« first day    last day (16 days later) » 

Sklivvz
Sklivvz
09:03
@MichaelK I don't think you understand what we mean by theoretical. Gravity is a theory and it's perfectly adequate to use this here. Creating your own theoretical model is not allowed.
Look up "Feynman's sprinkler". Some of the best minds in physics have been challenged to find a theoretical solution and a lot of them just got the wrong result. Feynman then did the correct skeptical thing. He built it and tried it :-)
We are looking for the latter, not the many contrasting theoretical models.
Math is OK (when simple), established scientific theories are OK (always), people doing armchair science is never OK.
MichaelK
MichaelK
09:43
@Sklivvz How are we supposed to know what the you mean when you make up your own meaning to words! And I have had several answer that uses established theories deleted, on the claim that the answer was "purely theoretical". You are mincing and mixing the wordy "theory" so much that your moderation is becoming arbitrary.
Here is the rule as written. Tell me what part of that my answer to this question broke.
In essence you just said "Sure, you can use theories, you can just not use theories".
This is why the rule needs to be re-written, because you are using the same word — theory/theoretical — for different things, where one thing is allowed, and another is not. That makes for a very bad rule.
Sklivvz
Sklivvz
10:02
Scientific theory
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to...
> Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
Whereas personal models, which you also call theories, have not.
Scientific theory <- back by hard evidence you usually quote in the answer
Model <- something made up ad hoc which has had no scientific validation or review
In physics: Gravity is an established theory, String theory is a model (in fact, a large framework of models)
Gravity is fine, string theory is not fine (here)
In other words:
Hypothesis
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research, in a process beginning with an educated...
 
4 hours later…
Oddthinking
Oddthinking
13:57
Putting aside the alsnwers, this question, as it stands, is poorly written and needs work.
The question is not "Is the Earth flat?" If that was the question, the answers would not waste their time with Lover's Point. They would show the consilience of evidence - satellite photos, maps that work, accounts of people who have crossed continents, etc.
The question is surely not (despite the title) "the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity". That is a weird simplifying assumption used in a calculation. It isn't 100% true when it is windy. It isn't 100% true when the tides are coming in and out. It isn't 100% true when the globe is spinning. No-one (flat earthers or scientists) believes it is always purely true, so why are we asking to prove it?
The question might be: Can you see in a straight line from Lover's Point to Sand City?
All the answers using maths are worthless in that case.
If that is not the question, what is?
 
9 hours later…
Sklivvz
Sklivvz
22:56
I still don't get the point: if the Earth was flat shouldn't be seeing far away things be the most common thing ever? Why would we concentrate at all on a single example? Even if there was no other explanation the easiest answer is "the land between those point has a depression" so it's a completely bullshit point that takes really no knowledge or maths to disprove.

« first day    last day (16 days later) »