Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

  • 147 Replies
  • 12263 Views
*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« on: December 09, 2015, 07:20:03 AM »
This is part one of a series of topics that will be ripping apart, and destroying Dual Earth Theory Fantasy. This post covers the "evidence" section of JRoweSkeptic's DEF page, which can be found here: http://en.textsave.org/neOb

Alright, let's get going! Over the process of ripping apart DEF, I'll be targeting each individual paragraph from each section, and dissecting it.



Quote
The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.
Well. It appears that you, at least, know one thing about what constitutes "physical evidence". Let's see if you provide any sort of "physical evidence" that backs up your fantasy.

Quote
There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.
Again you're right again. In order for a model to be, in the least, a theory, it needs to have physical evidence which lines up with what the model predicts, but, you still haven't provided any evidence yet. I'm still waiting.

Quote
Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.
No shit. Was there a reason you needed to mention this? I'm pretty sure that most educated people know what an experiment is.

Quote
Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.
What experiments are you referring to? Certainly not all of them. How do specific ones prove DEF? Do they prove DEF? Are you capable of providing an example or are you simply just making a baseless statement?

Quote
This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.
Your model has more assumptions, and little, to no evidence. This means, according to Occam's Razor, we should go with the round-Earth model, and scrap your "Dual Earth Fantasy", as there is more physical evidence and observations to prove the round-Earth model, than DEF.

Quote
Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
Sure. From reading the pages, DET does, in fact, all fall into place and work perfectly if Aether exists. Except, you haven't given any proof for the existence of Aether. In fact, nowhere in the "Aether" section, or the "Evidence" section do you give any proof whatsoever that proves Aether exists. Without this necessary proof, we can logically deduce that Aether doesn't exist and that DEF is wrong.

Quote
To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
To make the claim that the bending of spacetime is "magic" is absurd, and simply proves that you don't do your research beforehand. The bending of spacetime is perfectly explained through Frame Dragging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Quote
At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.
No. They aren't equal. In fact, the assumptions you make in regards to DEF are simply bat-shit crazy. None of them have any real evidence behind them. In fact, the model here that truly relies on "hope" is DEF, not a round-Earth model.

Quote
It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.
No. It's not hypocrisy to say that assumptions aren't enough. You can't base an entire model around assumptions, as you've done with DEF. You need evidence. Physical evidence and logical deduction alike. You can't rely on just assumptions and logical deduction.

Quote
Occam's Razor favors DET over RET.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it favors a round-Earth model over DEF.

Quote
That should be enough. There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.
No, it's not enough. I've already explained why.

Quote
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
Aha, there's a keyword here: "predicts". This implies right away that you're making another assumption, therefore backing up the fact that Occam's Razor truly prefers a round-Earth model over DEF.

Quote
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?

There we go. I've ripped it apart. I hope you enjoyed your model being ripped apart, and enjoy the future posts where it continues to get ripped apart.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2015, 07:58:22 AM »
There is one main, crucial thing you are missing...

DEF does not know where anything is on the model
. How can it make ANY observations/predictions?
  • It can't tell you the distance between two points (no map - hence useless for plane or ship travel).
  • It doesn't know the shape of continents.
  • It can't align dish TVs based on the location of the dish.
  • It can't align telescopes, based on the location of the telescope.
  • It can't tell you what you see in the sky because it does not know where you are.
  • It can't tell you where the Sun will rise/set (NE,E,SE) because it does not know where you are.
  • In short, ALL actual measurements relying on the location of an observer can not work.
  • Therefore, it can not make predictions based on those locations.
  • Therefore, ALL experiments (like those above), do not justify DEF.
So in everything you have pointed out, is there any actual (measurable) evidence?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2015, 08:01:15 AM »
Thanks for the additions Jadyyn. I can edit them into the main topic of you'd like.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2015, 08:34:51 AM »
Quote
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
Quote
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?
I can't remember it's name, but there is a razor that says if something is unfalisfiable, it's not a scientific theory, so removing the refraction part would destory the theory.
Couldn't the vertical refraction be measured by finding a tall building, and measuring the angle between the ground and different parts of the building. Then use trig to find the heights of the sections. Most skycrapers get narower higher up so you would need to take this into account. Then compaire the heights found for the different parts to their actual height to find the diffraction, then you can see if it continuous or not.
If you could find a picture of the Burj Khalifa or other tall building which tells you the pictures angle and distance from building, you could check this with little effort.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 08:36:58 AM by EternalHoid »

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2015, 08:51:57 AM »
Quote
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
Quote
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?
I can't remember it's name, but there is a razor that says if something is unfalisfiable, it's not a scientific theory, so removing the refraction part would destory the theory.
Couldn't the vertical refraction be measured by finding a tall building, and measuring the angle between the ground and different parts of the building. Then use trig to find the heights of the sections. Most skycrapers get narower higher up so you would need to take this into account. Then compaire the heights found for the different parts to their actual height to find the diffraction, then you can see if it continuous or not.
If you could find a picture of the Burj Khalifa or other tall building which tells you the pictures angle and distance from building, you could check this with little effort.

Interestingly, I think it's called "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword". Not sure though.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2015, 09:13:50 AM »
It's Alder's razor, also known as newtons flaming laser sword because of its strength, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder
Also Hitchens's razor looks useful "the burden of proof in a debate lies with whoever makes the claim" No proof of ather so the burdens on them. We have proof of gravity from experiments done on earth and by NASA going into space, they say NASA lies, again burdens on them.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 09:21:58 AM by EternalHoid »

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2015, 09:33:29 AM »
Quote
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
Quote
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?
I can't remember it's name, but there is a razor that says if something is unfalisfiable, it's not a scientific theory, so removing the refraction part would destory the theory.
Couldn't the vertical refraction be measured by finding a tall building, and measuring the angle between the ground and different parts of the building. Then use trig to find the heights of the sections. Most skycrapers get narower higher up so you would need to take this into account. Then compaire the heights found for the different parts to their actual height to find the diffraction, then you can see if it continuous or not.
If you could find a picture of the Burj Khalifa or other tall building which tells you the pictures angle and distance from building, you could check this with little effort.

Interestingly, I think it's called "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword". Not sure though.
Yup, "Newtons flaming laser sword" or "Alder's razor".
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2015, 10:26:43 AM »
Quote
No shit. Was there a reason you needed to mention this? I'm pretty sure that most educated people know what an experiment is.
Because REers have had a problem with me saying it before.

Quote
What experiments are you referring to? Certainly not all of them.
If I didn't mean that, I wouldn't have said it.

Quote
Your model has more assumptions, and little, to no evidence.
Which is a very clear lie, as anyone who would read it can attest.

Quote
Sure. From reading the pages, DET does, in fact, all fall into place and work perfectly if Aether exists. Except, you haven't given any proof for the existence of Aether. In fact, nowhere in the "Aether" section, or the "Evidence" section do you give any proof whatsoever that proves Aether exists. Without this necessary proof, we can logically deduce that Aether doesn't exist and that DEF is wrong.
In the aether section I demonstrate why it is perfectly logical to suppose such an entity: there's as much evidence for it as there is for any natural law: as that's ultimately what it is, a law applied to soemthing we know exists.
Quote
No. They aren't equal. In fact, the assumptions you make in regards to DEF are simply bat-shit crazy. None of them have any real evidence behind them. In fact, the model here that truly relies on "hope" is DEF, not a round-Earth model.
Mocking without substance.

Quote
Aha, there's a keyword here: "predicts". This implies right away that you're making another assumption, therefore backing up the fact that Occam's Razor truly prefers a round-Earth model over DEF.
What are you talking about?! That's not an assumption, it's an outline of an experiment which could be used to confirm or falsify DET. Of course i say 'predicts,' it is the DET model making a prediction about reality.

Quote
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?
I'll admit I'm wrong. I'm honest.

All you have done is said "Yes, you're right," several times, openly decided to just ignore what I explicitly said, and then lied about the model. You couldn't rip apart a tissue with that.
So, let's condense what you need to respond to:

The evidence for aether as given: the fact we know space exists, and that we know a law exists to give it the property it has. And the fact that the evidence for aether is also from observed consequences: see the next line.
The fact evidence for DET, evidence as defined and as you agreed to, is given by any experiment you care to perform.

