DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave

Quote

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.

Quote

You're saying space MOVES.

I'm saying the concentration varies.

Quote

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.

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

That is not an explanation. You just said "less concentration means less distance". Now we're supposed to figure out what that means. So if there's a room where the distance between the walls is 1m and another where it's 10m, does that mean there's less concentration of space in the first one?

"I'm saying the concentration varies. "

What about the stuff about dust being dragged along and moving with space? Did you forget about that? 

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

What more you want and what the purpose of the challenge is. People already told you that evidence is more like confirming predictions of said hypothesis with observations, meaning the hypothesis comes first to explain some observations, and then you make predictions based on the hypothesis to test it. For example, you might observe that corks sink while iron floats. You might make the hypothesis that objects sink or float depending on their density, which you could test by testing whether objects less dense than corks or objects denser than iron float or sink. It has to do with which comes first.

I'm not getting off topic any more. if you want to discuss aether, start a thread, I'm happy to, we're just at the point where my answers would get far longer than this thread merits.

What more you want and what the purpose of the challenge is.

The purpose of the challenge is to see if people can justify their claims that the definition of evidence I use is flawed. No one has even tried. I am asking for one of the following:

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. 

This does not seem to be hard to understand, but no one has attempted either. We are on the second page.

People already told you that evidence is more like confirming predictions of said hypothesis with observations, meaning the hypothesis comes first to explain some observations, and then you make predictions based on the hypothesis to test it. For example, you might observe that corks sink while iron floats. You might make the hypothesis that objects sink or float depending on their density, which you could test by testing whether objects less dense than corks or objects denser than iron float or sink. It has to do with which comes first.

So, observation (or rather, multiple observations; still basically the same thing). This is perfectly in line with what I said. 'What comes first' should not be an issue, by that logic a theory would be unsupported by evidence not based on its own merits, but based on the fact someone else beat them to developing it.
It seems as though you're making an argument for 2: that a model could be based on observations, minimize assumptions, but because it was developed second it is not based on evidence. if you can provide an example of this, you win. If not, then my definition of evidence serves just as well.

So, observation (or rather, multiple observations; still basically the same thing). This is perfectly in line with what I said. 'What comes first' should not be an issue, by that logic a theory would be unsupported by evidence not based on its own merits, but based on the fact someone else beat them to developing it.
It seems as though you're making an argument for 2: that a model could be based on observations, minimize assumptions, but because it was developed second it is not based on evidence. if you can provide an example of this, you win. If not, then my definition of evidence serves just as well.

You're still missing the point of the objections. A hypothesis is almost by definition in line with observations. If you've got observations 1, 2 and 3, and you make a hypothesis based on these 3 observations, these are not considered "evidence", but if you make a prediction that is confirmed by observation 4, that provides "evidence" for the hypothesis.

You're still missing the point of the objections. A hypothesis is almost by definition in line with observations. If you've got observations 1, 2 and 3, and you make a hypothesis based on these 3 observations, these are not considered "evidence", but if you make a prediction that is confirmed by observation 4, that provides "evidence" for the hypothesis.

I understand that, but it seems inherently flawed to reject a model with fewer assumptions on the basis that it came second. Like I said, though, if you can provide an example of where that would be a valid path, you win. That seems more a tradition fallacy than a scientific principle. Yes, more evidence is always a good thing, but you're arguing that it's necessary, rather than merely sufficient. I would argue that reducing the number of assumptions is also enough.

You're talking about an abstract. If you hold to that, then provide an actual situation where it's valid. if not, it is not a response, it is a principle that does not seem to make sense. That is the challenge.
If you can provide an example where that holds, and holds logically, you've met the criteria of 2 and you win. Please provide one example of a model with fewer assumptions than any alternatives, explaining the same amount of observations as the best alternatives, which is not based on more evidence/is not logically preferable.

Quote

You're still missing the point of the objections. A hypothesis is almost by definition in line with observations. If you've got observations 1, 2 and 3, and you make a hypothesis based on these 3 observations, these are not considered "evidence", but if you make a prediction that is confirmed by observation 4, that provides "evidence" for the hypothesis.

I understand that, but it seems inherently flawed to reject a model with fewer assumptions on the basis that it came second. Like I said, though, if you can provide an example of where that would be a valid path, you win. That seems more a tradition fallacy than a scientific principle. Yes, more evidence is always a good thing, but you're arguing that it's necessary, rather than merely sufficient. I would argue that reducing the number of assumptions is also enough.

You're talking about an abstract. If you hold to that, then provide an actual situation where it's valid. if not, it is not a response, it is a principle that does not seem to make sense. That is the challenge.
If you can provide an example where that holds, and holds logically, you've met the criteria of 2 and you win. Please provide one example of a model with fewer assumptions than any alternatives, explaining the same amount of observations as the best alternatives, which is not based on more evidence/is not logically preferable.

How does it have less assumptions? Your model depends on a bunch of complex unverified stuff. Sure, if you take into account every single assumption that the entirety of modern science makes, you could make your model have less assumptions. But if you stick to the problem of the shape of the earth, you'll quickly see that you're throwing ad hoc stuff all over the place.

But really the main problem of your model is that it's not properly defined. If you give analogies instead of definitions and you lack a foundation, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Which is why I made a thread to cover that.

How does it have less assumptions? Your model depends on a bunch of complex unverified stuff.

You've admitted you don't understand the model. it should not be a controversial to ask you refraining from making claims about something you don't understand. This simply isn't true. 'Unverified' means 'not RET' and 'complex' means 'not as simple as 1+1.' The assumptions are minimised, and all of that 'complex stuff' comes out as consequences of a simple assumption, not as a whole mess of assumptions.

But really the main problem of your model is that it's not properly defined. If you give analogies instead of definitions and you lack a foundation, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Which is why I made a thread to cover that.

Happy to discuss there. But to stay on topic to this thread, are you going to be able to provide any instance where your claim about evidence holds?

Quote

How does it have less assumptions? Your model depends on a bunch of complex unverified stuff.

You've admitted you don't understand the model. it should not be a controversial to ask you refraining from making claims about something you don't understand. This simply isn't true. 'Unverified' means 'not RET' and 'complex' means 'not as simple as 1+1.' The assumptions are minimised, and all of that 'complex stuff' comes out as consequences of a simple assumption, not as a whole mess of assumptions.

Quote

But really the main problem of your model is that it's not properly defined. If you give analogies instead of definitions and you lack a foundation, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Which is why I made a thread to cover that.

Happy to discuss there. But to stay on topic to this thread, are you going to be able to provide any instance where your claim about evidence holds?

Even for someone who does not understand your model it's easy to see how many assumptions you make. The properties of aether for one. Completely unverified and not based on anything at all, and also quite unusual. The fact that for some reason there are weird quirks in the distribution of aether (arbitrary areas of low and high concentration that never average out). The shape of the Earth, which is like two pancakes on top of each other I think? The placement of the sun. Completely random, no idea how you came up with it. The nature of stars. All that is completely random. Not based on anything once again. The rest I can't talk about, because I don't understand how it comes to be.

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the assumptions in RE?

"are you going to be able to provide any instance where your claim about evidence holds?"

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't JUST have to be observations in line with the theory. They have to be predicted by it. The unicorn electricity theory is "in line" with Donald Trump becoming president of the US. Donald Trump becoming president of the US is not evidence for the unicorn electricity theory. I think.

BTW that thread's here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70767.0

Completely random, no idea how you came up with it.

Because you do not read the model. i explained that all from scratch. If you had, I say exactly where it all comes from.

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the assumptions in RE?

Shared, multiple things related to the big bang (initial matter, initial spark etc). Specific, gravity: both mass bending spacetime, and the consequences of that being what we see. Those are only supported by evidence insofar as "We need it for this to work," is evidence. It is the beginning, not the end.

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't JUST have to be observations in line with the theory. They have to be predicted by it. The unicorn electricity theory is "in line" with Donald Trump becoming president of the US. Donald Trump becoming president of the US is not evidence for the unicorn electricity theory. I think.

It can be evidence for it, without the thing in question being true. Again, you're just making claims, not justifying them. Your 'predicted by it' seems to imply evidence is a matter of who finds out what first, rather than what's supported by evidence. If you are going to continue to claim that, then provide a situation where it holds. If you are not going to justify that claim, then concede. I don't want to have to keep repeating this.
I understand what it is you believe. I know what you're saying. You don't need to keep talking about prediction. I just want you to justify it.

Quote

Completely random, no idea how you came up with it.

Because you do not read the model. i explained that all from scratch. If you had, I say exactly where it all comes from.

Quote

Out of curiosity, what do you think are the assumptions in RE?

Shared, multiple things related to the big bang (initial matter, initial spark etc). Specific, gravity: both mass bending spacetime, and the consequences of that being what we see. Those are only supported by evidence insofar as "We need it for this to work," is evidence. It is the beginning, not the end.

Quote

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't JUST have to be observations in line with the theory. They have to be predicted by it. The unicorn electricity theory is "in line" with Donald Trump becoming president of the US. Donald Trump becoming president of the US is not evidence for the unicorn electricity theory. I think.

It can be evidence for it, without the thing in question being true. Again, you're just making claims, not justifying them. Your 'predicted by it' seems to imply evidence is a matter of who finds out what first, rather than what's supported by evidence. If you are going to continue to claim that, then provide a situation where it holds. If you are not going to justify that claim, then concede. I don't want to have to keep repeating this.
I understand what it is you believe. I know what you're saying. You don't need to keep talking about prediction. I just want you to justify it.

"Shared, multiple things related to the big bang (initial matter, initial spark etc)."

Nothing to do with the shape of the earth. As I said, sure, if you clump together the entirety of physics, you'll find many assumptions.

"Specific, gravity: both mass bending spacetime, and the consequences of that being what we see."

Neither of these are really assumptions since they've been confirmed, but you don't accept the observations that lead to their confirmation, so I'll give you that. The consequences of mass bending spacetime are really based on a couple of very simple postulates of relativity and building up from that.

"Those are only supported by evidence insofar as "We need it for this to work," is evidence."

No, here's the important difference. Predictions have been made with both of these, and those predictions have been confirmed. In fact, precise experiments were made to test exactly those predictions. It really tells you something about the predictive power and validity of a model when you can confirm a prediction from it that you didn't even know was possible before.

Still, let's just pretend gravity and the way it interacts with spacetime are assumptions. Ok. How does your model improve on that?

" If you had, I say exactly where it all comes from. "

Where?

"'Your 'predicted by it' seems to imply evidence is a matter of who finds out what first, rather than what's supported by evidence."

No, that is not what I'm saying. Who discovered it first is irrelevant. If both of these hypotheses explain exactly the same observations, you'll have to distinguish between them by seeing which is preferable, for a number of reasons, including how many assumptions they make. If either of these makes a unique prediction and that prediction is confirmed, then that's evidence for that specific hypothesis. But you can't claim the very observations on which you based your hypothesis are evidence for it. It doesn't work that way. It's circular.

Nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Not directly, but those aspects are different under DET as well.

How does your model improve on that?

By reducing the number of assumptions to just the one for aether (technically two, but one is acceptable under scientific terms). Everything follows as a consequence of just that, rather than the two for gravity. This is a better discussion for the other thread, though, once we get further in.

No, that is not what I'm saying. Who discovered it first is irrelevant. If both of these hypotheses explain exactly the same observations, you'll have to distinguish between them by seeing which is preferable, for a number of reasons, including how many assumptions they make. If either of these makes a unique prediction and that prediction is confirmed, then that's evidence for that specific hypothesis. But you can't claim the very observations on which you based your hypothesis are evidence for it. It doesn't work that way. It's circular.

How is it circular? I'm not saying "The theory is true because the theory is true," I'm saying "The theory is true because of observable facts A, B, C." If you can come up with a model that explains all those observations, why is it less valid just because it was initially better informed? It still explains precisely the same amount.
(Further, it's worth pointing out DET has been used to explain things I did not even consider when developing the model. It all fell neatly into place).
You are still not providing any situation where what you're saying is valid, despite the fact that is the OP, and is what I have been asking for for multiple posts now.

Nah, you are one of the more interesting flat earthers.  While I see many holes in your theory I admire how much time and thought you have put into it.  You are not, typically, rude or offensive.
It seems to me you are the kind of FE person this forum needs.
Just my two bits.

'An observation that is in line with what a theory states' is 'an observation explained by a theory.'

No. Other way around.
An observation that is explained by a theory will be an observation that is in line that what a theory states.
However, there will also be plenty of observations that are in line with the theory which are not explained by the theory.
Basically anything which doesn't contradict the theory would be in line with what the theory states.

So the existence of cats would be in line with lots of theories but not explained by the theory at all.

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.

I have read your evidence section and the times you have responded to my valid objections which you failed to address, refusing to admit your definition was wrong.

While you claim to be focusing on minimizing assumptions, that is the very opposite of what you do as your model has far more 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.

No, I looked at the part where you stated we have our definition of evidence, and assumed that was what you were claiming as the definition of evidence.
So do you accept that the definition of evidence you provided on your site is wrong, and that there is more too it than that?

What new one? This is the definition in the overview.

No, it isn't.
I provided the definition you gave in the overview. While this new definition is included in it, so is a lot more.

I give evidence for DET

No. You don't.

the first two lines give this basic definition, the third explains how it applies to DET.

No. The first line is a claim of what evidence is.
The second discusses how to compare 2 theories with equal evidence.
The third is then a blatant lie about science and DE BS and RET.

As for what I want, in this thread I want you to point out your objections to the definition of evidence.

I have provided them and you ignored them.
So what is the point in providing them when you just ignore them?

Like I said, your challenge doesn't even match the definition.
In the definition you discuss theories, but in your challenge you discuss models. Do you understand the difference?
In order to be a theory it must have evidence backing it. Until it does, it cannot be a theory.
According to your definition of evidence, you can never get any theory as it needs to be a theory for there to be evidence for it.

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.

Again, you are the one that wastes time, not me.
I provide rational arguments/objections and you just dismiss them without any rational argument.
You do the same to others, acting like anyone who doesn't agree with a FE is full of prejudice.
I have raised valid arguments which you are still yet to respond to.
And the same goes with others.
For example, in the Roche limit thread, people pointed out you were misapplying it and that it only applies to objects that are bound by gravity, but you ignored that and instead focused on slight disagreements as to if it applied to objects not in orbit, completely  ignoring the far bigger issue that completely refuted your claim and took it as a victory.
In another thread discussing if Earth is like the other planets, when people brought up how observations indicate we are orbiting the sun just like the other planets, you completely dismissed it without a rational argument, acting like they were just being closed minded and acting like RET is all there is and saying that in the FE model it wouldn't be like that, completely ignoring the actual observations and the actual argument. And again you acted all high and mighty like you were perfectly right and the big mean REers were being mean and prejudiced and again take it as a victory.

1. A piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states.

Do you want to clarify the part about "not just an observation in line with".
Does that mean any observation which is in line with what the model states, or would one which the model provides an explanation for rather than just stating it count?

I understand that, but it seems inherently flawed to reject a model with fewer assumptions on the basis that it came second.

Not really.
This is because it is all post hoc.
With the knowledge of the prior experiments, you can build a model to try to explain all the observations, working in as many complexities as you like.
You know the requirements for the model to match reality so you can build it to match.

With the prior model, they didn't have that luxury. They only had the existing observations, and with them they built a model, and then tested it and confirmed that it works (at least in that case).

The only time where that would hold is if you take a model and simplify it, rather than coming up with a completely new one.

Here is an example where it holds:
1 - In one model you have a round Earth rotating about its axis to cause day and night and the apparent position of the sun, with the axis tilted to produce the change throughout the year.
2 - In another model, you have Earth being flat, with the sun circling above us, with the light magically bending to match the above.

So as we are treating these are just hypothesis rather than being based upon evidence, what are the assumptions:
1 - Earth round, Earth rotating about its axis, Earth orbitting the sun, Earth's axis being tilted relative to the normal of the plane of its orbit, light behaving normally.
2 - Earth being flat. The sun circling above Earth in a reversing spiral pattern, magic bending light.

Yes, depending upon how you construct it, you have the number of assumptions being completely different.

So on that basis, it has fewer assumptions, yet the latter, with its magic bending light, was made specifically to match the prior observations, so the observations of the relative position of the sun does not count as evidence for it, because it was made to match that and bent light to do so.

The assumptions are minimised, and all of that 'complex stuff' comes out as consequences of a simple assumption, not as a whole mess of assumptions.

No. They don't. You need to make multiple assumptions to make it all match, and it still ends up contradicting itself, and what you claim as assumptions for RE are based upon experiments.

However, there will also be plenty of observations that are in line with the theory which are not explained by the theory.
Does that mean any observation which is in line with what the model states, or would one which the model provides an explanation for rather than just stating it count?

Only if you intentionally cut off huge parts of the theory, and intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying. And regardless, it is an irrelevant quibble which contributes nothing. Whether or not you want to count cats as evidence means nothing for either the discussion at hand or the comparison of models, or indeed anything I use the definition for.

For an example: if cats are in line with what RET states, then you are defining RET to encompass life, and so the sciences of evolution, biology... In which case it is something explained by the theory as well. Ditto, if cats are explained by the theory and are in line with it.
If you do not define RET to encompass all of that, then cats have no bearing on what the theory states, either in support or against.
It really makes no difference. If you can form a response to the challenge under either paradigm, I'll accept it.

I have provided them and you ignored them.

No, you insisted I apparently do not know my own definition of evidence. You pluck a sentence out of context, and blindly insist that you know what it means better than the person that wrote it, and you outright lie about the fact I explicitly, openly, and undeniably talk about the need to minimize assumptions in the overview. And you do so, yet again, in an absurdly long rant of a most, most of which is just repeating the same old insults, and adding nothing.

Yes, depending upon how you construct it, you have the number of assumptions being completely different.

The number of assumptions doesn't alter based on construction. You pack several into one: 'magic bending light' only functions if you assume there is such a thing as magic, and that it is capable of what you claim, and that it does so. it's the same as the God case I mention in the OP. It is not a model with minimised assumptions.

Only if you intentionally cut off huge parts of the theory, and intentionally misinterpret what I'm saying. And regardless, it is an irrelevant quibble which contributes nothing. Whether or not you want to count cats as evidence means nothing for either the discussion at hand or the comparison of models, or indeed anything I use the definition for.

No. The discussion at hand is (at least from the OP) on what constitutes evidence.
So asking if cats count or not is to do with the discussion at hand.

If you do not define RET to encompass all of that, then cats have no bearing on what the theory states, either in support or against.

Yes, the theory states nothing about cats, but that means cats are not against the theory and thus it would be in line with what the theory states.

Quote

I have provided them and you ignored them.

No, you insisted I apparently do not know my own definition of evidence.

No. I provided issues with your current definition as well.

you outright lie about the fact I explicitly, openly, and undeniably talk about the need to minimize assumptions in the overview.

No, I don't.
If you wish to claim I do, how about you provide some evidence that I do.

And you do so, yet again, in an absurdly long rant of a most, most of which is just repeating the same old insults, and adding nothing.

No. not repeating the same old insults, pointing your same old lies.

The number of assumptions doesn't alter based on construction. You pack several into one: 'magic bending light' only functions if you assume there is such a thing as magic, and that it is capable of what you claim, and that it does so. it's the same as the God case I mention in the OP. It is not a model with minimised assumptions.

It is an assumption that light bends in a particular way.

No. I provided issues with your current definition as well.

Please provide your answers to the challenge then, labelled 1 or 2.

All I have seen is your "with the sun circling above us, with the light magically bending to match the above," notion, which simply packs multiple assumptions into a couple of sentences. FET is more than that; you need to have a cause for the Sun's circling, a cause for light to bend, a reason why it does so... This does not minimise assumptions.
Or are you claiming that your FE model contains an equal amount of assumptions to your RE model?

Quote

No. I provided issues with your current definition as well.

Please provide your answers to the challenge then, labelled 1 or 2.

I also pointed out the problem with that.
Your challenge doesn't match the definition you provided.

you need to have a cause for the Sun's circling, a cause for light to bend, a reason why it does so

Which would then be providing entirely different models where instead of providing a model for the shape of Earth you are providing a model for the propagation of light.

Your challenge doesn't match the definition you provided.

Stop repeating something that has already been shown to be a lie. Just because it is not what you want the evidence section to say, does not mean it is not what the evidence section says. Long story short. shut up and actually respond to the challenge rather than repeating the same old rebutted nonsense.

Which would then be providing entirely different models where instead of providing a model for the shape of Earth you are providing a model for the propagation of light.

They were the assumptions you listed. If you just want to focus on the propagation of light, "Light moves in straight lines," vs "There exists magic," "Magic causes light to bend."

Quote

Your challenge doesn't match the definition you provided.

Stop repeating something that has already been shown to be a lie. Just because it is not what you want the evidence section to say, does not mean it is not what the evidence section says. Long story short. shut up and actually respond to the challenge rather than repeating the same old rebutted nonsense.

Except it isn't rebutted nonsense.
I explained what was wrong with your challenge and you ignored it.
Your claim of evidence is that it matches a theory, yet for the challenge you focus on models instead.
You also leave out other options for showing your definition is wrong, such as things which your definition counts as evidence which wouldn't be counted as evidence for a model.

Quote

Which would then be providing entirely different models where instead of providing a model for the shape of Earth you are providing a model for the propagation of light.

They were the assumptions you listed. If you just want to focus on the propagation of light, "Light moves in straight lines," vs "There exists magic," "Magic causes light to bend."
[/quot]
The people using the models wouldn't call it magic. Instead it would be "light moves in straight lines" vs "light bends in this particular way [insert the RE relative math here to show how a straight line over Earth appears when that is projected onto a flat plane]".

I explained what was wrong with your challenge and you ignored it.

You quibble about irrelevancies and semantics, absolutely none of which alter the substance of anything I say. Focus. On. The. Challenge.

You also leave out other options for showing your definition is wrong, such as things which your definition counts as evidence which wouldn't be counted as evidence for a model.

Because I don't justify models by lone pieces of evidence, it's irrelevant. Hence why your obsession about connecting cats to RET has absolutely no substance. Count a billion things that aren't evidence as evidence, it goes both ways when comparing theories. It doesn't matter. Grow up. Move on. Shut up. I am sick of you trying to avoid the challenge.

The people using the models wouldn't call it magic. Instead it would be "light moves in straight lines" vs "light bends in this particular way [insert the RE relative math here to show how a straight line over Earth appears when that is projected onto a flat plane]".

In which case the assumptions are inherent in that explanation and projection. The same point holds. Why are you clinging to this?

Move. On. if you don't have an answer, then leave the thread.

I may think your theories are rubbish, baseless and devoid of any reason and I may also think when it comes to debating you fall flat and resort to petty whinging and 'I'm not engaging with you' but that doesn't mean I would want you to leave.

Quote

Do rockets launched into space count as evidence?

Is that an entry to the challenge?

More of a request for clarification of what you consider to be valid evidence.

That appears to be a piece of evidence. Are you say that they are not observed?

Well, there seems to be some debate as to whether or not the rockets that are observed taking off actually go into space.

So, if you accept rockets going into space as evidence, then do you also accept photographs and/or video taken from those space rockets?

Or is this going to be a Hewia-like challenge that is unwinnable because you don't accept any evidence that proves you wrong?

Quote

Nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Not directly, but those aspects are different under DET as well.

So? I don't get this.

By reducing the number of assumptions to just the one for aether (technically two, but one is acceptable under scientific terms). Everything follows as a consequence of just that, rather than the two for gravity. This is a better discussion for the other thread, though, once we get further in.

I don't know if the issue is that you haven't read your own model or that you don't understand what an assumption is. Your assumptions about the properties of aether are already more than two. You propose 1) space exists in high or low concentrations, 2) space flows from high concentrations to low concentrations, and 3) it does so by obeying a bunch of rules that aren't really explained rigorously and I'm trying to understand. That's 3 JUST for aether. If you defined the properties of aether better, we'd probably have even more. GR has actually more than 2, because it's well defined. You can't take a bunch of properties and throw them together in "it does all that stuff".

By the way, I said just for aether, because you make a bunch of assumptions about the shape of the earth and the solar system.

How is it circular? I'm not saying "The theory is true because the theory is true," I'm saying "The theory is true because of observable facts A, B, C." If you can come up with a model that explains all those observations, why is it less valid just because it was initially better informed? It still explains precisely the same amount.

I already explained all of that. To claim that you have evidence that favors your model over another model, you have to make a unique prediction and confirm it. You can't pretend it's evidence for your hypothesis if it's the observations you built it on. You just have a hypothesis describing a bunch of stuff.

(Further, it's worth pointing out DET has been used to explain things I did not even consider when developing the model. It all fell neatly into place).

Yeah? Like what? Because that's something almost impossible to say about your model when it's described in such general terms. "Oh yeah, it sounds like it could explain that" doesn't count.

