DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave

Old JRowe has had a hard week, he has seen his idea that he labeled rather pompously as "theory" demoted to the meanest of a ragged conjecture. He issued a challenge that has made him upset as he feels people on the forum have broken his rules!

Let's examine his challenge and see what it was all about....over to JRowe.....

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.

Now if one reads part one of his challenge he says...

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

What does he actually mean by that?....some evidence for a model.....ok so far.....which is not just an observation in line with what the model states.

Though I fundamentally disagree with his definition of what evidence is.

When we think about evidence let's find out what some more credible people have said about this. Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role. Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper's theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory. So where does that leave us?
A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis, let's say JRowe, will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence. These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. For example, the Earth's apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology. However, after sufficient evidence is presented for heliocentric cosmology and the apparent lack of motion is explained, the initial observation is strongly discounted as evidence.

A great place to really learn about testing scientific theories, though in this case it's a pretty dumb conjecture, Is Understanding Science 101" course taught at University of California - Berkeley: why re-invent the wheel.

What it basically teaches is that Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, but may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.

Conventional science that JRowe pretends to understand, teaches about the nature of our sun, partly through observation, but also through experimentation. Currently there are hundreds of on going experiments that are trying to understand the workings of the Sun. For example sun spots and their eleven year cycles. Sun spots ca be seen by projecting the sun's light from a lens onto a piece of card. They have been know about for over 300 years.

http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/segwayed/lessons/sunspots/Worksheets/sspot_back12.html

My answer to his challenge is to do with our understanding of sunspots and coronal mass ejections, which neither could occour under his conjecture. It's something he fails to mention, let alone explain in his conjecture, but which are an esential part of our sun's inner workings and something that may affect us here on earth. To remind readers JRowe claims the sun is made from a combination of stone and metal, types unknow, none of which could produce sun spots or coronal mass ejections, especially when he maintains the location of the sun to be at the centre of the earth.

Conventional science has established what the sun is made from and how it's energy is produced in a sustainable manner, via an ongoing fusion reaction where atoms of hydrogen are fused into Helium releasing vast amounts of energy. In this reaction that occours at very high temperatures and pressures there is mass 'lost' when an atom of Helium is produced from 2 atoms of hydrogen and it's this lost mass that Is converted into energy. And we know this from good old E = MC^2
This fusion process is in line with our understanding of both particle  physics and quantum mechanics. JRowe in his conjecture does not describe a method by which this energy could be produced, all he makes mention of is friction! I think this is a subject he knows a lot about!

His conjecture is a stand alone piece of wishful thinking that has no evidence, credible or otherwise and is directly opposed to the laws of nature.

From your model:

You disagree with DET. Great. Which part of the challenge was that in response to? Don't just derail a thread.

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

Almost as if I don't want to just regurgitate several of pages on information on the whim of someone who likely wouldn't read any of it.

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

Nothing. It's the same damn definition, just phrased differently, and if you disagree you've got two ways of justifying your claim. What was the point of that post?
if you take issue with my definition here is your chance to prove it's wrong. Why won't you?

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.

Observations are evidence, but aside from that, I disagree with your claim about assumptions, but sure, I see you accept it. Do you agree that RET is not supported by evidence, then? That's the only way that qualifies for 2.

Though I fundamentally disagree with his definition of what evidence is.

That is the entire fucking point of this thread moron. I know people disagree. PROVE IT'S WRONG.
Is your ramble about sunspots an entry under 1 or 2? it doesn't seem to even approach a response to either.

Amazing. All of you are complaining that my definition is wrong, and all of you are refusing to justify that claim. #
Why is this so hard?!

I'm just waiting to hear how your theory could possibly be right.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that maybe in some alternative universe the physics as we know them are totally weird and what you say could make sense for that universe, but I just don't see your theory making one shred of sense or approaching anywhere close to being possible.

You've stuck your head so far up your arse and plucked this nonsense up and expect us all to swallow it. You want distinguished scientists to entertain this without question. You'll have better luck using the real physics in this universe to construct a portal to another universe where somebody actually gives a damn and where it might actually make sense.