For an example of the latter point:
Quote
We have proof of gravity from experiments done on earth
Observations may have multiple expanations. to presuppose that the RE answer must be automatically accurate is no more than oturight honesty.

Quote
Thanks for the additions Jadyyn. I can edit them into the main topic of you'd like.
Wouldn't advise it, all Jadyyn typically has is whining that I don't have the billion-dollar resources of RET, and assertion. He's just childish, look at how he persist in addressing and arguing against me when he knows he's blocked. Shouting against someone you know won't respond, it's a toddler's way of winning an argument.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sircool

  • 426
  • flat, round, whatever throats your goat
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2015, 10:45:25 AM »
Excellent initiative! It's not science before someone questions it!
If it's flat, that would be very interesting for science

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2015, 12:11:22 PM »
Quote
No shit. Was there a reason you needed to mention this? I'm pretty sure that most educated people know what an experiment is.
Because REers have had a problem with me saying it before.

Quote
What experiments are you referring to? Certainly not all of them.
If I didn't mean that, I wouldn't have said it.

Quote
Your model has more assumptions, and little, to no evidence.
Which is a very clear lie, as anyone who would read it can attest.

Quote
Sure. From reading the pages, DET does, in fact, all fall into place and work perfectly if Aether exists. Except, you haven't given any proof for the existence of Aether. In fact, nowhere in the "Aether" section, or the "Evidence" section do you give any proof whatsoever that proves Aether exists. Without this necessary proof, we can logically deduce that Aether doesn't exist and that DEF is wrong.
In the aether section I demonstrate why it is perfectly logical to suppose such an entity: there's as much evidence for it as there is for any natural law: as that's ultimately what it is, a law applied to soemthing we know exists.
Quote
No. They aren't equal. In fact, the assumptions you make in regards to DEF are simply bat-shit crazy. None of them have any real evidence behind them. In fact, the model here that truly relies on "hope" is DEF, not a round-Earth model.
Mocking without substance.

Quote
Aha, there's a keyword here: "predicts". This implies right away that you're making another assumption, therefore backing up the fact that Occam's Razor truly prefers a round-Earth model over DEF.
What are you talking about?! That's not an assumption, it's an outline of an experiment which could be used to confirm or falsify DET. Of course i say 'predicts,' it is the DET model making a prediction about reality.

Quote
Let me ask you a question? What if someone performs this experiment, and it contradicts what you assume? Will you "secretly" revise your model to account for it or will you admit that you're wrong?
I'll admit I'm wrong. I'm honest.

All you have done is said "Yes, you're right," several times, openly decided to just ignore what I explicitly said, and then lied about the model. You couldn't rip apart a tissue with that.
So, let's condense what you need to respond to:

The evidence for aether as given: the fact we know space exists, and that we know a law exists to give it the property it has. And the fact that the evidence for aether is also from observed consequences: see the next line.
The fact evidence for DET, evidence as defined and as you agreed to, is given by any experiment you care to perform.

For an example of the latter point:
Quote
We have proof of gravity from experiments done on earth
Observations may have multiple expanations. to presuppose that the RE answer must be automatically accurate is no more than oturight honesty.

Quote
Thanks for the additions Jadyyn. I can edit them into the main topic of you'd like.
Wouldn't advise it, all Jadyyn typically has is whining that I don't have the billion-dollar resources of RET, and assertion. He's just childish, look at how he persist in addressing and arguing against me when he knows he's blocked. Shouting against someone you know won't respond, it's a toddler's way of winning an argument.



Quote
Because REers have had a problem with me saying it before.
Maybe it's because you often misuse scientific terms like *cough* theory *cough*.

Quote
If I didn't mean that, I wouldn't have said it.
Sure, but you still haven't explained how "all scientific experiments" somehow "prove DEF".

Quote
Which is a very clear lie, as anyone who would read it can attest.
Really? So showing how all of your "evidence" is just logical deduction and the rest of your model is simply just assumptions is somehow a lie? Do you even know what a "lie" is? Probably not.

Quote
In the aether section I demonstrate why it is perfectly logical to suppose such an entity: there's as much evidence for it as there is for any natural law: as that's ultimately what it is, a law applied to soemthing we know exists.
Again, logical deduction alone cannot prove the existence of something. You need physical evidence.

