DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave

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!

I offered to do so. The mini-challenge for you especially remains open. Guess you're more interested in insisting you're right than proving it, though.

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 'sad?' Are you Trump now?

Your challenge is a strawman and no better than Heiwa's.

Quote

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!

I offered to do so. The mini-challenge for you especially remains open. Guess you're more interested in insisting you're right than proving it, though.

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 'sad?' Are you Trump now?

Your 'challenge' is some bullshit I couldn't care less about.

Provide evidence or fuck off to your own forum

Quote

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.

Quote

Blablabla, just show one piece of evidence here.

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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...

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Here's the thing JRowe, your model does not fit all observations, and it makes a great many assumptions.
For instance, sun rise and set does not fit your model.  Perspective does not explain it on a flat earth.  The physical make up of the sun does not fit your model at all.  Over heated metal does not act like what we observe on the sun. 
And make a lot of assumptions.  You assume NASA faked everything.  You assume all the people who went to space are lying.  You assume every nation that has a space program is lying.  You assume a lot.

Quote

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!

I offered to do so. The mini-challenge for you especially remains open. Guess you're more interested in insisting you're right than proving it, though.

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 'sad?' Are you Trump now?

Still too terrified to even attempt to answer my questions....how did the friction experiments go?

WTF is this bullshit? LOL

Your theory involves gravity I'm guessing, a really weird variant, your model debunks itself.

Are you one of those people muddying the waters? Seems like it to me.

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?

No, we are "rambling" about this topic, (at least most people are), you are just ignoring the objections because they don't fit your strawman challenge.

Fact is, no one's attempting the challenge. End of.

Yes, because your challenge is a strawman, which you set up to pretend you were correct.

Quote

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.

I have. You ignored them and bitched and moaned that I wasn't addressing the challenge.

You have two categories, which are you trying for, and what's your response?

Neither, and I already explained why. Your challenge is a pathetic strawman with your 2 options not matching the definition you provided.

'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

No. I see how so many observations are made and none are actually explained by the model. Instead you just baselessly assert more crap to explain it, making your model effectively a collection of observation and made up crap instead of a model with any explanatory power.

and how said model minimizes assumptions.

Except it doesn't. It has so many assumptions it isn't funny.

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...

None of which is actually explained from the basis of your model, the concentrations of space.

Quote

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.

You mean where it appeals to other matter nearby causing the friction instead of the aether, so in reality it is just the same friction most people would know about?
The problem is that they are in a vacuum, that is because all the matter clumps together, as even you said, so there would be no origin of the friction.
You need the aether itself to be causing the friction.

Also note that this does not match the friction claim in your evidence section, where you claim the aether itself causes a friction which happens in a vacuum, so no other matter around.
So can you explain THAT friction claim. Here it is again for you in case you forgot:

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.
While this is a distinct prediction, and could be used to demonstrate DET over a competing model, it isn't a particularly useful experiment as the frictional force is weak this close to the Earth's surface.

This is in a vacuum, so there is no other matter around, but your claim about stars is:

the aether cannot exert friction: however, it does move the matter contained within it. As this matter shifts, it will rub against adjacent matter: this causes the friction.

But there is no adjacent matter to generate the friction in a vacuum.
You also claim this force is weak, but claim it is great enough to cause stars to glow blue-hot.
And that just raises another issue, how come the stars are different colours, indicating different temperatures, with no apparent link between them (in your model).

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.

Says the abusive moron that is still incapable of making an honest challenge.

There's a whole section devoted to it, everyone with eyes is perfectly capable of confirming it exists.

No. There isn't.
There is a section where you discuss what evidence is. But no where in that section do you actually provide evidence of your model.

Stop acting like just because it is labelled evidence it means it has evidence in it.

Wow, this guy actually came back? And after all that time had nothing to say but the same broken record loop nonsense? He could have had some credibility for a while but now he looks like even more a joke.

