*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2020, 11:01:33 PM »
Quote
The point here isn't that I'd believe you, of course I wouldn't. The point is that if arguing logically with you about it fails, then the only solution is to open the box!
Except it's not about convincing me, it's about arriving at a conclusion, don't move the goalposts.

Quote
I never said you can ONLY use new tests.
Then we're in agreement and this was all utterly pointless given I made it very clear time and again my objection was saying a new prediction was necessary, as opposed to simply a better and more complete model for older.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2020, 11:30:41 PM »
I said several times over I'm fine with experiments, and encouraged doing so. My objection was only the belief that it was the only way to compare models, when you can also compare quality and quantity of assumptions.

I've seen the same experiment repeated over and over, and done the experiment myself. The conclusion from the experiment is
that the Earth is decidedly Not Flat.

It's not a question of comparing "models", it's simply a case of applying simple, school-level geometry to the observation, and finding that that geometry, if we presume the surface to be flat, does not fit with the observation.

The only assumption that needs to be made is that Pythagoras was correct with his theorem of right-angle triangles.   
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2020, 11:48:44 PM »
Quote
The point here isn't that I'd believe you, of course I wouldn't. The point is that if arguing logically with you about it fails, then the only solution is to open the box!
Except it's not about convincing me, it's about arriving at a conclusion, don't move the goalposts.

We were discussing how to decide between two competing theories, you brought the baby dragon into it.

I'd still open the box. Science would open the box. Part of the scientific method is to verify everything. There is no scientist in the world who if you asked them to prove there was no baby dragon in a box, wouldn't just open it. It's a super easy experiment, why waste time arguing when you can just look?

To me your example proves my point, an experiment is far better than any kind of logic or arguing or endless discussion. Nothing beats actual data, actual observations. It doesn't matter how many facts I can bring up about dragons being imaginary if I open the box and there is a baby dragon inside. That would falsify every argument I could possibly give.

Quote
I never said you can ONLY use new tests.
Then we're in agreement and this was all utterly pointless given I made it very clear time and again my objection was saying a new prediction was necessary, as opposed to simply a better and more complete model for older.

It's not ALWAYS necessary but in most cases is, as you wouldn't be proposing a new theory unless you were trying to explain a flaw or failure or limitation in an older one, and in that case you likely wouldn't have the data to prove it one way or another if it's a truly new idea.

We also do new experiments just because we are curious, and as technology evolves, we can make better and better ones. We recently launched spinning spheres into space to actually test if space-time twists around spinning objects. Why? Everyone was sure they would show the effect, but everyone was excited to verify it, and even more excited at the idea it might show something ELSE, which would be new and point the way to unknown physics. When we can create black holes, assuming they exist, you can be damn sure we will and run every test we can think of, and even more after we see what happens with the first ones.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2020, 03:12:55 PM »
Quote
I'd still open the box. Science would open the box. Part of the scientific method is to verify everything. There is no scientist in the world who if you asked them to prove there was no baby dragon in a box, wouldn't just open it. It's a super easy experiment, why waste time arguing when you can just look?
It really is amazing how much dancing around you'll do to avoid giving a straight answer. You'd believe dragons are equally likely to exist as a phone just because I said so? Is that really what you believe?
No one is saying to not test things, that's your straw man and it's one you know is bs by now given how many times I've pointed it out. If you don't like it when I can you a liar, try not to be so blatant at least. Experiment, learn all you can, that's great! But if you are arguing that new experiments are the only possible way to learn anythingm, you're blinkered beyond belief, you've literally started defending the existence of dragons because of it.

Quote
It's not ALWAYS necessary but in most cases is, as you wouldn't be proposing a new theory unless you were trying to explain a flaw or failure or limitation in an older one, and in that case you likely wouldn't have the data to prove it one way or another if it's a truly new idea.
And that again shows the blinkere dphilosophy I'm criticizing. You are working under the assumption new observations are needed because the current model must be perfect, must be above reproach, you aren't even considering the possibility that it is already flawed, despite the fact the OP gives an example of flaws in what is held as accurate all at once already. You don't need new data if existing data is enough, and your only reason for believing existing data won't be enough is that you've adopted the fundamentally illogical position that the status quo is above reproach and that it does successfully explain all known experiments and observations perfectly, and that shouldn't be questioned.
The problem, of course, as the OP went into and as plenty of people have been into, it doesn't.



