[Rama Set]

That's utter nonsense. I am assigning two traits, via logical deduction, to something that is known to exist. What about that are you struggling to understand? It seems very simple. The problem is not whether aether exists, it's whether it possesses those two additional properties. Disproving two properties does not disprove the whole entity. Heat didn't stop existing when people decided it wasn't made of calorics.

But it would disprove your theory, which is what we are talking about.

If gravity exists exactly as your model states, then dark matter would have to exist. That does not mean gravity as your model supposes exists. Do you enjoy consistently forgetting Occam's Razor?
We get two theories that explain observations. To decide between the two, we apply Occam's Razor. That is how science works. Stops forgetting that.

Gravity can explain with accuracy and your theory can explain only notionally. They are not comparable.

Undocumented how?

In that... This is awkward… Of the two special properties you assert… How to say it… They are, well, undocumented.

It relies only on the notion that space is how we define distance. That's completely true.

It relies on the notion that space has density, otherwise it is indistinguishable from what everyone else in the world means when they say "space"

There is no special property at work.

You are right, there are two, by your own admission.

You can't ignore correction and act like that's a point.

You can't claim that your notions logically follow from premises and conclude that it must be reality, yet here we are.

Let's summarize, shall we?
Two competing theories explain all observations. Supposing that the one developed properly first takes precedence is no more than an appeal to tradition: a fallacy.
It is an established fact that, to be scientific, in choosing between two theories you apply Occam's Razor to remove the theory with the most unnecessary assumptions. Dual Earth Theory has at most two: both logically deduced. Round Earth Theory has two in its bogus definition of gravity alone, with no logical sense to either.

It's also established that the theory that has more evidence and is more useful in describing the world is the preferred theory. Yours is not ready to even be compared to gravity because it consists of a few badly written pages on an Internet forum.

[JRowe]

But it would disprove your theory, which is what we are talking about.

True, but that's only the topic of part of the posts. He was saying that aether would not exist, if we added/removed two properties, without touching the fundamentals. That's untrue.
All I'm saying is that I don't need to prove the existence of aether, just those two traits.

Gravity can explain with accuracy and your theory can explain only notionally.

That's no more than an appeal to popularity. Give me a small army and a few centuries and I could come up with equations that describe how the movements of elephants in zoos correspond to the eclipses. Gravity explains with accuracy in the small-scale only, because that's where the equations used to govern it were found.

In that... This is awkward… Of the two special properties you assert… How to say it… They are, well, undocumented.

If I'm querying the use of a word in a bizarre context, repeating it doesn't help anyone. Undocumented how, again? I've written of them, and outlined them. Perhaps you mean unproven? In which case, so is everything found by observing the real world.

You are right, there are two, by your own admission.

Generally speaking, yes. Not at the equator. For example: water freezes at 0C. Is that property of water relevant to tidal waves? Just because something has properties does not mean they're relevant in every single situation. Movement at the equator relies on nothing special. The design/maintainence of that does rely on the properties of aether, but that is not what you were asing about. I don't need to be able to build a car to drive one.

You can't claim that your notions logically follow from premises and conclude that it must be reality, yet here we are.

Well, I actually justify my points. I've got a whole thread (in my sig) where I outline both the theory and justifications, and offer clarifications. So, I have shown that what I say does logically follow.

It's also established that the theory that has more evidence and is more useful in describing the world is the preferred theory.

Dual Earth theory has more evidence for it than Round Earth Theory. All observations are explained by Dual Earth Theory: that is all evidence is. Experiments? Records? All of that is observation, and every single one of them is answered. At best you could say that the evidence for the two is equal, and that Round Earth theory explains all observations. I'm happy to go easy on you and allow that: but until you can find evidence that isn't explained by Dual Earth Theory, you need to acknowledge that the evidence supporting each is equal.
So, we come to your second standard: and that one is a lie. Something does not need to make explaining the world easier. It would be easier to explain all forces by some pseudo-solipsist notion that it's whatever number you make up. That would be very useful: you wouldn't need to do any work. The problem is, it wouldn't be accurate.
Accuracy is what matters. Math can be used as an excuse, and with enough effort and special cases can be used to create a working system for anything. That isn't evidence of anything except the fact you've had more time. What matters is the principles of the theory.

[JRowe]

There are two requirements for a theory to work:

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

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

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

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

This renders Flat Earth theory both scientific and logical.