Quote
Mocking without substance.
There was nothing else to do other than mock it. After all, you can't compare something as truly bat-shit crazy as DEF to something like the round-Earth model. In fact, you don't compare it to anything sane, at all.

Quote
What are you talking about?! That's not an assumption, it's an outline of an experiment which could be used to confirm or falsify DET. Of course i say 'predicts,' it is the DET model making a prediction about reality.
Yes, but by using the word "predicts" you imply that you haven't actually conducted the experiment (which you say beforehand), which therefore means that you are, in fact, making an assumption.

Quote
I'll admit I'm wrong. I'm honest.
Good. I'm waiting.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2015, 01:49:42 PM »
Quote
Sure, but you still haven't explained how "all scientific experiments" somehow "prove DEF".
Yes, I did. Read for fuck's sake, you're just being tedious now. You agreed with every step, and then just ignored this one. How about you address the argument made rather than ignoring it?

Quote
Really? So showing how all of your "evidence" is just logical deduction and the rest of your model is simply just assumptions is somehow a lie? Do you even know what a "lie" is? Probably not.
So, now you're outirght lying about what you actually said, which was:
Quote
Your model has more assumptions, and little, to no evidence.
You have already openly ignored the evidence, and then you completely ignore the assumptions given.

Quote
There was nothing else to do other than mock it. After all, you can't compare something as truly bat-shit crazy as DEF to something like the round-Earth model. In fact, you don't compare it to anything sane, at all.
Which is obviously a scientific starting point to take. How about an honest argument rather than mocking and assertion, this is just pathetic now.

Quote
Yes, but by using the word "predicts" you imply that you haven't actually conducted the experiment (which you say beforehand), which therefore means that you are, in fact, making an assumption.
No, I haven't conducted the experiment. That's why I'm making a prediction. What about this is so hard to understand?! I am making no claims about the result, except that one will be evidence in favor of DET, one will falsify it. I'm not assuming one way or the other, I am giving an example of a falsifiable test.
Yes, I believe that the answer will be in favor of DET, because I accept DET (making this a conclusion, not an assumption), but I don't expect to convince anyone with this. It is an example of a falsifiable test, stop treating it like something completely different.
Quote
Good. I'm waiting.
Try proving I'm wrong first. So far all you've offered are incredibly obvious examples of lies.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2015, 02:08:14 PM »
Quote
Sure, but you still haven't explained how "all scientific experiments" somehow "prove DEF".
Yes, I did. Read for fuck's sake, you're just being tedious now. You agreed with every step, and then just ignored this one. How about you address the argument made rather than ignoring it?

Quote
Really? So showing how all of your "evidence" is just logical deduction and the rest of your model is simply just assumptions is somehow a lie? Do you even know what a "lie" is? Probably not.
So, now you're outirght lying about what you actually said, which was:
Quote
Your model has more assumptions, and little, to no evidence.
You have already openly ignored the evidence, and then you completely ignore the assumptions given.

Quote
There was nothing else to do other than mock it. After all, you can't compare something as truly bat-shit crazy as DEF to something like the round-Earth model. In fact, you don't compare it to anything sane, at all.
Which is obviously a scientific starting point to take. How about an honest argument rather than mocking and assertion, this is just pathetic now.

Quote
Yes, but by using the word "predicts" you imply that you haven't actually conducted the experiment (which you say beforehand), which therefore means that you are, in fact, making an assumption.
No, I haven't conducted the experiment. That's why I'm making a prediction. What about this is so hard to understand?! I am making no claims about the result, except that one will be evidence in favor of DET, one will falsify it. I'm not assuming one way or the other, I am giving an example of a falsifiable test.
Yes, I believe that the answer will be in favor of DET, because I accept DET (making this a conclusion, not an assumption), but I don't expect to convince anyone with this. It is an example of a falsifiable test, stop treating it like something completely different.
Quote
Good. I'm waiting.
Try proving I'm wrong first. So far all you've offered are incredibly obvious examples of lies.



