It doesn't have to be
I know You seem to have taken this to mean that I am trying to prove that the earth is flat.
No. I'm saying you're stating a false hypothesis, which has been positively falsified on several occasions, independently of one another
No it hasnt been proved to be a false Hypothesis, it has been shown to not be as simple a solution to explain the observable evidenceNo. I'm saying you're stating a false hypothesis, which has been positively falsified on several occasions, independently of one another
science can most definitely and irrefutably prove that the Earth isn't flat
No. What science can say, is that if other hypothesis are correct, then we can most definatly show the world isnt flat. My statment that if the metric isnt constant, (Something we would be unable to prove of dissprove), and that our messure of "straight" (The uneffected beam of light:- Again something we cannot prove of dissprove), is incorrect, then it cannot be proven that the earth isnt flat. The proffs of a globe earth all depend on the physic being the way we think it is.
Im not suddgesting the the physic we have chossen is incorrect or correct, because as you stated since the 16hundreds its not there to be correctr, but rather its there to be consistant within itself. And as long as it is, we dont mess with it. But unfortuanatly its based apon things that are untestable to us.
I countered the statment that the World is a globe, with the staement "You can only prove that it is a globe, if light, (normaly) travels in straight lines, and the metric stays the same".
Its perfectly possible to remodel the entire universe model, and have all observational evidence expalinable, just everything would have to include a metric transformation. The point is, why bother? If its simpler use the Globe model cos it would give the same resutls.
Its not, its based on self supporting Hypothesis
A self-supporting hypothesis is not science either.
Well I think we are not useing the terms equaly, cos thisA self-supporting hypothesis is not science either.
In order for a hypothesis to be considered science, it must at the very least, be potentially falsifiable, and supported by empirical observations and experiments.
I would concider that to be part of self supporting, but I take your correction of my definition on board, Concider my earlyer post to contain it For the better part of 2000 years (from Aristotle to Newton) it was believed that an object weighing ten times as much as another object, would fall to the ground ten times as fast when dropped. Why?
Because sometimes it would. And I agree but in this instance all experimental evedence would give the same result, because Im suddjesting that the underlying Physic cannot be proven It's like the flat earth society. That's how dumb not believeing in evolution is. It;s like thinking the earth is flat.
This is what I am replying to. I was pointing out to Damp, that although he belives that the earth is a globe, it cannot be proven to be so, IF I REFUSE to accept Damps underlying belief in the modern physic[@ Flame, Theoreticaly, if you actualy come to try and model the universe based on a flat plane earth you hit a congruense point, that of the oposite pole of the globe that you started from, This point (And infact all points above and below it), needs to be represented by a circle of infinate diameter. It would therefore be impossible to actualy "be" at this point. Fortunatly, (if you really wanted to use the model, this point is infanatly small, and arbitary in possition, so generaly you just say its "Not Here". ]