Bringing this back because I've just realized all I have to do is repeat myself to Round Earthers. They fail at adding anything new time and time again.

The italicized is all I'm relying on. Would any Round Earther care to share why it's wrong?

[Rama Set]

Well the only assumption required to know the Earth is round is that what we observe is accurate. This is literally the fewest assumptions you can make.   

In regards to being honest, people who know anything about Gravity know it is not accurate at the very large regimes, and recognize that. You however are incredibly dishonest because you refuse to acknowledge the complete imprecision of your idea. You actually don't know if your theory can explain all observations, you just fit observations in to an Ad Hoc framework. So once you get over the fact that Gravity is much better developed than your Aether, and also divorce yourself of the notion that math can be used to make any physical theory work, you might be able to actually do something other than playing the beleaguered intellectual.

[JRowe]

Well the only assumption required to know the Earth is round is that what we observe is accurate. This is literally the fewest assumptions you can make.   

Except, you know, the Earth looks flat if you actually observe it...
And your model is based on more than that. You have a whole system in place that is required for it to work. If any part of that system fails, the whole things collapses, and there are assumptions all through it.

In regards to being honest, people who know anything about Gravity know it is not accurate at the very large regimes, and recognize that.

Except they don't. If they did they would not teach gravity like it's a fact when nothing about your proposal makes any sense whatsoever. Large scale? Ruined. Small scale? No clue how any of it works.
There's a word for that, and it's propaganda.

You however are incredibly dishonest because you refuse to acknowledge the complete imprecision of your idea. You actually don't know if your theory can explain all observations, you just fit observations in to an Ad Hoc framework.

I have been nothing if not open about the fact I do not have the resources to give Dual Earth Theory the level of depth you absurdly demand. So?
I'm not going to assume it's wrong. The fact I can explain everything Round Earthers point out without altering the fundamentals of the theory is a strength. If the theory was as Ad Hoc as you claim, it would need far more than two assumptions.
The fact is, minor refinements (part of all science) aside, Dual Earth Theory works. If you disagree, I'll wait for any evidence: though start a thread for that.

So once you get over the fact that Gravity is much better developed than your Aether, and also divorce yourself of the notion that math can be used to make any physical theory work, you might be able to actually do something other than playing the beleaguered intellectual.

Gravity has no explanation offered whatsoever for any aspect of it. How exactly is that better developed than a well-defined, intelligible, logical entity like aether?
Given time, it's possible to create a working math around anything. It just requires suitable ad hoc advances. The only reason you accept gravity is your double standard. Have you heard of Ringworld? The writer had a physics background, and made sure to come up with a mathematical system for it to work.
I mean, really, imagine a Flat Earther proposed gravity. "There's this thing, it answers all your questions. I don't know how it works, I don't know why it does what it does, but things get pulled towards matter. Look, these equations explain it! Well, sure, they don't work when you change scale a little, but that's not important!"
Hypocrite.

[Rama Set]

Except, you know, the Earth looks flat if you actually observe it...

No one who has been to space or in high orbit agrees with you.

And your model is based on more than that. You have a whole system in place that is required for it to work. If any part of that system fails, the whole things collapses, and there are assumptions all through it.

Please let me know what those assumptions are.

Except they don't. If they did they would not teach gravity like it's a fact when nothing about your proposal makes any sense whatsoever.

It is an empirical observation that mass attracts to mass, that is not changing.

Large scale? Ruined. Small scale? No clue how any of it works.
There's a word for that, and it's propaganda.

So dramatic.

I have been nothing if not open about the fact I do not have the resources to give Dual Earth Theory the level of depth you absurdly demand. So?
I'm not going to assume it's wrong.

I don't want you to assume it is wrong, I want you not to assume it is right.

The fact I can explain everything Round Earthers point out without altering the fundamentals of the theory is a strength. If the theory was as Ad Hoc as you claim, it would need far more than two assumptions.

It has far more than two, but you labor under the delusion that the terms assumption and deduction are mutually exclusive when they are not.

The fact is, minor refinements (part of all science) aside, Dual Earth Theory works.

Setting aside the hypocrisy involved in you saying that while simultaneously damning gravity for not being able to work at the quantum scale... Prove it... Please for the love of god prove it. 

If you disagree, I'll wait for any evidence: though start a thread for that.

That is not how it works.  We actually need you to provide the evidence.

Gravity has no explanation offered whatsoever for any aspect of it.

So you have not actually studied gravity, got it.

How exactly is that better developed than a well-defined, intelligible, logical entity like aether?

Well, we can do things like take a mass like the moon, plug its value in to an equation and get extremely close to the measured value.  Last I saw, all you can do with Aether is rail that you have to repeat yourself.

Given time, it's possible to create a working math around anything.

Not in the real world you can't, but continue...

It just requires suitable ad hoc advances. The only reason you accept gravity is your double standard. Have you heard of Ringworld? The writer had a physics background, and made sure to come up with a mathematical system for it to work.

Yeah, ringworld is fiction, as in not reality.  I can come up with fictional math to describe my fictional world too.  It is not as impressive as you are making it out.

I mean, really, imagine a Flat Earther proposed gravity. "There's this thing, it answers all your questions. I don't know how it works, I don't know why it does what it does, but things get pulled towards matter. Look, these equations explain it! Well, sure, they don't work when you change scale a little, but that's not important!"
Hypocrite.

I am not sure what your point is here.  That you are assuming that I would damn a FEer that showed up with the Principia Mathematica and a bunch of evidence to back it up in the way of measurements of real world phenomena?  If that is the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.  I also wonder why you consider the change from our everyday scale to the galactic scale to be "little", you have an interesting view of the world.

Y

[JRowe]

No one who has been to space or in high orbit agrees with you.

Let me know when you can confirm that they have been there.

Please let me know what those assumptions are.

See sig.

It is an empirical observation that mass attracts to mass, that is not changing.

Except there's so much more to gravity than that. You don't focus on the observation, you propose an explanation that does not work. There is more than one explanation for any event.

I don't want you to assume it is wrong, I want you not to assume it is right.

I didn't. I concluded it had to be correct by scientific means, such as Occam's Razor.

It has far more than two

Untrue, unless you're going to count conclusions as assumptions, but that would be dishonest.

but you labor under the delusion that the terms assumption and deduction are mutually exclusive when they are not.

Assumptions are guesses made without evidence. Deductions are logical progressions of things established to be the case. They can result from assumptions, but the only assumption is the root.

Setting aside the hypocrisy involved in you saying that while simultaneously damning gravity for not being able to work at the quantum scale

That would be far more than a minor refinement: and to my knowledge no more are required for Dual Earth Theory, so...

... Prove it... Please for the love of god prove it.
That is not how it works.  We actually need you to provide the evidence.

See sig. Explanation of observations, Occam's Razor. That's all science is.
I have explained the working model for the world. If you disagree, you do actually need to provide evidence. You don't get to pretend the model hasn't been supplied. I have yet to hear of anything not explained by Dual Earth Theory. If you think you've figured something out, I will be eager to hear it, but start a thread.

So you have not actually studied gravity, got it.

Have you studied gravity? Explain how mass bends space, and why that causes a force. I'll wait.

Well, we can do things like take a mass like the moon, plug its value in to an equation and get extremely close to the measured value.

Really? Care to show how you weighed the moon to get its mass? Gravitational pull is how the moon's mass was determined, your argument is circular.

Last I saw, all you can do with Aether is rail that you have to repeat yourself.

Well if you're going to ask the same questions over and over and over then yes, I will have repeated myself. Just because I do not have the resources to find the math that governs aether does not change the fact that the theory explains the world.

I can come up with fictional math to describe my fictional world too. 

I know. It's called Round Earth Theory.
The same observations may have mutliple explanations. I have already provided several examples, I'm tired of doing so.

a bunch of evidence to back it up in the way of measurements of real world phenomena?

Like? The only evidence for gravity is a handful of observations with multiple explanations (including one under Dual Earth Theory). Gravity is just assumed.
Volume of math implies time, not truth.

[Rama Set]

Let me know when you can confirm that they have been there.

Give me your standard of evidence and it should be trivial.

See sig.

I didn't. I concluded it had to be correct by scientific means, such as Occam's Razor.

And skipped the rest of the scientific method first. 

Untrue, unless you're going to count conclusions as assumptions, but that would be dishonest.

Dishonest?  Why?  If you are taking your conclusions for granted without really testing them then you are assuming them.  I am not sure what you mean by dishonest.

Assumptions are guesses made without evidence. Deductions are logical progressions of things established to be the case. They can result from assumptions, but the only assumption is the root.

So really need to show your assumptions are true.

That would be far more than a minor refinement: and to my knowledge no more are required for Dual Earth Theory, so...

Your knowledge of dual earth theory has little to do with the real world, so it is a very malleable field of knowledge isn't it?

See sig. Explanation of observations, Occam's Razor. That's all science is.

No science is the application of the scientific method.  Something you clearly have not done.  You have thus far engaged in metaphysical philosophy which may or may not have anything to do with the world we live in.

I have explained the working model for the world. If you disagree, you do actually need to provide evidence.

You have not shown your model works.

You don't get to pretend the model hasn't been supplied.

And I am not.

I have yet to hear of anything not explained by Dual Earth Theory. If you think you've figured something out, I will be eager to hear it, but start a thread.

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.  It is like string theory but without the years of actually trying to find ways of examining it empirically. 

Have you studied gravity? Explain how mass bends space, and why that causes a force. I'll wait.

This dumb standard again.  How do electrons have a charge and why is that mediated by a photon?  No one knows that either yet you never hear about the incompleteness of Quantum Electrodynamics do you?  It would be like asking, why is there Aether and why can it change in density?  Ultimately, these questions are irrelevant because one must deal with the reality that is presented to them.  If reality is best described by Einstein's field equations, then that is what we will use.  Your pet theory does not hold a candle to these equations, because your pet theory cannot describe interactions in any way other than conceptually whereas GR can describe interactions in many different useful ways, likewise for Newton's equations.

Well if you're going to ask the same questions over and over and over then yes, I will have repeated myself. Just because I do not have the resources to find the math that governs aether does not change the fact that the theory explains the world.

I still don't understand this.  Are you telling me you do not have access to a library or the internet?

I know. It's called Round Earth Theory. The same observations may have mutliple explanations. I have already provided several examples, I'm tired of doing so.

You give up too easily.

a bunch of evidence to back it up in the way of measurements of real world phenomena?

Like? The only evidence for gravity is a handful of observations with multiple explanations (including one under Dual Earth Theory). Gravity is just assumed.

A handful?  Engineering and physics students the world over do experiments that would be wrong if the theory of gravity were wrong.  I know you are engaging in rhetoric, but it does not help your position.  One part is not assumed though: you can accurately measure the acceleration of an object towards the Earth based on it's mass and altitude.  You have nothing so simple yet accurate going for you.

Volume of math implies time, not truth.

I have no idea where this comment comes from.

[JRowe]

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.

[markjo]

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

Umm...  No, that isn't the scientific method.  That's closer to the Zetetic method.
The scientific method goes something like this:

[Rama Set]

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?

I am not sure why you are calling me a liar, seems fairly immature. Tell me though, where did you get this definition of the scientific method?  Is it your personal definition?  Also, I am not sure how the thought experiments performed on  this forum qualify as observation. How do you control for your own bias, how do you control for errors in measurement. After all, science lives in the precision and quality of its measurements.

What is this even meant to mean? The conclusions are verified by simple observation of the world.

Verified?  As in conclusive?

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.

Your underlying assumptions have absolutely no substance beyond a conceptual framework. The assumption of gravity have been formalized, yielded predictions, been tested and shown to be successful. You seem to have a phobia of this part of the process and appears to be your greatest block to meaningful progress.

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?

Nothing magical, but your version of "matching observations" does not seem to include any need for precision or accuracy and so your conclusions are as vague as possible and meaningless.

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.

what do you mean by accuracy?  Your observations cane be measured to how many significant digits? 1? 5? 14?  The gravitational constant has been measured to five significant digits which is much lower than other physical constants due to issues with interference owing to gravitates weaker strength than the EM force.

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?

You have shown it is consistent but not that it works. Get out there and make some precise, accurate measurements!

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.

The dumb standard is that gravity gets criticized for not knowing why reality manifests it, yet nothing else does.

Find me, on the internet, a description of the altitudes of the aetheric whirlpools, and your contribution will have meaning.

You say you do not have the resources to construct your mathematical model, but they are all available online.

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.

I don't ignore them.

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.

I have not seen a single FET model that can calculate the height of a building using a gravimiter. Can you please show me one?

[JRowe]

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

Umm...  No, that isn't the scientific method.  That's closer to the Zetetic method.
The scientific method goes something like this:

You are aware that the Zetetic Method is a subset of the scientific method, right?

'Ask a question' went unstated because I thought it was pretty obvious, the only step I omitted was refinement: the 'no' case, because I was showing what would happen if the model/hypothesis works, as it does in the Dual Earth case. Just because I phrase it differently does't make it wrong.