Thinking outside the box is cool, but making shit up as you go along and insisting that its true and everyone should believe it? It is the height of self importance and arrogance.

I'm just waiting to hear how your theory could possibly be right.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that maybe in some alternative universe the physics as we know them are totally weird and what you say could make sense for that universe, but I just don't see your theory making one shred of sense or approaching anywhere close to being possible.

You've stuck your head so far up your arse and plucked this nonsense up and expect us all to swallow it. You want distinguished scientists to entertain this without question. You'll have better luck using the real physics in this universe to construct a portal to another universe where somebody actually gives a damn and where it might actually make sense.

Thinking outside the box is cool, but making shit up as you go along and insisting that its true and everyone should believe it? It is the height of self importance and arrogance.

And yet I'm the one who provides evidence, you give a self-important rant with no substance beyond mocking.
Are you going to attempt the challenge, yes or no?

No I don't give 2 hoots whether you leave or stay. It's up to you. This thread and 'challenge' is nothing more than to say 'look at me' anyway

No I don't give 2 hoots whether you leave or stay. It's up to you. This thread and 'challenge' is nothing more than to say 'look at me' anyway

Maybe, instead of insisting on what you want to be the case, you should look at what people are actually saying.
This thread is for the REers who continually insist my evidence and definition of evidence are not good enough. Now, they get to prove it. Any idea why barely any are even attempting to respond?

If you need to start a whole new thread for RE'ers to try and disprove your theory it means you must have done a pretty lame job trying to prove it in the first place.

The onus is on you to justify why the things you plucked from your nether regions is believable in the first place.

First of all, you need to disprove almost everything about the RE and our current understanding of physics and the universe and our very own observations

Amazing. All of you are complaining that my definition is wrong, and all of you are refusing to justify that claim. #
Why is this so hard?!

I have already said why.
You changed your definition from that on your own forum, and your challenge doesn't meet the definition you provided.

And yet I'm the one who provides evidence, you give a self-important rant with no substance beyond mocking.

No. You haven't.
All you have done is claimed everything which is evidence for RE is also evidence for your BS and claimed your BS has fewer assumptions.
You don't even have a quantitative model to try to match to reality.

LOL at this jackass who thinks he's changing the world with his completely made up "model" and his pencil drawings of it.

Evidence for RE:
PICTURES (and video) OF EARTH FROM SPACE - I fail to see how any other evidence can possibly even be necessary, but since this place is full of conspiracy theory nutjobs who think the world's most impossible and most pointless conspiracy is more believable than 99.99999% of modern scientists NOT being part of an elaborate yet pointless hoax... I'll list some others:

The International Space Station
The Space Shuttle
The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions
ICBM's
Numerous probes and rovers sent to other planets/moons
Coriolis Effect
No amount of magnification allows you to see past the Horizon
Increased elevation gives a larger view over the horizon
Long-distance airline flight plans are not a straight line (not even close)
Different constellations viewable in north/south hemispheres
Stars rotating in different directions around celestial poles
Every single other massive body in our solar system is a sphere
Meteor shower intensity reliably increases after midnight
Actual distances bwtween objects in the southern hemisphere aren't close to what the FE map says they would be.
Plenty of others I'm not gonna list, you get the point


Evidence of DET:
JRowe said so, and he has his own pencil drawings to prove it!
Quite literally nothing else.  Nothing.  Just JRowe's enormous ego. 

Get over yourself dude, absolutely no respectable scientific institution on earth will EVER give your theory a second look.  And no, that's not proof of some ridiculous conspiracy.  No one would take me seriously if I made up a theory saying three-toed sloths were the master race and conspired to rig the results of the Kentucky derby every year either.  That theory, sadly, is more believable than your drivel, and has just as much evidence (none).

Now go and complain that I didn't prove you wrong, as if the burden of proof in this foolish venture is on anyone but your crazy ass...

The onus is on you to justify why the things you plucked from your nether regions is believable in the first place.

First of all, you need to disprove almost everything about the RE and our current understanding of physics and the universe and our very own observations

I don't need to disprove, that isn't how science works, I just need to prove this explanation is better. From my perspective, I've done so. You REers are insisting it's wrong, but you're refusing to say why.

