Post by Pincho Paxton on Nov 30, 2016 6:35:07 GMT
It is interesting to read the ideas of other people on scientific subjects... take nothing for granted. So I tend to read ideas, and then I compare them to observation, and then I compare observation to virtual observation.
1/ Ideas have their own physics.
2/ Compare ideas to observation.
3/ Compare ideas to Virtual Observation.
For example:
Flat Earth Theory
A flat Earth would require quite a lot of changes in physics, you don't necessarily have to rule out all of those changes right away.
Observation says that the Earth is made from materials which fall in the Y axis, and if they are moving forwards those material arc in an increasing Y axis.
For me, an increasing Y axis is a sphere, so if the Earth had edges you need to let parts fall off it... where do they go?
Gravity suggests that anything falling off the Earth has to move towards the heaviest object in its vicinity... which is the Earth again. If an object falls off the Earth, towards the Earth with an arc you get a sphere or at least a ring spun around the Earth.
So according to those physics a flat Earth would soon turn into a spherical Earth.
Then you get more observations. A plane doesn't dip its nose towards the Earth, a gyroscope spins flat to the Earth.
The gyroscope is easy to eliminate, because a gyroscope would spin flat to the moon as well. It is just that the y axis is rotating around the moon.
The plane also uses air which is slightly different. It is rotating with the Y axis plus dipping into air. A paper airplane on the moon would do something different, just travel in an arc towards the moon without readjusting the nose direction, so that the nose has no real meaning, and the wings have no meaning.
So the paper airplane on the moon is the virtual observation, and that is the hardest thing to do.
Your level of comparative thinking is most tested when you imagine a paper airplane on the moon.
Flat Earth theory seems to show a low level of comparative thinking.
Pincho Paxton probably has the highest level of comparative thinking ever developed by anyone.
What Is Your Level Of Comparative Thinking?
Pincho Paxton
1/ Ideas have their own physics.
2/ Compare ideas to observation.
3/ Compare ideas to Virtual Observation.
For example:
Flat Earth Theory
A flat Earth would require quite a lot of changes in physics, you don't necessarily have to rule out all of those changes right away.
Observation says that the Earth is made from materials which fall in the Y axis, and if they are moving forwards those material arc in an increasing Y axis.
For me, an increasing Y axis is a sphere, so if the Earth had edges you need to let parts fall off it... where do they go?
Gravity suggests that anything falling off the Earth has to move towards the heaviest object in its vicinity... which is the Earth again. If an object falls off the Earth, towards the Earth with an arc you get a sphere or at least a ring spun around the Earth.
So according to those physics a flat Earth would soon turn into a spherical Earth.
Then you get more observations. A plane doesn't dip its nose towards the Earth, a gyroscope spins flat to the Earth.
The gyroscope is easy to eliminate, because a gyroscope would spin flat to the moon as well. It is just that the y axis is rotating around the moon.
The plane also uses air which is slightly different. It is rotating with the Y axis plus dipping into air. A paper airplane on the moon would do something different, just travel in an arc towards the moon without readjusting the nose direction, so that the nose has no real meaning, and the wings have no meaning.
So the paper airplane on the moon is the virtual observation, and that is the hardest thing to do.
Your level of comparative thinking is most tested when you imagine a paper airplane on the moon.
Flat Earth theory seems to show a low level of comparative thinking.
Pincho Paxton probably has the highest level of comparative thinking ever developed by anyone.
What Is Your Level Of Comparative Thinking?
Pincho Paxton