Quote
It's not a question of comparing "models", it's simply a case of applying simple, school-level geometry to the observation, and finding that that geometry, if we presume the surface to be flat, does not fit with the observation.
Really? How are you making any claim about what is or isn't possible under FET if you aren't using any FE models?
Oh, wait, your idea of a model is 'everything functions exactly as it does under RET only on a disc,' something no actual FEer believes, but that's all you're capable of arguing against because you're still blindnly following RET. That's why comparing models help. It makes you not look like a joke.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2020, 03:26:37 PM »
Really? How are you making any claim about what is or isn't possible under FET if you aren't using any FE models?
Oh, wait, your idea of a model is 'everything functions exactly as it does under RET only on a disc,'

I didn't say anything about a disc. Please don't put words into my mouth. Respond to what I say, not what you want me to say, nor what you think I'm not saying.

something no actual FEer believes, but that's all you're capable of arguing against because you're still blindly following RET. That's why comparing models help. It makes you not look like a joke.

If the underlying plane of the Earth, upon which heights and levels are based, is anything other than a straight line, we cannot be talking about a Flat Earth anymore.  If it has a convex or concave aspect, when considered in a side view, it ain't flat.

So, in consideration of ANY Flat Earth model, the starting point is a straight line on a piece of paper or computer screen, is it not?

This applies whether it's a discworld or not.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2020, 04:15:56 PM »
So, in consideration of ANY Flat Earth model
*in consideration of the barebones straw man you imagine FET is with no bearing on what FEers actually believe.

Really, you're getting hung up on the word 'disc?' That was shorthand, it doesn't matter. What you're actually saying is 'in applictaion to all FE models where the underlying physics I am appealing to are as I imagine them to be, ie the RE model.'
Models matter. You cannot make any claim about a theory if you aren't appealing to some model under that theory. The only reason you tried to ignore models is because you're denying the existence of any beyond the RE mainstream. The only reason you think FET fails is because, rather than examining FET, you're refusing to see past RET and jamming it into some unholy frankenstein's monster of a model no one actually believes, but you somehow think is relevant.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2020, 04:35:29 PM »
Really, you're getting hung up on the word 'disc?'

I'm not. You introduced at as though I spoke of it, and I said I did not. How is that ME getting "hung up" on it?

What you're actually saying is 'in applictaion to all FE models where the underlying physics I am appealing to are as I imagine them to be, ie the RE model.'

No, I didn't say that all, I specifically asked you not to do this. Don't put words into my mouth. Address what I'm actually saying, not what you think I want to say.

In consideration of ANY type of Flat Earth model, the starting point is a straight line on a piece of paper or computer screen, is it not? Y/N
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2020, 04:43:08 PM »
Quote
I'm not. You introduced at as though I spoke of it, and I said I did not. How is that ME getting "hung up" on it?
Because you act as though it was at all significant to what I said. It wasn't. I said 'disc' because it is an easy shorthand, what I said was true for all flat surfaces, but you opted to play cheap tricks and claim a point, dishonest tactics to put on the illusion of superiority, and you're still arguing about it despite the fact you know it's irrelevant. I introduced nothing, we're talking about an arbitrary flat Earth, though only one of us seems to know what that even means.

Quote
No, I didn't say that all, I specifically asked you not to do this. Don't put words into my mouth. Address what I'm actually saying, not what you think I want to say.

In consideration of ANY type of Flat Earth model, the starting point is a straight line on a piece of paper or computer screen, is it not? Y/N
Oh lose the pathetic tricks. I am addressing what you are saying. It isn't what you want to be saying, but it is all that actually follows from what you have presented.
All that connects every FE model is that the Earth and the Earth alone, when viewed from some ultimate standpoint, lacks curvature on anything but a local scale. So, yes, you could view a drawn straight line as a foundational point.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2020, 05:07:46 PM »
.... yes, you could view a drawn straight line as a foundational point.