You changed your definition from that on your own forum, and your challenge doesn't meet the definition you provided.

No, yet again the definition remains constant. It's different to the straw man you keep proposing, but I pointed out what was wrong with that straw man whenever you brought it up. You just persisted in lying about it. This is your issue, not mine. The definition I give here fits perfectly with the evidence I give in the model. Whine all you want, if you're not going to respond to the challenge then leave the thread.

Evidence of DET:
JRowe said so, and he has his own pencil drawings to prove it!

Nope, that's not my evidence. i see you're only interested in mocking. If your model's so secure, why do you feel the need to?
I've shouldered the burden of proof, and I give the evidence in the model. Then people like you insist it's wrong when you evidently haven't read it if you're going to make a claim like that.

Quote

You changed your definition from that on your own forum, and your challenge doesn't meet the definition you provided.

No, yet again the definition remains constant. It's different to the straw man you keep proposing, but I pointed out what was wrong with that straw man whenever you brought it up. You just persisted in lying about it. This is your issue, not mine. The definition I give here fits perfectly with the evidence I give in the model. Whine all you want, if you're not going to respond to the challenge then leave the thread.

Yes, you made the same baseless claims about my argument, but were never able to substantiate it, and instead treat the semantics as if it was entirely pointless.

Again, the challenge doesn't meet the definition.

And no, you didn't give any evidence of your model.

Yes, you made the same baseless claims about my argument, but were never able to substantiate it, and instead treat the semantics as if it was entirely pointless.

Because they were. Again, it doesn't matter if you want to cling to that straw man of the evidence section, I'm not wasting time on it given how hard it is for you to admit the blindingly obvious if an FEer says it. For a perfect example, the fact you just ignored my post: the definition I give here works perfectly in the evidence section. If it makes it easier, just replace it, everything still follows.

So for the love of god move on, it is pointless to whine about something that has no effect.

And no, you didn't give any evidence of your model.

Then fucking prove it, for crying out loud I am sick of this. You whine and whinge that the evidence section isn't good enough, and refuse to justify it. Now:

1. Given that the definition I use here works just fine in the evidence section, and the evidence following on from this definition is exactly what I use to justify my model,
And 2. You are claiming that I do not give evidence,
Respond to the fucking challenge already or shut up.

Well I am proud that you haven't completely devolved into all caps screaming yet again.  You are however frazzled and are showing it.  This is not good JROWE, many will view it as a sign of weakness.  Honestly, you should try to focus on narrowing down things and providing answers to people's questions instead of fussing that you are tired of repeating yourself.  This is where the discussion is right now, quote yourself, copy and paste it, etc. if you feel you have answered it before.  But if the answers you provide are not accepted, you need to try to find the common ground to get closer to what they ask for.  Until then you will always be seen as a joke.  Emotions gotta go, need logical answers, basic ones actually work.  You do not need overly complex answers, just explain it when asked.  Right now you haven't, that's not meant to be an attack, just saying that out of all your posts, and I have read pretty much all of them, you really have not provided what has been asked. 
I know you will just either blow me off, or fuss about what I am saying, but you really need to step up and defend your model better than you are doing.  Right now it looks like you are unwilling to do so. 
Don't get mad, I am actually trying to be nice here, I have avoided asking you more questions that I know you will not answer, because I have asked them before.

Quote

The onus is on you to justify why the things you plucked from your nether regions is believable in the first place.

First of all, you need to disprove almost everything about the RE and our current understanding of physics and the universe and our very own observations

I don't need to disprove, that isn't how science works, I just need to prove this explanation is better. From my perspective, I've done so. You REers are insisting it's wrong, but you're refusing to say why.

I don't think that you understand how science works.  You can't just say "Well, Einstein said that there is an aether, so I'll just tweak it a little and it should work just fine".  Einstein spent a lot of years working on a rock solid mathematical foundation for relativity and found that aether was not necessary for it to work.  When you've put in the years and the math to establish a solid foundation for DET, then maybe you might be able to say that your explanation is better.  Until then, you got squat.

