doing away with the conspiracy

JRowe doesn't understand what a falsifiable Hypothesis is I think.

Here is a copy pasta touching the subject.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is an "educated guess." It can be an educated guess about what nature is going to do, or about why nature does what it does.

"Hypotheses are single tentative guesses--good hunches--assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible." (Eric M. Rogers, "Physics for the Inquiring Mind." (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1966)
What makes a statement a scientific hypothesis, rather than just an interesting speculation? A scientific hypothesis must meet 2 requirements:

A scientific hypothesis must be testable, and;
A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.

A Scientific Hypothesis Must Be "Falsifiable".

A scientific hypothesis must be testable, but there is a much stronger requirement that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific. This criterion comes primarily from the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper, and is called "falsifiability".

Consider this hypothesis:

Hypothesis B:

"There are other inhabited planets in the universe."

This hypothesis is testable, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. Here's why. Hypothesis B may be either correct or wrong. If it is correct, there are several ways that its correctness can be proven, including:

A space probe sent from earth to explore the universe sends back the news that it has discovered an inhabited planet. (This news is later confirmed by other space probes.)
Radio telescopes on earth begin to receive signals from somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy that appear to be reruns of the "I Love Telek" show.
Knock, Knock. "Greetings, earthling! I am Telek from the planet Zoron in the Andromeda Galaxy. I have just landed in your backyard. Take me to your leader."
So, if Hypothesis B is true, there are observations that scientists could make that would prove its correctness. But, the hypothesis may be wrong. (Most hypotheses are...) If Hypothesis B is wrong, there is no test that will prove it. If one of our space probes never finds an inhabited planet, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If we never receive signals from space, or Telek never lands in your back yard, that does not prove that the hypothesis is wrong, either. Hypothesis B is not falsifiable.

What about this:

Hypothesis C: "Any two objects dropped from the same height above the surface of the earth will hit the ground at the same time, as long as air resistance is not a factor."

Hypothesis C is a scientific hypothesis because:

It is testable - pick 2 objects, and drop them. Of course, you may have to provide a vacuum for them to fall in, in order to remove air resistance from consideration.
It is falsifiable - If anyone finds 2 objects that don't hit the ground at the same time and can show that it is not due to air resistance, then she has proven the hypothesis wrong. This hypothesis "sticks its neck out" for every test. In theory and in practice, if Hypothesis C were wrong, it would be very easy and straightforward to show it.
In his youth, Karl Popper studied the "social theory" of Karl Marx and the "psychological theory" of Sigmund Freud. Both of these ideas claimed a scientific basis, and both could produce evidence to support their hypotheses - historical evidence on the part of Marx, and clinical case studies on the part of the Freud. Popper eventually became unhappy with both Marx and Freud (and their followers) because he felt that they were both too quick to "explain away" any evidence that contradicted their ideas. For instance, Marx had predicted that the communist revolution would begin in a highly industrialized country, like Britain or Germany. Instead, the communist revolution occurred in Russia, which was hardly industrialized at the time, and never spread to the industrialized nations. Marx's followers explained this by claiming that it was due to "unforseen historical accidents" and Marx wasn't actually wrong. Popper also noted that Freud often used essentially the same explanation to explain vastly different behavior - a brutal murderer was acting under the same influences as a generous philanthropist.

In contrast to this, Popper admired Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity. Einstein said, in effect (among other things), "If you look at stars near the Sun during a total eclipse, you should observe a specific behavior. If this doesn't happen, my theory is wrong." Popper felt that this contrasted sharply with the ideas of Marx and Freud - Einstein was willing to "stick his neck out". Popper felt that this was the essence of a real scientific hypothesis.1

As Popper pointed out, it is relatively easy to gather evidence for just about any idea, but a hypothesis is essentially worthless unless it is "risky" - it must make predictions that could contradict it. The process of gaining real confidence in a hypothesis, then, is not in accumulating evidence in its favor, but rather in showing that situations that could establish its falsity don't, in fact, happen.

Given those two requirements, dual Earth is not even a hypothesis yet.

Jrowe, I don't expect you to understand aether perfectly but if you don't understand it then don't claim to know it so well like you do.  That was the main point I was trying to make.

i understand it just fine. your definition of understanding is just completely stupid. you cannot tell me the exact energy conversion of your stomach, the time it takes for anything to be fully digested, or exactly what percentages of what nutrients are absorbed: you do not have the resources to figure that out. you still understand perfectly why eating is needed, and the general process.
what is your obsession with math achieving except hypocrisy and derailing?

Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?

well, if something happened to defy the basis model (sun rising in the wrong place, coriolis force remaining in the same direction over the equator, the pole not being a magnetic center, etc), that would be one.
a more testable example i've given multiple times would be vertical refraction. if you can measure how light refracts over some altitude, taking measurements, dual earth theory predicts that there will be jumps, and not a smooth progression. this is due to aetheric whirlpools.

let me ask you the same. do you have any falsifiable hypotheses for your round earth theory?