So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2020, 05:34:03 PM »
Quote
I'd still open the box. Science would open the box. Part of the scientific method is to verify everything. There is no scientist in the world who if you asked them to prove there was no baby dragon in a box, wouldn't just open it. It's a super easy experiment, why waste time arguing when you can just look?
It really is amazing how much dancing around you'll do to avoid giving a straight answer. You'd believe dragons are equally likely to exist as a phone just because I said so? Is that really what you believe?
No one is saying to not test things, that's your straw man and it's one you know is bs by now given how many times I've pointed it out. If you don't like it when I can you a liar, try not to be so blatant at least. Experiment, learn all you can, that's great! But if you are arguing that new experiments are the only possible way to learn anythingm, you're blinkered beyond belief, you've literally started defending the existence of dragons because of it.

Quote
It's not ALWAYS necessary but in most cases is, as you wouldn't be proposing a new theory unless you were trying to explain a flaw or failure or limitation in an older one, and in that case you likely wouldn't have the data to prove it one way or another if it's a truly new idea.
And that again shows the blinkere dphilosophy I'm criticizing. You are working under the assumption new observations are needed because the current model must be perfect, must be above reproach, you aren't even considering the possibility that it is already flawed, despite the fact the OP gives an example of flaws in what is held as accurate all at once already. You don't need new data if existing data is enough, and your only reason for believing existing data won't be enough is that you've adopted the fundamentally illogical position that the status quo is above reproach and that it does successfully explain all known experiments and observations perfectly, and that shouldn't be questioned.
The problem, of course, as the OP went into and as plenty of people have been into, it doesn't.

To be honest I have no idea what you're going on about with accusing me of lying. I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing about here. What kind of answer were you looking for that I didn't provide? Something about dragons in boxes?  I said I'd open the box. I said any scientist would open the box. I said any scientist would demand the box be opened. How am I not answering the question? I even said that no, I don't believe there is a dragon in the box but the only way to PROVE it is to open it. What more do you want? Where am I lying?

You don't believe in dragons? Fine, I don't either. But science doesn't CARE what you or I believe, it only cares about facts and if the question is what's in the box, the answer is to open it. Test it. You personally don't believe in dragons, and don't need to open the box to disprove it, but that's not the scientific method.

And you keep putting words in MY mouth.  Right there you are saying I am claiming that the status quo is above reproach. Where did I ever say that? I'm saying the exact opposite. The status quo is that dragons don't exist, yet I still say open the box. Because again, science isn't about what you think is right or what you want to be right, it's about observations. So if you open the box and a baby dragon says hi, science will throw out the other "dragons don't exist theory" and adopt a new one.

Science says there is no evidence that dragons exist. It doesn't say they CAN'T exist. Because science doesn't work that way, it only speaks about what you can see.

You are seriously confusing me.  You keep claiming that you are not anti-testing but keep insisting, as you said above, that testing and experimenting is not the only way to 'learn' things. I'm saying that's wrong, testing is the ONLY way to prove a theory, you HAVE to propose experiments, do them, and see if they are right to prove a new scientific theory. That's how science works. If you are not doing that, then you are doing something other than science which is fine, but don't call it science.

You keep saying that you're not claiming experiments are not needed, but then you always end up saying things like "You don't need new data if existing data is enough" and "Prediction does not matter" and "That's a way of doing it. It isn't the only one." and "my objection was saying a new prediction was necessary" all of which are saying that you don't always need to experiment. Yes, you do. Always. If you have a new theory then you need to test whatever new predictions it makes.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2020, 07:53:33 PM »
Quote
So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?

Yes, on large scales.



Quote
And you keep putting words in MY mouth.  Right there you are saying I am claiming that the status quo is above reproach. Where did I ever say that? I'm saying the exact opposite. The status quo is that dragons don't exist, yet I still say open the box. Because again, science isn't about what you think is right or what you want to be right, it's about observations. So if you open the box and a baby dragon says hi, science will throw out the other "dragons don't exist theory" and adopt a new one.
And there we go, conflating half a dozen points into one mishmash to avoid a clear answer. I'll break that down in a sec, but first:
I called you a liar because you persist in the claim that I am saying to not test. I have said several times over explicitly that that is not what I am saying, that it is fine to run tests, and I've encouraged it. There's no ambiguity ther,e no misinterpretation, I've said that it's a good thing to run new tests. And yet every post you're acting as though I'm objecting to the concept of tests. What else would you call that if not a lie? I am not going to dance around and let you get away with that, the number of cheap tricks people use on this forum is beyond a joke and I've no interest in allowing it. You even do it in your last post. I am not 'anti-test,' I've been talking about the results of tests and how they are crucial in every single post. You are lying again even right after you are being caught out. This isn't ambiguous.