He is the one presenting ridiculous, untestable unverifiable make believe. Maybe he should be the one to demonstrate its truthfulness. This whole thread was designed for seeking attention and due to the nature of his 'challenge' feed his ego.

Honestly, I couldn't stick my head that far up my arse if I tried. Somehow he did and pulled these nuggets out and what's more unbelievable is his expectation that people, including esteemed scientists would give it any serious consideration

WTF is this bullshit? LOL

Your theory involves gravity I'm guessing, a really weird variant, your model debunks itself.

Are you one of those people muddying the waters? Seems like it to me.

Bullshit indeed. Looks like the sun and moon rotating around and between two pancakes, crossing the interior instantaneously because "aether" but people are able to magically cross the equator between pancakes because "aether" without noticing the enormous celestial bodies entering between the pancakes because "aether" and the sun and moon are just heated metal spotlights because "aether" and all the evidence is on my website and there are no assumptions it's all logical because FUCK OFF read my website because "aether".

Is that DET in a nutshell? Just admit you are a Poe JRowe. It's far less embarrassing.

WTF is this bullshit? LOL

Your theory involves gravity I'm guessing, a really weird variant, your model debunks itself.

Are you one of those people muddying the waters? Seems like it to me.

No crazier than then thinking density is why things fall.

@Badxtoss

Now your just going off topic. Q.Q more round retard.

Bullshit indeed. Looks like the sun and moon rotating around and between two pancakes, crossing the interior instantaneously because "aether" but people are able to magically cross the equator between pancakes because "aether" without noticing the enormous celestial bodies entering between the pancakes because "aether" and the sun and moon are just heated metal spotlights because "aether" and all the evidence is on my website and there are no assumptions it's all logical because FUCK OFF read my website because "aether".

Is that DET in a nutshell? Just admit you are a Poe JRowe. It's far less embarrassing.

LMAO pretty much what I was thinking.

@Badxtoss

Now your just going off topic. Q.Q more round retard.

Quote from: Zammo on May 30, 2017, 05:02:58 PM

Bullshit indeed. Looks like the sun and moon rotating around and between two pancakes, crossing the interior instantaneously because "aether" but people are able to magically cross the equator between pancakes because "aether" without noticing the enormous celestial bodies entering between the pancakes because "aether" and the sun and moon are just heated metal spotlights because "aether" and all the evidence is on my website and there are no assumptions it's all logical because FUCK OFF read my website because "aether".

Is that DET in a nutshell? Just admit you are a Poe JRowe. It's far less embarrassing.

LMAO pretty much what I was thinking.

Where did you address the topic at all?

Your challenge is a strawman and no better than Heiwa's.

How so? People have objected specifically to my definition, that is the definition I use, where's the straw man? it seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Your 'challenge' is some bullshit I couldn't care less about.

As before:
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.

All you have to do if you want the evidence. I wonder why you're refusing to do so.

Here's the thing JRowe, your model does not fit all observations, and it makes a great many assumptions.
For instance, sun rise and set does not fit your model.  Perspective does not explain it on a flat earth.  The physical make up of the sun does not fit your model at all.  Over heated metal does not act like what we observe on the sun. 
And make a lot of assumptions.  You assume NASA faked everything.  You assume all the people who went to space are lying.  You assume every nation that has a space program is lying.  You assume a lot.

That's a different topic. One I'm happy to get into, mostly dealing with what are assumptions and what are conclusions, though I'm happy to get into some of the other objections you have. if you do want to discuss it, please start a thread.
However, here, I'm just concerned with the definition. Many users have claimed it is flawed, but never justify it. I am trying to see if any will do so.

Yes, because your challenge is a strawman, which you set up to pretend you were correct.

Leaving aside your petulant insistence that I am somehow wrong about my own model, you are more than welcome to use the definition as laid out here in the model overview. There is no straw man. Stop evading.

You mean where it appeals to other matter nearby causing the friction instead of the aether, so in reality it is just the same friction most people would know about?

