DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave

Hi! Want me to leave the site? I know a fair few of you do. So, here's a challenge.
If you can meet the requirements, I will leave this site for a minimum of three months. Maybe more, depends what I'm doing when those three months are up. That's a whole quarter of a year you get to have fun without me talking about DET. Enjoy!
Plus, mods, if/when I concede you are more than welcome to ban my account for the aforementioned period of time.

A lot of people have objected to DET and the definition of evidence I use.
I outline the full model here, the overview of evidence is at the end: http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/3

The basic summary is that evidence for a theory is:
a) An observation that is explained by said theory, when
b) That theory does not rely on more assumptions than any alternatives.

(Assumptions being anything not proven or based on evidence. However, clearly assumptions have consequences. if A implies B, and both A and B need to hold for a theory, then there is still just one assumption, A).


The Challenge

If this definition is not good enough, then provide just one example of either:
1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Quick caveats: experiments are just a special case of observations, they are perfectly in line with this definition, so they should not be used as a response to 1 as I've seen. Equally, God is not a response to 2 as God does not minimize assumptions; each separate trait is its own assumption.

I await your responses.
For so long as this challenge goes unmet, you must acknowledge that the definition of evidence I used holds; 1 prevents it being too narrow, 2 prevents it being too accepting. And if you're a user who stumbled onto this post after it died, and the challenge remains unmet, you are more than welcome to resurrect the thread if you have a response.
As ever, I'm eager to hear any valid objections.

Why would someone want you to leave?
Aether can do anything and makes up everything.  <---  infinite amount of assumptions here.  Claiming it is just your word for spacetime then using it with multiple contradicting properties to fill any hole or gap in your model does not equal less assumptions. 
But I do not want you to leave and you never accept this as a valid response when I make it anyway, so we are both wasting time in this thread.

Why would someone want you to leave?
Aether can do anything and makes up everything.  <---  infinite amount of assumptions here.  Claiming it is just your word for spacetime then using it with multiple contradicting properties to fill any hole or gap in your model does not equal less assumptions. 
But I do not want you to leave and you never accept this as a valid response when I make it anyway, so we are both wasting time in this thread.

It is not a valid response because it has nothing to do with the challenge. It's an objection you've made to DET, which we've discussed countless times before, which I explained the issues with those times, and which does not hold up: but, more relevantly, it does not meet either of the criteria of this challenge.
Which criteria is this addressed at, 1 or 2?

Who wants you to leave? This site is much more interesting with you.

Who wants you to leave? This site is much more interesting with you.

Many people, judging from various PMs and posts, and a lot of them insist similarly that DET's very foundation is flawed, so this is their chance to put their money with their mouth is.
I'll add the addendum that if the winner doesn't want me to leave, they can say so. (Though someone else is always able to provide another winning answer and ask me to leave).

Note to Mikey: given you did not give a piece of evidence, but rather my model of aether, the only criteria you could meet is that you believe aether meets observations and relies on minimal assumptions, yet you stated the opposite. Your post was not an answer to the challenge.

Quote

Why would someone want you to leave?
Aether can do anything and makes up everything.  <---  infinite amount of assumptions here.  Claiming it is just your word for spacetime then using it with multiple contradicting properties to fill any hole or gap in your model does not equal less assumptions. 
But I do not want you to leave and you never accept this as a valid response when I make it anyway, so we are both wasting time in this thread.

It is not a valid response because it has nothing to do with the challenge. It's an objection you've made to DET, which we've discussed countless times before, which I explained the issues with those times, and which does not hold up: but, more relevantly, it does not meet either of the criteria of this challenge.
Which criteria is this addressed at, 1 or 2?

Your use of aether underpins your model, your explanations of aether does it is not acceptable.  It is not reducing assumptions, it increases assumptions to infinity since any question about properties of your model is conveniently answered by yet another thing aether does.  Crossing the equator in your model, please enlighten us.  The Sun's location in your model and how I can take a picture of it from the Northern hemisphere and a friend can take a picture of it from the Southern hemisphere, both with solar lenses and compare them to see the same sunspots at the same time.  Not many people want to leave this site to go to your personal forum board.  My questions are valid, you have always chosen to ignore them. 
I wasn't trying to answer your challenge, just throw some stink in the works since you were trying to get people to leave the site instead of posting it here yourself. 
Also

If this definition is not good enough, then provide just one example of either:
1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Quick caveats: experiments are just a special case of observations, they are perfectly in line with this definition, so they should not be used as a response to 1 as I've seen. Equally, God is not a response to 2 as God does not minimize assumptions; each separate trait is its own assumption.

I await your responses.
For so long as this challenge goes unmet, you must acknowledge that the definition of evidence I used holds; 1 prevents it being too narrow, 2 prevents it being too accepting. And if you're a user who stumbled onto this post after it died, and the challenge remains unmet, you are more than welcome to resurrect the thread if you have a response.
As ever, I'm eager to hear any valid objections.

For 1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
Your use of Aether to explain everything makes this an impossibility to argue against.  Not that its a win for you, just an invalid question as long as you can give Aether another property.
For 2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.
The spheroid model matches all observations period.  No magical aether transportation to get from one side of the disc to the other without knowing it, awaiting your explanation here, in this thread, on this site, about the Sun.  Again, much less assumptions than an infinitely changing magical substance like aether.  And are you requiring it NOT be based on evidence?

Who wants you to leave? This site is much more interesting with you.

I agree with this.

I hope you don't let the angry globularists run you off the site, even for three months. It's good that you defend your model here and you are welcome here.

My questions are valid, you have always chosen to ignore them. 

I answered them, and then got sick of doing so because you never listened. Just like you're not now. This is not a thread for your petty, dealt-with grievances. If you want to discuss them, make your own thread. I will be more than happy to respond as I have done countless times before.

For 1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
Your use of Aether to explain everything makes this an impossibility to argue against.  Not that its a win for you, just an invalid question as long as you can give Aether another property.
For 2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.
The spheroid model matches all observations period.  No magical aether transportation to get from one side of the disc to the other without knowing it, awaiting your explanation here, in this thread, on this site, about the Sun.  Again, much less assumptions than an infinitely changing magical substance like aether.  And are you requiring it NOT be based on evidence?

1. I do not use aether as evidence. It is something I define, never adding any new traits to, and use as a conclusion. It is not a piece of evidence for the model, thus cannot be a response to 1.
2. This has nothing to do with DET vs RET, this is entirely abstract. Unless you are saying DET matches all observations and relies on minimal assumptuons, or that RET is not based on evidence, your post is still utterly irrelevant to this thread.

I am trying to talk about one specific subject here. please stop derailing.

Quote

My questions are valid, you have always chosen to ignore them. 

I answered them, and then got sick of doing so because you never listened. Just like you're not now. This is not a thread for your petty, dealt-with grievances. If you want to discuss them, make your own thread. I will be more than happy to respond as I have done countless times before.

Quote

For 1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
Your use of Aether to explain everything makes this an impossibility to argue against.  Not that its a win for you, just an invalid question as long as you can give Aether another property.
For 2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.
The spheroid model matches all observations period.  No magical aether transportation to get from one side of the disc to the other without knowing it, awaiting your explanation here, in this thread, on this site, about the Sun.  Again, much less assumptions than an infinitely changing magical substance like aether.  And are you requiring it NOT be based on evidence?

1. I do not use aether as evidence. It is something I define, never adding any new traits to, and use as a conclusion. It is not a piece of evidence for the model, thus cannot be a response to 1.
2. This has nothing to do with DET vs RET, this is entirely abstract. Unless you are saying DET matches all observations and relies on minimal assumptuons, or that RET is not based on evidence, your post is still utterly irrelevant to this thread.

I am trying to talk about one specific subject here. please stop derailing.

Ok, without aether then, Sunset/Sunrise.  Please tell us how that works on you model for people in both Northern and Southern hemispheres simultaneously.
Satellite communications between Northern and Southern hemispheres, please show us how this works without aether. 
Also, not irrelevant, DET  is not in line with observations.  This is what I have said many times, you choose to ignore and dodge.  I am saying RE reality explains everything, DE fantasy does not.  I will again reiterate, that wordplay about how you use Aether is not explaining how it supposedly does everything in your model with less assumptions.  Aetheric transportation to hide the equatorial gap, aetheric gravity that does not match reality since there is not center of it instead it equally "pushes" you down, Aetheric lensing to bring the image of the Sun from the center of your model between the discs to be apparent  above the discs, aetheric heat transfer instead of oxygen for breathing, aetheric this aetheric that, etc.  Infinitely adaptable aether, because it told you so without speaking.  I have been around since before you began this model.
You have never answered questions, only went into tirades about people not listening to you.  I could start quoting the mountains of times you have done it.  We ask how something you have claimed works, you may or may not attempt to explain which usually involves another aether property, then when we do not accept a "cause I said so" excuse you claim no one is listening to you.  This has been your entire schtick since you came to this board when questioned.  I am not surprised to see you doing it again.

Like I said, explain here, on this forum, in this thread if you want people to question your model.  Then have the decency to actually explain without losing your ever loving mind when they may not agree with you.  If you refuse to do that, and only cry about people asking for you to do some actual explaining, then your model is NULL and VOID as it cannot stand up to analyzation. 

Mikey, if you are not going to attempt the challenge, do not post in this thread. Stop derailing, as I said. if you want to discuss those topics, ask elsewhere.
Why is it every single time I try to do a thread to find out the issues people have with specific topics, people like you always butt in and derail?

Hi! Want me to leave the site? I know a fair few of you do. So, here's a challenge.
If you can meet the requirements, I will leave this site for a minimum of three months. Maybe more, depends what I'm doing when those three months are up. That's a whole quarter of a year you get to have fun without me talking about DET. Enjoy!
Plus, mods, if/when I concede you are more than welcome to ban my account for the aforementioned period of time.

A lot of people have objected to DET and the definition of evidence I use.
I outline the full model here, the overview of evidence is at the end: http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/3

The basic summary is that evidence for a theory is:
a) An observation that is explained by said theory, when
b) That theory does not rely on more assumptions than any alternatives.

(Assumptions being anything not proven or based on evidence. However, clearly assumptions have consequences. if A implies B, and both A and B need to hold for a theory, then there is still just one assumption, A).


The Challenge

If this definition is not good enough, then provide just one example of either:
1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.

Quick caveats: experiments are just a special case of observations, they are perfectly in line with this definition, so they should not be used as a response to 1 as I've seen. Equally, God is not a response to 2 as God does not minimize assumptions; each separate trait is its own assumption.

I await your responses.
For so long as this challenge goes unmet, you must acknowledge that the definition of evidence I used holds; 1 prevents it being too narrow, 2 prevents it being too accepting. And if you're a user who stumbled onto this post after it died, and the challenge remains unmet, you are more than welcome to resurrect the thread if you have a response.
As ever, I'm eager to hear any valid objections.

As I started in an other thread far far away, you ideas or conjecture does not fulfill the requirement to be a theory and as such you have no theory to refute that is unless you wish to rewrite the deninition of theory.

Hi! Want me to leave the site? I know a fair few of you do.

A fair few children demand cookies for dinner. Don't be discouraged.

As I started in an other thread far far away, you ideas or conjecture does not fulfill the requirement to be a theory and as such you have no theory to refute that is unless you wish to rewrite the deninition of theory.

Do you have an entry for the challenge? if not, do not post here.

Hi! Want me to leave the site? I know a fair few of you do. So, here's a challenge.
If you can meet the requirements, I will leave this site for a minimum of three months. Maybe more, depends what I'm doing when those three months are up. That's a whole quarter of a year you get to have fun without me talking about DET. Enjoy!
Plus, mods, if/when I concede you are more than welcome to ban my account for the aforementioned period of time.

A lot of people have objected to DET and the definition of evidence I use.
I outline the full model here, the overview of evidence is at the end: http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/3

Why would we want you to leave?
All we ask is that you be prepared to debate and present actual evidence, instead of cursing anyone who disagrees.

All we ask is that you be prepared to debate and present actual evidence, instead of cursing anyone who disagrees.

Always am. The only time I curse is when I get frustrated by self-righteous posters who are incapable of debate.

As far as 'actual evidence' goes, you're more than welcome to point out what your problem is with mine. That's the entire point of the thread.
Do you see why I get frustrated now? You make a snide remark about the evidence I present and complain that I don't debate, in a thread where I am asking you to explain what is wrong with my evidence.
If you win and you don't want me to leave, i won't. Just figured I needed to have some kind of incentive because for god's sake how many posts are we in now and no one's actually attempted the presented challenge.

JROWE, as an aside from our discussion. 
Even if someone were able to get you to accept a challenge and were to get you to actually admit defeat for the current model you have for DET.  Do not let them decide your future on this site.  Please, remove that option from your posts. 

And now back to the argument. 

The basic summary is that evidence for a theory is:
a) An observation that is explained by said theory, when
b) That theory does not rely on more assumptions than any alternatives.

Do rockets launched into space count as evidence?

The basic summary is that evidence for a theory is:
a) An observation that is explained by said theory, when
b) That theory does not rely on more assumptions than any alternatives.

But that wasn't what you said.
You said:

Therefore, we have our definition of evidence: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
That's all.

You have no requirements for it to be explained by the theory nor any requirements that said theory doesn't rely upon more assumptions than alternatives.

That is why I objected to it. Because, based upon the definition you provided on your site, a cat is evidence that Earth is flat.

This new definition, while I would say it isn't perfect, is much better and a reasonable definition.
One key part of its imperfection is that a hypothesis/model needs evidence for it become a theory.

This is reflected in your challenge, where instead of asking about a theory you ask about a model.
It would be better if you said claim or statement or collection thereof.

For so long as this challenge goes unmet, you must acknowledge that the definition of evidence I used holds

Which one? The one you provided on your website which is pure bullshit, or this one, which would mean there is no evidence for DE BS?

Quote

Who wants you to leave? This site is much more interesting with you.

Many people, judging from various PMs and posts, and a lot of them insist similarly that DET's very foundation is flawed, so this is their chance to put their money with their mouth is.

How is it?
You made it quite clear you interest here is discussing the meaning of evidence, so how does this provide a chance to show that the very foundation of DE BS is flawed (I'm not going to call it a theory as it isn't one).

So what is it that you want to discuss? If DE is flawed, or if your definition of evidence is?

Quote

All we ask is that you be prepared to debate and present actual evidence, instead of cursing anyone who disagrees.

Always am. The only time I curse is when I get frustrated by self-righteous posters who are incapable of debate.

So, yourself?

Do you see why I get frustrated now? You make a snide remark about the evidence I present and complain that I don't debate, in a thread where I am asking you to explain what is wrong with my evidence.

No. We see you doing the same thing as always. Instead of debating what people actually wish to debate, you set up straw men and focus on that.
You claim here that this is a thread where you are asking us to explain what is wrong with your evidence, but it isn't. In the OP you are focusing on the meaning of evidence, not what you are claiming is evidence for DET.

So what do you want?
For us to point out what is wrong with your definition of evidence (either the original or the new one, neither of which the challenge actually addresses), or the issues with what you claim as evidence of DET?

Yes.....but what about the nature of the Sun as you claim in your conjecture.....rock and stone! I really don't think so. The science of Spectroscopy says otherwise, and on that hangs much of science as we know it!

Your entire 'model' relies on aether without which you have a fuckload of phenomenon to explain. As Mikey already touched on, you use aether to bend and transport light; simulate gravity; bend/contract/fold 'space'; affect and move mass but apparently exerts no friction whilst doing so; form 'whirlpools' and fuck knows whatever else you've decided. It is incoherent psychobabble at best and needn't be 'refuted' by anyone because there is literally nothing to refute.

Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

I'm sure, of course, that I'm just mistaken, stupid and/or lying in trying to comprehend what you call a model. I'm sure you'll correct me on this misconception and I'm sure it'll have something to do with aether.

One of my favourite things about your wall of rambling text is how you spend so much effort going into semantics about evidence. It's very clear you know you have zero evidence for the batshit you propagate, so you must come up with a laboured meaning for something that is already very clearly defined. The only thing you're right about in your "Evidence" section is that an observation may have multiple explanations. Correct, it could! That's why we have experiments which are carefully designed, repeated and carried out by multiple parties to explain the observation, something conspicuously absent from anything you've done for your fantasy and something you will never do.

Thusly, your rambling bullshit is dismissed out of hand as claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your semantics argument notwithstanding, you provide no physical or mathematical evidence for anything you assert, rendering your challenge meaningless. You don't have a "theory" or a "model" so please try again.

Do rockets launched into space count as evidence?

All of space is a perpetrated hoax, according to him.

...if you want, while you collect your coat and hat I can hold the door open for you.....:-)

Your entire 'model' relies on aether without which you have a fuckload of phenomenon to explain. As Mikey already touched on, you use aether to bend and transport light; simulate gravity; bend/contract/fold 'space'; affect and move mass but apparently exerts no friction whilst doing so; form 'whirlpools' and fuck knows whatever else you've decided. It is incoherent psychobabble at best and needn't be 'refuted' by anyone because there is literally nothing to refute.

Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

I'm sure, of course, that I'm just mistaken, stupid and/or lying in trying to comprehend what you call a model. I'm sure you'll correct me on this misconception and I'm sure it'll have something to do with aether.

One of my favourite things about your wall of rambling text is how you spend so much effort going into semantics about evidence. It's very clear you know you have zero evidence for the batshit you propagate, so you must come up with a laboured meaning for something that is already very clearly defined. The only thing you're right about in your "Evidence" section is that an observation may have multiple explanations. Correct, it could! That's why we have experiments which are carefully designed, repeated and carried out by multiple parties to explain the observation, something conspicuously absent from anything you've done for your fantasy and something you will never do.

Thusly, your rambling bullshit is dismissed out of hand as claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your semantics argument notwithstanding, you provide no physical or mathematical evidence for anything you assert, rendering your challenge meaningless. You don't have a "theory" or a "model" so please try again.

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2017, 09:02:33 PM

Do rockets launched into space count as evidence?

All of space is a perpetrated hoax, according to him.

Wow don't hold back tell him what you really think.....you can hold the door open for him if you want, I'll just stand by and watch as he skulks out the room.....

You are one of the least annoying characters of the post intikam era, and not even a flat earther, so that indtroduction is kinda piontless.

You are one of the least annoying characters of the post intikam era, and not even a flat earther, so that indtroduction is kinda piontless.

Your own kind turning on you...

Et tu, Brute........William always had a great way with words, so economical, yet so true.

Ι do not understand the criteria of the challenge.

I also do not understand the "reward". I'm sure there are so many people here who can't sleep at night because you're on this site!

Well at least it's more tangible than Heiwa's reward.

Do rockets launched into space count as evidence?

Is that an entry to the challenge? if not, please do not post it in this thread. If you would like to discuss the topic, start another.
That appears to be a piece of evidence. Are you say that they are not observed?

Yes.....but what about the nature of the Sun as you claim in your conjecture.....rock and stone! I really don't think so. The science of Spectroscopy says otherwise, and on that hangs much of science as we know it!

Is that an entry to the challenge? if not, please do not post it in this thread.
That appears to be evidence. Are you saying spectroscopy is not observation?

Thusly, your rambling bullshit is dismissed out of hand as claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Is that an entry to the challenge? if not, please do not post it in this thread. If you would like to discuss the topic, start another.

One of my favourite things about your wall of rambling text is how you spend so much effort going into semantics about evidence. It's very clear you know you have zero evidence for the batshit you propagate, so you must come up with a laboured meaning for something that is already very clearly defined.

It's clearly defined, I just rephrased it to make the model clearer. people objected to the definition, so I had to labour the point to prevent it. It didn't stop their objections, hence this thread. If you object to the meaning I use, this is your chance to say what your problem is. Otherwise you're just complaining that I said something that was correct, and explained why it was correct, which seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel.

But that wasn't what you said.
You said:
Quote
Therefore, we have our definition of evidence: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
That's all.
You have no requirements for it to be explained by the theory nor any requirements that said theory doesn't rely upon more assumptions than alternatives.

'An observation that is in line with what a theory states' is 'an observation explained by a theory.' And if you had read the evidence section of the overview, or indeed any of the times I responded to your straw man that this was all I relied on, you would know that I do and have always been talking about minimizing assumptions.
The problem is that evidence in the abstract can point to multiple models: so evidence for one particular model relies on minimising assumptions to sort it out. There are two steps, you looked at the first step and insisted that was all there was when I repeatedly and explicitly have said the opposite.

So what do you want?
For us to point out what is wrong with your definition of evidence (either the original or the new one, neither of which the challenge actually addresses), or the issues with what you claim as evidence of DET?

What new one? This is the definition in the overview. I give evidence for DET, then point out that it gives no reason to accept DET over a competing theory. The summary for the evidence section (a total of three lines if you didn't want to go through the whole wall) states this as well: the first two lines give this basic definition, the third explains how it applies to DET. I do not understand how you can honestly be claiming that this is somehow new.
As for what I want, in this thread I want you to point out your objections to the definition of evidence. This is one thread. In others, when it is the topic, I am happy to discuss other issues, albeit not with you because it is a waste of time to do so, as your clear straw man here demonstrates. Other REers, however, you are all welcome to ask whatever questions you have in the relevant threads.

Ι do not understand the criteria of the challenge.

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence. 
Which part is unclear? Either a piece of evidence which doesn't meet the definition I give, or a theory which meets the definition but isn't based on evidence. People have alternately claimed that my definition of evidence is too forgiving or too strict; I'm looking for proof.

BTW, if you're wondering why people don't want to debate your model, it's because of stuff like this:

"Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low."

Uh... What? Space moves to other space, where there's less space? What do you mean there's less space? Is there less space per... unit space?

"With it, dust would be carried as the space it exists in moves. Now, clearly, there is no viscosity to space: such a thing would be incoherent. (And on a semi-technical aside: space has no mass, and anything at a fixed point in space would have no acceleration or velocity even if the space itself moves. "

If stuff is carried along with space, why aren't we carried as space flows away from the equator? And... if stuff moves with space... Why does it not have velocity? Relative to what? How do you say the space moves if it doesn't move? What? I don't...

" This is harder to test. Under DET, there will be friction in vacuum, exerted by the flow of aether (in the same way the stars are kept alight). If an object moves at a horizontal velocity in a vacuum generated on Earth, it should heat up despite the lack of any resistive force understood by the RE model."

Wh... Where did that property come from? Why does it heat up? What is aether? It doesn't sound like space to me.

"If you have the means to measure refraction or gravity, and you can notice a change to several significant figures between ground level, and a set altitude, then if you slowly ascend, a jump in the amount of refraction"

Do you know how refraction works?

"These tests, while they have not yet been performed (due to my lack of resources) provide predictions made by DET, rendering it a model that may indeed be falsified. The fact it has not been falsified is a further strength. It also confirms DET is a distinct model."

Is this because you haven't found any studies that said "objects moving in a vacuum DON'T heat up" or "gravity DOESN'T randomly jump in different altitudes"? Well, I've got a theory that says electricity is actually a flow of tiny unicorns. It hasn't been falsified, because I've never seen a study say "tiny unicorns have NOT been observed inside wires".

Nobody understands exactly what you're saying. Sorry.

Nobody understands exactly what you're saying. Sorry.

Then start a thread rather than further derailing this one. For fuck's sake, why are you people incapable of responding to the challenge?!
And put in some effort. Most of your objections like like you're just consciously trying to find a bad interpretation. No one said "Space moves to other space, where there's less space?" except you. Look at the Relativity analogy, for one; your objection could just as easily be directed at "Space curving through space..."
I make no secret of the fact I expect people to actually think and put in effort when it comes to DET. It is a scientific model, what do you expect?!

Quote

Nobody understands exactly what you're saying. Sorry.

Then start a thread rather than further derailing this one. For fuck's sake, why are you people incapable of responding to the challenge?!
And put in some effort. Most of your objections like like you're just consciously trying to find a bad interpretation. No one said "Space moves to other space, where there's less space?" except you. Look at the Relativity analogy, for one; your objection could just as easily be directed at "Space curving through space..."
I make no secret of the fact I expect people to actually think and put in effort when it comes to DET. It is a scientific model, what do you expect?!

I told you why we can't respond to the challenge. Nobody understands it.

" Look at the Relativity analogy, for one; your objection could just as easily be directed at "Space curving through space..." "

Except it's a completely different thing in relativity. Relativity is a precise mathematical model explaining how the geometry of space varies, and how coordinates vary in different reference. frames Spacetime doesn't "move" in GR. You're saying space MOVES. That doesn't make sense. You talk about low and high concentrations of space, you say low concentrations mean less distance. So how is a concentration of space measured? It doesn't make sense if you don't explain what that is.

"It is a scientific model, what do you expect?!"

A what? 

Seriously I don't know how many "scientific models" you've read, but they're never like that. You're just dropping assertions that are somehow supposed to make sense.

I told you why we can't respond to the challenge. Nobody understands it.

What part? I asked you this before, you instead brought in a completely different topic.

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.
2. A theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence. 

What part of that is unclear? You don't need to have any understanding of DET to respond.

You're saying space MOVES.

I'm saying the concentration varies.

It doesn't make sense if you don't explain what that is.

You're complaining I don't explain what it is... right after quoting me explaining what it is... ok then.