Quote
Yes, I did. Read for fuck's sake, you're just being tedious now. You agreed with every step, and then just ignored this one. How about you address the argument made rather than ignoring it?
No, you didn't. This was the only piece of "proof" that even came close to justifying that "all experiments prove DEF":
Quote
Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.
Except, you didn't provide anything to back this up. This means that it's just another baseless claim.

Quote
So, now you're outirght lying about what you actually said, which was:
No. I said your model is based entirely around logical deductions and "has little to no evidence".

Quote
No, I haven't conducted the experiment. That's why I'm making a prediction. What about this is so hard to understand?! I am making no claims about the result, except that one will be evidence in favor of DET, one will falsify it. I'm not assuming one way or the other, I am giving an example of a falsifiable test.
Again. It's not evidence. It is simply an assumption based on all the other assumptions your model makes.

Quote
Yes, I believe that the answer will be in favor of DET, because I accept DET (making this a conclusion, not an assumption), but I don't expect to convince anyone with this. It is an example of a falsifiable test, stop treating it like something completely different.
Well then why the hell did you bother putting it in the "evidence" section, or even bother saying it for that matter?

Quote
Try proving I'm wrong first. So far all you've offered are incredibly obvious examples of lies.
I have proved you wrong. I ripped apart your entire "evidence" section by showing that there was no real evidence in their at all. I'm not lying, in fact, I'm telling the truth to everyone so they don't get sucked into the hellhole that is DEF.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

TheEarthIsntFlat

  • 51
  • The Earth is round...
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2015, 02:21:22 PM »
Good job tearing apart another unscientific theory  ;D
We're not called "Round Earthers", we're called "the other 99.999% of people on this earth that use their brain."

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2015, 02:23:41 PM »
Good job tearing apart another unscientific theory  ;D

Thanks. Besides, it's not a theory, hell, it's not even a hypothesis. It's a fantasy  ;)
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2015, 02:25:19 PM »
Here are my objections from another thread. They're not as versed as yours OP I'm afraid.
Quote
Quote
Quote
4. Evidence

The first question to ask is simple: what is evidence?
The answer is just as simple: observation.
What types of observations?
Quote
Quote

There is no form of evidence beyond this. To have evidence for a model, you need only observe something in line with what that model predicts. This is what science is based on: this is all there is. The best possible kind of model is one that explains all observations proposed.

And what specific example you have?
Quote
Quote
Note, also, that experiments are merely a special case of observation. They are just a specific way to observe the rules of the world when applied to a controlled setting.

What specific example?
Quote
Quote
Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them. Their predictions match with DET, far more than they do with the inelegant patchwork of RET.
That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
Quote
Quote
This doesn't mean much. Given enough time, any model could come up with explanations for everything. This is why we have Occam's Razor: to sort between two possible models, both explaining equal amounts, the question is which has more assumptions.

How exactly does Occam's razor disprove the round earth and favors DET?
Quote
Quote
Recall your experience reading these pages. All of DET falls into place from our definition of aether; so excluding assumptions shared between models (such as the origin of matter) the only one under DET is the idea of aether forming concentrations and travelling from high to low. Now, both of these are logical: deduced in the same way we may deduce any law.
To compare this to RET however, we need only look at the most obvious aspect not shared between them: gravity. The RE model of gravity is an unexplained property of mass bending space, and an unexplained consequence of this bending.
At the very least, the two models are equal: but note also how reasonable the DE assumptions are. Bith have some evidence behind them, while the RE model relies on hope.
You haven't actually proven Aether to begin with as I will show you in the next post.
Quote
Quote
It is simple hypocrisy to say this is not enough. You are more than welcome to provide an example of evidence which you believe does not match the definition given above: and if you cannot, you must concede that this definition holds, and therefore what follows from it is true.
It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Quote
Quote
Occam's Razor favors DET over RET.
Mantra. It's true because you say so.
Quote
Quote
That should be enough. There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model over the RE model, though it requires resources I do not have.
DET predicts that refraction will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.

Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.


« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 02:37:51 PM by Luke 22:35-38 »
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2015, 01:48:30 PM »
Quote
Except, you didn't provide anything to back this up. This means that it's just another baseless claim.
Because I'm not going to list every experiment in the world. the fact is that observations match, and it's that simple: and I gave you a rule so that it would be generally applicable, rather than wasting time listing every experiment ever performed.