Matter nearby, moving with reference to the other matter while ultimately remaining stationary with respect to space, yep. It's almost as if you're just skimming and trying to find an interpretation you disagree with, than trying to actually understand.

I have. You ignored them and bitched and moaned that I wasn't addressing the challenge.

All I've seen are misrepresentations of my definition of evidence. The definition I give here supports the DE model. Whether you agree with that assessment or not is another topic, and one I'll happily debate with any REer capable of honest discussion, which you clearly are not. if you agree with the definition presented here, use it, I do. End of. None of your whinging changes the fact it fills the role of whatever straw man you've concocted from the overview. We should be done, though I doubt you'll ever be honest enough to admit that given you go off on rants to everything I said whether or not you were part of the discussion.

There is a section where you discuss what evidence is. But no where in that section do you actually provide evidence of your model.

Because amazingly I expect people to be able to make a simple logical connection between 'observations explained by a model' to 'these are the observations expected by this model.' Funny that.

He is the one presenting ridiculous, untestable unverifiable make believe. Maybe he should be the one to demonstrate its truthfulness.

I. Am. People like you whine that my demonstrations and evidence are not enough, why are you refusing to justify that claim?
It's verifiable, it's testable. I give potential tests, if you'd clicked the link you'd see that. i see you're just interested in stock straw men.

Bullshit indeed. Looks like the sun and moon rotating around and between two pancakes, crossing the interior instantaneously because "aether" but people are able to magically cross the equator between pancakes because "aether" without noticing the enormous celestial bodies entering between the pancakes because "aether" and the sun and moon are just heated metal spotlights because "aether" and all the evidence is on my website and there are no assumptions it's all logical because FUCK OFF read my website because "aether".

Is that DET in a nutshell? Just admit you are a Poe JRowe. It's far less embarrassing.

You know, it's almost as if a sketch meant to demonstrate one particular aspect when accompanied by several pages of text doesn't work alone. Huh. Funny.

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

Nah, just one evidence/proof for your model. Not for every area.

Nah, just one evidence/proof for your model. Not for every area.

My model covers multiple areas. care to be more specific?
And do you accept the standard I use for evidence?

Quote

Your challenge is a strawman and no better than Heiwa's.

How so? People have objected specifically to my definition, that is the definition I use, where's the straw man? it seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Because you aren't just asking us to refute the definition. Instead you provide 2 possible routes to challenge the definition.
These 2 options don't even match the definition, where in the definition you use theory and then in the challenge you use model.
They also don't include all possible ways to refute the definition.

That is why it is a strawman.
Instead of simply asking us to refute the definition you are setting up a dishonest challenge to make it far easier for yourself.

Quote

You mean where it appeals to other matter nearby causing the friction instead of the aether, so in reality it is just the same friction most people would know about?

Matter nearby, moving with reference to the other matter while ultimately remaining stationary with respect to space, yep. It's almost as if you're just skimming and trying to find an interpretation you disagree with, than trying to actually understand.

Nice and simple:
Is that matter moving with respect to the other matter? If no, there will be no friction.
What you are trying to do here is tear space.

All I've seen are misrepresentations of my definition of evidence. The definition I give here supports the DE model. Whether you agree with that assessment or not is another topic, and one I'll happily debate with any REer capable of honest discussion, which you clearly are not.

No misrepresentations, just honestly stating the massive flaws in your definition.
If your definition of "evidence" requires fewer assumptions, then it doesn't match DE BS.

Quote

There is a section where you discuss what evidence is. But no where in that section do you actually provide evidence of your model.

Because amazingly I expect people to be able to make a simple logical connection between 'observations explained by a model' to 'these are the observations expected by this model.' Funny that.

So do you accept that you have provided no evidence for your model in that section, just claims of evidence existing?

Quote

He is the one presenting ridiculous, untestable unverifiable make believe. Maybe he should be the one to demonstrate its truthfulness.

