The logic behind the DET model

   JRowe
Administrator

Dec 11, 2015 at 1:35pm

Each successive post will develop the model further, beginning with a law, and ending with the evidence.

We begin with magic.

Magic is space; by which I mean, the fabric of space (which I'll define properly later). I use the term magic because it is more well-known in FET (albeit with a different definition), and it tends to make phrasing clearer, once the definition's understood. Outer space, for example, is called space: which can be misleading. In addition, I could refer to 'more magic in a certain space', in which case 'space' is meant colloquially: from an external perspective, how it might seem.

Anyway, to properly define, magic is the fabric of space: it is the dimension that is how we define distance. More magic means more distance: less magic, less distance. In this way, if we have more magic in a certain space, we have a stretch which, from an external perspective, would seem the same size as another spot, but from an internal perspective, is far longer.

A useful analogy is a spring. If you travel along the coils themselves then, no matter what, it's the same distance from A to B. However, the spring can be stretched out, or condensed: that set distance can get you from one place to another, when another route might take several compressed springs to do the same journey.

That's the basic definition. All that we have done so far is make a definition; none of this requires evidence. You could call it anything, all I do is choose an easier word.

We can tell that magic exists as an actual something: even RET accepts this. Relativity forms one example, where space is viewed as a fabric, not a mere direction.

It's trivial to note that this exists in concentrations: next to nothing is a binary in reality (even things like "Does it exist or not?" get murky at the quantum level). Even REers acknowledge there is such a thing as no space (ie: it began to exist): it follows there is a difference between the existence of space, and the non-existence of space. It's simple to then conclude there is a difference in the amount of magic that exists at various points. If that is unconvincing, mark it as an assumption: all theories are based on some (such as the definition if gravity relying on an assumption about mass, and the consequences of bent space).
It's also simple to note that, as we exist in (sort of on, terminology's confusing) magic, when magic moves, we will move with it.

All this is fairly easy to deduce, even if it seems a useless hypothetical. We'll get onto what the means for the shape of the world on the next page.

The last thing is one of the most important. We observe a universal tendency in the world: we see it in pressure, diffusion... Things move from areas of high concentrations, to low. If you blow up a balloon, the slightly compressed air (a high concentration) within the balloon will rush out, to the lower concentration around us. As this behavior appears universal, we may assume that the same holds for the aether: that if a high concentration and low concentration of magic are adjacent, they will begin to even themselves out, much of the high moving to the low.
The reason this is a fair thing to do is used at a fair few places in science. Take the Laws of Thermodynamics: clearly, they have not been tested for all places, at all times, with all things. However, we're all very happy to conclude that in a closed system, net entropy never decreases.

Simply put: magic is the fabric of space (known to exist by such theories as Relativity) with a universal law applied to it (observed in all areas of science).

Magic or Magick is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought towards (or 'magickate' towards) one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Magic is responsible for the complexity in the universe, by creating spheres of hydrogen — where hydrogen fuses under pressure to form stars — and grouping them into galaxies. Without magic, the universe would be an uncomplicated one, existing without thermal energy and composed only of equally spaced particles. On Earth, magic gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Magic has an infinite range, and it cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against.

.... logically deduced ...

Quote

.... logically deduced ...

This is the major flaw of Dual Earth Fantasy. Every part of your model is "logically deduced" and no other evidence is ever given. This means that your model is not a "theory" but rather a fantasy, or a hypothesis at the best.

Are there any experiments I can perform to test whether it exists?

This is the major flaw of Dual Earth Fantasy. Every part of your model is "logically deduced" and no other evidence is ever given. This means that your model is not a "theory" but rather a fantasy, or a hypothesis at the best.

So now you're just spamming an outright lie over the forum? Evidence is explicitly given. there is an entire section devoted to evidence. You choose either to ignore it, or misrepresent it and somehow claim refutation, depending on your mood. Your statement is verifiably false. The evidence is there.

Quote

So now you're just spamming an outright lie over the forum? Evidence is explicitly given. there is an entire section devoted to evidence. You choose either to ignore it, or misrepresent it and somehow claim refutation, depending on your mood. Your statement is verifiably false. The evidence is there.

Are you incapable of reading what you write yourself!? I dissected your entire damn "evidence" section in another thread and there was not one piece of physical evidence. Everything was just a bunch of logical deductions. Are you just being a liar penguin now to protect your fantasy?

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.

And here's Earthisround's dissection of the evidence:

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 14, 2015, 12:34:10 PM

Quote

So now you're just spamming an outright lie over the forum? Evidence is explicitly given. there is an entire section devoted to evidence. You choose either to ignore it, or misrepresent it and somehow claim refutation, depending on your mood. Your statement is verifiably false. The evidence is there.

Are you incapable of reading what you write yourself!? I dissected your entire damn "evidence" section in another thread and there was not one piece of physical evidence. Everything was just a bunch of logical deductions. Are you just being a liar penguin now to protect your fantasy?

You made numerous claims, several lies, and every one was addressed and refuted. The experimental, physical evidence is stated. The best response you had for that was "Oh, I don't think you meant what you explicitly stated." Ie: straw man.
When you can address what I actually said, rather than what you'd like me to have said, maybe you'd have an argument.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 14, 2015, 12:40:55 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 14, 2015, 12:34:10 PM

Quote

So now you're just spamming an outright lie over the forum? Evidence is explicitly given. there is an entire section devoted to evidence. You choose either to ignore it, or misrepresent it and somehow claim refutation, depending on your mood. Your statement is verifiably false. The evidence is there.

Are you incapable of reading what you write yourself!? I dissected your entire damn "evidence" section in another thread and there was not one piece of physical evidence. Everything was just a bunch of logical deductions. Are you just being a liar penguin now to protect your fantasy?

You made numerous claims, several lies, and every one was addressed and refuted. The experimental, physical evidence is stated. The best response you had for that was "Oh, I don't think you meant what you explicitly stated." Ie: straw man.
When you can address what I actually said, rather than what you'd like me to have said, maybe you'd have an argument.

I don't need to address what you say. Without any form of physical evidence, any claim you make to "back up" your model is null and void. Now, without saying "HURR DURR READ THE MODEL HURR", provide specific, detailed, physical evidence that your model is correct.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 14, 2015, 12:44:28 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 14, 2015, 12:40:55 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 14, 2015, 12:34:10 PM

Quote

So now you're just spamming an outright lie over the forum? Evidence is explicitly given. there is an entire section devoted to evidence. You choose either to ignore it, or misrepresent it and somehow claim refutation, depending on your mood. Your statement is verifiably false. The evidence is there.

Are you incapable of reading what you write yourself!? I dissected your entire damn "evidence" section in another thread and there was not one piece of physical evidence. Everything was just a bunch of logical deductions. Are you just being a liar penguin now to protect your fantasy?

You made numerous claims, several lies, and every one was addressed and refuted. The experimental, physical evidence is stated. The best response you had for that was "Oh, I don't think you meant what you explicitly stated." Ie: straw man.
When you can address what I actually said, rather than what you'd like me to have said, maybe you'd have an argument.

I don't need to address what you say. Without any form of physical evidence, any claim you make to "back up" your model is null and void. Now, without saying "HURR DURR READ THE MODEL HURR", provide specific, detailed, physical evidence that your model is correct.

There is physical evidence given in the section on evidence. How many times must your lie be corrected before you make an honest argument?
But no, instead you're spamming a verifiably false statement all over the forum. I thought you were secure in your model, why is this the best you can do?


What you ask for is ridiculous. The sum total of evidence for any model is far too much to include in one forum post. You know where the evidence is. Address it, or stop lying.

I've read your evidence. There's no experiment. What can I do to physically prove the existence of aether?

You can replace any word by 'magic' in any context. I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove.

Let's take Wikipedia on gravity:

Quote

Magic or Magick is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought towards (or 'magickate' towards) one another including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Magic is responsible for the complexity in the universe, by creating spheres of hydrogen — where hydrogen fuses under pressure to form stars — and grouping them into galaxies. Without magic, the universe would be an uncomplicated one, existing without thermal energy and composed only of equally spaced particles. On Earth, magic gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Magic has an infinite range, and it cannot be absorbed, transformed, or shielded against.

Do you have any remotely honest point to make, or are you just wasting time like usual?

Aether is well-defined and logically deduced and your ignorance of relativity and consistent lying are doing nothing to change that. So why can you do nothing else?

What the hell do you think that proves?! That's just juvenile mocking. No substance, no discussion. Congratulations, if you replace one word with a ridiculous word it ceases to make sense, so? That's going to be true in any case. if there was any actual flaw, you should be capable of pointing it out. I sincerely hope that's not a controversial point.
And yet literally all you have ever provided is the fact you don't accept the theory of relativity, which even your fellow REers call you out on. And then you come back, and rely on a blatantly dishonest and fundamentally meaningless argument.

It's just a waste of time trying to talk to you isn't it?

Also, I have addressed your evidence, and I'm not spamming false arguments. They're only false in your eyes.

I've read your evidence. There's no experiment. What can I do to physically prove the existence of aether?

The difference between gravity and Aether is that we use gravity on a everyday basis and observed and TESTED the effects of gravity. Please show me an observation and test that proves Aether.

So, the "Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET," and "There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model," sections don't exist, I take it?

Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them

There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model,

DET predicts that vertical refraction (that is, refraction measured from the Earth's surface to some height) 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.

An experiment that can be used to directly prove or disprove DET would be to measure vertical refraction over increasing altitudes. In RET, the change in refraction would be continuous, but under DET, the change would be discontinuous after a certain height. A way of doing this -for example- would be the use of a hot air balloon going directly upwards, and measuring refraction in intervals as the height increases.
If you have the means to accurately measure vertical refraction, and clearly see small changes in results, please let me know! This experiment could be used to prove the Dual Earth Theory!

No, they objectively do not make sense. You can't ask for evidence and then ignore it when it's given.

and also please share why you think aether is not observed and tested, despite the fact observations and tests are given in the model.

They are experiments that fit in your model, not prove the existence of aether directly.

You actually do explain after this what the experiment is, but not particularly clearly.

There is no evidence other than logical deduction! Are you incapable of reading what you wrote!?

Quote

There is no evidence other than logical deduction! Are you incapable of reading what you wrote!?

Please, tell me when I wrote that was all I ever gave, espeially given there remains a section explicitly on evidence, and despite your repeated claims, you have not even begun to refute it.

Your evidence section is basically this.

What predictions are better matched to DET than RE?

Honestly I find it hard to understand how a series of whirlpools can create a steady continuous distribution of stars and galaxys in the night sky let alone day night cycles and seasonal variations.

The stars look the same when viewed from a cruising Airplane for example, or is that not enough altitude to test?

For the last time name an experiment:
You don't even have to explain it. Just a name. One name.
For a EXPERIMENT that proves aethers existence.
And for the love of God do not tell me to read the DET thread one more time dammit.

Quote

They are experiments that fit in your model, not prove the existence of aether directly.

So is aether somehow not part of DET now?

Quote

You actually do explain after this what the experiment is, but not particularly clearly.

Then maybe the smart thing to do would have actually been to say so rather than expecting me to read your mind.

Brilliant example of evidence there. No experiment yet...

The point of your evidence section is that all of the experiments done match up with DET. However it is all underpinned by Aether. If you can't prove Aether, which you haven't, it is meaningless.

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of saying. I'm saying that all experiments ever done do not directly prove DET, only fits it. The same way that all experiments fit into the "god did it" logic.

If you look back at the conversation, you were actually conversing with another person before i came in. In the first post i made i explained this confusion clearly and directly to you. Again, i'm not certain what i have done to offend you. I actually gave you a paragraph that would make more sense.

Give one experiment for any theory which offered something beyond "The result fits the theory."

Do you have anything more than hypocrisy?

You 'offend' me when you waste my time. You lie about the model, outright ignore basically everything given in the evidence section, act patronizing, and refuse to offer anything beyond a handwave. How do you expect me to act?