9101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 06:44:12 PM »

You claimed the experiment would be susceptible to magnetic interference. You have not proved this. Citing the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is only one portion of the system in question.

I also cited that gravimeters and satellites are made of metal components. This statement was apparently accepted and rebutted with a claim that some metal components exist which are non-ferrous, and that this craft may have been made with such magnetically-resistant materials.

Ignoring the fact that all materials are magnetic to some degree (ie. levitating frog), and there is no such thing as magnetic resistance, especially in the frictionless environment of space, there are two positions here:

1. The craft was built with magnetically-resistant materials
2. The craft was not built with magnetically-resistant materials

One is a positive claim, and the other is a negative claim.

9102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 06:00:24 PM »

Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?

Where is the evidence that the gravimetric equipment in question is susceptible to magnetic influence as you originally claimed or that the magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.

Not all metals are susceptible to magnetic fields.  Where is your evidence that susceptible metals were used in the probe?

That is for you to demonstrate.

There are two claims:

1. The builders built the components with materials resistant to magnetism
2. The builders did not build the components with materials resistant to magnetism

The first statement/position (yours) is a positive claim. The second statement/position (mine) is a negative claim.

How does someone build a satellite without schematics? 

The same way someone can put a 6 cylinder BMW engine in the chassis of a Honda Accord and go directly to testing, without the need to make a schematic for it.

It also does not necessitate that the schematic even has data on the composition of the materials in the craft. Schematics usually don't even have that kind of information in them.

9103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 02:22:41 PM »

Tom, you cannot have it both ways: you yourself have said that you have not seen the schematics for the GOCE probe. As such, any claim you make about the building materials is obviously an assumption. Therefore we can reject your claim that magnetic fields are a source of error based on an invalid premise.

The claim that gravimeters and satellites contain small metal components is a positive claim, and would be my burden to demonstrate if called upon, perhaps with pictures of the interior of gravimeters and 'satellites'. There would be evidence that gravimeters and satellites contain metal components.

I made no claims about the schematic, that one exists, or that it would contain information on all building materials of all scientific components within the structure. The schematic is markjo's claim.

9104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 02:09:06 PM »

Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?

Where is the evidence that the gravimetric equipment in question is susceptible to magnetic influence as you originally claimed or that the magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for?

The first claim was answered in the previous thread with evidence that the magnetic field is powerful enough to affect small metal components. When using a compass one sees that the magnetic field is powerful enough to move a metal component in the compass. With the knowledge that satellites and scientific tools such as gravimeters are made of small metal components, it follows that a satellite with a gravimeter on it would be susceptible to magnetic fields. It further follows that a small metal component in the weightlessness of space is more easily movable than a metal component in a 1g environment.

There are a couple secondary claims in the above answer, namely that satellites and gravimeters contain small metal components, and that there would be less friction in a weightless environment, which I would be required to provide evidence for if called upon.

The second claim that "magnetic influence would be a source of error that could not be accounted for" is a negative claim which I do not have the burden of proof on.

Since you haven't been able to find any of the schematics for the satellite or the data analysis protocols, you have no way of knowing if any of the materials used would be influenced by the earth's magnetic field or that any magnetic influence could not be filtered out during data analysis, therefore you have not met the burden of your claim that the earth's magnetic field is a problem for such a mission.

It was never my claim that such schematics existed. That was your claim. It was your claim that schematics existed of a satellite with magnetically resistant features. It is your burden to provide evidence for that positive claim.

9105

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 07:54:39 AM »

The base truth is that you do not know for certain.

The available evidence says that there is no handkerchief, therefore that is what is concluded. The conclusion stays that way until positive evidence is presented of this handkerchief.

Tom, please define "available evidence".  For example, do you want your doctor to declare that you do not have cancer before or after he examines you?  After all, if he doesn't examine you, then he can't find any evidence of cancer.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise you do not.

Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

Probably wouldn't if you didn't give him a reason (at least not in a place where his main goal wasn't milking the insurance).

If i went to a doctor and told him I was worried I had "cancer", he'd ask if I had any symptoms or problems and when I said no he'd probably not require a load of tests to prove I was completely healthy. He'd just tell me that in the absence of any evidence there was no reason to think I had cancer of the anything.

Good example of absence of evidence. That is exactly what a doctor would do.

Ok just gonna throw this one out here too.