I. Am. People like you whine that my demonstrations and evidence are not enough, why are you refusing to justify that claim?
It's verifiable, it's testable. I give potential tests, if you'd clicked the link you'd see that. i see you're just interested in stock straw men.

You give 2 potential tests which will never be capable of refuting DE BS.
Your model is so pathetic and weak that it can make virtually no predictions and is only capable of providing qualitative explanations at best.

You are yet to demonstrate its truthfulness, nor have you provided any evidence for it.

Because you aren't just asking us to refute the definition. Instead you provide 2 possible routes to challenge the definition.
These 2 options don't even match the definition, where in the definition you use theory and then in the challenge you use model.

I really don't care what it is you're whinging about. Move on from semantics, slip the definition used here into the overview, grow the fuck up. None of what you're whining about has any actual bearing on any kind of substantive discourse unless you're looking to be the whiniest, most pedantic person imaginable. I am sick of needing to repeat this.

Is that matter moving with respect to the other matter?

Yes. I did say that. No tearing of space necessary, just non-uniform flow.

So do you accept that you have provided no evidence for your model in that section, just claims of evidence existing?

Amazingly I figure it's impractical to not list every single experiment ever performed that gives us facts about the Sun, magnetism, geothermal energy, tides, circumpolar stars, seasons, variations in gravity, poles... funny how that works isn't it?

They also don't include all possible ways to refute the definition.

Waiting for you to provide another course. Just thought I'd give REers a head start; either the definition is too permissive or too strict. What else do you have to offer?

I really don't care what it is you're whinging about. Move on from semantics, slip the definition used here into the overview, grow the fuck up.

Actually, semantics are very important in scientific debate.  If we can't agree on precise definitions for words like "evidence", then it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Quote

Because you aren't just asking us to refute the definition. Instead you provide 2 possible routes to challenge the definition.
These 2 options don't even match the definition, where in the definition you use theory and then in the challenge you use model.

I really don't care what it is you're whinging about. Move on from semantics

Again, do you not notice the stupidity of this comment?
We are discussing the meaning of a word and you tell me to move on from semantics, the discussion of meaning of words?

slip the definition used here into the overview, grow the fuck up.

Even with the correct definition of evidence you still provide nothing for your model. Your model provides qualitative explanations at best and each one is just another assumption thrown in.

Quote

Is that matter moving with respect to the other matter?

Yes. I did say that. No tearing of space necessary, just non-uniform flow.

So it moves with respect to the other matter and thus you just have normal friction.

Quote

So do you accept that you have provided no evidence for your model in that section, just claims of evidence existing?

Amazingly I figure it's impractical to not list every single experiment ever performed that gives us facts about the Sun, magnetism, geothermal energy, tides, circumpolar stars, seasons, variations in gravity, poles... funny how that works isn't it?

And amazingly, you find it too difficult to list even a single piece of evidence or answer a simple yes or no question.

Quote

They also don't include all possible ways to refute the definition.

Waiting for you to provide another course. Just thought I'd give REers a head start; either the definition is too permissive or too strict. What else do you have to offer?

I already did, and you ignored it.

Quote

Because you aren't just asking us to refute the definition. Instead you provide 2 possible routes to challenge the definition.
These 2 options don't even match the definition, where in the definition you use theory and then in the challenge you use model.

I really don't care what it is you're whinging about. Move on from semantics, slip the definition used here into the overview, grow the fuck up. None of what you're whining about has any actual bearing on any kind of substantive discourse unless you're looking to be the whiniest, most pedantic person imaginable. I am sick of needing to repeat this.

Quote

Is that matter moving with respect to the other matter?

Yes. I did say that. No tearing of space necessary, just non-uniform flow.

Quote

So do you accept that you have provided no evidence for your model in that section, just claims of evidence existing?

Amazingly I figure it's impractical to not list every single experiment ever performed that gives us facts about the Sun, magnetism, geothermal energy, tides, circumpolar stars, seasons, variations in gravity, poles... funny how that works isn't it?