But the breakdown. Okay.
You know everything you do now. You have a life experience, countless observations and tests that you already know. Then I come up to you with a shoebox. I tell you that inside is either a dragon or a phone.
You are saying that those two claims have equal merit. I am saying that, because I have lived in a world with no sign of dragons, in a world where the typical description of a dragon would seem to defy the laws of physics when it comes to heavy flying lizards that breathe fire, I am saying that because of all the tests that have already been done, I think that the phone is a considerably more likely possibility. I am saying that I don't need to open the box to draw a conclusion.
I am not saying to not open the box, I am saying that I would form an opinion before looking inside because enough tests have already been done that I am reasonably confident I do not live in a world with dragons. I am saying that I do not view the possibility of a dragon and the possibility of a phone to be of equal value, and that I do not need to look into the box to reach that conclusion, and that reaching that conclusion is entirely logical because it is based on past 'tests' and observations. Do you agree or disagree?

Next, okay, we open the box. No one's saying you can't, just that it's possible to reach an informed conclusion without doing so.
Suppose by some miracle there is a dragon. I'm saying that's fine, it's something to account for in future experiences, and I'm saying this in no way invalidates the logic that led me to the opposite conclusion before opening the box because, and here's the key, that isn't how science works. Science is the process, not the conclusion. You can do everything right and still come to a wrong answer, that just means your premises were flawed, not the method.
Because that's clearly something you seem to have an issue with. You have been implicitly combining 'come to a scientific conclusion' and 'proof,' but science isn't about certainty, the moment you start talking about certainty you've crossed from science to religion. Several times over you rely on the premise that 'the existing scientific model is accurate,' you rely on that by claiming further tests must be run to draw any conclusion. But that's not how it works, and nor should it be, there's always the possibility of some error. We could get onto simulation theory, for example, allowing every test to have given manipulated and inaccurate results, like you say it can't be proven that's not happening. But how often is that allowed for when running tests, does every scientific paper add the note 'there's always the possibility some guiding hand made the results inaccurate or misleading,' or do they make the rational decision, as I did with the dragon, to not unnecessarily assume the existence of an entity when there is no need to?
Now if some day something like that does get proven, so be it, they can calculate in terms of it, but it is fundamental to science to limit the assumptions to just what is presented, minimizing as many as possible, because otherwise science falls apart on a fundamental level. It becomes impossible to determine anything.
I said I would be 'reasonably confident' before opening the box, and that's key because that is the goal of science. There is not one test you can run where there isn't some wild idea that could mean it points to something completely different, science is never going to stamp those possibilities out. It just discounts all the options that, until some later point, lack evidence for their assumptions.

And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it coudln't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?

In conclusion:
1. It is possible to draw conclusions from existing knowledge.
2. Running tests is still a good thing. I'm going to keep repeating that until you stop lying about it.
3. Running tests that have not previously been performed is still a good thing and can lead to new discoveries. It is however not the sole way of finding new discoveries.
4. No part of science is or should be above question, errors may always arise (and most likely arise in the interaction of separate conclusions as they were never meant to fit together).
5. Assuming something for the purpose of making a model work is something that should be done as little as possible.

Which of these do you object to?
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 JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2020, 09:21:48 PM »
You know everything you do now. You have a life experience, countless observations and tests that you already know. Then I come up to you with a shoebox. I tell you that inside is either a dragon or a phone.
You are saying that those two claims have equal merit. I am saying that, because I have lived in a world with no sign of dragons, in a world where the typical description of a dragon would seem to defy the laws of physics when it comes to heavy flying lizards that breathe fire, I am saying that because of all the tests that have already been done, I think that the phone is a considerably more likely possibility. I am saying that I don't need to open the box to draw a conclusion.
I am not saying to not open the box, I am saying that I would form an opinion before looking inside because enough tests have already been done that I am reasonably confident I do not live in a world with dragons. I am saying that I do not view the possibility of a dragon and the possibility of a phone to be of equal value, and that I do not need to look into the box to reach that conclusion, and that reaching that conclusion is entirely logical because it is based on past 'tests' and observations. Do you agree or disagree?

I do not, and never said that dragon or no dragon have equal probability.  I said before that I would agree, there is no dragon in the box.

But you are mixing up two things, your personal belief, and the scientific method. You can believe whatever you want and use whatever methods you want. We all do and take shortcuts, otherwise nothing would ever get done.

But actual science is very, very, very simple. If you claim if you do A then B happens, you have to actually do A and record the results. No B, then your theory is false. Science doesn't care what A, B or C are. It's simply a method of trying to describe and predict the world.

So if your 'theory' was that all shoeboxes have baby dragons inside, you have to open shoeboxes until you find one, or admit the theory is unproven.  Science will never say you can't find a baby dragon, science doesn't care about what you can't prove or what might be true. It cares about what you observe. That's all.  If you can't observe it or test it, it's irrelevant to science.

In conclusion:
1. It is possible to draw conclusions from existing knowledge.
2. Running tests is still a good thing. I'm going to keep repeating that until you stop lying about it.
3. Running tests that have not previously been performed is still a good thing and can lead to new discoveries. It is however not the sole way of finding new discoveries.
4. No part of science is or should be above question, errors may always arise (and most likely arise in the interaction of separate conclusions as they were never meant to fit together).
5. Assuming something for the purpose of making a model work is something that should be done as little as possible.

Which of these do you object to?

The end of number 3.

What does 'discoveries' mean to you.  Lets be precise here.  What I have been talking about is the scientific method. 

Observe. Hypothesize. Test.

You can't skip any of those.  Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.

If you're just arguing that you personally don't need to test if there is a dragon in the box, then we can stop here and agree. I do not think there is a baby dragon in the box. It's just clearly, and obviously wrong. I have no need to test it to prove to myself it's not a baby dragon, I just know it to be true.

If you say that the scientific method can prove new theories right without verifying them, that you can skip the Test part of my list, then we still have a problem. Any valid theory MUST have some kind of predictive ability, or it's not a theory. An example: "Invisible undetectable baby dragons exist in all boxes" is not a theory, it's not falsifiable. It's just a claim, and science has nothing to say over it being true or false.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2020, 11:03:45 PM »
Quote
So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?

Yes, on large scales.

OK, so you go to the water's edge and construct a tower of 100 metre height, which you can climb and look out from atop it.

Out on the sea, you construct another tower, also 100m high.

Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?

Y/N
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2020, 05:22:09 PM »
Quote
You can't skip any of those.  Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.
How often are you going to lie about this?
Use tests. Not every test is a new one. It's that simple. Everything I've said is in line with the scientific method, I am saying to use tests, you are just ignoring it every single time because apparently you just can't bear the fact a FEer is talking sense.
You can test the validity of a claim with reference to tests. I notice you ignored basically all of my explanation to continue peddling this straw man, notably when I pointed out the reason people disbelieve in dragons is because the description is physically impossible and not just 'they haven't been seen,' not to mention every other question beyond this one you misrepresented.
When you feel like actually being even the slightest bit honest, I'll be here.

You are arguing for a narrow view of silence that favors tradition and religious belief in what has already been established. You have ignored it every single time that is pointed out to you, you don't even acknowledge it, focusing instead on lying about what I am saying (and lying explicitly, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you) and ignoring everything beyond that one very blatant lie.



Quote
Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?

Y/N
Not inherently. You're assuming an awful lot there about the properties of space and light. Like I said, you're just bringing the RET model into FET and complaining that they aren't the same.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2020, 09:45:18 PM »
Quote
Tumeni asks - Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?

Y/N
Not inherently. You're assuming an awful lot there about the properties of space and light. Like I said, you're just bringing the RET model into FET and complaining that they aren't the same.

It's got nothing to do with RET. Base presumption is that the surface of the water is flat, and that the two towers are perpendicular to it.

Regardless of distance between, how can the geometry of the situation allow the sightline between the tops to be anything other than a straight line, parallel to the base level?

What properties do you think I'm making assumptions about?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2020, 09:53:09 PM »
Quote
Tumeni asks - Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?

Y/N
Not inherently. You're assuming an awful lot there about the properties of space and light. Like I said, you're just bringing the RET model into FET and complaining that they aren't the same.

It's got nothing to do with RET. Base presumption is that the surface of the water is flat, and that the two towers are perpendicular to it.

Regardless of distance between, how can the geometry of the situation allow the sightline between the tops to be anything other than a straight line, parallel to the base level?

What properties do you think I'm making assumptions about?
I told you. Space and light. It has everything to do with RET, you're just refusing to see it, you are working under the assumption that the way you see the world is the only way. If, for example, space is not a uniform field, than two straight lines that are parallel at one point may not be parallel at every point, the distance between them would increase or reduce without them moving to be further or closer, thus no rectangle. Light would deal more with the measurement of the situation you've set up, and that would concern itself more with how parallel the sightlines seem, but that's as crucial a step as any.
Instead of repeating 'it has nothing to do with RET' and ignoring every time it is pointed out to you how it is, I'd suggest you stop assumimng I have to be wrong just because I'm a FEer. That makes discussion on this site utterly tedious. Your hypothetical situation is completely reliant on the model on the world and physics that you've been taught, once you step outside those bounds you have evidence of nothing.
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 JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2020, 10:42:44 PM »
Quote
You can't skip any of those.  Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.
How often are you going to lie about this?
Use tests. Not every test is a new one. It's that simple. Everything I've said is in line with the scientific method, I am saying to use tests, you are just ignoring it every single time because apparently you just can't bear the fact a FEer is talking sense.
You can test the validity of a claim with reference to tests. I notice you ignored basically all of my explanation to continue peddling this straw man, notably when I pointed out the reason people disbelieve in dragons is because the description is physically impossible and not just 'they haven't been seen,' not to mention every other question beyond this one you misrepresented.
When you feel like actually being even the slightest bit honest, I'll be here.

You are arguing for a narrow view of silence that favors tradition and religious belief in what has already been established. You have ignored it every single time that is pointed out to you, you don't even acknowledge it, focusing instead on lying about what I am saying (and lying explicitly, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you) and ignoring everything beyond that one very blatant lie.

You keep accusing me of lying and that is getting both tiring and insulting. You said new tests are not ALWAYS needed and I say they are ALWAYS required. Quit claiming otherwise. I'm not saying you said to NEVER use tests, but please consider the words ALWAYS and SOMETIMES to see where we differ.

Let's try and make this simple.

My claim: Every new theory requires new tests. Every one. That is how science works: Observe. Hypothesize. Test.

You gave an example of a theory: There is a baby dragon in your box.

Now, what existing tests are there that are related to your box and it's contents of a baby dragon? What scientific paper can you reference to prove that there is indeed a baby dragon is in your box?

The answer obviously is none. Nobody has written a paper about what you keep in your shoe box. So your NEW theory requires a NEW test, open the box. Unless you can find me a scientific paper that describes opening your box.

That is what I am saying. You can NOT prove you have a baby dragon without TESTING it.  Sure, I can come up with 1,000 reasons why there isn't one in there, and you could come up with 1,000 reasons to say it is. Science only deals with things we can observe, and if an observation contradicts an existing theory, then that theory is replaced with a new one that takes the new observation into account. The only way to disprove your theory is to open the box. Until then, science doesn't "say" there is or isn't a dragon in there, it doesn't say anything at all.

You keep getting confused about your personal beliefs, as shown by you saying "people disbelieve in dragons because the description is physically impossible" above. Sure, that's what people believe, but science doesn't say dragons can't exist. It just says there is no evidence of them existing. You have to separate your own beliefs from scientific facts, and quit confusing science with your own ideas of what is or is not possible. Science doesn't care WHAT you're claiming, only that your claim is backed up by evidence. If that evidence has already been collected then fine, but in this example there is none, so you have to test. Open the dang box.

Science has encountered physically impossible things all the time. Science discovered things that existing theories claim should be impossible ALL THE TIME. So science doesn't claim a thing is impossible, just if any evidence of it exists. 

So just to make things extra clear, how can you prove there is a baby dragon in the box without performing a new test, opening the box? Simple question.

Quote
Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?

Y/N

( Also, please quit responding to multiple people in the same post without correctly attributing the authors.  I have nothing to do with your flat sea and towers discussion, and this is not the first time you have done this. Thank you. )

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2020, 10:04:35 AM »
Your hypothetical situation is completely reliant on the model on the world and physics that you've been taught, once you step outside those bounds you have evidence of nothing.

This is truly ridiculous.

You're refusing to discuss a simple geometry in open space, on the basis of "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply?"

