Really Basic Question on Science

[jsngrrtt]

So got into a small disagreement about a few things that I thought were true, so I thought I would turn here for a better explanation of things.

So I know a lot of people here have a background in science. I have two questions.

1. Would you say the shape of the earth is a scientific theory or explained by the Theory of gravity?

2. Is observation the core of the scientific method?
 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, jsngrrtt said:

1. Would you say the shape of the earth is a scientific theory or explained by the Theory of gravity?
 

The shape of all astronomical large objects, like planets and stars are all roundish due to gravity pulling equally from all directions,  during their accretion and building process. So yes, explained by the theory gravity.

The actual shape of the Earth has been shown to be an oblate spheroid, and overwhelming evidence also supports that fact.

Quote

2. Is observation the core of the scientific method?

Along with experimentation and continued supporting repeated results, yes.

Let me add that at this stage of humanities learning and knowledge, any individual that does not believe the Earth is flat, rotating and orbiting, is probably a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

[Velocity_Boy]

5 hours ago, jsngrrtt said:

So got into a small disagreement about a few things that I thought were true, so I thought I would turn here for a better explanation of things.

So I know a lot of people here have a background in science. I have two questions.

1. Would you say the shape of the earth is a scientific theory or explained by the Theory of gravity?

......The Earth or any large object exerts its own gravitational field regardless of its shape. The Earth could be the shape of a cube and if it was about the same size, say, a few thousand miles wide and long on each side; it would emit roughly the same gravitational field our spheroid does.

 In fact...all mass exerts some gravitational pull. Even you! You emit a field around you strong enough to pull in an object about the weight of a human hair if its within a foot or so of you, and there are no environmental opposing or interfering forces, like wind. So, say, in a bedroom with no fan or anything disturbing your "atmosphere."

 And yes...we are almost perfectly round! (Lots of newly informed astronomy students love to wag about how its not a sphere. Just so they can show us how smart they are.) But the Truth is...though, yeah it does bulge a bit around the equator...this is a minuscule aberration. If the Earth were shrunk to the size of a basketball, for example, and retained, percentage-wise the same amount of deviation from true sphere shape, player s using this ball would notice nothing wrong. But the Earth is round due to its rotation and orbit around the Sun. So, yeah, Gravity (of the Sun) as well as centrifugal force are the primary reasons for our sphere shape.

1a......The Earth or any large object exerts its own gravitational field regardless of its shape. The Earth could be the shape of a cube and if it was about the same size, say, a couple thousand miles wide and long on each side; it would emit roughly the same gravitational field our spheroid does.

 In fact...all mass exerts some gravitational pull. Even you! You emit a field around you strong enough to pull in an object about the weight of a human hair if its within a foot or so of you, and there are no environmental opposing or interfering forces, like wind. So, say, in a bedroom with no fan or anything disturbing your "atmosphere."

 And yes...we are almost perfectly round! Lots of newly informed astronomy students love to wag about how its not a sphere. Just so they can show us how smart they are. Truth is...though yeah it does bulge a bit around the equator...this is a minuscule aberration. If the Earth were shrunk to the size of a basketball, for example, and retained, percentage size the same amount of deviation from true sphere shape, player s using this ball would notice nothing wrong. But the Earth is round due to its rotation and orbit around the Sun. So, yeah, Gravity (of the Sun) as well as centrifugal force are the primary reasons for our sphere shape.

.

1b...that we know our planet is a spheroid is a fact. Its irrefutable. Its been proven countless times and beyond all doubt. This fact surpasses the definition of a theory. And indeed, if you allow a slight digression on my part here....the scientific definition of a Theory far surpasses how laymen will use the term in everyday non science conversation. Like when they say......"I have a theory on why my boss is such a jerk; he's not getting any."  In science such a statement is far from a real Theory, and indeed fails even to meet hypothesis requirements. In Science..a Theory had already passed all tests thrown at it. (Like the theory of evolution, for example.) This is not to say a full blown theory cannot still one day be refuted. It can and it has. An example is how the momentous Mickelson- Morley refuted the old Ether Theory several decades ago.

 

2...The foundation of science is the Empirical Method. You need to Google that if you're not familiar with all it entails, as it's crucial to understand if you wish to ever go beyond even high school science. But observation.... Yes! Its a crucial and even indispensable component of the Empirical Method.

Hope this helps. Cheers.

Quote

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Velocity_Boy

[jsngrrtt]

Thank you for the input everyone, though I think there was a slight misunderstanding as no one was saying the earth was flat. Rather the other party argued that the shape of the earth was a scientific theory, while I said that the shape of the earth is an observable fact explained by the theory of gravity.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, jsngrrtt said:

1. Would you say the shape of the earth is a scientific theory or explained by the Theory of gravity?

I would say that the shape of the Earth is a "fact"; i.e. something we can observe and measure (and have always been able to do). The explanation for the shape (in terms of gravity, rotation of the Earth, etc.) is theoretical - i.e. it based on a mathematical model of how gravity works.

Rather like: Gravity is a fact and the theory (theories) of gravity explain how it works. Or evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it.

8 hours ago, jsngrrtt said:

2. Is observation the core of the scientific method?

More than just observation. It has to be done methodically to eliminate human biases. For example people can casually observe things that seem to confirm horoscopes. More rigorous observation shows them to be nonsense.

1 hour ago, jsngrrtt said:

Thank you for the input everyone, though I think there was a slight misunderstanding as no one was saying the earth was flat. Rather the other party argued that the shape of the earth was a scientific theory, while I said that the shape of the earth is an observable fact explained by the theory of gravity.

I would agree with you on that.

[jsngrrtt]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

More than just observation. It has to be done methodically to eliminate human biases. For example people can casually observe things that seem to confirm horoscopes. More rigorous observation shows them to be nonsense.

 

I guess that part is most likely due to my poor choice of words rather than saying that observation is the core of the scientific method, I should have said that it was the start of it. For example, you observe something happening and then form a hypothesis on why it happens, then test that hypothesis.

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, jsngrrtt said:

I guess that part is most likely due to my poor choice of words rather than saying that observation is the core of the scientific method, I should have said that it was the start of it. For example, you observe something happening and then form a hypothesis on why it happens, then test that hypothesis.

Exactly!