There is no massive governmental cover up.
Space flight is not faked.
The experiments in EnaG were not conclusive to a flat earth.
The earth is not flat.

All negative claims. All automatically true.  I checked my mail box today and evidence to the contrary was not found in there.

That is it.  Discussion over. Shut the site down.  Conclusive proof that this theory is not true.

Those statements would be the conclusion if no other evidence was provided by the claimants for those positive claims. However, there is evidence.

9106

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:39:04 AM »

Way to back pedal on your claim that negative claims are automatically true.  Because if that were the case, the evidence shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Negative claims are automatically true. The lack of evidence factually shows that the window is both not open and not closed.

Both statements are true. Since there is a lack of evidence, the window is not anything.

9107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 31, 2013, 12:15:38 AM »

Let me show you how asinine your claim that negative claims are automatically true.

P1)The window is not open
P2)The window is not closed

Both claims must be true, according to you.  Both claims don't require any burden of proof, according to you.  I mean they are both negative claims.  Oh and we also don't know who made which claim first. 

Please tell me what is the state of the window Tom?

The burden of proof is with the person with the positive claim. Neither of those statements are positive claims, and so neither incurs a burden of proof.

The state of the window is that that there is no evidence that it is open and there is no evidence that it is closed. The skeptic has no burden to prove anything either way since he has not made a positive claim. The burden of proof lays with anyone claiming "the window is open".

9108

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:41:20 PM »

It is the claimant's burden to provide the evidence. It is the skeptic's burden to look at it.

If you don't like it, don't make the claim.

9109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:37:12 PM »

I showed that you were ignorant of "all available evidence" contrary to your claim. What more need I do to show you were arguing from ignorance?

I looked at all available evidence in the discussion. Obviously I am not looking at all available evidence in the world. That's for the claimant to gather and present. It is not my responsibility to prove his claim for him.

9110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:23:10 PM »

No you did not. You did not read anything other than a Wikipedia page. There were sources cited in that that linked you to sources about presentations of research findings, etc..  That was presented. You did not read them. Stop pretending you were diligent.

It is the claimant's burden to post the relevant material here for all to see. I am not obligated to go on a wild goose hunts in search of material, which may or may not exist, to support random claims posted on this forum.

I would suggest to stop trying to shift the burden and start posting evidence for your claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate their claim, and everyone knows it.

9111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 11:14:58 PM »

If you are not required to look how can you claim you have looked at all available evidence ?

It is the claimant's responsibility to present the evidence. I looked at it.

9112

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 10:49:46 PM »

Well there is plenty of evidence. Here is demonstration that you were simply arguing from ignorance.

http://bit.ly/KfYczP

Where is the evidence that a schematic exists of a satellite impervious to magnetic influence, as originally claimed?

You never looked for evidence then claim, "Based on all available evidence a truth is concluded."

It is not my burden to look for evidence. The burden of proof is on the party with the positive claim. If he lacks evidence, then there is no evidence available.

The burden of proof is never on the negative claimant. I can't walk up to people and tell them "Prove that I can't fly". They would go "what do you mean prove you can't fly? Prove that you can!'" That is exactly the same thing. The implicit truth is already that I can't fly. They have never seen flying humans and I did not provide any evidence of my claim.

9113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 10:17:32 PM »

If you don't want to do so that's fine but claiming you have looked for evidence is simply not true; you have demonstrated you have not looked for evidence. This supports the position that there may be evidence and if there were, you are ignorant of it. Your unwillingness to support your claims does not make you right. You unwillingness to accept your burden of proof also does not make you right. You have been shown sources supporting the position that you owe a burden of proof for your claims that "something does not exist". If you would like I can cite sources, again, showing that a negative claim requires a burden of proof.

I never said that the conclusions made were ultimate truths. They are simply current truths. Based on all available evidence a truth is concluded.

It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence for his claim. If he does not, then the conclusion is that there is no evidence that X exists. There is no "maybe" or "undecided". There is no evidence and that is that.

The negative claim does not incur a burden of proof because it is automatically satisfied by nature of being a negative. We saw that the schematics of a magnetically reinforces satellite did not exist when the claimant failed to provide his obligated evidence. We saw that ghosts did not exist when the claimant failed to provide his obligated evidence. The primary sources on the matter could not provide evidence of existence, and so it is evidence of absence. The burden of proof has already been met.

9114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 10:06:50 PM »

Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

He's doing it for the money.

