,
would yield the relevant observation.2

Call the assumption that light travels in a straight line TL, and call the
observation of the mast of the ship when the hull is out of sight O. Although O
is offered as evidence of TR over against TF , the best it can do is show that if
light travels in a straight line then the Earth is round. One may conclude that
this conditional is true, but not that TR is true or that TL is false.
Cases like this are used to underwrite what is sometimes called the Duhem-
Quine (or DQ) Thesis: Theories are not tested in isolation.3 As Quine puts
it, theories “face the tribunal of sense experience not individually but as a
corporate body”


Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 15

PostPosted: June 4, 2005 1:56 AM 

Heh, I think you are pretty mainstream kook. Anyway, on Mars, there are no seas with ships whatsoever.
I ban you from this forum

e Wink s

Extra Sense

Posts: 1471

Reply: 16

PostPosted: June 10, 2005 5:58 AM 

Link to the description of science perversion

e Razz s


Posts: 991

Reply: 17

PostPosted: June 10, 2005 1:44 PM 

Link to thread showing that Extra Sense would rather make up facts, than deal with real ones:


Join the conversation:

Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys