[JRowe]

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.

It's only geometry when you aren't talking about real-world situations.
Even then, it's geometry under certain assumptions. Euclidean space is the obvious one, by definition you need that to be the case for the pythagorean theorem to hold, but as soon as you stop talking about abstract geometry and start talking about practical reality which is never so smooth or clear-cut, you have to account for other options. Learn the difference between geometry and reality. The things you are appealing to are not true universally, they are only true in specific situations, you are just insisting that we are in one of those situations without any kind of evidence.
You're the one claiming they are applicable. You don't get to switch tacks just because your argument failed. Like I said, you are assuming your worldview must be accurate in order to justify your argument, but RET is not the default. If it is true, then that should be justifiable. You are actively avoiding justifying it.

[Groit]

One might then ask about the particle that goes into the black hole. If anything you would expect it to gain mass, not lose it. Some of you might have argued that the anti-particle is what is to blame, annihilating the matter inside the black hole particle by particle, until it is just energy captured and there's no mass to sustain the event horizon. This too is illogical. Statistically, it is equally likely that a particle will be the half of the pair to go inwards, as opposed to the anti-particle. The mass annihilated by any anti-particle would be replenished by a particle, and vice versa. The mass stays constant.

In conclusion, the central mass of a black hole is unaffected by whatever virtual particles do at the event horizon, and yet we are supposed to believe its gravitational pull will diminish just because.

From my understanding, the virtual particle/anti-particle pairs that are created, one has negative energy and the other positive energy, but both the particle or anti-particle can become negative. Since negative energy particles are forbidden in the universe then its always the negative particle that falls into the black hole, leaving the positive particle to escape to infinity. In the process, the blackhole gains energy = (-1) and outside the event horizon gains energy = (1). Thus energy is conserved and the blackhole's mass/energy decreases.

[JSS]

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:

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?

You are yet again completely misunderstanding how science works. I switched the question around because what you are asking makes no sense and is impossible to answer.

You are claiming to have a baby dragon in a box and demanding I PROVE that it doesn't exist. Science doesn't do that! Let me repeat that, science can NOT prove you don't have a baby dragon in your box, or an invisible pink unicorn living in your bedroom. It explains what we can see, it does not prove or disprove that things we can't see exist or not. That's not science, it's philosophy or religion.

From the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

This is something science does do. Your example is a perfect example of asking someone to prove a negative.

Again, you are confusing your own personal beliefs for how science works. You keep saying things like "I'm not going to believe dragons exist" which is fine, you can believe anything you want, but that's not science. A scientific theory has rules and limits what it can prove to what we can see. The two are not the same. Please try and keep them straight, maybe read up on the scientific method.

[JSS]

( 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.

Yes, the very common "adding extra spaces" when combining two separate conversations involving multiple people without attribution technique. We have message threads and proper quoting tools for a reason you know.

No need to be so angry or result to personal insults just because you're frustrated. I'm not grandstanding because I ask you to properly quote me. It literally takes 5 seconds of your time, all you have to do is copy and paste the quote BB code from each person. Or better yet, why not reply to each person separately? All that takes is pressing a button. You're doing extra work to mix up two entirely separate conversations, don't pretend this is normal.

I also find it especially childish that after I asked you to quote everyone correctly, you both refused and went and additionally removed the attributes from the quote tag from your reply. That took extra work just for that bit of passive aggressiveness. Very petty, immature and disappointing.

If you're having trouble understanding why indicating who you are replying to is important, try reading this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Attribution_lines

[JRowe]

You are claiming to have a baby dragon in a box and demanding I PROVE that it doesn't exist.

And you wonder why I call you a liar. Where the hell have I done that?!
You aren't even being subtle any more. I've not expected you to prove a damn thing. I've asked straightforward yes or no questions, none of which making any claim about proof, you've avoided half of them and lied about the rest, and you're still doing it.

I also find it especially childish that after I asked you to quote everyone correctly, you both refused and went and additionally removed the attributes from the quote tag from your reply. That took extra work just for that bit of passive aggressiveness. Very petty, immature and disappointing.

Oh grow up. It depends how I write the posts, sometimes I quote, sometimes I open a blank reply in another window and paste the bits I'm responding to over there, which means it comes without the attribution. It doesn't matter. Anyone reading the thread can follow the conversation, and I'm assuming you have more than a ten second memory to know what we're talking about. I'm not wasting time on your vanity.
But of course we end up here. We always do. I don't know why I bother trying to talk to you people. You have one tactic and one tactic alone, you know most of the world agrees with you, you know most readers will agree with you, so you have no hesitation whatsoever in lying outright, misrepresenting, ignoring half the subject of discussion (I notice you again completely evaded an explicit question, even after having your evasion brought to your attention), provoking, and then playing the victim over either being called out on your behavior or on stupid trivialities like this, to the point of wholesale inventing a conspiracy where I painstakingly go back through my posts to remove attribution. And you do that just because, well, you're a REer, most readers are going to believe your side of events even when you're being this stupid. Poor REer, the FEer must be the one evading, must be the one getting annoyed over nothing, because it's not like the big champion of truth and justice or whatever could be utterly incapable of engaging in remotely honest discussion or answering a simple point blank question without lying their ass off.

From my understanding, the virtual particle/anti-particle pairs that are created, one has negative energy and the other positive energy, but both the particle or anti-particle can become negative. Since negative energy particles are forbidden in the universe then its always the negative particle that falls into the black hole, leaving the positive particle to escape to infinity. In the process, the blackhole gains energy = (-1) and outside the event horizon gains energy = (1). Thus energy is conserved and the blackhole's mass/energy decreases.

Saying negative energy particles is forbidden in the universe seems a mischaractization: after all, with phenomenon such as the Casimir effect, virtual particles do exist in reality, meaning the negative particles must exist, even if normally for an infinitessimal amount of time. What acts to keep the negative particles out so selectively?

[GreatATuin]

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.

What's physically impossible? Let's assume a dragon is a large flying reptile that breathes fire, which I guess is the most common definition. A large flying reptile once existed: the pterosaur. Sure, it didn't breathe fire, and no known animal species do. But is it physically impossible? The bombardier beetle is probably the closest we have in the real world: it spits a boiling chemical spray. Renown paleontologist Henry Gee even offered a theory of how a dragon could breathe fire.

So, while I'm pretty certain dragons don't exist and we'll never see one... A dragon is much less physically impossible than a flat Earth. And after all, the platypus was first believed to be a hoax: weird animals do really exist.

[JSS]

You are claiming to have a baby dragon in a box and demanding I PROVE that it doesn't exist.

And you wonder why I call you a liar. Where the hell have I done that?!
You aren't even being subtle any more. I've not expected you to prove a damn thing. I've asked straightforward yes or no questions, none of which making any claim about proof, you've avoided half of them and lied about the rest, and you're still doing it.

"Are you still beating your wife?" That's a straight-forward yes or no answer that demonstrates why they are so often setups you can't answer.

I've answered how I would prove if there is a baby dragon, I've answered how you can't prove there isn't. That's both sides of the question. Can you explain, simply what you are asking with your baby dragon example? I'll answer a direct question about it. Why don't we start over and try again.

You claim to have a baby dragon in a box. How would you like me to respond to this? What question would you like me to answer?

[Groit]

Saying negative energy particles is forbidden in the universe seems a mischaractization: after all, with phenomenon such as the Casimir effect, virtual particles do exist in reality, meaning the negative particles must exist, even if normally for an infinitessimal amount of time. What acts to keep the negative particles out so selectively?

From what i can gather, according to the 'uncertainty principle' the pair of virtual particles can only exist for a time less than h/E  before annihilation. And upon separation, energy will be conserved only when the negative particle falls into the blackhole.

This article explains it better:

http://carlip.physics.ucdavis.edu/#Hawkrad

Now, finally, here's a way to understand Hawking radiation. Picture a virtual pair created outside a black hole event horizon. One of the particles will have a positive energy E, the other a negative energy -E, with energy defined in terms of a time coordinate outside the horizon. As long as both particles stay outside the horizon, they have to recombine in a time less than h/E. Suppose, though, that in this time the negative-energy particle crosses the horizon. The criterion for it to continue to exist as a real particle is now that it must have positive energy relative to the timelike coordinate inside the horizon, i.e., that it must be moving radially inward. This can occur regardless of its energy relative to an external time coordinate.

So the black hole can absorb the negative-energy particle from a vacuum fluctuation without violating the uncertainty principle, leaving its positive-energy partner free to escape to infinity. The effect on the energy of the black hole, as seen from the outside (that is, relative to an external timelike coordinate) is that it decreases by an amount equal to the energy carried off to infinity by the positive-energy particle. Total energy is conserved, because it always was, throughout the process -- the net energy of the particle-antiparticle pair was zero.

 

[Tumeni]

It's only geometry when you aren't talking about real-world situations.

Really? Geometry doesn't apply to 3D objects that I can handle or touch?

Why? Because you say so?

Even then, it's geometry under certain assumptions. Euclidean space is the obvious one ... you have to account for other options.

Like what?

[JRowe]

So, while I'm pretty certain dragons don't exist and we'll never see one... A dragon is much less physically impossible than a flat Earth. And after all, the platypus was first believed to be a hoax: weird animals do really exist.

Leaving aside the cheap point-scoring, that demonstrates my point perfectly. You need very clear workarounds for the end result. Rather than emitting fire, a flammable gas. Rather than flying, floating like a balloon; pterosaurs were significantly smaller than the typical dragon cliche, and further existed in a totally different atmosphere theorized to make it easier for them to exist. When those are what's resorted to, my claim is very clearly justified.

"Are you still beating your wife?" That's a straight-forward yes or no answer that demonstrates why they are so often setups you can't answer.

I've answered how I would prove if there is a baby dragon, I've answered how you can't prove there isn't. That's both sides of the question. Can you explain, simply what you are asking with your baby dragon example? I'll answer a direct question about it. Why don't we start over and try again.

You claim to have a baby dragon in a box. How would you like me to respond to this? What question would you like me to answer?

And with that set up you can still point out the flaws in the question rather than ignore outright.
'Both sides of the question' is meaningless, science is not symmetrical, it does not care equally about proving a claim vs disproving a claim, and even if it did the methods for each are totally different, talking about 'both sides' just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of any kind of scientific logic.
The dragon-in-a-box demonstrated how one might draw conclusions without running further tests, based purely on known facts. Your response has been to misrepresent, evade, lie, before ultimately clinging to the fact that in the analogy presented the test is trivial and may as well be performed, while ignoring every detail of relevance. If I were to tweak the analogy so that I'm saying the box is on the moon you can no longer do that, but it's still perfectly falsifiable is I specify where the box is, it's still perfectly testable, but no scientist in the world is going to give you the funding to see if the claim is accurate because they've already drawn a conclusion.
And as you keep ignoring, the corollary:

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?

ie, the trivial fact that a child could tell you, but you were arguing against for no reason except that it exposed the tradition-centric model of mainstream science, it is possible to draw new conclusions based on pre-existing knowledge and tests without needing to perform any new ones. You can still perform new tests, but you can also still draw new conclusions from old knowledge.
And that's leaving aside the other issues I pointed out with the mainstream approach that also went ignored.

From what i can gather, according to the 'uncertainty principle' the pair of virtual particles can only exist for a time less than h/E  before annihilation. And upon separation, energy will be conserved only when the negative particle falls into the blackhole.

This is the issue with a lot of science when we get to this area. You can tell me what must happen for the model to make logical sense, I don't contest that, but the problem is saying why it happens. I'm aware of how virtual particles work, they have a net energy of zero and so violate no laws, but the antiparticle flying outwards and annihilating something outside the black hole would also conserve energy as the mass of the black hole would increase by the equal amount of the mass lost. It would be as though the black hole drew in some portion of that mass (as indeed it likely would be if the mass was close), just as Hawking radiation appears to the outside would to be emitted particles.

Really? Geometry doesn't apply to 3D objects that I can handle or touch?

No. Geometry is strictly theoretical, it deals with abstracts in an idealized environment. If you're talking about 3-D objects you can handle and touch, you might want to look more at physics. There's overlap, sure, but reducing a real world situation to a strictly geometrical one isn't going to guarantee you an accurate model of anything.

Like what?

Already mentioned when you posed the hypothetical.

[Tumeni]

(Tumeni said) - Really? Geometry doesn't apply to 3D objects that I can handle or touch?

No. Geometry is strictly theoretical, it deals with abstracts in an idealized environment. If you're talking about 3-D objects you can handle and touch, you might want to look more at physics.

https://www.teach-nology.com/teachers/subject_matter/math/geometry/

"In real life, geometry has a lot of practical uses, from the most basic to the most advanced phenomena in life. Even the very basic concept of area can be a huge factor in how you do your daily business. For example, space is a huge issue when planning various construction projects. For instance, the size or area of a specific appliance or tool can greatly affect how it will fit in to your home or workplace, and can affect how the other parts of your home would fit around it. This is why it is essential to take account of areas, both of your space, and the item that you are about to integrate in there. In addition, geometry plays a role in basic engineering projects. For example, using the concept of perimeter, you can compute the amount of material (ex.: paint, fencing material, etc) that you need to use for your project. Also, designing professions such as interior design and architecture uses 3 dimensional figures. A thorough knowledge of geometry is going to help them a lot in determining the proper style (and more importantly, optimize its function) of a specific house, building, or vehicle. Those are some of the more basic uses of geometry, but it doesn't end there. "

... reducing a real world situation to a strictly geometrical one isn't going to guarantee you an accurate model of anything.

Why not? Because you say so?

[JSS]

( A bunch of stuff from four different messages and three people with no indication of who said what, plus ignoring my very simple question. )

Do you not understand how message boards work? Do you write combined emails to friends and co-workers? Is it really too hard for you to click the reply button twice or do you just need help explaining how to quote correctly?

You claim to have a baby dragon in a box. How would you like me to respond to this? What question would you like me to answer?

And with that set up you can still point out the flaws in the question rather than ignore outright.

Why did you bother bringing up an example if you can't even ask me a simple, direct question about it?

If I were to tweak the analogy so that I'm saying the box is on the moon you can no longer do that, but it's still perfectly falsifiable is I specify where the box is, it's still perfectly testable, but no scientist in the world is going to give you the funding to see if the claim is accurate because they've already drawn a conclusion.

Once more you completely seem to misunderstand how science works, getting it confused with your own personal beliefs. Again, and again, and again.

You say no scientist will fund a study to see if a baby dragon lives in a box on the moon. because they don't believe it.  Correct.  They as a person reject it.  But that's not a scientific proof!  They have not proven there is no baby dragon on the moon, just claimed they don't believe it.  They wouldn't fund it but would not write a paper disproving it either because it would get rejected immediately for not being science. Maybe they would write an editorial, but not a peer reviewed paper.

I'm not sure what you can't understand here.  Science doesn't care what you claim or what you believe, it only cares about what has been observed. If you can't observe it, you can't disprove it. Can't meaning either impossible, too expensive or any other reason.

Please take some time to understand this. People (you included, and even baby dragons) are free to believe whatever they want for whatever reasons they want, but a scientific proof has much higher standards. You can't mix the two of them up and have any chance of having a rational argument.

I am going to repeat myself just to make sure I'm being clear.  I am discussing the scientific method. Scientific proofs.  Not what is 'common sense' or what is popular or what looks obvious or your opinion. Proof. That's a word with meaning, please pay attention.

[JRowe]

Why not? Because you say so?

Because of all the reasons I went into and you conveniently cut out from your message.
You cannot describe anything in the physical world to any degree of accuracy without accounting for, y'know, physics, physical sciences. I cannot believe you need me to keep repeating that.

Do you not understand how message boards work?

It really is pathetic how you need to rely on these meta distractions. I don't care about whatever pointless niceties you want, my posts are separated, writing multiple posts just to appease your ego is not something I'm interested in doing. It's easier to write posts like this and I separate all the users. The only reason you care is because you get to grandstand like this and claim victory based on dishonesty as opposed to actually engaging with a debate.

Why did you bother bringing up an example if you can't even ask me a simple, direct question about it?

What are you on about? I asked you the question.
Oh, I get it, you do creative quoting to cut out the fact I was pointing out the flaw with your dishonest reformulation of the question, misrepresenting it to look like I was objection to the analogy in general, and then completely ignoring the questions you were asked. More meta tactics, more lies, more 'look at me, the big smart REer defeating the big bad FEer.' Same song as ever.

I am going to repeat myself just to make sure I'm being clear.  I am discussing the scientific method. Scientific proofs.  Not what is 'common sense' or what is popular or what looks obvious or your opinion. Proof. That's a word with meaning, please pay attention.

You pay attention. You act like that hasn't been addressed.
1. 'Scientific proof' is a misnomer, that is again a side-effect of your religious view of the scientific method. Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome.
2. No one asked you to write a paper on how dragons don't exist.
3. The box is immaterial to the discussion, you are blindly fixating on it to the exclusion of every other thing I have said, such as the fact the typical description of a dragon is impossible and that you can reach that conclusion without opening the box. You are ignoring that completely to bang on about one aspect of an analogy that doesn't matter no matter how many times this gets pointed out to you. My whole point has been that you don't need to open the box because nothing can be that large and flight-capable, breathe fire as described...
4. Stop fucking ignoring this straight question that I have repeated a ridiculous number of times by now:

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?

[stack]

Do you not understand how message boards work?

It really is pathetic how you need to rely on these meta distractions. I don't care about whatever pointless niceties you want, my posts are separated, writing multiple posts just to appease your ego is not something I'm interested in doing. It's easier to write posts like this and I separate all the users. The only reason you care is because you get to grandstand like this and claim victory based on dishonesty as opposed to actually engaging with a debate.

As a reader/spectator it would be really quite nice if you quoted properly where one can see who said what. Just putting spaces between doesn't help contextually. I'm not sure why you are resistant to doing so, it's just a quick copy and paste and would be really helpful trying to follow along and get where various individuals are coming from.

4. Stop fucking ignoring this straight question that I have repeated a ridiculous number of times by now:

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?

They are kind of two different things: Could something exist versus Does something exist. One could stop at the 'could' and just expound upon that notion showing that, yes, a dragon could exist. Another may take it a step further to try and find out if there are any dragons in existence. If you found one, well that would certainly confirm that one could exist. If you don't and find no evidence of one ever existing (fossil record perhaps) then your still at the 'could exist' stage.

[JRowe]

As a reader/spectator it would be really quite nice if you quoted properly where one can see who said what. Just putting spaces between doesn't help contextually. I'm not sure why you are resistant to doing so, it's just a quick copy and paste and would be really helpful trying to follow along and get where various individuals are coming from.

It's not how I write posts. If there's just one thing to quote then I can quote, if there's multiple people to reply to I open another window and copy/paste text over rather than messing around and going through a post line by line or faffing around continually changing what's on my clipboard for something that ought to be clear if you were reading through the thread. One thing I don't do is have the same conversation with two people, if the two of them started saying similar things I'd just reply to one to avoid repeating myself. Plus there's just the normal tendency I've seen, quoting the whole post can make a lot of people comment on each line they object to, which is inevitably most of it. Doing this ensures my posts have focus.
I'd also point out that if I made multiple posts, as was also suggested, I'd get hounded for inflating my post count by likely the same person, it's happened. I'm 'resistant' because I'm not interested in changing what's easiest for me for the benefit of someone who doesn't care about improving things for readers, but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary, there's nothing I could do they wouldn't complain about.

They are kind of two different things: Could something exist versus Does something exist. One could stop at the 'could' and just expound upon that notion showing that, yes, a dragon could exist. Another may take it a step further to try and find out if there are any dragons in existence. If you found one, well that would certainly confirm that one could exist. If you don't and find no evidence of one ever existing (fossil record perhaps) then your still at the 'could exist' stage.

Could exist is still a different claim to 'is physically impossible,' hence my point. All this is literally because they object to the concept of arriving at a new conclusion based upon past tests, whether by alternate thinking or locating flaws.

[stack]

As a reader/spectator it would be really quite nice if you quoted properly where one can see who said what. Just putting spaces between doesn't help contextually. I'm not sure why you are resistant to doing so, it's just a quick copy and paste and would be really helpful trying to follow along and get where various individuals are coming from.

It's not how I write posts. If there's just one thing to quote then I can quote, if there's multiple people to reply to I open another window and copy/paste text over rather than messing around and going through a post line by line or faffing around continually changing what's on my clipboard for something that ought to be clear if you were reading through the thread. One thing I don't do is have the same conversation with two people, if the two of them started saying similar things I'd just reply to one to avoid repeating myself. Plus there's just the normal tendency I've seen, quoting the whole post can make a lot of people comment on each line they object to, which is inevitably most of it. Doing this ensures my posts have focus.
I'd also point out that if I made multiple posts, as was also suggested, I'd get hounded for inflating my post count by likely the same person, it's happened. I'm 'resistant' because I'm not interested in changing what's easiest for me for the benefit of someone who doesn't care about improving things for readers, but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary, there's nothing I could do they wouldn't complain about.

If it works for you, great. It is just a suggestion. You're the only one around here who does it this way so it's not something people are used to. That's all. Why you rush to "...but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary..." is beyond me. There's no scoreboard. We're just suggesting something that most people are used to. Another suggestion, lighten up Francis.

They are kind of two different things: Could something exist versus Does something exist. One could stop at the 'could' and just expound upon that notion showing that, yes, a dragon could exist. Another may take it a step further to try and find out if there are any dragons in existence. If you found one, well that would certainly confirm that one could exist. If you don't and find no evidence of one ever existing (fossil record perhaps) then your still at the 'could exist' stage.

Could exist is still a different claim to 'is physically impossible,' hence my point. All this is literally because they object to the concept of arriving at a new conclusion based upon past tests, whether by alternate thinking or locating flaws.

I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Is it that you believe that science only builds on top of what is already "known" and never challenges the existing laws, rules, theorems science has derived/applied to the physical world? Is that what this is all about?

[JRowe]

Why you rush to "...but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary..." is beyond me. There's no scoreboard. We're just suggesting something that most people are used to. Another suggestion, lighten up Francis.

Because in this context, and too often, it is just that. People who want to appear superior and so nitpick or spend a while talking about inane things, with how often basic questions were evaded and how often called-out lies were repeated, I'm not going to entertain a charitable reading of the situation when it comes to him. I'll 'lighten up' when he's not using the same tired old tactics I've seen hundreds of times before. It's just boring and I'm not going to pretend it's somehow interesting to deal with.

I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Is it that you believe that science only builds on top of what is already "known" and never challenges the existing laws, rules, theorems science has derived/applied to the physical world? Is that what this is all about?

Oh believe me, I would love it if we were talking about something like that, I could talk for a while about some of the flaws with the modern scientific establishment, and the nuances thereof, and it could make for an interesting discussion (at least with interesting people). But, no, unfortunately we are stuck on him claiming that a prediction and previously unperformed test is critical to justify every single claim, and that it isn't possible to draw a conclusion just from previously performed tests, whether those tests are being looked at together, whether there's an alternate way of thinking that makes more sense from them, or there was a flaw in their premises. Yeah, it's that basic, but he's insisting on kicking up a fuss rather than discussing anything interesting.
At best this discussion is tangential to how modern scientific institutions tend to have a bias in favor of traditional models, past approaches, lending weight to things simply because they came first, but all that side of the discussion and those flaws went ignored so he could go on and on about this, so here we are.

[stack]

Why you rush to "...but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary..." is beyond me. There's no scoreboard. We're just suggesting something that most people are used to. Another suggestion, lighten up Francis.

Because in this context, and too often, it is just that. People who want to appear superior and so nitpick or spend a while talking about inane things, with how often basic questions were evaded and how often called-out lies were repeated, I'm not going to entertain a charitable reading of the situation when it comes to him. I'll 'lighten up' when he's not using the same tired old tactics I've seen hundreds of times before. It's just boring and I'm not going to pretend it's somehow interesting to deal with.

It's not a superiority thing or nitpicking, it's literally a readability issue, ease of use, and comprehension. You're the only person who does this. It doesn't seem like it's asking too much of you, but if you think it is, then fine. It seems like you're carrying over some PTSD from other encounters to here.