Quote
Again. It's not evidence. It is simply an assumption based on all the other assumptions your model makes.
You are the only one hear claiming it was intended as evidence. It is a falsifiable test. That is all. Can you try not to rely on such obvious straw men? this is pathetic.

Quote
Well then why the hell did you bother putting it in the "evidence" section, or even bother saying it for that matter?
Where else would you suggest putting a test? It provides an example of how DET may be falsified, thus demonstrating it is a scientific theory.

Quote
What types of observations?
Use a dictionary.

Quote
That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
Don't confuse vague with generally applicable. It's a very specific statement.

Quote
It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Beyond the fact aether is only the application of a universal law to something we know to exist, this provides evidence of aether as well.
Quote
Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.
Vertical refraction. I'm getting very tired of repeating that. Look at the model that's actually being proposed and think about what you're saying.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2015, 03:37:41 PM »
Quote
Except, you didn't provide anything to back this up. This means that it's just another baseless claim.
Quote
Because I'm not going to list every experiment in the world. the fact is that observations match, and it's that simple: and I gave you a rule so that it would be generally applicable, rather than wasting time listing every experiment ever performed.

At least provide one or two. I'll be more than happy if you even provide ONE, UNO, specific experiment

Quote
Again. It's not evidence. It is simply an assumption based on all the other assumptions your model makes.
Quote
You are the only one hear claiming it was intended as evidence. It is a falsifiable test. That is all. Can you try not to rely on such obvious straw men? this is pathetic.
[/quote]
I'll let Earthisround take this one.

Quote
Well then why the hell did you bother putting it in the "evidence" section, or even bother saying it for that matter?
Quote
Where else would you suggest putting a test? It provides an example of how DET may be falsified, thus demonstrating it is a scientific theory.
[/quote]

Again, this one is for Earthisround.

Quote
What types of observations?
Quote
Use a dictionary.
[/quote]

I think he meant a specific observation that can only be explained by DET. Or at least, that's what I'm asking.

Quote
That is one of the vaguest statements I have ever heard.
Quote
Don't confuse vague with generally applicable. It's a very specific statement.
[/quote]
I have to look at it again but I think I was right the first round.

Quote
It isn't enough if you haven't proved Aether in the first place.
Quote
Beyond the fact aether is only the application of a universal law to something we know to exist, this provides evidence of aether as well.
[/quote]

 then prove that statement.
Quote
Refraction decrease with altitude. I'll find a link that proves it and then I'll tackle the Aether part of your model.
Vertical refraction. I'm getting very tired of repeating that. Look at the model that's actually being proposed and think about what you're saying.
[/quote]

I'll address this with a link.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2015, 03:43:22 PM »
Your whole post is exercise in futility of reason. All your points could be posed to your ball Earth.
There is no physical proof of your ball Earth theory, none.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2015, 03:45:52 PM »
Here's an article about atmosphere refraction. And I was right about your statement being vague.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2015, 03:48:14 PM »
Your whole post is exercise in futility of reason. All your points could be posed to your ball Earth.
There is no physical proof of your ball Earth theory, none.

Didnt I say somewhere that lighthouses prove round earth?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2015, 04:08:51 PM »
Your whole post is exercise in futility of reason. All your points could be posed to your ball Earth.
There is no physical proof of your ball Earth theory, none.

1. Things disappearing below the horizon.
2. The existence of a horizon.
3. Antarctic flights.
4. Tides.
5. Lunar phases.
6. Descrepencies between the amount of daylight in certain places.
7. Tectonic plates.
8. Aurora Borealis.
9. Round-earth based navigation systems.
10. GPS
11. Visible orbiting satellites.
12. A visible orbiting ISS, which can be photographed rather clearly by anyone.
13. Publicly available space travel. (Soon to be)
14. Antarctic bases and scientific outposts there.

You get the idea. Now stop saying that there's "no physical evidence", because there is.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2015, 04:10:30 PM »
I think I know what you're saying, JRowe. You're saying that DET is a viable model because the results of every experiment agree with the model, right? So, please give us an example of an experiment whose results agree with DET but not with RET. Don't just say "all of them", give us an example.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2015, 05:45:55 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. 

Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2015, 06:26:15 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

We already know that - Poko asked for evidence, not if you could explain what an appeal to ignorance fallacy is. It seems you're having trouble reading messages on the same board you moderate...

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2015, 06:28:05 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
So true, but after 500 years of no physical proof of the ball Earth theory logic dictates that none is forthcoming.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2015, 06:40:22 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
So true, but after 500 years of no physical proof of the ball Earth theory logic dictates that none is forthcoming.

Are you incapable of reading?

Quote

2. The existence of a horizon.
3. Antarctic flights.
4. Tides.
5. Lunar phases.
6. Descrepencies between the amount of daylight in certain places.
7. Tectonic plates.
8. Aurora Borealis.
9. Round-earth based navigation systems.
10. GPS
11. Visible orbiting satellites.
12. A visible orbiting ISS, which can be photographed rather clearly by anyone.
13. Publicly available space travel. (Soon to be)
14. Antarctic bases and scientific outposts there.

You get the idea. Now stop saying that there's "no physical evidence", because there is.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2015, 07:04:38 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
So true, but after 500 years of no physical proof of the ball Earth theory logic dictates that none is forthcoming.

Are you incapable of reading?

Quote

2. The existence of a horizon.
3. Antarctic flights.
4. Tides.
5. Lunar phases.
6. Descrepencies between the amount of daylight in certain places.
7. Tectonic plates.
8. Aurora Borealis.
9. Round-earth based navigation systems.
10. GPS
11. Visible orbiting satellites.
12. A visible orbiting ISS, which can be photographed rather clearly by anyone.
13. Publicly available space travel. (Soon to be)
14. Antarctic bases and scientific outposts there.

You get the idea. Now stop saying that there's "no physical evidence", because there is.
You don't appear to be a stupid person. With all your time spent looking into the ball Earth theory you have no doubt concluded that the Earth is a flat plane. I can only surmise that you are just being the devils advocate or enjoy arguing moot points. You seem not to be a bully just making fun of people. I view your posts for the entertainment value.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

wonkaswilly12

  • 142
  • Quantum earther
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2015, 07:23:39 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
So true, but after 500 years of no physical proof of the ball Earth theory logic dictates that none is forthcoming.

Are you incapable of reading?

Quote

2. The existence of a horizon.
3. Antarctic flights.
4. Tides.
5. Lunar phases.
6. Descrepencies between the amount of daylight in certain places.
7. Tectonic plates.
8. Aurora Borealis.
9. Round-earth based navigation systems.
10. GPS
11. Visible orbiting satellites.
12. A visible orbiting ISS, which can be photographed rather clearly by anyone.
13. Publicly available space travel. (Soon to be)
14. Antarctic bases and scientific outposts there.

You get the idea. Now stop saying that there's "no physical evidence", because there is.
You don't appear to be a stupid person. With all your time spent looking into the ball Earth theory you have no doubt concluded that the Earth is a flat plane. I can only surmise that you are just being the devils advocate or enjoy arguing moot points. You seem not to be a bully just making fun of people. I view your posts for the entertainment value.

So you are admitting that you don't really listen to others opinions. You didn't acknowledge all the evidence at all, then used the excuse that you only read his posts for entertainment value. Seriously, this PROVES my post about patterns true.
The earth is an infinite 4D plane!

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2015, 07:26:05 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You seem to misunderstand the point. My goal here isn't to prove or disprove anything. My goal is to find the most useful model for explaining and predicting reality. As it stands, there isn't anything that RET does not explain but DET does. This makes DET at best redundant and at worst completely useless.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2015, 07:34:57 PM »
I would like to remind everyone that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You seem to misunderstand the point. My goal here isn't to prove or disprove anything. My goal is to find the most useful model for explaining and predicting reality. As it stands, there isn't anything that RET does not explain but DET does. This makes DET at best redundant and at worst completely useless.
There are plenty of things that RET does not explain; but that is not the premise of this thread.  This thread is making the claim that a lack of evidence for something is evidence that it is not true.  This is a fallacy.  Does my previous post make sense now?