My take is, if you believe the standard model of physics is correct, then
proceeding from first principles - a liquid will assume the shape of its container, and in a vacuum that shape is a
sphere. The math on the standard model is a very good 4d representation of reality - it provides ways to describe phenomena, (and more importantly) ways to
predict phenomena.
That said, they are all but approximations, just as Newton's motion equations were simplified versions of Einstein's General Relativity, GR is an approximation as well. How do we know GR is
reasonably correct? The measurement of the perihelion procession of Mercury is a very good example - that basically tells you that if the Michaelson-Morely experiment was run pretty close to something as massive as the sun, it would have been able to measure that frame dragging effect, same as Mercury's orbit is
just a bit quicker than it "should" be.
GR is consistent enough to go there, but not where it breaks in black holes, where a richer enhancement like string theory is needed. Just like newton's equations were enough to shoot a bb from a spring loaded pin back in high school and if you hit the paper over there on the floor by your equations, you passed that lab...once we get to larger size and massenergy scales, yes, the limitations of the Standard Model are right there for all to see.
That's why its important to understand that even the standard model is an approximation.
Keypoint is its shown by experiment to be correct within a certain margin. And that margin is pretty much most places outside the interiors of black holes. So the math, and models thereof, have to be able to make
reasonably correct predictions, otherwise...lets be honest *OtterWink* we all know what can be said of models that so loosely translate to reality and have
had liberties taken *cough*agw*cough*
A flat surface just simply not a natural object - nature has a way of liking curved things, and flat only occurs if the curve is *that* large. I've seen nothing that would explain
how such a structure would form, how it would
contain a magnetosphere to keep the solar wind from blowing the atmosphere away, like what happened on Mars.
Errors in calculating atmospheric optics dont count imho, because heat & humidity, wind, can all distort a measurement - have these measurements been painstakingly carried out to eliminate every last possible measurement error, every last discrepancy explained? I dont think anyone has
seriously ever attempted this, so in my book this assertion is not quite "supported by experiment" as claimed.
Nothing from first principles of formation and such is a big one for me as well. So unless one believes that aliens are in the business of stamping out some weird shit for their experiments to live on...more evidence that there is no missing link because it was artificial, than there is evidence for this weird mythical flat object to exist that goes against all kinds of well established physics...its almost as bad as believing in the 911 commission report.
That said, I think
the only *dangerous speech* is the notion of not being able to have the conversation at all. So when Eddie asked Joe "have you looked in to it," it is only due diligence to go and find the strongest points of the opposing argument and understand them. The rules of the game should be
www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com and by that - the appeal to incredulity argument would be as quickly rejected as Joe & Jamie's rejection.
The best lies are always a mix of truth and lies, and the process of trying to figure out what's lies and what's truth - logic and math arent bad guides to have. The way math is taught is horrid, a dozen years of rote calculation, not too many
arent turned off by that. Best way to get kids engaged is as young as possible, and keep it fun - the look on my 6 yr old niece's face showing her a vid of the Mandelbrot Set - priceless.
/\
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Miguel Kangaroo