1. Given that the definition I use here works just fine in the evidence section, and the evidence following on from this definition is exactly what I use to justify my model,
And 2. You are claiming that I do not give evidence,
Respond to the fucking challenge already or shut up.

Blablabla, just show one piece of evidence here.

Quote

Yes, you made the same baseless claims about my argument, but were never able to substantiate it, and instead treat the semantics as if it was entirely pointless.

Because they were. Again, it doesn't matter if you want to cling to that straw man of the evidence section, I'm not wasting time on it given how hard it is for you to admit the blindingly obvious if an FEer says it. For a perfect example, the fact you just ignored my post: the definition I give here works perfectly in the evidence section. If it makes it easier, just replace it, everything still follows.

So for the love of god move on, it is pointless to whine about something that has no effect.

Do you not notice your own hypocrisy?
You are the one who refuses to admit when they are wrong.
I believe I already stated that this definition you provided now is much better (but still with flaws).
I have also agreed with FEers when they make true statements or provide rational arguments.

Again, when you are discussing the meaning of something, semantics are not pointless.

Quote

And no, you didn't give any evidence of your model.

Then fucking prove it, for crying out loud I am sick of this. You whine and whinge that the evidence section isn't good enough, and refuse to justify it. Now:

You provided no evidence in your evidence section. It was just talking about what evidence is and how to choose a model.
I have pointed this out several times.

Can you provide a single thing which is actually evidence for your model and explain HOW it is?

1. Given that the definition I use here works just fine in the evidence section, and the evidence following on from this definition is exactly what I use to justify my model,
And 2. You are claiming that I do not give evidence,
Respond to the fucking challenge already or shut up.

I already did respond to the challenge, and like always you just dismissed it.

Explain your friction claim......bet ya can't.

Is he left yet?

Dual-Earth, huh?

I hope you have a great tax-lawyer, because you are going to be SUPER rich!


Once you release your data, the Nobel commission will be all over you, then comes the book deal, the world speaking tour, endorsements, blockbuster movie trilogy,  merchandising, etc...

Dual-Earth, huh?

I hope you have a great tax-lawyer, because you are going to be SUPER rich!


Once you release your data, the Nobel commission will be all over you, then comes the book deal, the world speaking tour, endorsements, blockbuster movie trilogy,  merchandising, etc...

I think he's in hiding or on a retreat doing some personal growth research into friction.

Well it is a holiday weekend in the U.S.  So he may just be enjoying it with family. 

Well it is a holiday weekend in the U.S.  So he may just be enjoying it with family.

I'm sure he's the life of the party!

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 28, 2017, 06:10:15 PM

Well it is a holiday weekend in the U.S.  So he may just be enjoying it with family.

I'm sure he's the life of the party!

Maybe, maybe not.  This is an online forum, many come here to pretend and are not actually insane.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on May 28, 2017, 10:00:58 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 28, 2017, 06:10:15 PM

Well it is a holiday weekend in the U.S.  So he may just be enjoying it with family.

I'm sure he's the life of the party!

Maybe, maybe not.  This is an online forum, many come here to pretend and are not actually insane.

That's quite possible, but not in this case.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on May 28, 2017, 10:00:58 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on May 28, 2017, 06:10:15 PM

Well it is a holiday weekend in the U.S.  So he may just be enjoying it with family.

I'm sure he's the life of the party!

Maybe, maybe not.  This is an online forum, many come here to pretend and are not actually insane.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express once..

This guy is completely batshit crazy.

Congratulations fellas, it looks like he has been defeated

Kudos to him though for sticking to his word and leaving. It takes a brave man to admit when he has been wrong and that he has been defeated. Kudos!

You are however frazzled and are showing it.  This is not good JROWE, many will view it as a sign of weakness.  Honestly, you should try to focus on narrowing down things and providing answers to people's questions instead of fussing that you are tired of repeating yourself.  This is where the discussion is right now, quote yourself, copy and paste it, etc. if you feel you have answered it before.  But if the answers you provide are not accepted, you need to try to find the common ground to get closer to what they ask for. 

I am not going to waste time and energy on people that are just ranting. What are you talking about? I asked the question, they're not providing answers, they're rambling about completely different topics. Why do blatantly trolling answers merit serious consideration?

