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/neObAlright, let's get going! Over the process of ripping apart DEF, I'll be targeting each individual paragraph from each section, and dissecting it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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-draggingAt 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.
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.
Occam's Razor favors DET over RET.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it favors a round-Earth model over DEF.
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.
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.
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.