Quote

I explained what was wrong with your challenge and you ignored it.

You quibble about irrelevancies and semantics, absolutely none of which alter the substance of anything I say. Focus. On. The. Challenge.

Yes, when discussing the meaning of words I will "quibble" about semantics. (note: quibble is in quotes because it isn't quibbling).
Do you find that surprising?

Do you know what semantics is?
Here is what google says:
"the meaning of a word, phrase, or text"

So is it really such a surprise that a discussion on the meaning of a word will involve semantics?

Because I don't justify models by lone pieces of evidence, it's irrelevant.

No. That is irrelevant. We are meant to be discussing the meaning of evidence, not what you try to use to justify a model.

Count a billion things that aren't evidence as evidence, it goes both ways when comparing theories.

But it does matter when deciding if something is evidence.

So is it really such a surprise that a discussion on the meaning of a word will involve semantics?

Except that isn't what this is. I have given my definition, there is no room for quibbling or discussing that definition. It has been given, and it is time for you to either provide one of the two options to explain how it is flawed, or concede that it functions.


Provide 1 or 2 or shut up, I'm not wasting time on your derailing any more.

From your model:

Summary
Evidence is no more than an observation (including experiments) being in line with what a model predicts.

Evidence is more than an observation.  Me looking out the window is an observation.  Seeing it is bright, there are few clouds, and the sky is blue is evidence that it is a clear day.  Observations are not equal, as I could have looked out the same window 6 hours ago and seen evidence of something totally different.

Theories with equal evidence are compared by Occam's Razor: the theory relying on more assumptions is rejected.

First off - DET and RET are not theories with "equal evidence," not by a long shot.  You can say they are - but this is literally YOUR theory.  You invented it specifically as an alternative to RET, which has countless proofs and has been known to match reality for millennia. 

As for occam's razor in general no one on earth is claiming that occam's razor applies to every scenario, nor that the theory with the least assumptions is automatically the best model.  If that were the case, we could just say "magic" to answer everything, as that only makes one assumption - that everything in existence relies upon magic that we can't comprehend.  Blood letting by use of leeches in the past to cure disease was based on the simple assumption that something was bad in someone's blood and it needed to be taken out.  In reality, we now know that the workings of bacteria, viruses and the human immune system are immensely more complex than that - so the simplest assumption was not only incorrect, but killed most people it attempted to cure. We cannot assume the simplest explanation is better only because it is simpler.  Just because your model makes fewer assumptions, the fact that those assumptions aren't backed up by any hard evidence, while the more complex RET is means that your simpler theory shouldn't be chosen only because it is simpler.  You're applying the concept of occam's razor incorrectly, as it requires both theories to have equal evidence.

DET, a falsifiable theory that makes predictions about the world and the only fully functioning Alternative-Earth model, is scientifically preferred to RET.

No.  It simply isn't.  That's a very easily verifiable fact.  It's quite well accepted in the scientific community that the earth is a spheroid body within the solar system, orbiting the sun at a distance of roughly 93 million miles and rotating on its axis once every 24 hours.  This is backed up by mathematical proofs which can then be used (and have been) to accurately predict eclipses, tides, moon phases, comets, meteor showers, planetary alignments, precisely which constellations are viewable from where and when, etc etc the list goes on.  Your model has not been put to that test, and has predicted precisely nothing.  It is in absolutely no conceivable way equal let alone preferred.  Check your ego man, it's quite clearly out of control.

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.

You never talk about DET. You just point to your website and say, "go read it."

Quote

So is it really such a surprise that a discussion on the meaning of a word will involve semantics?

Except that isn't what this is. I have given my definition, there is no room for quibbling or discussing that definition. It has been given, and it is time for you to either provide one of the two options to explain how it is flawed, or concede that it functions.

But that is the problem, your 2 options do not match the definition you provided.
That is an issue of semantics.

You gave your definition and asked us to refute it, but not by actually refuting it, instead only 2 of the options to refute a different definition.

A lot of people have objected to DET and the definition of evidence I use.

Why do you even need your own definition of evidence?  What's wrong with the definition that the rest of the scientific community uses?

I take up your challenge.

I'm going with option 2.

The theory is the earth is a sphere. This is in line with all observations, and although evidence exists, it is not required, as all observations are in line with the theory. No assumptions are required.