This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.
What are you
talking about? You want a source? For what, the scientific method? The strength of science isn't that it's true because some bloke said it, it's true because it can be demonstrably shown to be so. I didn't provide a source because that was a stupid question as you have to know, what kind of thing do you expect for a source of the scientific method? There's no Bible of science, that's the whole point of it, instead there are explanations of why it holds. That's what I gave because that's all science should
need.
As I pointed out:
"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."
ie, a hypothesis is backed up by experiments, and by the step you keep omitting of actually analysing how much of the hypothesis has been tested.
You seem to be relying on the flawed idea that a test can only support one hypothesis. That seems to be underlying a lot of your claims, and it's obviously unjustifiable. Let's talk, say, wave interference patterns, you have the existing theory of how water waves that pass through two slits will interfere with each other for strictly physical reasons, and the out-there theory that actually invisible fairies will get in the way whenever the waves cross. perform the experiments, send the waves through the slits, the result
will be in line with both theories.
However, the fairy portion of the latter theory has not been tested or verified at all, so it is not considered to be equal with the former theory. There's a reason we don't believe in fairies. Thus, we favor the most likely of the two theories.
That is all I have ever been saying. Stop getting mad just because you don't like the fact I'm the one saying it.
I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
You assume everything established is right. You assume that every thing submitted is above question, that no one could ever have made an oversight, thus if something gets published it must have passed the test and no publisher could ever have slipped up.
Beyond that, 'no new test would be needed to reject it.' So you actually agree with what I'm saying, you're just throwing a tantrum for no reason.
The relationship between the two is governed by their geometry.
It would be really, really great if you could stop completely ignoring every post I have made to just obstinately repeat this.
I don't need to, since travel between the towers does not form part of an observation from one to the other.
You originally talked about the distance between the towers so, er, yeah, travel between them seems pretty important as far as distance goes. But, sure, it isn't strictly relevant, that is why it was only brought up as an illustration, very clearly, you just ignored the actual intent so you could claim straw man and avoid admitting your thought experiment was flawed.
First prove to us that space is not "uniform", etc. to the extent that the observation would be affected
Why? You're the one making a claim here, if you can't account for alternatives then your situation seems to be lacking.
I'd be more than happy to have this discussion, but not while you are dishonestly peddling this thought experiment as if it actually proves something rather than assuming its own conclusion.
If all that you can come up with for "what happens between the towers" is to appeal to as-yet-undocumented factors in a big "What if...", then why should I be expected to account for them?
When your whole
purpose in bringing up the towers is to criticise 'a big what if...' then the contents of that what if would seem to be very relevant indeed. Everything outside of RET is 'undocumented' from your standpoint, so again, the case you are making is entirely circular.
Yes, if you only pay attention to the mainstream RE view of the world and the limited readings of experiments made, RET will be the only logical conclusion. You're not going to find anyone who'd disagree, but it also doesn't prove all that much. If RET is true, the RET is true. That's your premise and that's your conclusion. Why are you surprised a FEer takes issue with your premise?