Poll

Which came first, your belief or the evidence?

Belief in god/bible led me to my conclusion.
1 (6.3%)
belief in flat earth led me to my conclusion.
1 (6.3%)
Scientific evidence led me to my conclusion.
14 (87.5%)

Total Members Voted: 12

Voting closed: August 16, 2015, 05:17:09 PM

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2015, 03:01:27 AM »
I believe in the FET because the Vatican burned people at the stake for not believing it.

Thankfully they have come to their senses since then :)

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2015, 12:46:17 PM »
There are two requirements for a theory to work:

1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).

Experiments are no more than a special case of option 1: they're just observations. If a theory explains observations, then all experiments provide evidence of it. Experiments show events, a theory explains those events.
That's all experiments provide: more observations. If a theory explains the results of those experiments and observations, then it has observational and experimental evidence: that is, it's scientific.

The FE model (in some formulations) explains observations. The RE model approximately explains many, with suitable dishonesty. Still, let's be charitable: it's a fact FET explains observations, and let's say RET does.

Then we reach the crux of the matter: Occam's Razor. Round Earthers simply make two many assumptions. The only reason they deny that is because it's so ingrained.
For example, gravity alone. Mass bends space by an unknown means, which pulls things in an unknown way. Two assumptions alone in that one crucial aspect. Assumptions don't negate a theory, they're always necessary, but there need to be fewer than the alternatives. Dual Earth theory has a total of two, both logical.

This renders Flat Earth theory both scientific and logical.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2015, 05:15:10 PM »
There are two requirements for a theory to work:

1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor.  Simplicity does not equal correctness.  Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2015, 05:51:51 PM »
There are two requirements for a theory to work:

1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor.  Simplicity does not equal correctness.  Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.

But when competing theories are examined, you remove as many unsupported assumptions as possible. That is how it works.
Unless you are going to choose a theory that relies on more unexplained elements, the only scientific choice is the one with fewer assumptions.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2015, 06:09:16 PM »
There are two requirements for a theory to work:

1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor.  Simplicity does not equal correctness.  Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.

But when competing theories are examined, you remove as many unsupported assumptions as possible. That is how it works.
Unless you are going to choose a theory that relies on more unexplained elements, the only scientific choice is the one with fewer assumptions.
Do you mean unsupported assumptions like aether?  No, it isn't so much a question of unsupported assumptions, it's a question of how well available evidence supports your assumptions.  A theory with a lot of small holes but plenty of good supporting evidence is still better than a theory with one huge, gaping hole with no supporting evidence of any sort.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2015, 07:02:53 PM »
There are two requirements for a theory to work:

1. Matches observations.
2. Makes fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor).
Contrary to popular opinion, theories are not required to fit Occam's Razor.  Simplicity does not equal correctness.  Sometimes things really are more complicated than you want them to be.

But when competing theories are examined, you remove as many unsupported assumptions as possible. That is how it works.
Unless you are going to choose a theory that relies on more unexplained elements, the only scientific choice is the one with fewer assumptions.
Do you mean unsupported assumptions like aether?  No, it isn't so much a question of unsupported assumptions, it's a question of how well available evidence supports your assumptions.  A theory with a lot of small holes but plenty of good supporting evidence is still better than a theory with one huge, gaping hole with no supporting evidence of any sort.
Aether is well-defined and known to exist, in the Dual Earth model. The only assumptions would be its two properties, and both of those are logical deductions and common sense.

I am fully aware that evidence needs to support assumptions. That is what the first point was. You are aware that it is necessary to observe evidence? Once again, to be scientific, a theory must:

  • Match observations (evidence)
  • Require fewer assumptions

And that's all.
If two theories explain all observations (which covers not only evidence, but when there's evidence lacking: a stronger claim), the one accepted is the one that requires the fewest unjustified assumptions. Gravity alone, being fundamental to RET, centers around two assumptions I have already explained, and that's just one aspect of the whole model.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2015, 07:43:43 PM »
Aether is well-defined and known to exist, in the Dual Earth model.
Perhaps it's "well defined" and "known to exist" in your model, but the rest of the scientific community seems to disagree with you.

The only assumptions would be its two properties, and both of those are logical deductions and common sense.
If you need to assume its properties, then aether can't be "well defined" or "known to exist", can it?

I am fully aware that evidence needs to support assumptions. That is what the first point was. You are aware that it is necessary to observe evidence? Once again, to be scientific, a theory must:

  • Match observations (evidence)
  • Require fewer assumptions
Require fewer assumptions than what?

And that's all.
No, in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing and peer review.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2015, 08:00:43 PM »
Quote
Perhaps it's "well defined" and "known to exist" in your model, but the rest of the scientific community seems to disagree with you.
If you need to assume its properties, then aether can't be "well defined" or "known to exist", can it?
The scientific community completely agrees that the Dual Earth form of aether exists. The only point of contention is the traits it possesses. I said as much in the post you're responding to.
For example, many people believe aliens exist. The controversy is in how we define them. Grey slimy things with a fondness for probing, or unfathomable beings on a distant world we'll probably never contact?
I fail to see how some people disagreeing means I have not put forward a complete definition.

Quote
Require fewer assumptions than what?
Competing theories.

Quote
No, in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing and peer review.
Rigorous testing is still covered under option one. Those tests are experiments: if the hypothesis explains the results of those experiments (both positive and negative results), then it passes those tests. The Dual Earth model, as it matches all observations, has passed exactly the same amount of tests as Round Earth Theory, even assuming a Round Earth works to explain all of the world. If you're going to hold the Dual Earth model to a higher standard, please explain why. Otherwise, don't be so dishonest.
Peer review of the kind you seek is not feasible in a community biased against the idea. The fact is, working model or not, none of your popular scientists will be interested in reading about a Flat Earth: that's no fault with the theory, it's a lack of scientific integrity. Peer review is achieved by this site.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2015, 10:08:53 PM »
Quote
Perhaps it's "well defined" and "known to exist" in your model, but the rest of the scientific community seems to disagree with you.
If you need to assume its properties, then aether can't be "well defined" or "known to exist", can it?
The scientific community completely agrees that the Dual Earth form of aether exists.
Which "scientific community" might that be?

The only point of contention is the traits it possesses.
How can they agree that something exists if they can't agree on what it is that exists?

I fail to see how some people disagreeing means I have not put forward a complete definition.
A complete definition of something would include its properties.

Quote
No, in order to become a theory, a hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing and peer review.
Rigorous testing is still covered under option one. Those tests are experiments: if the hypothesis explains the results of those experiments (both positive and negative results), then it passes those tests. The Dual Earth model, as it matches all observations, has passed exactly the same amount of tests as Round Earth Theory, even assuming a Round Earth works to explain all of the world.
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?

If you're going to hold the Dual Earth model to a higher standard, please explain why. Otherwise, don't be so dishonest.
If you think that your Dual Earth model explains observations better than current RET, then why shouldn't it be held to a higher standard?  After all, you are proposing a higher standard, aren't you?

Peer review of the kind you seek is not feasible in a community biased against the idea. The fact is, working model or not, none of your popular scientists will be interested in reading about a Flat Earth: that's no fault with the theory, it's a lack of scientific integrity. Peer review is achieved by this site.
I don't think that you truly understand the purpose of peer review.  Peer review is your chance to convince the skeptics with experiments that prove your model to be superior to the existing model.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2015, 10:41:13 PM »
Quote
Which "scientific community" might that be?
How can they agree that something exists if they can't agree on what it is that exists?
A complete definition of something would include its properties.

Scientists. Academia. What term would you like to refer to them as? It's the scientific community. I disagree on a total of two details, but there are more than just those two properties: the other properties are either true by definition, or overwhelming evidence.
I have given a complete definition of aether multiple times. Only two details are under dispute, but both are logical deduction.

Quote
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
I have not personally conducted the experiments because they rely on resources I don't have: a lack of budget is no flaw with the theory. The majority of experiments performed universally could have falsified my theory: none have. You seem to be implying that if I had made this theory a few years earlier, before certain experiments were performed, it would be more reliable: that's absurd. Time isn't going to alter how true my model is.

Quote
If you think that your Dual Earth model explains observations better than current RET, then why shouldn't it be held to a higher standard?  After all, you are proposing a higher standard, aren't you?
Occam's Razor, as I said. You can't just ignore half my post and act like that makes a point.

Quote
Peer review is your chance to convince the skeptics with experiments that prove your model to be superior to the existing model.
Which this site allows for. Dual Earth Theory is not the same as classical Flat Earth theory, so I can gain honest insight from open-minded people, rather than your so-loved community which would refuse to even consider the possibility of a Flat Earth from sheer bias.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2015, 11:09:56 PM »
Quote
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
I have not personally conducted the experiments because they rely on resources I don't have: a lack of budget is no flaw with the theory. The majority of experiments performed universally could have falsified my theory: none have. You seem to be implying that if I had made this theory a few years earlier, before certain experiments were performed, it would be more reliable: that's absurd. Time isn't going to alter how true my model is.
Would you care to detail some proposed experiments that would falsify the existence of aether and possible help clarify some of its unknown qualities?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2015, 11:40:55 PM »
Quote
Just what experiments have you carried out to falsify the existence of aether?
I have not personally conducted the experiments because they rely on resources I don't have: a lack of budget is no flaw with the theory. The majority of experiments performed universally could have falsified my theory: none have. You seem to be implying that if I had made this theory a few years earlier, before certain experiments were performed, it would be more reliable: that's absurd. Time isn't going to alter how true my model is.
Would you care to detail some proposed experiments that would falsify the existence of aether and possible help clarify some of its unknown qualities?
In my signature, I outline my model. There may be qualities I'm unaware of, but I see no need to suppose them. It is well defined, as I said. If you learned about my model, I've no doubt you could find many experiments capable of falsifying it: I doubt they would do so.
I can't think of any way to falsify the existence of aether. It is fundamental, even under Round Earth Theory, according to my model. There may be a way, but it would be something so obviously impossible I can't think of it. Being able to move and still ending up in the same place, for example.

What you're asking for would seem to be a means to falsify the properties. I have pointed this out to you before.
If it became impossible to cross the equator, if gravity was stronger at the equator than the poles, if the stars stopped moving around two points... things like that would do.
If that is not enough, I ask you to give me an idea of what you're after. Please can you detail a proposed experiment that could falsify the existence of, say, gravity?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2015, 02:33:25 AM »
I can't think of any way to falsify the existence of aether.
Then your "theory" can join the ranks of String Theory which makes makes no testable predictions and therefore is not generally accepted as a scientific theory, despite having the word theory in its name.

What you're asking for would seem to be a means to falsify the properties. I have pointed this out to you before.
If it became impossible to cross the equator, if gravity was stronger at the equator than the poles, if the stars stopped moving around two points... things like that would do.
I'm not quite sure that I understand the implications of these observations.  Are you saying that if you can't cross the equator, then aether must be the cause?

If that is not enough, I ask you to give me an idea of what you're after.
What observations can aether explain that gravity can't?

Please can you detail a proposed experiment that could falsify the existence of, say, gravity?
The Cavendish experiment.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2015, 12:22:15 PM »
Quote
Then your "theory" can join the ranks of String Theory which makes makes no testable predictions and therefore is not generally accepted as a scientific theory, despite having the word theory in its name.
Stop ignoring half everything I say, it's just getting pathetic at this point. If, as I have asked multiple times, you would educate yourself on my theory, you would see that aether is accepted to exist even by Round Earthers. The only query is whether or not it possesses two specific traits. Plus, I did actually give a reason why, and a hypothetical experiment, but sure, feel free to ignore all of that just so you can make a dishonest point.

Quote
Are you saying that if you can't cross the equator, then aether must be the cause?
No, I'm just saying that if it couldn't happen, then it would falsify my theory. That is what you asked for, or are you now changing your question?

Quote
What observations can aether explain that gravity can't?
For a moment, let's suppose there's nothing: let's suppose they both explain things the exact same amount. Occam's Razor still favours my theory, as you consistently ignore. What does gravity explain that God pulling everything down can't? Nothing, we just remove unnecessary assumptions.
That's all I need. You can't hold Dual Earth Theory to a higher standard than everything else you accept, to do so would be dishonest.

Still, in answer:
Aether actually explains why things are pulled to the surface of the Earth: gravity is no more than a placeholder and assertion (why does mass bend space? Why does that exert a force? Both of those are assumptions inherent in gravity). It explains why the inverse square law applies to the force, and given the simple definition of aether (two properties, beyond the trivial) it explains everything. The fact such a simple concept explains so much is a strength.
That's to begin with.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2015, 01:54:25 PM »
Quote
Then your "theory" can join the ranks of String Theory which makes makes no testable predictions and therefore is not generally accepted as a scientific theory, despite having the word theory in its name.
Stop ignoring half everything I say, it's just getting pathetic at this point. If, as I have asked multiple times, you would educate yourself on my theory, you would see that aether is accepted to exist even by Round Earthers. The only query is whether or not it possesses two specific traits. Plus, I did actually give a reason why, and a hypothetical experiment, but sure, feel free to ignore all of that just so you can make a dishonest point.
If aether had the qualities that your model requires it to have, then it wouldn't be the same aether that the rest of the scientific community accepts.  It's like saying that everyone accepts that water exists, but my model requires water to have 3 hydrogen atoms per molecule.  In other words, it ain't the same thing.

Quote
Are you saying that if you can't cross the equator, then aether must be the cause?
No, I'm just saying that if it couldn't happen, then it would falsify my theory. That is what you asked for, or are you now changing your question?
So the fact that people can and do cross the equator proves your model false?  Good to know.

Quote
What observations can aether explain that gravity can't?
For a moment, let's suppose there's nothing: let's suppose they both explain things the exact same amount. Occam's Razor still favours my theory, as you consistently ignore.
That's a might big supposition, considering that you can't prove that aether has the properties that your model requires it to have.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2015, 02:02:29 PM »
Quote
If aether had the qualities that your model requires it to have, then it wouldn't be the same aether that the rest of the scientific community accepts.
It is in crucial respects. There are many details we agree on: if we remove those two properties, we're agreed. Thsoe two properties are the only point of contention, and that is why I offer scientific justification for them.
Water with three hydrogens defies the definition of water. None of my model defies the definition of aether. A better analogy would be if I said pure water remains solid at 10C. In this case, it's an untrue claim; but it doesn't defy the definition of water, and evidence could make it true.
My model has observational evidence. It explains observaions with fewer assumptions than the competing alternatives. That is the definition of a scientific theory.

Quote
So the fact that people can and do cross the equator proves your model false?  Good to know.
I said the exact opposite of that, but sure, keep lying, apparently that's all you're capable of. Are you aware of what 'couldn't' (as in 'couldn't cross the equator') means? That would falsify my theory. The fact is, we can.

Quote
That's a might big supposition, considering that you can't prove that aether has the properties that your model requires it to have.
They're logical deductions as you like to ignore, but even beyond that, even if they were pure unjustified assumptions, Occam's Razor still prefers my theory over yours.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2015, 06:28:10 PM »
Quote
If aether had the qualities that your model requires it to have, then it wouldn't be the same aether that the rest of the scientific community accepts.
It is in crucial respects. There are many details we agree on: if we remove those two properties, we're agreed. Thsoe two properties are the only point of contention, and that is why I offer scientific justification for them.
Except that those two properties make your aether completely different from the scientifically accepted aether.  No amount of justification will change that.

Water with three hydrogens defies the definition of water. None of my model defies the definition of aether. A better analogy would be if I said pure water remains solid at 10C. In this case, it's an untrue claim; but it doesn't defy the definition of water, and evidence could make it true.
If your model requires that pure water stay solid at 10 degrees C, the the fact that it doesn't would defy your definition of water, not the scientifically accepted definition of water.  Do you not understand the difference?

My model has observational evidence. It explains observaions with fewer assumptions than the competing alternatives. That is the definition of a scientific theory.
No, it isn't, because there are two properties of aether that you can't experimentally demonstrate.

Quote
So the fact that people can and do cross the equator proves your model false?  Good to know.
I said the exact opposite of that, but sure, keep lying, apparently that's all you're capable of. Are you aware of what 'couldn't' (as in 'couldn't cross the equator') means? That would falsify my theory. The fact is, we can.
Maybe if you could construct a more coherent sentence, then it wouldn't be so hard to figure out what exactly you're trying to say.  So now you're saying the fact that we can cross the equator means that your theory is true?  How is that any different from what gravity predicts?

Quote
That's a might big supposition, considering that you can't prove that aether has the properties that your model requires it to have.
They're logical deductions as you like to ignore, but even beyond that, even if they were pure unjustified assumptions, Occam's Razor still prefers my theory over yours.
No, you prefer your theory, Occam's Razor doesn't.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2015, 07:53:39 PM »
Quote
Except that those two properties make your aether completely different from the scientifically accepted aether.  No amount of justification will change that.
Why does two additions render something completely different?
Fine, but undeniably the basis for my aether is accepted to exist. The problem isn't its existence, it's the details of two specific properties. There is a difference between refinement and replacement.

Quote
No, it isn't, because there are two properties of aether that you can't experimentally demonstrate.
Aside from how logical deduction is enough (because how else do you interpret an experiment if you don't deduce with logic?), my model explains observations. That is the definition of experimental evidence.

Quote
So now you're saying the fact that we can cross the equator means that your theory is true?  How is that any different from what gravity predicts?
You asked what would falsify my model. I said that, if we were unable to cross the equator, that would falsify it. Are you going to stop pretending you asked a different question, or are you just going to keep being intentionally idiotic?

Quote
No, you prefer your theory, Occam's Razor doesn't.
You have already been shown that this is an outright lie.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2015, 11:59:55 PM »
Quote
Except that those two properties make your aether completely different from the scientifically accepted aether.  No amount of justification will change that.
Why does two additions render something completely different?
Because the scientifically accepted version of aether doesn't have 2 of the properties that your version of aether requires.  In other words, you're describing something else.

Fine, but undeniably the basis for my aether is accepted to exist. The problem isn't its existence, it's the details of two specific properties. There is a difference between refinement and replacement.
Yes, it is a problem of existence because aether with the 2 specific properties that you need hasn't been shown to exist.

Quote
No, it isn't, because there are two properties of aether that you can't experimentally demonstrate.
Aside from how logical deduction is enough (because how else do you interpret an experiment if you don't deduce with logic?), my model explains observations. That is the definition of experimental evidence.
Dark matter in interstellar space has the property of gravitationally lensing light from far off galaxies.  Since gravitational lensing has been observed, that means that dark matter exists.  Wow, that was easy.

Quote
So now you're saying the fact that we can cross the equator means that your theory is true?  How is that any different from what gravity predicts?
You asked what would falsify my model. I said that, if we were unable to cross the equator, that would falsify it. Are you going to stop pretending you asked a different question, or are you just going to keep being intentionally idiotic?
Do you understand what falsification means?  It means that you make a testable prediction that only your theory can explain and then you test it.  The ability to cross the equator is just as easily explained by RET as it is by your model.  In fact, RET explains it better because it doesn't require some undocumented property of aether in order to go from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere or vice versa. 

Quote
No, you prefer your theory, Occam's Razor doesn't.
You have already been shown that this is an outright lie.
I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm just saying that you're wrong.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2015, 10:56:27 AM »
Quote
Yes, it is a problem of existence because aether with the 2 specific properties that you need hasn't been shown to exist.
That's utter nonsense. I am assigning two traits, via logical deduction, to something that is known to exist. What about that are you struggling to understand? It seems very simple. The problem is not whether aether exists, it's whether it possesses those two additional properties. Disproving two properties does not disprove the whole entity. Heat didn't stop existing when people decided it wasn't made of calorics.

Quote
Dark matter in interstellar space has the property of gravitationally lensing light from far off galaxies.  Since gravitational lensing has been observed, that means that dark matter exists.  Wow, that was easy.
If gravity exists exactly as your model states, then dark matter would have to exist. That does not mean gravity as your model supposes exists. Do you enjoy consistently forgetting Occam's Razor?
We get two theories that explain observations. To decide between the two, we apply Occam's Razor. That is how science works. Stops forgetting that.

Quote
Do you understand what falsification means?  It means that you make a testable prediction that only your theory can explain and then you test it.  The ability to cross the equator is just as easily explained by RET as it is by your model. 
Except that's not what you asked. You asked for something that would show my theory false, with no reference to any other theory. Besides, a possible route of Dual Earth Theory explains the Cavendish experiment: so by that logic you haven't provided what I asked for.
Nothing is uniquely explained by one theory. It's always possible to come up with some alternative. Intelligent falling for example: the hand of God pulling everything. How science works, is taking two theories that explain equal amounts (a charitable assumption for RET, sure) and applying Occam's Razor to choose between them.

Quote
In fact, RET explains it better because it doesn't require some undocumented property of aether in order to go from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere or vice versa. 
Undocumented how? It relies only on the notion that space is how we define distance. That's completely true. There is no special property at work. You can't ignore correction and act like that's a point.

Quote
I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm just saying that you're wrong.
So, just asserting then?

Let's summarize, shall we?
Two competing theories explain all observations. Supposing that the one developed properly first takes precedence is no more than an appeal to tradition: a fallacy.
It is an established fact that, to be scientific, in choosing between two theories you apply Occam's Razor to remove the theory with the most unnecessary assumptions. Dual Earth Theory has at most two: both logically deduced. Round Earth Theory has two in its bogus definition of gravity alone, with no logical sense to either.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.