I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Is it that you believe that science only builds on top of what is already "known" and never challenges the existing laws, rules, theorems science has derived/applied to the physical world? Is that what this is all about?

Oh believe me, I would love it if we were talking about something like that, I could talk for a while about some of the flaws with the modern scientific establishment, and the nuances thereof, and it could make for an interesting discussion (at least with interesting people). But, no, unfortunately we are stuck on him claiming that a prediction and previously unperformed test is critical to justify every single claim, and that it isn't possible to draw a conclusion just from previously performed tests, whether those tests are being looked at together, whether there's an alternate way of thinking that makes more sense from them, or there was a flaw in their premises. Yeah, it's that basic, but he's insisting on kicking up a fuss rather than discussing anything interesting.
At best this discussion is tangential to how modern scientific institutions tend to have a bias in favor of traditional models, past approaches, lending weight to things simply because they came first, but all that side of the discussion and those flaws went ignored so he could go on and on about this, so here we are.

It seems that someone else has a different POV than yours. Do you want someone to simply agree with you?

My personal sense about this is a combination of the two. Conclusions can be drawn by existing data, but to further cement those conclusions, predictive experimentation/observation is crucial on and ongoing basis. It's why, for example, to this day folks still perform atomic clock tests to suss out a tenet of Special Relativity - Times change, more info is available, instruments/tools get better, smarter, more accurate. I'm not sure wherein lies the problem you're wrestling with.

[JSS]

Do you not understand how message boards work?

It really is pathetic how you need to rely on these meta distractions. I don't care about whatever pointless niceties you want, my posts are separated, writing multiple posts just to appease your ego is not something I'm interested in doing. It's easier to write posts like this and I separate all the users. The only reason you care is because you get to grandstand like this and claim victory based on dishonesty as opposed to actually engaging with a debate.

You're just going to have to understand that how you combine messages and deliberately remove attributions is unusual, weird, breaks the threading flow and makes it look like you don't understand how to do something as simple as reply to posts which is something else everyone else seems to have mastered. If you insist on writing confusing posts, you will have to deal with the consequences of being called out on them.

You pay attention. You act like that hasn't been addressed.
1. 'Scientific proof' is a misnomer, that is again a side-effect of your religious view of the scientific method. Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome.

Again and again, I have to repeat that words have meaning.  Look up 'scientific proof' and 'theory' and 'hypothesis' and you will find for the scientific method they are all very well defined.  'Theory' has a very different meaning for the layman than when used in scientific papers, as does proof.  You are throwing them around and mixing them up with other concepts.

Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"?  Source please?

4. Stop fucking ignoring this straight question that I have repeated a ridiculous number of times by now:

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?

I understand you're frustrated, I can't even imagine what it's like to have the whole world reject your ideas and beliefs. But swearing won't help anything but show how angry you are. It won't change any facts.

That's not even close to a straight question, but you keep repeating it so I will try and deal with it.  It's in fact such a vague and meandering question I've not bothered answering it because I'm not even sure what the question is. I'm going to try and break what you wrote down to make sense of it, and hopefully explain to you why your questions are hard to answer.

1. "I found out that the proof was wrong"

What proof?  Proof that dragons don't exist? Proof that dragons can't exist? There is no such thing, unless you can point me to a published paper that supplies a proof that dragons can't or don't exist. Science doesn't go around disproving invisible unicorns or baby dragons. So for starters, your question is invalid as it's assuming that "dragons don't exist" is a scientific proof, which it isn't.

2.  "for that to mean something" and "would that error be relevant"

These again are meaningless statements. Mean something? Mean what, to who? Relevant? To what? Pretend we don't know whats going on in your head, and state all the facts, even if they are obvious to you.

You want me to answer "What if the proof was wrong, would that mean something and be relevant?"

Once more, that question is full of you mixing up your personal feelings and beliefs with how science operates. I think I know what you're trying to ask, but what you are writing is very vague and open to many interpretations. You have to be more precise.

Let me try and rephrase your question. "If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested.  Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.

Now, I think I have an inkling what you are getting at. You are confusing a hypothesis with a theory. A hypothesis is an idea. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested successfully. Both can "mean something" if that's what you are asking.

[JRowe]

It seems that someone else has a different POV than yours. Do you want someone to simply agree with you?

My personal sense about this is a combination of the two. Conclusions can be drawn by existing data, but to further cement those conclusions, predictive experimentation/observation is crucial on and ongoing basis. It's why, for example, to this day folks still perform atomic clock tests to suss out a tenet of Special Relativity - Times change, more info is available, instruments/tools get better, smarter, more accurate. I'm not sure wherein lies the problem you're wrestling with.

Some things aren't a matter of opinion.
I agree with you, new experiments can and should be performed, I just think it's also possible to draw conclusions from existing data. He's saying it's categorically impossible despite being given multiple chances to back out. That's not a matter of PoV, that's just someone digging themselves deeper because they don't want to admit they agree with a point a FEer made.

Again and again, I have to repeat that words have meaning.  Look up 'scientific proof' and 'theory' and 'hypothesis' and you will find for the scientific method they are all very well defined.  'Theory' has a very different meaning for the layman than when used in scientific papers, as does proof.  You are throwing them around and mixing them up with other concepts.

Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"?  Source please?

I am aware. You are not, the context in which you use those words become clear. You have already been called out on treating established science as gospel, as if it were proven mathematically and not justified scientifically. You're just, as ever, wholesale inventing things so you can act superior.
Are you claiming science isn't concerned with the most likely outcome? That seems pretty basic to me. Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible. It'd be far, far weirder if science wanted you to accept the least likely possibility.

It's in fact such a vague and meandering question I've not bothered answering it because I'm not even sure what the question is.

Then ask rather than very blatantly evading it. If you were honest about not understanding the question then you'd have said so before now and specified what wasn't clear, instead you pretended you weren't asked it time and time again, and then turned into a petulant toddler when responding inventing flaws that anyone who tried could see through.
A child could see through your tactics right now. Condescension, acting superior, provoking and then playing victim when I act provoked. It's disgusting.
We have been over all of this many, many times. Science has disproven the typical model of a dragon. Claiming science doesn't care about disproofs, yes, is true, but it is also true that some things are not in line with scientific understanding. Science has not 'disproven,' by your logic, an apple shooting straight up into the sky whenever I let go of it, but if that happened it would certainly contradict scientific understanding. Thus, assuming the current model is accurate (which is after all vital when discussing the world and not adding to a theory), we can assume a giant lizard is not going to be able to fly, something like that is not going to be able to breathe... facts I keep saying, are hardly ambiguous, and yet you have not acknowledged once because doing so has inevitably blown a hole in your points. It's almost like there's a pattern to your tactics.
And then we get truly absurd:

2.  "for that to mean something" and "would that error be relevant"
These again are meaningless statements. Mean something? Mean what, to who? Relevant? To what? Pretend we don't know whats going on in your head, and state all the facts, even if they are obvious to you.

You may think you're being smart but I assure you, you're not. Cheap tactics as ever, acting as if you have a point when you're just misrepresenting the blatantly obvious. Things have meaning. When one is in a discussion about science, then something can be relevant to that discussion. This isn't hard.
So:

1. The idea of a dragon is scientifically impossible.
2. There is logic and implication from past tests that leads to that conclusion.

Simple, basic, set-up. You can disagree but at this point it's palpably clear your disagreement would just be yet more whinging and evasion and more often than not a blatant lie.

3. Looking at these tests, we might find that a test was performed poorly, or failed to account for certain possibilities.
4. This would then show the claim in 1 does not follow.

Again, simple, basic, no meandering.
You're saying this is logically untenable for no reason except you made a stupid claim way back and are too deep in now to want to back down. You're saying you'd need to run a test to acknowledge the existence of a poorly done test. That's stupid.

"If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested.  Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.

You do realize that isn't an answer, right? You even almost get the quetsion right, but you still can't respond with more than 'because I say so!'
Why? What's gained by the extra test?

Forget everything, let's simplify this even more, brute abstracts so you don't get any more of your god-awful tedious run-around.
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run.

That is what you are saying. You are certifiable at this point.