I am asking for:

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.

When barely any responses even conceivably come close to either of these definitions, why should I act as though there are meaningful answers? Fact is, no one's attempting the challenge. End of.

Blablabla, just show one piece of evidence here.

Why? Does the rest of the internet magically not exist for you?

I believe I already stated that this definition you provided now is much better (but still with flaws).

'but still with flaws.' Then. Give. Them. For christ's sake this is the whole damn point of the thread, if you have flaws hurry and and provide them rather than just whinging that they exist and refusing to respond. You have two categories, which are you trying for, and what's your response? You claim "I already did respond to the challenge," but I don't recall an actual answer to either category. If I'm wrong, let me know what it is.

Can you provide a single thing which is actually evidence for your model and explain HOW it is?

'How it is,' well you know my definition of evidence, and if you know the model you'll see how all observations made are explained by it, and how said model minimizes assumptions. What else is there to do? We stay on the Earth's surface, the force keeping us there decreases with altitude, and varies with distance from the poles. Tides. Phases of the moon. The stars, Sun, planets and moon. Circumpolar stars...

Explain your friction claim......bet ya can't.

Section 3 of the overview, a couple of lines after the illustration. It's been there for a while, there's just that unavoidable fact you're not interested in making an honest argument.

Congratulations fellas, it looks like he has been defeated

Kudos to him though for sticking to his word and leaving. It takes a brave man to admit when he has been wrong and that he has been defeated. Kudos!

Nope, I just choose not to spend every day on a forum filled with abusive morons who are still incapable of responding to an actual challenge.
I will be more than happy to leave if you'd care to actually try to answer. Better yet, sort through the rants this thread has received and let me know what answer you imagine won.

Quote

Blablabla, just show one piece of evidence here.

Why? Does the rest of the internet magically not exist for you?

Well, I can't find something that doesn't exist. You think it does, so post it here or leave and stay in your own forum. If you're not ready to post your "evidence" here, no need for you to stay here

Anyway, way are you sooooo afraid to post "evidence" here?

Well, I can't find something that doesn't exist. You think it does, so post it here or leave and stay in your own forum. If you're not ready to post your "evidence" here, no need for you to stay here

Anyway, way are you sooooo afraid to post "evidence" here?

There's a whole section devoted to it, everyone with eyes is perfectly capable of confirming it exists. No one except for you seems to be afraid, given you're the one who'd rather change the topic than answer a simple question.
I'm not copy/pasting a whole section into a thread where the vast majority of it doesn't matter.

Tell you what, a special challenge for you. Provide:
1. Either a response to the challenge, or a concession that the definition holds.
And 2. A specific subject (such as gravity) that you want to see the evidence for.

And I'll provide it. (After all, it is a bit much to ask for evidence for every conceivable area of a model in one post in a thread that's about none of them). And please, actually respond this time. Your answers numbered 1 and 2 ideally. Otherwise it'll just be pretty clear you're just wasting time.

Quote

Well, I can't find something that doesn't exist. You think it does, so post it here or leave and stay in your own forum. If you're not ready to post your "evidence" here, no need for you to stay here

Anyway, way are you sooooo afraid to post "evidence" here?

There's a whole section devoted to it, everyone with eyes is perfectly capable of confirming it exists. No one except for you seems to be afraid, given you're the one who'd rather change the topic than answer a simple question.
I'm not copy/pasting a whole section into a thread where the vast majority of it doesn't matter.

Tell you what, a special challenge for you. Provide:
1. Either a response to the challenge, or a concession that the definition holds.
And 2. A specific subject (such as gravity) that you want to see the evidence for.

And I'll provide it. (After all, it is a bit much to ask for evidence for every conceivable area of a model in one post in a thread that's about none of them). And please, actually respond this time. Your answers numbered 1 and 2 ideally. Otherwise it'll just be pretty clear you're just wasting time.

I know that section, have read it and there was no evidence. You are not supposed to copy pasta the section.
You are supposed to provide one proof/evidence that supports your model. Seems like you're not able to do so. Sad!