Nothing magical, but your version of "matching observations" does not seem to include any need for precision or accuracy and so your conclusions are as vague as possible and meaningless.

I don't have the math. I have been up front about that. I do not have the time or the resources to take the measurements required. Your obsessing over that only means you somehow think the fact you've had longer to come up with a model means it must be true. That's no more than an appeal to tradition.
I have explained the process by which the world works. That is far from vague and far from meaningless. It can still be contradicted, it can still be verified. Observational evidence.
Are you still refusing to read my sig where the vast majority of your questions have already been answered? How many times do I have to ask you to do something before you respond rather than ignore?
Stop obsessing with math. You have already been answered on this topic multiple times. If all you're capable of doing is ignoring and refusing to respond to those answers, what exactly is the point of you?

You say you do not have the resources to construct your mathematical model, but they are all available online.

No they are not. I ask for the exact same thing again: Find me, on the internet, a description of the altitudes of the aetheric whirlpools, and your contribution will have meaning.
Do you really think blatantly ignoring what I have said makes any kind of a point?

I don't ignore them.

You literally just did. And of course you're still refusing to actually educate yourself on the model in my sig...

I have not seen a single FET model that can calculate the height of a building using a gravimiter. Can you please show me one?

Sure, it's just a matter of how many whirlpools are passed. However, without knowing the number and location of those whirlpools I can't give a exact figure. I can however use the existing formula that came from observation and is misapplied to be about gravity, when there is no reason whatsoever for gravity to obey the inverse square law: demonstrating that it cann't actually be applying to gravity.

[markjo]

You are aware that the Zetetic Method is a subset of the scientific method, right?

Sorta, but not really.  It's more of a reaction to the scientific method.

'Ask a question' went unstated because I thought it was pretty obvious...

If you don't ask a question, then how do you know what your theory is supposed to answer?

...the only step I omitted was refinement:

No, you also omitted the "do research" and "form a hypothesis" stages.  Your "perform an experimet" stage is kind dodgy as well, not to mention your analysis and conclusion stages.  Other than that, it seems that you're spot on.

...the 'no' case, because I was showing what would happen if the model/hypothesis works, as it does in the Dual Earth case. Just because I phrase it differently does't make it wrong.

Actually, it does because you never consider the possibility that the hypothesis that you never presented might be wrong.  In other words, you aren't falsifying your hypothesis because you never consider the implications of your "experiments" not providing the results that you expect.

[JRowe]

If you don't ask a question, then how do you know what your theory is supposed to answer?

Generally, that's relevant, but we already know the topic and so question that's to be answered: how does the world work? What shape is it? etc.

No, you also omitted the "do research" and "form a hypothesis" stages.

No, I just used different terms. What is research if not observations? What is a hypothesis if not a possible explanation for those observations?
Maybe I could have been clearer that I used observations and records from some others, but the core is still there.

Your "perform an experimet" stage is kind dodgy as well, not to mention your analysis and conclusion stages.

What is an experiment if not an observation of a specific case?
Either the explanation works in those new cases, or it doesn't.

In other words, you aren't falsifying your hypothesis because you never consider the implications of your "experiments" not providing the results that you expect.

I am, and I have: the theory has been refined a great deal. I simply didn't specify that situation, as the topic was how we determine truth, rather than untruth. I used to follow the classical FE model, until I realized it didn't work well.

Experiments are no more than a special case of observations: observations are at the heart of science. If you don't believe I've done enough, then this is an open challenge. Perform an experiment, find observations: I don't know everything, I may be unaware of certain details. That is science, after all: let me know what those observations state.
Let's see if any contradict the Dual Earth model. (Of course, please read my sig so you understand what it is you're trying to contradict).

My observations have satisfied me. if you disagree, this is your opportunity. Otherwise, you can no longer complain.

[markjo]

If you don't ask a question, then how do you know what your theory is supposed to answer?

Generally, that's relevant, but we already know the topic and so question that's to be answered: how does the world work? What shape is it? etc.

Those are pretty broad questions, aren't they?  Perhaps it would be more useful if you were to ask more specific questions, like "why does a flat earth act like it's round?" or, "how can I get from the bottom side of the flat earth to the top side with out noticing?"

No, you also omitted the "do research" and "form a hypothesis" stages.

No, I just used different terms. What is research if not observations?

You don't even know what research is?  Wow, that explains a lot.  Research is when you check to see if anyone else knows anything about the question that you're asking.  Things like the known and suspected properties of aether.  Or, previous experiments designed to determine the properties of aether.

What is a hypothesis if not a possible explanation for those observations?

Yes, a hypothesis is a possible explanation for a phenomenon, but it's a formalized one from which you can design experiments to test said hypothesis.

Maybe I could have been clearer that I used observations and records from some others, but the core is still there.

Yes, it does help when you cite your references, that way we can check to see if you're accurately representing those sources.  It's part of the peer review process.

Your "perform an experimet" stage is kind dodgy as well, not to mention your analysis and conclusion stages.

What is an experiment if not an observation of a specific case?

Well, an experiment is when you try to control as many of the conditions as you can so that you can see if the phenomenon that you're interested in is acting the way that you're expecting. 

Either the explanation works in those new cases, or it doesn't.

Which is why you try to design the experiment so that explanation actually works or if any number of other explanations could be just as viable.

In other words, you aren't falsifying your hypothesis because you never consider the implications of your "experiments" not providing the results that you expect.

I am, and I have: the theory has been refined a great deal. I simply didn't specify that situation, as the topic was how we determine truth, rather than untruth.

So you're saying that you don't know how to tell if your explanation is wrong?

Experiments are no more than a special case of observations: observations are at the heart of science.

Actually, there are several different kinds of experiments and observations are only one kind.  Generally you want to perform a controlled experiment where you are isolating the properties of the phenomenon that you're interested in.

If you don't believe I've done enough, then this is an open challenge. Perform an experiment, find observations: I don't know everything, I may be unaware of certain details. That is science, after all: let me know what those observations state.
Let's see if any contradict the Dual Earth model. (Of course, please read my sig so you understand what it is you're trying to contradict).

I'm sorry but it isn't my job to do your research for you.

My observations have satisfied me. if you disagree, this is your opportunity. Otherwise, you can no longer complain.

If your observations have satisfied you, then you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry.

[JRowe]

Those are pretty broad questions, aren't they?  Perhaps it would be more useful if you were to ask more specific questions, like "why does a flat earth act like it's round?" or, "how can I get from the bottom side of the flat earth to the top side with out noticing?"

Well, yes, I didn't want to list every individual question. Both of those have been answered, and the first is a nonsensical question anyway.

You don't even know what research is?  Wow, that explains a lot.  Research is when you check to see if anyone else knows anything about the question that you're asking.  Things like the known and suspected properties of aether.  Or, previous experiments designed to determine the properties of aether.

Sure, let me know when one of those is done without observation.
Also, if you had tried to learn anything about my model, you'd know it has little to do with the classical definition of aether.

Which is why you try to design the experiment so that explanation actually works or if any number of other explanations could be just as viable.

Well aside from how experiments aren't always feasible, there will always be multiple explanations. The hand of God is the obvious example; you could explain anything with "God did it." That's why Occam's Razor is needed.

So you're saying that you don't know how to tell if your explanation is wrong?

How on did you get that from "untruth wasn't the topic"?!

Actually, there are several different kinds of experiments and observations are only one kind.

Sure, let me know how you can do those experiments without observing them. Experiments are only a special case of observation, that's all.

I'm sorry but it isn't my job to do your research for you.

I've done my research. That's why I arrived at Dual Earth Theory. If you're going to persist in disagreeing, you're actually going to need a reason.

If your observations have satisfied you, then you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry.

If you think what I've done isn't scientific inquiry, you either don't understand science, or you refuse to understand what I've done.
All science is, is finding an explanation that matches all observations. Experiments are observations: you observe the results and what occurs. You can perform all the extra experiments you want, the key is still that science explains all the subsequent observations.

So, let's say RET and DET both have models that explain all observations. Do you choose RET just because it's older? After all, that seems to be your entire reasoning (such as using experiments made after the hypothesis). DET would explain those experiments perfectly too. They explain equal amounts. (Actually DET works far better, but I'll be kind to you).
So, do you use Occam's Razor, or do you just appeal to tradition? How do you determine which model you accept?

[markjo]

Those are pretty broad questions, aren't they?  Perhaps it would be more useful if you were to ask more specific questions, like "why does a flat earth act like it's round?" or, "how can I get from the bottom side of the flat earth to the top side with out noticing?"

Well, yes, I didn't want to list every individual question. Both of those have been answered, and the first is a nonsensical question anyway.

Not nonsensical at all.  The reason that RET is the dominant model for the shape of the earth is because it works for pretty much all practical applications.  In other words, RET says that the earth is round because the earth behaves like you would expect a very large, round earth to behave.  Asking something like "how does a great circle route work if the earth is flat?" sounds like a very sensible question to me.

Which is why you try to design the experiment so that explanation actually works or if any number of other explanations could be just as viable.

Well aside from how experiments aren't always feasible, there will always be multiple explanations. The hand of God is the obvious example; you could explain anything with "God did it."

That's why you try to design the experiment and control the parameters so as to rule out other explanations like "the hand of God".

That's why Occam's Razor is needed.

Occam's Razor is not now, nor ever has been, a part of the scientific method. 

So you're saying that you don't know how to tell if your explanation is wrong?

How on did you get that from "untruth wasn't the topic"?!

It goes back to falsification.  A properly designed experiment will not only tell you if the evidence supports your hypothesis, it will also tell you if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis.

Actually, there are several different kinds of experiments and observations are only one kind.

Sure, let me know how you can do those experiments without observing them. Experiments are only a special case of observation, that's all.

No, an experiment is not a special case of observation.  Observation is one part of an experiment, not the be-all and end-all of an experiment.  An experiment is, first and foremost, a test (ideally, a true/false test).  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I'm sorry but it isn't my job to do your research for you.

I've done my research. That's why I arrived at Dual Earth Theory. If you're going to persist in disagreeing, you're actually going to need a reason.

I do have a reason: Dual Earth Theory makes no sense.

If your observations have satisfied you, then you don't understand the nature of scientific inquiry.

If you think what I've done isn't scientific inquiry, you either don't understand science, or you refuse to understand what I've done.

All you've done is attribute some magical properties to empty space without any way of falsifying the existence of those properties.

All science is, is finding an explanation that matches all observations.

You really need to stop redefining words to suit your purpose.  Science is about testing those explanations using real world experiments.  Just sitting back and observing people cross the equator and saying "aha, the aether worked just like I said it would" isn't an experiment.

So, let's say RET and DET both have models that explain all observations. Do you choose RET just because it's older? After all, that seems to be your entire reasoning (such as using experiments made after the hypothesis). DET would explain those experiments perfectly too. They explain equal amounts. (Actually DET works far better, but I'll be kind to you).
So, do you use Occam's Razor, or do you just appeal to tradition? How do you determine which model you accept?

I accept RET because of the mountains of credible evidence supporting it and reject DET because of its lack of credible evidence.

[Joseph Merrick]

OK, going to read this thread for the third time........ because the first two reads made my teeth hurt.

[JRowe]

The reason that RET is the dominant model for the shape of the earth is because it works for pretty much all practical applications.  In other words, RET says that the earth is round because the earth behaves like you would expect a very large, round earth to behave

Because you've spent centuries shoehorning everything into a Round Earth Model.
Given that the Earth behaves exactly as we'd expect under DET, that should mean you'd prefer that too.

Asking something like "how does a great circle route work if the earth is flat?" sounds like a very sensible question to me.

Why? The route you take according to the classical planar map will be curved because no one even pretends that the classical map is accurate. Circles centered at the North Pole mean the surroundings will be curved, meaning a straight line on the actual Earth will be a curve on the map.

That's why you try to design the experiment and control the parameters so as to rule out other explanations like "the hand of God".

Which no RE experiment has done with respect to Dual Earth Theory.

Occam's Razor is not now, nor ever has been, a part of the scientific method. 

In which case, you have no grounds on which to complain about what you believe to be ad hoc additions to my theory.
There will always be an alternative explanation for any situation, no matter how many experiments you perform. There can always be excuses or special cases, meaning you're inevitably left with infinite theories, none of which have been falsified, all of which explain the exact same events.
How, then, would you decide which is most likely to be true, without Occam's Razor?

It goes back to falsification.  A properly designed experiment will not only tell you if the evidence supports your hypothesis, it will also tell you if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis.

Yes. So? The fact I didn't outline that route because it was off-topic does not mean I am not aware of it. No experiment has yet falsified the simple properties of aether, and so DET.

No, an experiment is not a special case of observation.  Observation is one part of an experiment, not the be-all and end-all of an experiment. 

How do you do an experiment without observing it then?
An experiment is setting something up for the express purpose of observing what happens. That is by definition a special case of observation.

I do have a reason: Dual Earth Theory makes no sense.

Still waiting for any reason. How many times must I ask?

All you've done is attribute some magical properties to empty space without any way of falsifying the existence of those properties.

Neither property is magical. One is a universal tendency for which it is logical to assume the fabric of space (not empty space, that's a completely different thing) adheres to. The other is also logical: why suppose binary existence?
They could easily be falsified. The fact they haven't been and still explain the world is evidence for the theory. That is how science works, you know?

Science is about testing those explanations using real world experiments.

Yes. And experiments are useless if you don't observe the results. So, if an explanation matches the result of the experiment, it matches your observation of the result of the experiment, and so matches observations. Do I really need to kepe walking you through that? That was an absurd level of detail you apparently required.

and reject DET because of its lack of credible evidence.

Still waiting for your evidence... you can't just magically appeal to something without actually syaing what it is.
What observations/experiments does RET explain that DET does not?

[markjo]

The reason that RET is the dominant model for the shape of the earth is because it works for pretty much all practical applications.  In other words, RET says that the earth is round because the earth behaves like you would expect a very large, round earth to behave

Because you've spent centuries shoehorning everything into a Round Earth Model.

I've been hearing FE'ers say that for years and I have yet to figure out what that means.  Would you please explain what you mean by that?

Asking something like "how does a great circle route work if the earth is flat?" sounds like a very sensible question to me.

Why? The route you take according to the classical planar map will be curved because no one even pretends that the classical map is accurate.

Ummm...  To which "classical planar map" are you referring?

Circles centered at the North Pole mean the surroundings will be curved, meaning a straight line on the actual Earth will be a curve on the map.

Huh? 

That's why you try to design the experiment and control the parameters so as to rule out other explanations like "the hand of God".

Which no RE experiment has done with respect to Dual Earth Theory.

Are you sure about that?  Have you peer reviewed every single RE experiment?

Occam's Razor is not now, nor ever has been, a part of the scientific method. 

How, then, would you decide which is most likely to be true, without Occam's Razor?

You go with the theory that has the best supporting evidence.

It goes back to falsification.  A properly designed experiment will not only tell you if the evidence supports your hypothesis, it will also tell you if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis.

Yes. So? The fact I didn't outline that route because it was off-topic does not mean I am not aware of it. No experiment has yet falsified the simple properties of aether, and so DET.

Have any experiment supported the "simple" properties of aether? 

No, an experiment is not a special case of observation.  Observation is one part of an experiment, not the be-all and end-all of an experiment. 

How do you do an experiment without observing it then?
An experiment is setting something up for the express purpose of observing what happens. That is by definition a special case of observation.

*sigh* 

Experiments typically include controls, which are designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the single independent variable. This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurments and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method. Ideally, all variables in an experiment will be controlled (accounted for by the control measurements) and none will be uncontrolled. In such an experiment, if all the controls work as expected, it is possible to conclude that the experiment is working as intended and that the results of the experiment are due to the effect of the variable being tested.

What controls have you included in your "observations" of aether?

I do have a reason: Dual Earth Theory makes no sense.

Still waiting for any reason. How many times must I ask?

DET not making any sense is reason enough for me.

All you've done is attribute some magical properties to empty space without any way of falsifying the existence of those properties.

Neither property is magical. One is a universal tendency for which it is logical to assume the fabric of space (not empty space, that's a completely different thing) adheres to.

To which "universal tendency" are you referring?

The other is also logical: why suppose binary existence?

Huh?

They could easily be falsified.

Then why don't you?

The fact they haven't been and still explain the world is evidence for the theory.

Or, that no one takes DET seriously enough to waste their time on.

That is how science works, you know?

I think that we have very different ideas of how science works.

Science is about testing those explanations using real world experiments.

Yes. And experiments are useless if you don't observe the results. So, if an explanation matches the result of the experiment, it matches your observation of the result of the experiment, and so matches observations. Do I really need to kepe walking you through that? That was an absurd level of detail you apparently required.

No, you just need to show me a repeatable experiment that you have performed that supports DET over RET.  Thought experiments don't count.

and reject DET because of its lack of credible evidence.

Still waiting for your evidence... you can't just magically appeal to something without actually syaing what it is.
What observations/experiments does RET explain that DET does not?

Actually, since you're the one claiming that DET is superior to RET, it's the other way around.  It's your job to show what observations/experiments DET explains better than RET