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/67D/jresv67Dn2p153_A1b.pdf

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/51/jresv51n4p171_A1b.pdf

Two papers on studies that took measurements of the refractive index of change in altitude.  Keep in mind that humidity, temperature, and some other factors do change the index, just not as much as the gradual change in atmospheric pressure as you increase in altitude.

This was done with EM other than light, basically it was aimed at radio and microwave transmissions.  But, since light is EM radiation, it should still basically follow similar results.  Wavelength of EM does have a good deal of refraction though, so I will search for a survey that was done with visible EM (light).

It isn't a stair stepped change though, it is much more gradual, as expected. 

Quote from: Mainframes on May 03, 2015, 02:33:43 PM

Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?

well, if something happened to defy the basis model (sun rising in the wrong place, coriolis force remaining in the same direction over the equator, the pole not being a magnetic center, etc), that would be one.
a more testable example i've given multiple times would be vertical refraction. if you can measure how light refracts over some altitude, taking measurements, dual earth theory predicts that there will be jumps, and not a smooth progression. this is due to aetheric whirlpools.

let me ask you the same. do you have any falsifiable hypotheses for your round earth theory?

Off the top of my head:

Coriolis force - check
Sunrise and sunsets - check
Sunrise and sunset angle determined by latitude - check
Circumpolar stars at North and South pole - check
Magnetic field line parallel to ground along almost all latitudes - check
Minor bulge at equator - check
Flight times to multiple trans-continental destinations - check
Operation of equatorial telescopes by professional and amateurs across the globe - check
Longer days and nights during summer and winter at different latitudes - check
Orientation of star fields and moon at different latitudes - check
Measurement of earthquake waves across the globe - check
Plate tectonics and volcanism - check
Timezones - check
Orbiting spacecraft - check
Horizons and appearance of objects at distance - check
Exact predictions of eclipses - check
Measurement of gravitational variance across the globe - check

Actual verifiable evidence of aether and aetheric whirlpools - Absolutely none whatsoever
Actual verifiable evidence of the sun locating inside earth - Absolutely none whatsoever

As for your vertical refraction, this is simply caused by density variations in the air, as the sunlight passes through, resulting in changing refractive index and therefore slight distortions in the suns disc as it approaches the horizon. You'll notice that this does not happen when the sun is high in the sky. Surely, if your cause of whirlpools was correct then the refractive effect would occur across the entire sky....?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 04, 2015, 11:35:37 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on May 03, 2015, 02:33:43 PM

Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?

well, if something happened to defy the basis model (sun rising in the wrong place, coriolis force remaining in the same direction over the equator, the pole not being a magnetic center, etc), that would be one.
a more testable example i've given multiple times would be vertical refraction. if you can measure how light refracts over some altitude, taking measurements, dual earth theory predicts that there will be jumps, and not a smooth progression. this is due to aetheric whirlpools.

let me ask you the same. do you have any falsifiable hypotheses for your round earth theory?

Off the top of my head:

Coriolis force - check
Sunrise and sunsets - check
Sunrise and sunset angle determined by latitude - check
Circumpolar stars at North and South pole - check
Magnetic field line parallel to ground along almost all latitudes - check
Minor bulge at equator - check
Flight times to multiple trans-continental destinations - check
Operation of equatorial telescopes by professional and amateurs across the globe - check
Longer days and nights during summer and winter at different latitudes - check
Orientation of star fields and moon at different latitudes - check
Measurement of earthquake waves across the globe - check
Plate tectonics and volcanism - check
Timezones - check
Orbiting spacecraft - check
Horizons and appearance of objects at distance - check
Exact predictions of eclipses - check
Measurement of gravitational variance across the globe - check

Actual verifiable evidence of aether and aetheric whirlpools - Absolutely none whatsoever
Actual verifiable evidence of the sun locating inside earth - Absolutely none whatsoever

As for your vertical refraction, this is simply caused by density variations in the air, as the sunlight passes through, resulting in changing refractive index and therefore slight distortions in the suns disc as it approaches the horizon. You'll notice that this does not happen when the sun is high in the sky. Surely, if your cause of whirlpools was correct then the refractive effect would occur across the entire sky....?

given that each of those things occur and are explained by the dual earth model, they are also more falsifiable hypothese for me, thank you.
there is plenty of observational evidence for aether.

what is it you require of evidence? for me, evidence is found when what we're seeking evidence of explains observations, and requires less assumptions than the alternatives.

there is plenty of observational evidence for aether.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the aether, only one thread that is evidence of you being horrible with experiments.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 06, 2015, 08:08:54 AM

there is plenty of observational evidence for aether.

I have seen absolutely no evidence for the aether, only one thread that is evidence of you being horrible with experiments.

then you have not been paying attention. aether in my model is the fabric of space (which clealry exists) and all traits are logical deductions. the fact it matches observations is the definition of observational evidence.

CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL