The logic behind the DET model

So does the Aether exist? Your first bit of evidence is that evidence is observation. Aether's effects can be seen in the world. Unfortunately this doesn't prove anything as there are other theory's to explain Aethers effects and you don't disprove them in this section. Therefore the first point is null and void.

In terms of Occam's razor, this point is too under-developed. You need to give an example of a moment where DET has a simpler explanation than RE. Oh yeah, and some EVIDENCE.

Do you have anything more than insults? I'm being fairly polite and you keep throwing insults out.

Instead of explaining things to people, you say "read the model" and HOPE THEY GO AWAY.

OH AND BY THE WAY. OCCAM'S RAZOR SUPPORTS THE THEORY WITH 1000s OF PHOTOS OF A ROUND EARTH.

YOUR WHOLE THEORY RELIES ON A CONSPIRACY.

Quote

So does the Aether exist? Your first bit of evidence is that evidence is observation. Aether's effects can be seen in the world. Unfortunately this doesn't prove anything as there are other theory's to explain Aethers effects and you don't disprove them in this section. Therefore the first point is null and void.

And if you're claiming that is true then there is no evidence of anything, so this entire discussion is pointless.

Quote

In terms of Occam's razor, this point is too under-developed. You need to give an example of a moment where DET has a simpler explanation than RE. Oh yeah, and some EVIDENCE.

The point is not underdeveloped, it is generally applicable. DET works when you compare the whole model: the only honest way to compare theories.

Quote

Do you have anything more than insults? I'm being fairly polite and you keep throwing insults out.

You are wasting my time. How else do you expect me to treat you? if you don't want to be treated like a child, grow up. You are given the evidence, and you insist it's not good enough and I must provide something completely different, and yet you keep refusing to say why. if all you're doing is wasting time, no matter how politely you act, I see no reason to afford you any respect.

Quote

Instead of explaining things to people, you say "read the model" and HOPE THEY GO AWAY.

No, I hope they read the model. That would by why I say that. If someone is too lazy to click a link, it's clearly not worth my time to explain to them.

Quote

OH AND BY THE WAY. OCCAM'S RAZOR SUPPORTS THE THEORY WITH 1000s OF PHOTOS OF A ROUND EARTH.

Which FET and DET explain, so they are evidence of nothing.

Quote

YOUR WHOLE THEORY RELIES ON A CONSPIRACY.

My theory relies on aether. The conspiracy is a conclusion, not an assumption.

You are given the evidence, and you insist it's not good enough and I must provide something completely different

Which FET and DET explain, so they are evidence of nothing.

My theory relies on aether. The conspiracy is a conclusion, not an assumption.

Quote

What predictions are better matched to DET than RE?

You've been given one: and DET remains preferred due to the fact it relies on fewer assumptions.

Quote

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.

Are you going to be at all clear with your objection, or are you just asserting that DET is false, the same as ever?

Quote

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

To the naked eye, maybe. Even RET predicts they'll be subtly different, due to decreased refraction due to looking through less air. It's far easier to measure from an altitude to ground level.

Quote

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.

I'm going to tell you to read the DET model until you actually do. Evidence is outlined there. if you're too lazy to click a link I see no point in wasting energy on you.
The world doesn't revolve around you. Everyone does not need to kowtow to your whims. You know where the answer is: whether or not you read it is your choice.

No evidence of what? This is becoming a major problem with your communication. There was no claiming involved in my point-even FE's can admit there are other theory's beside their own. Also, what is "no evidence of anything" meant to mean? I may be misunderstanding you but this sentence just doesn't seem to make sense.

Secondly if Occam's Razor is generally applicable then you still need to cite other parts of your theory where it makes more sense than any popular RE models/theory's. Making claims like these are pointless without evidence or references to earlier parts of your DET theory.

Finally you ARE being very rude. Throwing a tantrum because someone disagrees with you is something a child would do, which is ironic given your earlier claims. When someone asks a scientist a question about a theory, they don't say "go and read the theory its in there". Theory's are subjected to scrutiny for a reason-to ensure every aspect is correct. That's why many scientists publish theory's that have already been peer marked to avoid this problem. There will inevitably be holes in your theory just like any other idea out there. Instead of insisting everything you wrote is correct, look for the holes in your theory and then come up with a new theory that fix's these problems.
That's how you create a theory. Not by insisting you're right all the time.     

Oh and are you going to respond to my other points about your evidence? It seems you forgot to respond to half of my criticism about your evidence section. That's a pretty significant amount...

Oh right, they explain the photos by saying they are faked. How scientific.

You even theorising that the aether exists stems from the fact you think RET is a conspiracy.

How is that a prediction, or better yet, how did that even answer the question?

He is asking how your interpretation of these "whirlpools" explains the star positions and the day/night cycle. Not sure how you missed this.

I think that is the first legit answer I've seen from you. This is the kind of thing we were looking for.

Obviously no evidence there. There could be if the balloon experiment had actually been performed.

Okay lets have a look. There's literally no claiming. None at all. I make no claims. Can you explain what exactly I'm claiming? Much appreciated.

Secondly are you saying that you have explicitly made points about Occam's razor in other parts of your theory and then not collated them into one referenced point in your evidence section when TALKING about Occam's razor? The fact that you haven't collected evidence from your theory into the actual evidence section strikes me as very odd...making me doubt this point even more.

You do insist your model is accurate. First of all why haven't you fixed any of the grammatical/logical holes in your theory? Your evidence section is far too underdeveloped and I've already talked about your apparent laziness to collate related references.

Finally the thing I'm whining about (hope everyone else is seeing the irony  ) is the fact that you "forgot" to cover half my points about the pointless evidence listed in your evidence section (pointless for various reasons). Care to take a look? 

At the moment you only have one untested experiment which is not something you want to be basing a theory upon.

There, look at that a checklist for you to follow. So when DET v2 coming out?

This is way too accurate. 
Honestly until I can conduct experiments on the Aether I'm never going to believe in it. Are there any experiments I can perform to test whether it exists?

Quote from: Cake Tastes Nice on December 14, 2015, 12:27:40 PM

This is way too accurate. 
Honestly until I can conduct experiments on the Aether I'm never going to believe in it. Are there any experiments I can perform to test whether it exists?

Every time a double slit experiment is performed it is the aether that waves.

The Casimir effect is caused by the chaotic nature of the aether. The water in the following video represents the chaotic nature of the aether.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Cake Tastes Nice on December 14, 2015, 12:27:40 PM

This is way too accurate. 
Honestly until I can conduct experiments on the Aether I'm never going to believe in it. Are there any experiments I can perform to test whether it exists?

Every time a double slit experiment is performed it is the aether that waves.

The Casimir effect is caused by the chaotic nature of the aether. The water in the following video represents the chaotic nature of the aether.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: mpc755 on December 18, 2015, 09:32:25 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 18, 2015, 05:29:50 AM

Aether is not literally a fluid. Learn the model. I am explaining it in terms of an analogue, that's all.

Aether is well defined. The properties are given and are not altering.

Aether is the mass which fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter that exist in it and move through it.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

Not under the DE model, which I believe is what EternalHoid was asking about, as we've discussed it several times. The notion of aether as a mass that 'fills in the gaps' is an incoherent one, and requires far too many assumptions as to the subsequent properties to be useful as part of a theory.
Aether under the DE model is simply the fabric of space subject to a universal law. No more and no less.

Quote

How is that a prediction, or better yet, how did that even answer the question?

Prediction: a claim about reality. You've been given a general rule you can apply.

Quote

What predictions are better matched to DET than RE?

You've been given one: and DET remains preferred due to the fact it relies on fewer assumptions.

Quote

He is asking how your interpretation of these "whirlpools" explains the star positions and the day/night cycle. Not sure how you missed this.

And he isn't saying what part of the explanation is unclear. How about you read rather than just assuming the worst? I can't answer a question that refuses to be clear.

Quote

I think that is the first legit answer I've seen from you. This is the kind of thing we were looking for.

I answer every clear question offered. Stop mocking, stop whinging, stop assuming baseless and unclear assertions are any kind of question, stop insisting I waste hours repeating every aspect of the model, and maybe you can have an actual discussion sometimes.

Quote

Obviously no evidence there. There could be if the balloon experiment had actually been performed.

There was more evidence than an experiment exclusively meant to demonstrate falsifiability. Stop lying. It's just getting tedious to deal with you.

Quit feeding him and quit reporting him, you stupid ass holes.

So I ask again, how is that a prediction....

He is asking you to, right here, right now, in this thread, in your own words, explain how this process works. The entire concept is unclear because you invented it. Please elaborate on the entire process.

That is obviously untrue and can be verified just by looking up your posts on this forum.

How many times do we have to tell you that just pure observation and logical deduction is not evidence in a scientific theory? They are the basis for a hypothesis and testing your hypothesis is how how you get to the evidence. Without performing tests to your hypothesis you cannot call this a theory.

Quote

So I ask again, how is that a prediction....

It's not. You referenced something answering a completely different question. What the hell did you expect?! Do you not understand the english language? Look up the word 'and.' It means 'in addition.'
And you whine about how I misrepresented what you said...

Quote from: Teutarch on December 16, 2015, 03:59:36 AM

What predictions are better matched to DET than RE?

You've been given one: and DET remains preferred due to the fact it relies on fewer assumptions.

Quote

He is asking you to, right here, right now, in this thread, in your own words, explain how this process works. The entire concept is unclear because you invented it. Please elaborate on the entire process.

Once again, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT PART HE FINDS UNCLEAR. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT ME TO DO?! Unless I find out what the actual problem is, all I'm going to do is repeat what's in the model. I'm not going to waste time doing that. For fuck's sake, how many times do I need to answer a question before you pay any attention?! What the hell is wrong with you?!
I cannot clarify until I know what's unclear. Handwaving 'everything' is no more than a clear waste of time, and wont' help any kind of answer. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT PART IS NOT UNDERSTOOD IF I AM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT MAKE ANY MORE SENSE.
HOW IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!

Quote

That is obviously untrue and can be verified just by looking up your posts on this forum.

Bullshit, and you know it, but of course REers won't verify any of your claims, they'll just assume you're right because how could an FEer possibly mount a good argument. Why do you need to resort to such blatantly dishonest tactics? I note that yet again you refuse to justify your claims.

Quote

How many times do we have to tell you that just pure observation and logical deduction is not evidence in a scientific theory? They are the basis for a hypothesis and testing your hypothesis is how how you get to the evidence. Without performing tests to your hypothesis you cannot call this a theory.

Which remains bullshit no matter how much you repeat it. your entire argument is apparently "Oh, an experiment only works as evidence if you personally perform it," which makes NO SENSE. I use the results of experiments performed, as does EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD.
Is this really your example of an argument I didn't respond to? I did, multiple times. And yet you're back to whinging and repeating the EXACT SAME bullshit without the slightest alteration. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Jrow you know when Jroa is dubious of your theory that it really must be a pile of BS...

So thank you for just pointing out that I was right and you did not answer the question. That is the exact quote. That was the question asked and how you answered it. Right there on the first page of this thread. Not sure why you say I don't verify my claims.

That's what I'm asking you, I could not have possibly been more clear on what I'm asking. How hard is it to understand? There is no specific thing about how whirlpools make the stars and sun work that the question is addressing. I don't get what you can't understand when we say THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

Unless I find out what the actual problem is, all I'm going to do is repeat what's in the model. I'm not going to waste time doing that. For fuck's sake, how many times do I need to answer a question before you pay any attention?!

You can nit pick all you want but the main issue is that you have done 0 experiments. You cannot try to create a brand new scientific theory and not test your hypothesis. Its fine to use data from others that SUPPORTS your hypothesis but you still have to TEST your hypothesis.

Quote

That's what I'm asking you, I could not have possibly been more clear on what I'm asking. How hard is it to understand? There is no specific thing about how whirlpools make the stars and sun work that the question is addressing. I don't get what you can't understand when we say THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

ARE YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE?!
WHAT PART OF THE MODEL IS UNCLEAR? WHY IS IT UNCLEAR? HOW THE HELL AM I MEANT TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF ANSWER WHEN YOU REFUSE TO CLARIFY AND CONSISTENTLY WILLFULLY IGNORE MY MEANING?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WTH YOU?!

JRowe, you were asked on your forum why you didn't want to do youtube videos. This is why you should.
Upon looking and staring at your model, it is clear that you do actually explain the entire process he was asking for. However it is not clear in the slightest. Your figures are not particularly clear, and animations or simple images showing this exact process (of making stars with whirlpools) would make it way easier to understand.

You also said that text tends to be easier to reread and understand, but the opposite is true. A picture holds 1000 words, as they say. You could explain in text the whole of the theory of electromagnetism, but a simple diagram here and there would explain things far more easily.

Here are some things i think would greatly benefit from visual demonstration:

1) The process of dust becoming the earth
2) The detailed flows of aether within the earth (a bit like fig 1 except with both disks and the sun)
3) The process of the creation of stars, including the supposed flows of aether before formation
4) Visual representation of your supposed refraction experiment

This would probably remove 90% of the confusion from people.

Quote

Jrow you know when Jroa is dubious of your theory that it really must be a pile of BS...

Jroa's a REer, why would I care about his judgement?

Quote

So thank you for just pointing out that I was right and you did not answer the question. That is the exact quote. That was the question asked and how you answered it. Right there on the first page of this thread. Not sure why you say I don't verify my claims.

Nope, still not what I said. You really struggle with the word 'and' huh? You were explicitly told this...

Quote

That's what I'm asking you, I could not have possibly been more clear on what I'm asking. How hard is it to understand? There is no specific thing about how whirlpools make the stars and sun work that the question is addressing. I don't get what you can't understand when we say THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

ARE YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE?!
WHAT PART OF THE MODEL IS UNCLEAR? WHY IS IT UNCLEAR? HOW THE HELL AM I MEANT TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF ANSWER WHEN YOU REFUSE TO CLARIFY AND CONSISTENTLY WILLFULLY IGNORE MY MEANING?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WTH YOU?!

Quote

Unless I find out what the actual problem is, all I'm going to do is repeat what's in the model. I'm not going to waste time doing that. For fuck's sake, how many times do I need to answer a question before you pay any attention?!

Pay attention, fuckwit. This is just pathetic.
All I can do is repeat the explanation given in my model UNTIL YOU SAY WHT IS WRONG WITH IT. Handwaving "Ohh, it doesn't make sense," IS A WASTE OF TIME UNLESS YOU ARE SPECIFIC. LEARN TO FUCKING READ.

Quote

You can nit pick all you want but the main issue is that you have done 0 experiments. You cannot try to create a brand new scientific theory and not test your hypothesis. Its fine to use data from others that SUPPORTS your hypothesis but you still have to TEST your hypothesis.

And still refusing to provide any more than the assertion. What you're insisting on makes no logical sense, end of. You don't get to hold on to a theory which relies on more assumption, simply by tradition. You really struggle justifying any of your claims, don't you?

This is just too much. You think you answered anything and you did not. I can safely say, game over. I have won. I can't even say there was any challenge.

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:27:49 PM

This is just too much. You think you answered anything and you did not. I can safely say, game over. I have won. I can't even say there was any challenge.

Provide more than assertion sometime.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 20, 2015, 02:31:50 PM

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:27:49 PM

This is just too much. You think you answered anything and you did not. I can safely say, game over. I have won. I can't even say there was any challenge.

Provide more than assertion sometime.

Already have, don't need any more. Game over.

ROFL. I like you just described your own behavior woven in with blatant lies. Game Over.

Anyone going back and reading your posts would agree with me. I don't really have to do anything. I'm not out to prove the obvious so why waste the effort?

Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 20, 2015, 02:58:25 PM

Anyone going back and reading your posts would agree with me. I don't really have to do anything. I'm not out to prove the obvious so why waste the effort?

Anyone going back and reading would agree with you on principle because you're a REer, and no one wants to actually think about their preconceptions or have an honest discussion. You, especially, refuse to. it doesn't change the fact all you offer is a waste of time.

I'm going to stop feeding the troll. Come back when you can justify a single claim you make.