Perhaps you need to be reminded of what the scientific method is? You keep insisting my theory doesn't adhere to it, but you persistently refuse to say why.
- Make observations/perform experiments and observe the results
- Come up with an explanation
- Make further observations/experiments and see if your explanation holds
- Compare to competing explanations in terms of success and assumptions
Dual Earth Theory does all of this. Step three is constantly done on these forums, step four is simple and has been explained to you many times, and the first two steps are the development process.
Are you going to misrepresent the scientific method in your bias, or are you just going to keep lying?
If you are taking your conclusions for granted without really testing them then you are assuming them.
What is this even meant to mean? The conclusions are verified by simple observation of the world.
Unless you're saying that the explanations that rely on assumptions are somehow themselves assumptions, but that is patently absurd. Does that mean tides are an assumption? The orbit of the Earth, under RET? All of that relies on the two assumptions of gravity. Take that tack if you want, but it doesn't help you any.
The way things are tested is to see if they match observations. That is what I am doing. Or do you have some magical new way to perform experiments?
So really need to show your assumptions are true.
You're struggling with the concept of an assumption aren't you?
Still, you're invited to actually look at my sig as I have asked multiple times.
Your knowledge of dual earth theory has little to do with the real world
It is a model that has not done anything
Except accurately explaining the world with fewer assumptions than any known alternative...
And before you start complaining about how I haven't shown it explains the world, stop lying, scroll down, click my sig, read the model. If you disagree that it explains the world, you know you actually have to say why, right?
Otherwise: RET doesn't explain the world.
That was easy.
You have not shown your model works.
Yet again, see the sig. I have provided a detailed explanation of how the world works, under Dual Erath Theory. If you believe it is incomplete, the onus is still on you to provide some evidence of that claim. How many times do I have to ask?
This dumb standard again.
If you think Occam's Razor is dumb, that says it all. Yes, theories necessarily rely on certain assumptions. Axioms, if you will.
This is not a flaw, it is a necessity. The fact is, you still need to reduce the number of assumptions. Just because some assumptions are shared does not mean you get to pretend gravity is more meaningful than aether.
Aether actually works.
I still don't understand this. Are you telling me you do not have access to a library or the internet?
Find me, on the internet, a description of the altitudes of the aetheric whirlpools, and your contribution will have meaning.
You give up too easily.
If you ignore a point every other time I bring it up, why exactly should I bother saying it again? You seem to think ignoring the points that defeat your worldview somehow makes you clever.
Engineering and physics students the world over do experiments that would be wrong if the theory of gravity were wrong
Really? Or do they do experiments that would be wrong if the
equations arrived at through observation were wrong? There's quite a difference. Given pretty much every form of FET explains, for example, the acceleration of an object due to gravity, gravity is not necessary. Yet again, an observation may have multiple explanations.
You have yet to show that Dual Earth Theory is a model that actually has anything to do with the real world either. It is a model that has not done anything.