Quote

They also don't include all possible ways to refute the definition.

Waiting for you to provide another course. Just thought I'd give REers a head start; either the definition is too permissive or too strict. What else do you have to offer?

Ok, here you mentioned facts about the sun.  But I see no evidence, no observations, that match your explaination for the sun.  We can tell what the sun is made of.  We can see how it rises and sets.  It doesn't fit your model.  You can't claim it is evidence.

Quote

Nah, just one evidence/proof for your model. Not for every area.

My model covers multiple areas. care to be more specific?
And do you accept the standard I use for evidence?

Your Con-jackture contains no evidence, no references. If you examined a properly constructed scientific proposal you would see both of these in abundance along with an expiation of a coherent  methodology. There is a well known structure that should be followed for documents that presents new ideas, a structure that you failed to follow.

The bullshit you made up then presented pops out of thin aether.....with no attached evidence and no supporting or corroborative data.

When asked questions about the nonsensical ludicrous content your answer is to direct people to read it again!

The question I've asked you on multiple occasions which you refuse doggedly to answer, what causes the friction on your stone/ metal sun. I've also asked you questions relating to your suns formation and a bunch of other things than you have just ignored.

Quote

Nah, just one evidence/proof for your model. Not for every area.

My model covers multiple areas. care to be more specific?
And do you accept the standard I use for evidence?

Just show one piece of evidence and we will see

Quote

So do you accept that you have provided no evidence for your model in that section, just claims of evidence existing?

Amazingly I figure it's impractical to not list every single experiment ever performed that gives us facts about the Sun, magnetism, geothermal energy, tides, circumpolar stars, seasons, variations in gravity, poles... funny how that works isn't it?

Do you think that it might be practical to list a few relevant experiments that give us facts about aether and how it flows?

Lonegranger, as ever, I'll answer you when you answer me:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70762.msg1915879#msg1915879

Actually, semantics are very important in scientific debate.  If we can't agree on precise definitions for words like "evidence", then it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Yes, I absolutely agree on that topic, which is why I have given the definition of evidence that I use in the OP and I am waiting for anyone to actually point out what's wrong with it.
Instead, they'd rather whinge about a straw man of a completely different post, when none of it has any effect on what I'm saying.

Even with the correct definition of evidence you still provide nothing for your model. Your model provides qualitative explanations at best and each one is just another assumption thrown in.

Stop trying to measure dicks and start fucking saying something. Do you agree with the definition of evidence presented in this thread, yes or no?

So it moves with respect to the other matter and thus you just have normal friction.

Basically, yep, just with all the matter remaining stationary with respect to the points in space they occupy.

I already did, and you ignored it.

Must have missed it. Instead of making all these grand claims, how about you prove it? Why is it instead of a one-line answer you decide to just waste time with remarks like this?

Ok, here you mentioned facts about the sun.  But I see no evidence, no observations, that match your explaination for the sun.  We can tell what the sun is made of.  We can see how it rises and sets.  It doesn't fit your model.  You can't claim it is evidence.

Then start a fucking thread I am sick of how this one's getting dragged off topic by REers who'd rather evade a simple question.

Just show one piece of evidence and we will see

Answer me and I'll answer you, nice and simple. Why do you spam and demand I respond to you, and refuse to answer a single point of clarification from me?
My model covers multiple areas. care to be more specific?
And do you accept the standard I use for evidence as given in the OP?

Do you think that it might be practical to list a few relevant experiments that give us facts about aether and how it flows?

I list the properties of aether and how it flows, they're common sense. I'm sure you could easily construct experiments to verify that things fall with varying acceleration depending on height and distance from the poles, or the coriolis effect, etc. I don't see why I would need to list experiments to confirm well-known observations, but if you really want me to I can, just try to be a bit more specific.

Answer me and I'll answer you, nice and simple.

I asked first, jerk.

I asked first, jerk.

Your question is too vague to be answerable, hence why I am asking for clarification. If you refuse to give it I can only assume you don't want a response. Again:
My model covers multiple areas. care to be more specific?
And do you accept the standard I use for evidence as given in the OP?

if you do not answer, we're done. I'm not wasting time on someone who's just trolling.

Quote

Actually, semantics are very important in scientific debate.  If we can't agree on precise definitions for words like "evidence", then it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Yes, I absolutely agree on that topic, which is why I have given the definition of evidence that I use in the OP and I am waiting for anyone to actually point out what's wrong with it.

What's wrong with your definition is that it doesn't match the definition that the rest of the scientific community uses.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Quote

Do you think that it might be practical to list a few relevant experiments that give us facts about aether and how it flows?

I list the properties of aether and how it flows, they're common sense.

No.  The properties that you propose for aether make no sense at all.  Empty space having varying densities and being able to flow is far from common sense.

I'm sure you could easily construct experiments to verify that things fall with varying acceleration depending on height and distance from the poles, or the coriolis effect, etc. I don't see why I would need to list experiments to confirm well-known observations, but if you really want me to I can, just try to be a bit more specific.

I'm not asking for experiments showing variations in earth's gravitational field.  I'm asking for experiments confirming the existence of aether and its properties.

The below is copied from your DET overview on your webpage. Your OP really is a strawman for the fundamental problem inherent in your theory relying on an acceptance of aether and its so called properties. There really is no point reading any further than these few paragraphs. Defining something is not evidence. Aether does not meet YOUR first requirement for evidence of "a) An observation that is explained by said theory" as it has not been observed/measured/otherwise.


"The Theory of Relativity defines space to have a fabric. This is what aether relies upon. As Einstein once did, we choose the word 'aether' to define space. In fact, you don't. You apply all sorts of assumptions to aether that science does not to space. This is a mere definition This is about the only thing I agree with - it's a meaningless definition and nothing else. : when referencing aether in outer space, for example, the terminology is much clearer.
Aether is also a term recognized in FET. - But not accepted in mainstream science.

So there is no misunderstanding, we here define what space itself is. It is the measure of distance: to get from A to B, we move through space. If there is more space between A and B, there is more distance: if there is less, there is less distance.
It is established that this is more than a mere direction. The experiments that confirm relativity, such as Hafele-Keating, demonstrate this. It possesses certain properties. For example, if it is bent or curved, the flow of time is altered. Such bending is not relevant to DET, however: it merely illustrates that space is more then an abstract direction.

So far, nothing is new or invented. - Not in terms of "space", but most definitely in terms of you attributing the term "aether" and its properties to space without evidence. The burden of proof rests with you, and you fail quite spectacularly.

Under DET, we simply append one more property. This comes from logical deduction.
In nature, we observe a universal tendency: things move from high concentration to low. We observe this in systems such as pressure, and diffusion. For an example, inflate a balloon: the high pressure of air within it rushes out to the lower outside. There is also the case of free expansion of a gas. An analogous principle holds for energy: all closed systems tend to equilibrium. (Closed system is a required caveat, and similar things are the case for multiple laws).
Now, we define what a law is. No law has been universally observed. For example, the second law of thermodynamics has not been examined or confirmed for every possible chemical reaction, in all places, at all times. There is no possible way that is ever happened: however, it is observed in enough systems, and it makes enough logical sense, that we assume it does indeed hold everywhere.
We simply do the same for aether. There is no reason to conclude that a universal law will not apply to one specific entity. - No, you cannot conclude a law will apply to an entity you haven't even proved exists. Just by saying the word "aether" and defining it as "space" does not make it exist. All you have are words - they do not make aether exist. We don't apply the property of flow to space. Why should we to your aether?
It is worth pointing out that much study has been done on entities that obey this law. Alan Turing, for example, proved in 1952 that diffusion doesn't necessarily lead to a totally evened out system. The result may seem counter-intuitive, but it has proven and known by the scientific community for decades. This fact will be useful later.

Thus, aether is now rigorously defined. I don't know about vigorous. You've called it space and claimed laws attributable to known phenomena should be ascribed to it. Prove its exists now, and stop assuming it has properties. There is no property beyond this. It is space, and it flows from high concentrations to low. No. You've just described it as space. That's it. You cannot conclude it "flows" (whatever it is and whatever that means) without evidence. This is absolute nonsense and is why no one takes you theory seriously. Space doesn't flow. Why should your aether?

If you want to imagine a low concentration of space, think of it in terms of this analogy. A classical analogy in relativity is to imagine space as a blanket: under DET, imagine this blanket is composed of some stretchy fabric, such as woven elastic.
An object will be, say, the size of five adjacent lines of elastic. If you pinch and pull the fabric, the number of lines will not alter: however, when compared to another five lines of elastic, it is possible for an object to appear longer (by comparison) than another, same-sized object. This rarely happens in reality, but it is an easier way to think of how distance works.

That is all there is to aether. Something known to exist, with a known law applied to it. And this really is the crux of why you have no point. IT IS NOT KNOWN TO EXIST. YOU MUST PROVE IT OTHERWISE IT IS JUST A WORD. Please, show us how we can observe or measure aether's existence to satisfy your criteria for evidence. Remember this definition, and know and understand it fully. It is vital."

Lonegranger, as ever, I'll answer you when you answer me:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70762.msg1915879#msg1915879

Quote

Actually, semantics are very important in scientific debate.  If we can't agree on precise definitions for words like "evidence", then it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Yes, I absolutely agree on that topic, which is why I have given the definition of evidence that I use in the OP and I am waiting for anyone to actually point out what's wrong with it.
Instead, they'd rather whinge about a straw man of a completely different post, when none of it has any effect on what I'm saying.

Quote

Even with the correct definition of evidence you still provide nothing for your model. Your model provides qualitative explanations at best and each one is just another assumption thrown in.

Stop trying to measure dicks and start fucking saying something. Do you agree with the definition of evidence presented in this thread, yes or no?

Quote

So it moves with respect to the other matter and thus you just have normal friction.

Basically, yep, just with all the matter remaining stationary with respect to the points in space they occupy.

Quote

I already did, and you ignored it.

Must have missed it. Instead of making all these grand claims, how about you prove it? Why is it instead of a one-line answer you decide to just waste time with remarks like this?

Quote

Ok, here you mentioned facts about the sun.  But I see no evidence, no observations, that match your explaination for the sun.  We can tell what the sun is made of.  We can see how it rises and sets.  It doesn't fit your model.  You can't claim it is evidence.

Then start a fucking thread I am sick of how this one's getting dragged off topic by REers who'd rather evade a simple question.

Quote

Just show one piece of evidence and we will see

Answer me and I'll answer you, nice and simple. Why do you spam and demand I respond to you, and refuse to answer a single point of clarification from me?
My model covers multiple areas. care to be more specific?
And do you accept the standard I use for evidence as given in the OP?

Quote

Do you think that it might be practical to list a few relevant experiments that give us facts about aether and how it flows?

I list the properties of aether and how it flows, they're common sense. I'm sure you could easily construct experiments to verify that things fall with varying acceleration depending on height and distance from the poles, or the coriolis effect, etc. I don't see why I would need to list experiments to confirm well-known observations, but if you really want me to I can, just try to be a bit more specific.

You get a gold star for evasion.

You would rather go to any length that answer a question and the reason is because you don't have answers.

You slipped up when I asked you about the nature of the stone and metal you say the sun is made from!.....while it's a ridiculous notion I never the less asked you which metal and stone were the main constituent parts of the sun.....you said you didn't know?

Because you have no answers for any of the questions asked you just evade, evade , evade.
To call your piece of nonsense a model is a travesty. It no more a model than a fly in the air.

Why dont you come clean and admit your whole DET is a cowpat of an idea.