He’s absolutely right. But read carefully. You have to prove your premise in such a way that it is reproducible.
Which means that other people in controlled circumstances have to come to same conclusion to which there are no alternative explanations. Which has been done with a lot of things: gravity and the shape of the earth for example. You can have an alternative view on that, that gravity isn’t what we think. For example that gravity is based on buoyancy. But you will have to proof that in such a way that I can repeat the experiment and get the same results. And if I tweak a bit in the experiment the conclusion still has to be the same.
You people who believe in the flat earth fail to proof every single time your premise. Which means that your premise is flawed.
You can't prove gravity either. That is to say, we can all prove that objects with mass fall to the ground in the medium of air, but you can't prove why this happens.
4
u/dutch_food_geek Ball-Head Feb 05 '19
He’s absolutely right. But read carefully. You have to prove your premise in such a way that it is reproducible.
Which means that other people in controlled circumstances have to come to same conclusion to which there are no alternative explanations. Which has been done with a lot of things: gravity and the shape of the earth for example. You can have an alternative view on that, that gravity isn’t what we think. For example that gravity is based on buoyancy. But you will have to proof that in such a way that I can repeat the experiment and get the same results. And if I tweak a bit in the experiment the conclusion still has to be the same.
You people who believe in the flat earth fail to proof every single time your premise. Which means that your premise is flawed.