If I'd shown you a chemical equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply"
If I'd shown you a quadratic equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of maths didn't apply"
If I'd suggested that 9+2 = 11, you'd likely say "What if we weren't using base 10 arithmetic"

Honestly, can't you see this is just goalpost-shifting on your part. Someone points out that the ball has gone in the goal, you say "What if the goalposts aren't really where you think they are?"
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2020, 12:30:56 PM »
Quote
You keep accusing me of lying and that is getting both tiring and insulting. You said new tests are not ALWAYS needed and I say they are ALWAYS required. Quit claiming otherwise. I'm not saying you said to NEVER use tests, but please consider the words ALWAYS and SOMETIMES to see where we differ.
I assure you it is far more tiring and insulkting to see you so blatantly  using the tactics I have seen time and time again. You ignored 90% of my post to focus exclusively on the parts you could straw man, ignored questions you were asked explicitly, and misrepresented the ones you did answer. Like here, you act like you made this distinction, but you didn't, you simplify to just 'tests,' implicitly all tests, at every single opportunity, and fail to justify why new ones are ever required. You just repeat ad nauseam and ignore any reasoning or explanation I provide.
For example:

Quote
So just to make things extra clear, how can you prove there is a baby dragon in the box without performing a new test, opening the box? Simple question.
Completely switching the question. To show it exists, yes, opening the box would be the most practical test, but that wasn't the claim I was asking about. There is a reason, as you well know, it was phrased the other way around; dragons not existing is not personal belief, as I have said in two posts now, the common conception of a dragon is physically impossible. That is a scientific claim and one justified by past tests, to say nothing of the basic physics of fitting something that big into a shoebox. A massive hulking lizard is going to need more than just wings if it's to fly, breathing fire in the fashion described is just nonsense, these are statements of scientific fact, and hold unless our understanding on physics is fundamentally flawed. So, yes, it would be entirely reasonable to draw the opposite conclusion without opening the box, I'm not going to believe dragons exist just because someone tells me, and when your entire argument is based solely upon the fact that in this particular analogy the test is trivial, you know you don't have a leg to stand on. There's a reason you're avoiding every single point I make.
And further, like I pointed out before:
Quote
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?

Quote
( Also, please quit responding to multiple people in the same post without correctly attributing the authors.  I have nothing to do with your flat sea and towers discussion, and this is not the first time you have done this. Thank you. )
I leave spaces to clearly separate the two discussions. There's only two going on, it's not exactly hard to keep track. Stop with this pathetic grandstanding, I am trying to have a discussion, if all you're interested in is these meta-tactics I've seen dozens of times before, you can piss off.






Quote
This is truly ridiculous.

You're refusing to discuss a simple geometry in open space, on the basis of "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply?"

If I'd shown you a chemical equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply"
If I'd shown you a quadratic equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of maths didn't apply"
If I'd suggested that 9+2 = 11, you'd likely say "What if we weren't using base 10 arithmetic"

Honestly, can't you see this is just goalpost-shifting on your part. Someone points out that the ball has gone in the goal, you say "What if the goalposts aren't really where you think they are?"
See? You cannot think outside your normal. You view it as proven 100%, which is scientific rubbish, science does not function like that. You are assuming no mistake was made.
If I said that about math, you'd be able to show the proof of any claim you made, that's how math works. That's how science should work. But instead you fly off the handle and declare the basic concept of questioning 'ridiculous.'
I'm not shifting the goalposts. I'm answering your question the exact same way I told you I'd be answering when you started this diversion. You are refusing to consider any possibility beyond RET and you think that they are wrong just because they're different. That's not scientific. That's the opposite of science, and that's half of why the modern scientific community is fundamentally flawed, they all think like you.
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2020, 02:03:25 PM »
You are refusing to consider any possibility beyond RET and you think that they are wrong just because they're different. That's not scientific. That's the opposite of science, and that's half of why the modern scientific community is fundamentally flawed, they all think like you.

It's simple geometry of rectangles (two pairs of parallel sides, all perpendicular to each other) and pythagorean theory of right-angle triangles (square of hypotenuse = sum of squares of other sides). Nothing to do with RET. These would apply regardless of whether Earth flat or not flat.

You've given no good reason for these to be non-applicable to the example I cited.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?