If you would like to pay me a physician's wages to do tests and collect evidence, I would be happy to. Otherwise it is not my burden to provide evidence for the claims or assertions which you or anyone else has made.

Tom, payment has nothing to do with burden so please refrain from such inane comments.  They add nothing at all to the discussion. 

A doctor is responsible for performing a certain amount of diagnostic investigation before issuing a diagnosis.  If that investigation reveals no anomalies, then the diagnosis is healthy.  However, if the doctor does no such investigation, then he may miss a potentially serious condition that may lead to a malpractice law suit.

You are paying a doctor to perform a service. It is not a debate. "Burden of proof" does not apply.

9115

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 10:00:23 PM »

It's actually simpler. You have no idea if the ESA has evidence of the shielding on the satellite because you have not even bothered to look. You do not even know if shielding is an appropriate control for the type of variable you are concerned about. You are ignorant on this matter. It is the height of disingenuousness to claim you know anything about the experiment after reading a Wikipedia page.

It is not my responsibility to go out on a wild goose hunt whenever someone blabbers some claim on this forum. It is the responsibility of the claimant.

9116

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 09:42:02 PM »

This is where you are making your faulty leap of logic.  You argument of ignorance.  Which is assuming that since it has not been proven to be true, it must be false.  You completely forget the third option of, we just do not have enough evidence to support either proving or disproving the statement.

There is no "undecided" option. There is not a lack of evidence. We have a running collection of evidence. The primary source making the claim has failed to provide any evidence to back that claim. This is evidence that the claim is false.

If you want to cast doubt on the claim that the satellite was adequate source for determining gravity variations, you can't make the claim that the satellite was not shielded.  You need to make the claim that "Since we do not know if the satellite was properly shielded, we cannot assume the accuracy of the experiment."

I really don't understand how you are not understanding this.

It's very simple. The primary source claiming that the satellite was shielded has not provided evidence of
that claim. From our experience we also find an absence of evidence.

If the only evidence we have is that is does not exist the conclusion must be, necessarily, that it does not exist. Until evidence is presented otherwise, this is the current truth.

We cannot say with honesty "there may be no evidence of ghosts, but we cannot assume that ghosts don't exist". The evidence is that ghosts do not exist, and that is the conclusion.

9117

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 05:16:46 PM »

Last I checked, a doctor doesn't assume anything until he checks you out, gets some diagnostic tests done, then compares the results to get a diagnosis of your health.  If the doctor assumed that you did not have cancer, he would not perform any sort of tests.

He's doing it for the money.

If you would like to pay me a physician's wages to do tests and collect evidence, I would be happy to. Otherwise it is not my burden to provide evidence for the positive claims which you or anyone else has made.

9118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 05:03:34 PM »

The base truth is that you do not know for certain.

The available evidence says that there is no handkerchief, therefore that is what is concluded. The conclusion stays that way until positive evidence is presented of this handkerchief.

Tom, please define "available evidence".  For example, do you want your doctor to declare that you do not have cancer before or after he examines you?  After all, if he doesn't examine you, then he can't find any evidence of cancer.

Your doctor does assume that you don't have cancer before he examines you. The moment you come in you are considered at a healthy state, which is why you are not carted to the emergency room before observational and diagnostic evidence is collected.

Only until evidence is presented, can the doctor say that you have an ailment. Otherwise, as far as he is concerned, you do not.

9119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 04:59:16 PM »

Tom-Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if you exhaust the domain of the claim. If the absence is due to ignorance, it is not sufficient to fulfill a burden. For example, not finding specs of an ESA satellite experiment in your briefcase would not be sufficient to prove an absence of evidence. You have not looked anywhere near where evidence would be should you assume its existence.

I am looking right here on this forum where it is claimed that schematics exist of a certain type of magnetically-resistant satellite. This is the only place I have seen where is is suggested that such a thing exists, therefore this is the most likely place to look. The party claiming that it exists must post it here for all to see.

9120

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?

« on: December 30, 2013, 04:56:32 PM »

Oh and yes there is a huge difference between making a claim and stating a belief.

Stating

There is no X.

Is not the same as saying

As far as I know, there is no X.

The first you are asserting that you know, for a fact, and that you have examined all sorts of research or data.
The second, you are acknowledging that you have a limited grasp on the subject, but from what you have seen, X does not exist.

Those statements are the same. You cannot speak from an ultimate truth in one sentence and then from your own belief in the next. They are both your belief.